Survey Update......Survey is now closed. Please go to Survey Results to see the response from the allnurses community.
Once again, it is a nurse who has taken the Ebola media spotlight this week. Kaci Hickox, a nurse who cared for Ebola patients in Sierra Leone found herself quarantined against her will in New Jersey upon her return to the US, in spite of the fact that she tested negative for the virus. After a 3 day isolation in less than desirable accommodations, she was transported home where she was supposed to remain under home quarantine but is now declaring that the quarantine is unnecessary and counterproductive, and is openly defying the order by going out in public.
Additional breaches in voluntary quarantine from those returning from Ebola-plagued Africa occurred when NBC medical correspondent, Dr. Nancy Snyderman in New Jersey and Dr. Craig Spencer in New York left their homes and ventured out into public spaces.
On Monday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) called for voluntary home quarantine for workers with the highest risk for Ebola infection. It also specified that most medical personnel returning from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea would not need to be kept in isolation.
In spite of this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, mandated a 21-day mandatory quarantine policy for all healthcare workers exposed to Ebola. Although this move has received much criticism, it did get the support of Dr. Bruce Beutler, an American doctor and researcher and Nobel Prize winner for Medicine and Physiology for his work researching the the body’s overall immune system. He is currently the Director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at the University of Texas Southwestern Center in Dallas. He favors Christie’s quarantine policy “because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” referring to asymptomatic healthcare workers like Kaci Hickox.
New York and Illinois have also have followed suit and mandated mandatory 21-day home quarantine policies. Although there is plenty of scientific evidence indicating there’s very little chance that a random person will contract Ebola unless they touch bodily fluids of an infected person, the thought is that the authorities need to do something to calm Americans’ fears. As Mike Osterholm, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, says, "You want to try to eliminate not just real risk, but perceived risk."
There are thoughts on both sides of this issue which has led to heated discussions at times. There are concerns about the potential impact with both pathways of re-entry requirements for Ebola healthcare workers. What are your thoughts about this? Please take our survey to share your opinions. Let your voice be heard.
The argument is that there is sufficient research to give reason to be cautious, and that if one errs, to err on the side of caution.
Actually, that is incorrect. There is no credible research that states asymptomatic persons will pass on ebola.
By your statement we should quarantine everyone with a communicable disease, not drive cars, not take a shower or even enter the bathroom, and we basically we would need to live in a bubble.
The current recommendations on ebola are very cautious and rely on variety of expert ebola/infectious disease researchers that have collectively have reviewed all the scientific research on ebola.
The possibility that this could happen has been discussed by a physician who won the Nobel Prize. Is he a greater authority on Ebola than yourself?
The problem is you don't understand how to (critically) read or interpret literature.
A Nobel Prize winning geneticist/immunologist who has never studied Ebola stated he believed that viral transmission could occur based on limited in-vitro studies and pure chance. This is at odds with the extant clinical data on the virus and its transmission.
The possibility that this could happen has been discussed by a physician who won the Nobel Prize. Is he a greater authority on Ebola than yourself?
He is an expert, but not an expert on ebola. There is a key difference. Experts will spend years sometimes decades studying one disease or phenomenon. Dr. Buetler is an expert in immunology, specifically as it relates to HPV and lipopolysaccharides.
This is the same as cherry picking literature except now people are cherry picking experts even though Dr. Buetler is not really an expert on ebola.
I am not an expert on ebola, but I would consider myself proficient in the use of scientific literature. My proficiency in evaluating research comes from the education I received in my MSN, DNAP, and current instructions in my PhD program.
Can you say the same thing that you have been evaluated on the masters and doctoral level to show that you have proficiency in the use of literature?
FWIW, while my education does not include doctoral or masters preparation for practice, I have still been able to dissect the numerous and varied materials presented in this thread alone, and make conclusions that I believe would pass muster for the vast majority of the scientific community.
Although my education is not advanced, I do believe (based on this thread primarily, but considering the review of others) that I have enough understanding of the subject matter to recognize the following:
An asymptomatic person who has no evidence of carrying EVD is not going to pass EVD to an unsuspecting (or suspecting) person. Quarantining healthy people serves no medical purpose.
Maybe I can get an honorary degree now? :)
Refusal of a healthy person to stay in unwarranted quarantine does not put the public at risk, although (IMHO) it does make the one refusing more likely to just plain scare the ignorant who don't understand why the quarantine is unnecessary. Cater to a panicking public? No.....but fanning the flames isn't helping either. I would NEVER suggest someone be placed in a restrictive quarantine against their will. But I also wouldn't want anyone thumbing their noses at the situation, either. Just makes people who were already worried, become angry. And angry people can become dangerous.
The problem is you don't understand how to (critically) read or interpret literature.
A Nobel Prize winning geneticist/immunologist who has never studied Ebola stated he believed that viral transmission could occur based on limited in-vitro studies and pure chance. This is at odds with the extant clinical data on the virus and its transmission.
FWIW, while my education does not include doctoral or masters preparation for practice, I have still been able to dissect the numerous and varied materials presented in this thread alone, and make conclusions that I believe would pass muster for the vast majority of the scientific community.
Although my education is not advanced, I do believe (based on this thread primarily, but considering the review of others) that I have enough understanding of the subject matter to recognize the following:
An asymptomatic person who has no evidence of carrying EVD is not going to pass EVD to an unsuspecting (or suspecting) person. Quarantining healthy people serves no medical purpose.
Maybe I can get an honorary degree now? :)
Refusal of a healthy person to stay in unwarranted quarantine does not put the public at risk, although (IMHO) it does make the one refusing more likely to just plain scare the ignorant who don't understand why the quarantine is unnecessary. Cater to a panicking public? No.....but fanning the flames isn't helping either. I would NEVER suggest someone be placed in a restrictive quarantine against their will. But I also wouldn't want anyone thumbing their noses at the situation, either. Just makes people who were already worried, become angry. And angry people can become dangerous.
Who is exactly thumbing their nose at the situation? This nurse has gone above and beyond to alleviate everyone's fear while still trying to maintain her civil rights. She is still avoiding public places, and shown nothing but respect for everyone involved. The same respect cannot be said for the Governor of Maine as well as several other politicians.
The people that are fanning people's fears are the politicians that are using this to gain votes by catering to public fears instead of educating the public and showing there is nothing to fear.
Wouldn't it have been a lot better if the Governor of Maine went out to meet this nurse shook her hand and showed the public that there is nothing to fear?
"Gov. Paul LePage expressed disappointment with the judge's decision Friday, saying the state would nonetheless abide by law."
"She's violated every promise she's made so far, so I can't trust her," he said Friday, answering reporters' questions after a press conference celebrating a business opening in Yarmouth. "I don't trust her.""
Susie2310
2,121 Posts
The argument is that there is sufficient research to give reason to be cautious, and that if one errs, to err on the side of caution.