Ebola: Do you support mandatory quarantine?

[kenny]

Do you support mandatory 21-day quarantine for those arriving in America from Ebola affected countries?


Yes, I realize a person could get around the quarantine by first flying to a non-Ebola-affected country, then fly to America and lie about their travel history.
But those exceptions would not mean the mandatory quarantine of the vast majority would not be effective.

Yes, someone could lie about their travel history, then blow themselves up in the middle of a crowded sports arena ........ ....but come on .... just answer the poll.

There is concern the quarantine may discourage a few of the badly-needed health care workers from traveling to Ebola-affected countries.

 

[movie zombie]

charter planes for health care workers going in/out.
same with supplies.

lots more money, medical supplies, health care workers, and FOOD into the areas to stop the disease in its tracks right there.

this is what I support.

short of that then there needs to be some kind of "containment" once in this country: any one remember Ellis Island? individuals have not and will not voluntarily abide by a quarantine. yes, this will require congress to open the purse strings....after all they have nothing but the public's good at heart, right?!

western nations need to contribute and understand that globalization is more than corporate opportunity and we are all in this together.

vaccine research and development has to be for the PUBLIC GOOD, not just for profit.

my answer/rant.

 

[kenny]

All good stuff, MZ.

 

[Aoife]

I voted "other." The science does not support guarded quarantine barracks/lodgings for every health professional who has had contact with Ebola patients, and I believe would turn into an inhumane, expensive, inefficient, logistical nightmare. What I do support is mandated self-quarantines which would involve the twice a day temperature taking and then reporting those temperatures via text message; absolutely no travel outside the person's home on mass transit, and no going anywhere that would put the person into contact with the general public, such as restaurants or bowling alleys(sheesh, what was that doctor thinking?). It's restrictive, and most likely overkill, but would also serve to protect the general population and cut down on the mass hysteria.

ETA: You have to read how this virus is actually transmitted. It's not that easy to catch until the virus has had a chance to build up, and that doesn't happen instantaneously.

 

[lyra]

I think all this fear-mongering is silly. The H1N1 virus infected 61 million Americans in 2009 and killed 12,000. Yet many people fear ebola more than the flu now. Ebola is NOT going to be an issue for the US ever. The flu will continue to take lives every year, and people for whatever reasons will still avoid being vaccinated. I have zero fear of ever encountering ebola, not me, or anyone else I know.

 

[zoebartlett]

I don't support mandatory quarantines for the reasons Aoife stated, but I do support voluntary quarantine.

I don't agree with vilifying Dr. Spencer for the activities he did once he returned home. He wasn't sick yet. Would I have chosen to do those same things? Probably not, but again, the general population is not at risk.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

There was an interview with a man who just finished writing a book on pandemics on CNBC. His carefully researched position was that this is a bacteria that can easily mutate quickly. The CDC is carefully monitoring for any mutations, but if that occurs, this could be transmitted through the air. So containment is the best idea. Self monitoring is very iffy.

MZ's idea for health personnel to have their own transport is a great idea, but some will object to cost. I guess I don't trust people that much. Even a Dr. who had been exposed didn't put much limit on his behavior. If you don't think he had sex with his girlfriend, your dreaming. If I could ask one question about Duncun, I would ask if he had sex with his girlfriend. If he didn't then I suspect he knew he was sick and I'd commend him for limiting his activities.

Dr.s are human, and they don't always make the best decisions, and I think he should've known better. I think I'm for quarantine, but as has been said, let us help those countries that are affected.

I don't think we are over-reacting. Lyra, you live in Canada, if I'm not mistaken. I assure you this is not the only topic spoken of.
I know no-one who is in a state of panic, except those in the stock market, who are irrational over everything. Money scares easily.


Annette

 

[Karl_K]

I think all this fear-mongering is silly. The H1N1 virus infected 61 million Americans in 2009 and killed 12,000. Yet many people fear ebola more than the flu now. Ebola is NOT going to be an issue for the US ever. The flu will continue to take lives every year, and people for whatever reasons will still avoid being vaccinated. I have zero fear of ever encountering ebola, not me, or anyone else I know.

Ebola as it stands now is not a huge threat but that is not to say it could not become so.
The biggest threat is being around someone in the later stages of the disease where infected material is coming from everywhere in the body and the viral load is extremely high.
That is why it is so deadly for those that care for the sick or dead.

The biggest threat to the general public is a mutation and/or combining with another virus.

 

[Aoife]

Hi,

There was an interview with a man who just finished writing a book on pandemics on CNBC. His carefully researched position was that this is a bacteria that can easily mutate quickly. The CDC is carefully monitoring for any mutations, but if that occurs, this could be transmitted through the air. So containment is the best idea. Self monitoring is very iffy.

