The docs say we should be guided by science, not panic, in our response to Ebola. Thats certainly true, but the scientists have given us mixed signals and cant blame us for lacking confidence in their pronouncements. They tell us someone has to be showing symptoms to be contagious -- and then say nurse Amber Vinson should not have flown back to Dallas on a commercial flight? Why not? An abundance of caution? If thats the standard, whats inappropriate about asking heroic health care providers to stay home with pay for a few weeks after treating sick patients? And why on earth should ANYONE with a passport from the Ebola zone come here for non-essential travel? (Thomas Eric Duncan came to visit his fiancé; how does that make an ounce of sense?) Doctors rightly point out that the family in the apartment where Duncan was symptomatic didnt get sick themselves, demonstrating that Ebola is difficult to catch. (I agree theres no reason for panic.) BUT.. the experience with Duncan also shows a system that takes people at their word is risky. He was brave and generous enough to help an infected woman in Liberia, but then he lied about his possible exposure -- and infected two nurses who are lucky to be alive. The President says health care workers should be honored, and that the best way stop the epidemic is to confine it to West Africa. Who could disagree with that? Im less convinced by the argument that ANY imposed isolation, however modest, will hurt the effort. I just dont believe the selfless people who are doing that dangerous work will somehow be discouraged from volunteering by the need to prevent any potential spread when they come home, Kaci Hickoxs attitude notwithstanding. I suspect the voluntary/mandatory quarantine rules will evolve as we learn more. In the meantime, a little skepticism regarding government assurances seems healthy. Im interested in what you think. Please keep it civil.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:42:55 +0000