MZ's idea for health personnel to have their own transport is a great idea, but some will object to cost. I guess I don't trust people that much. Even a Dr. who had been exposed didn't put much limit on his behavior. If you don't think he had sex with his girlfriend, your dreaming. If I could ask one question about Duncun, I would ask if he had sex with his girlfriend. If he didn't then I suspect he knew he was sick and I'd commend him for limiting his activities.

Dr.s are human, and they don't always make the best decisions, and I think he should've known better. I think I'm for quarantine, but as has been said, let us help those countries that are affected.

I don't think we are over-reacting. Lyra, you live in Canada, if I'm not mistaken. I assure you this is not the only topic spoken of.
I know no-one who is in a state of panic, except those in the stock market, who are irrational over everything. Money scares easily.


Annette

Theoretically anything is possible, including HIV becoming airborne, which it has not. To put this possibility is perspective, read this article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-ebola-virus-will-go-airborne/

I have no idea what qualifications the writer you cite has, but what he is saying flies in the face of what people who are experts, and who know a lot about Ebola are saying.

 

[zoebartlett]

Aoife, I agree, anything is possible. Dr. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, essentially said in an interview today that we could ask the "What if..." question all day but it doesn't help. Posing hypotheticals that are so unlikely to ever happen, especially to those who aren't health care workers in direct contact with a sick person's bodily fluids, is playing into people's fear.

 

[lyra]

Yes, I live in Canada. Maybe we have a different way of viewing things. We generally trust our government and our healthcare system. Plus we don't have to worry about paying for expensive treatment whatsoever. I am willing to get vaccinated against anything and everything, and I do. If there was an ebola vaccine for the general public, sure, I'd get that too, because I believe in the medical and science fields. In general though, I just stay away from sick people in everyday life. I wash my hands a lot. I change my clothes if I go out and come home. I make a serious effort not to touch my face. That's all common sense stuff I already do.

I just don't think that ebola is ever going to be a threat to North America. There are other threats every year, as I mentioned about H1N1. I could more easily get a virus like that, then have it cause me to succumb to pneumonia--that's a YEARLY risk and always will be for me. Ebola is serious. Yes of course individuals who have treated patients with it should self-monitor and all that. But the general public should not be worried. I hear a lot of talk about what people are scared about, but the truth remains, it needs to be treated and eradicated at the SOURCE, for the rest of the world to be truly safe. Is enough being done, being financed, for that to happen? I don't know. I will do what I can. Which is the best place to donate money to? I will be doing that.

 

[Aoife]

Aoife, I agree, anything is possible. Dr. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, essentially said in an interview today that we could ask the "What if..." question all day but it doesn't help. Posing hypotheticals that are so unlikely to ever happen, especially to those who aren't health care workers in direct contact with a sick person's bodily fluids, is playing into people's fear.

I agree. People are at more risk of dying in a car accident than they are of contracting Ebola. And if we quarantine everyone who has come from West Africa, over a period of time we are potentially talking about thousands of people, which is both absurd and pointless. I'd rather see that money spent to attack the problem in West Africa, which is our best bet of ending the current outbreak.

Of course, there will probably be another outbreak in the future, so throwing some resources at a vaccine would be an excellent idea, too.

 

[momhappy]

I think all this fear-mongering is silly. The H1N1 virus infected 61 million Americans in 2009 and killed 12,000. Yet many people fear ebola more than the flu now. Ebola is NOT going to be an issue for the US ever. The flu will continue to take lives every year, and people for whatever reasons will still avoid being vaccinated. I have zero fear of ever encountering ebola, not me, or anyone else I know.

No one (even experts) could possibly know if Ebola will be a threat to the US.
IMO, every potentially life-threatening virus deserves to given serious consideration and while I don't subscribe to fear-mongeing, I'm also not naive enough to think that I, or anyone else that I know, would never contract Ebola at some point… It's not just Ebola that concerns me (my family is vaccinated every year against the flu), but other viruses as well (like EV-D6.

 

[arkieb1]

I worry about the Hendra virus (which originated a couple of suburbs from where I live) mutating and spreading.

We have a large number of huge fruit bats in the city where I live, in 1994 the virus mutated from bats (they think it is spread from bat poo or bat pee or bat saliva) to horses - horses eat contaminated grass etc that the bats have been near and they get sick. Vets then treated the horses and they got sick and died. It has flu like symptoms and is spread way more easily from horse to people than ebola but so far has never been transmitted human to human.

I was having an interesting discussion with our vet because the bats drop half eaten fruit of all types all over our yard and poo and pee everywhere, about what will happen if the disease mutates again and goes bat to dogs (so far it has only gone bat to horse, horse to human). I know our dogs pick up anything lying around and chew it, they also kill a bat probably once every few months (last year they got 5 bats).

Strains of the flu in Asia become more resistant every year to drugs and in general things they use to be able to treat (some STDs are a good example) are now growing increasingly resistant to antibiotics and treatment.

If any one of these diseases Ebola, Hendra, or something as common as a severe flu mutate then we will see a even more frightening pandemic. We are lucky at this point in time that Ebola is so difficult to transmit or it would have wiped out half of Africa by now, not to mention spreading to the rest of the world.

 

[TooPatient]

Yes and no. (but mostly yes!)

All of these volunteer organizations should have a system in place. EVERY volunteer who goes to help should have a MANDATORY 21 day (minimum) quarantine in a sanitary location either before leaving the country they worked in (and then NO contact with anyone until home safe) or after arriving to the US on private flights. The private flights wouldn't have to be expensive. There are enough people coming & going to have an airliner dedicated to the flight so it wouldn't have to cost much more than standard airfare.

I also think ALL people who have come from (either directly or by way of other countries) the worst infected areas should have mandatory quarantine.

How exactly to go about it I'm not clear on. It needs to be mandatory. The person needs to be confined to a location. If anyone else goes into the location, they should begin a 21 day mandatory quarantine also (as in if you go in, you can't go out). We have enough technology that I think you could safely allow people to do the quarantine in their own home (not apartment) if they wanted but we should also have quarantine facilities available for those who would rather. Deliver them (plus 21+ days of food & supplies) to their home (or just take them to the facility) and put tracking devices on each person in the home. If they set foot out the door, pick them up to complete the quarantine in a locked facility. For that matter, put sensors on all doors and windows and respond if any of them are opened. (many of us have home security systems that already do this!)

So I guess what I am getting at is YES we must have mandatory quarantine in order to contain it here but that quarantine has to be as comfortable as we can manage so that people are not deterred from offering the much needed help to the countries most affected.

I also think that the blood test can't be all that expensive so having a blood test at the start of quarantine and another a few days before the end would seem reasonable too.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I don't think I understand why the 21 day quarantine would make volunteers less likely to go to help in Ebola stricken countries.
I wouldn't mind it at all if it were me. I'd want to be under the care of those who knew how to treat it, if I should have the virus. I would consider it part of my tenure of volunteering. If I cared enough to go to these other places, why would I care less about my fellow citizens. I'd have no problem with it.

I think the nurse was released to go home to Maine because she filed a lawsuit . What capitulation on the part of authorities!

The Gov. of N?J? moved up a notch on my radar as he won't change his directive. In NJ you are quarantined for 21 days. About 150 people arrive every day in those airports for the three most infected areas. I think thats a lot.

We quarantine animals, I know Great Britain does for six months, when you bring an animal into their country. You can't bring produce over the California border/ You can't bring some plants on the plane from Florida to New York. We seem to understand the need for some quarantines, but are hesitating on asking a few humans to do so. Oh, yes, the cruise ship with the possible infected lab tech, was refused docking privileges in 2 different countries when they heard a possible ebola patient wanted to get off and be transported back to America.

I'm sure there will be new cASES AND HOPE A VACCINE IS ON THE WAY.


aNNETTE

 

[zoebartlett]

Hi,

I don't think I understand why the 21 day quarantine would make volunteers less likely to go to help in Ebola stricken countries.
I wouldn't mind it at all if it were me. I'd want to be under the care of those who knew how to treat it, if I should have the virus. I would consider it part of my tenure of volunteering. If I cared enough to go to these other places, why would I care less about my fellow citizens. I'd have no problem with it.

I think the nurse was released to go home to Maine because she filed a lawsuit . What capitulation on the part of authorities!

The Gov. of N?J? moved up a notch on my radar as he won't change his directive. In NJ you are quarantined for 21 days. About 150 people arrive every day in those airports for the three most infected areas. I think thats a lot.

We quarantine animals, I know Great Britain does for six months, when you bring an animal into their country. You can't bring produce over the California border/ You can't bring some plants on the plane from Florida to New York. We seem to understand the need for some quarantines, but are hesitating on asking a few humans to do so. Oh, yes, the cruise ship with the possible infected lab tech, was refused docking privileges in 2 different countries when they heard a possible ebola patient wanted to get off and be transported back to America.

I'm sure there will be new cASES AND HOPE A VACCINE IS ON THE WAY.

aNNETTE

I'd assume volunteers would be less likely to go to west Africa if they knew upon return they'd need to be in quarantine for 21 days instead of returning home to their families. They don't want to be treated as if they've done something wrong. If they are showing no active symptoms and are self-monitoring their temperature, why should they go into mandatory quarantine? I understand the need to keep people safe, but if people aren't exhibiting symptoms, they're not a danger to the public.

 

[kenny]

If they are showing no active symptoms and are self-monitoring their temperature, why should they go into mandatory quarantine? I understand the need to keep people safe, but if people aren't exhibiting symptoms, they're not a danger to the public.

Only a stupid person would see quarantine as being treated as if they have done something wrong.
Quarantine is for protection of the public,
I'd expect they'd understand this considering the line of work they have chosen.

Yes they are heroes and I thank them but part of their heroic choice should include the 21-day mandatory quarantine upon reentry.

Reasons for the mandatory 21-day quarantine:
The instant they DO show symptoms they should ALREADY be in isolation instead of out there free to infect others, if even it is "only" their loving caring family at home.
The trip from home to the hospital when symptoms show up puts the emergency transport staff at risk since we have seen that even following all the safety protocols does not assure 100% protection.
Ebola is a math thing with exponential growth, so the fewer the people who are intentionally put at risk the better and getting people into isolation before their symptoms accomplishes this.

Another reason: quarantine is for their own good since they will get medical care immediately, or faster, if symptoms show up which improves their own chances of surviving.

But the biggest reason for mandatory quarantine is ... it is nice.
Nice to 319 million Americans.

And isn't being nice the most important thing?
Doesn't it warm your heart to think of those 319 million people staying healthy because of lower risk?

 

[zoebartlett]

Kenny, we could go round and round with this topic and not really ever see eye to eye. Sure, I'm all for being nice, but I believe in the science of this disease. The scientists, researchers, doctors, and medical experts out there say that the general public is not in danger. Health care workers out there who have been to WA point out the negative effects of mandatory quartantine.

The army unit who was in WA but was not caring for patients is now in mandatory quartantine. A man from the US who was working on IT issues in WA was not caring for patients either. He's now back home in CT but he's now in mandatory quarantine. When he returned home, he felt sick so he went to the hospital. He was tested for ebola at least twice and tested negative. Despite that, he received papers in the hospital saying that he was to be quarantined at home for 21 days when he was released from the hospital.

There has been a decline in health care professionals who are willing to go to WA now because they fear adding on an extra 21 days onto their trip because of the mandatory quarantine in their areas. An extra three weeks of work helping others will be missed because of other people's fear.

I understand how scared people are, but I believe in the facts here, not the fear.

 

[Circe]

I support a mandatory quarantine for the - possibly silly - reason that we've seen a mandatory quarantine work once, in Nigeria. I'm a big believer in practicality.

 

[momhappy]

I disagree that a mandatory quarantine is going to discourage people from volunteering - a mandatory quarantine is nothing compared to all of the other risks associated with the act of volunteering in the first place.
If you're donating/volunteering your time, then why is it that difficult to factor in the time needed for the quarantine period in the end

 

[chemgirl]

Am I missing something about the quarantine process?

The nurse who's all over the news now says she will fight the quarantine order in Maine. I thought she would just be confined to her home for the remainder of the 21 days. What's so bad about that? I agree that living in a tent without running water is a but harsh, but surely staying at home for 21 days is reasonable. Read a few books, watch some Netflix, exercise etc. There are a lot of things I can do in my house! Its not forever, just 21 days.

 

[Circe]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

 

[TooPatient]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

Missing work for an additional three weeks could be a big problem for some people. I was thinking about this the other day and figured that most people who do the volunteer work would be in jobs that give them a fair amount of vacation time and maybe even encourage such volunteer work. That said, three weeks quarantine could easily mean that they get to go volunteer for a week and then be quarantined for 3.

I do absolutely support the quarantine. No question there.

But -- how do you manage that three weeks of lost work? Personally, I think the organizations should help people figure it out before they go so that it isn't an issue when they get back. Arrange to do work from home for three weeks. Use Skype or whatever to communicate with co-workers. Figure out if short term disability would cover. Use donated funds to partially offset. Take your pick. Just plan for it before going so it isn't an added stressor later.

Also, how do they deal with groceries and that sort of thing? Are family members allowed in & out? If so, what is the risk? If not, how do they get the groceries they need for those three weeks? What about walking their dog?
I know there are grocery delivery services and personal shoppers available. Plenty of dog sitters and boarding places to care for the dogs.

Point being, all of this stuff is easily manageable if they think about it and arrange before going.

 

[momhappy]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

Again, though, if you have the ability to budget both time and financial resources for volunteering in the first place, then why not budget in the total time (including the time for quarantine)?
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's awesome that people are willing to volunteer their time for the cause, but complaining about quarantine when you've literally put your life on the line with this sort of work, seems pretty silly - don't you think? Why would you even want to risk exposing others (upon returning home), especially when you've worked so hard to help those already affected? None of that makes any sense to me...

 

[TooPatient]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

Again, though, if you have the ability to budget both time and financial resources for volunteering in the first place, then why not budget in the total time (including the time for quarantine)?
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's awesome that people are willing to volunteer their time for the cause, but complaining about quarantine when you've literally put your life on the line with this sort of work, seems pretty silly - don't you think? Why would you even want to risk exposing others (upon returning home), especially when you've worked so hard to help those already affected? None of that makes any sense to me...

Agree to all. It would be best if they would plan ahead so they aren't scrambling!

For the bolded -- DH has said repeatedly through all of this that if he went somewhere and saw what this disease did to people, he would WANT to be in quarantine and would WANT it to be in a facility other than home because he would never want to even potentially bring something like that to his family. Have to say I agree with him!

 

[Circe]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

Again, though, if you have the ability to budget both time and financial resources for volunteering in the first place, then why not budget in the total time (including the time for quarantine)?
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's awesome that people are willing to volunteer their time for the cause, but complaining about quarantine when you've literally put your life on the line with this sort of work, seems pretty silly - don't you think? Why would you even want to risk exposing others (upon returning home), especially when you've worked so hard to help those already affected? None of that makes any sense to me...

Yep, agreed. My suspicion is that the people who are protesting are the ones who know that they'll contact authorities if they start feeling sick ... but they're not factoring in the fact that John Doe, who grabbed their half-eaten hot dog out of the garbage can or whatever, might NOT. A great many smart people have a very difficult time predicting that others might act in ways they wouldn't.

 

[TooPatient]

I think - and this is while supporting the mandatory quarantine, mind (though, like TGal, I note that there is a need for some infrastructure before it's a firm policy - that the objection is partially financial. If you're quarantined, you can't work, and a 3-week hiatus can cause quite a gap in people's budgets. At that point, you're less volunteering your time and more experiencing a penalty for it (a nice illustration of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished). The question then becomes who's responsible for picking up the tab on that ... the state? The organization spearheading the philanthropic effort? The individual's insurance? If ever anything could be considered an act of God, historically one would assume it would be plague, but ....

Again, though, if you have the ability to budget both time and financial resources for volunteering in the first place, then why not budget in the total time (including the time for quarantine)?
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's awesome that people are willing to volunteer their time for the cause, but complaining about quarantine when you've literally put your life on the line with this sort of work, seems pretty silly - don't you think? Why would you even want to risk exposing others (upon returning home), especially when you've worked so hard to help those already affected? None of that makes any sense to me...

Yep, agreed. My suspicion is that the people who are protesting are the ones who know that they'll contact authorities if they start feeling sick ... but they're not factoring in the fact that John Doe, who grabbed their half-eaten hot dog out of the garbage can or whatever, might NOT. A great many smart people have a very difficult time predicting that others might act in ways they wouldn't.

Like that doctor in NYC who tested positive for Ebola but lied to authorities about where he had been. Just read that news story this morning. Apparently he claimed he had quarantined himself in his home and hadn't been out at all. It is only because they checked his credit card statements and metro (or whatever they called it) pass that showed he'd been on the subway and out to eat and....

I would have figured that a doctor would know better than to go exposing a bunch of people or even potentially exposing a bunch of people.
I also would have figured that a doctor would honestly report his movements (given that it was voluntary quarantine and he technically did nothing wrong by going out).

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Isn't this a nurse who is lawyer-ing up(yes I know how that sounds). Are ya-all suggesting that she wants to go back to work? Around where I live, you cannot work or volunteer in a hospital if you do not get a flu shot. To send these people who have worked with Ebola patients back to work would be reckless to say the least. I would suggest the nurse has a "cause" now. I think it will be interesting to see if she has any case.

New Jerseyites may be happy to live there now. If NY continues its foolishness, our Missy may have a lot of company at her beach house. :\

Annette

 

[movie zombie]

nasty comment re the nurse refusing quarantine: I applaud her humanitarianism but it seems she left it behind in Africa.
geez, her lack of concern for her fellow citizens [not to mention co-workers, family, friends] is appalling.
heck, I was quarantined for having the MUMPS! the mumps for goodness sake! 2 weeks of quarantine!