Kaci Hickox--Infectious People Lose Some Rights!

Canada Free Press ^ | 11/01/14 | Dr. Don Boys

[SpaceBar]

Being an in-the-tank obamatron, this nurse probably cheered when zero signed the NDAA giving him dictatorial powers to arrest anyone deemed ‘a national security threat’ and hold them indefinitely without legal council.

[Dqban22]

The histrionic nurse who refused to obey the Ebola quarantine is another Sandra Fluke, a publicity seeker sociopath that should be put in jail rather than in quarantine.

This nurse is a typical democratic spoiled brat that in pursuit of his political agenda she puts in grave danger the health of her family and neighbors. If she had arrived in NY, where the governor is Democrat, instead of NJ, probably she would have not mounted such a disgraceful show.

While Obama disregards the Ebola menace, the Ebola panic spreads at the Defense Department.

Soldiers returning home from Ebola infested African countries are quarantine 21 days in Italy before entering U.S.

430 doctors and nurses died killed by the disease while treating Ebola patients in Africa...

Some African countries put 42 days in quarantine those coming from Ebola countries.

Why are health care workers coming from Ebola countries not forced to be at least 21 days in quarantine when they return to U.S.A. for the protection of their own families and the country?

TAKES ONE’S BREATH AWAY....:

This is mind boggling!!! Don’t you think its about time Pee Wee developed a PLAN??? This is a time for LEADERSHIP, not his constant waffling. Is it time to panic? Of course not. The time to panic is when it is too late to develop a consistent plan of action. What is the incubation time for STUPIDITY?

Lewiston Idaho veterinarian’s Letter to the Editor re: Ebola, Nails it!

The present Ebola crisis in the world is frightening. I have submitted the following letter to the editor of the Lewiston Morning Tribune:

Editor, Lewiston Morning Tribune:

If I wish to import a horse into the United States from Liberia or any African country other than Morocco, the horse needs to undergo a 60 day quarantine period at a USDA approved quarantine facility prior to mingling with the general population of horses in this country. Africa has a disease called African Horse Sickness that does not exist in the US; this is the way we have kept it out of this country.

African Horse Sickness does not cause disease in people, only horses; our government has determined that it would be devastating to the US horse industry if it were to come here.

The United States (and virtually all other countries) require a myriad of tests and often quarantine prior to bringing in a foreign animal.

I can’t legally cross state lines in the United States with a horse or cow without a health certificate signed by a USDA accredited veterinarian stating that the animal has been inspected and found free of infectious disease. In most cases blood tests are also required. In fact I can’t legally cross the Snake River and ride my horse in Idaho without a health certificate and a negative blood test for Equine Infectious Anemia.

I’m not complaining; the United States of America, the States of Idaho and Washington as well as the other 48 states take the health of our livestock very seriously, and we have a very good record at keeping foreign animal diseases out of our country. I am happy to do my part to maintain biosecurity in our animal population.

If I am a resident of Liberia incubating Ebola, to enter the United States all I need to do is present a valid visa, and lie when asked if I have been exposed to Ebola. Within hours (no quarantine required) I can be walking the streets of any city in the United States.

I feel very fortunate to live in a country that values our animals so highly.

David A. Rustebakke, DVM
Oct 29, 2014

[RickGee]

There are many photos of her bicycling. She’s wearing a helmet. So she is protecting herself while endangering others.

[Smokin' Joe]

Ping...

A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread

[trebb]

She doesn’t apparently understand that rights refers to society as a whole as well as to the rights of others that you need to consider as well. Situations such as a deadly disease outbreak, or simply a precautionary quarantine as they did for the Apollo astronauts, actually do suspend rights of some people for a time, however, it protects other people’s RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Additionally, yes, there are numerous suspensions of personal liberty, but things go back to normal on a normal basis. Cops relaxed the curfew after the Boston Bombing, Habeas Corpus was reinstated after the Civil War was finished, etc. She is focused on what seems inconvenient to her, without considering that in the long run, it’s no big deal, and it is about protecting other people’s rights, even hers if the quarantine allows early detection of symptoms for herself.

Are you sure that she's the one that doesn't understand? Rights are individual, not group. Habeus Corpus was and edict saying that one could only hold someone if if it was Constitutionally OK - removing it was a direct slap to the Constitution. How Constitutionally legal are curfews?

When can the government deprive one of this/her Constitutional Liberties "for the common good" on a "could be but may not be" situation?

I work with a guy who made the statement that if the government tells you to do something, you're supposed to do it - no questions asked. Sometimes the Constitution makes things seem a little scary, but you either follow it or you end up with an erosion/removal of all individual liberties if you start allowing the government to decide that the Constitution doesn't apply.

[Morpheus2009]

IN the case of dangerous disease, YOU ARE VIOLATING OTHERS’ RIGHTS by being infected and getting others sick and possibly dead. Murder is depriving people of Constitutional Rights. Sometimes you have to deprive one person’s rights to protect the rights of others.

I don’t believe things should be done without thinking, in fact, I’ve called, pretty much impulsively, the CDC’s BS immediately.

Dangerous disease is a good case for temporarily suspending one person’s rights to protect the rights of other people. Tampering with elections, killing people to cover up the truth, etc. is NOT

[Morpheus2009]

IN the case of dangerous disease, YOU ARE VIOLATING OTHERS’ RIGHTS by being infected and getting others sick and possibly dead. Murder is depriving people of Constitutional Rights. Sometimes you have to deprive one person’s rights to protect the rights of others.

I don’t believe things should be done without thinking, in fact, I’ve called, pretty much impulsively, the CDC’s BS immediately.

Dangerous disease is a good case for temporarily suspending one person’s rights to protect the rights of other people. Tampering with elections, killing people to cover up the truth, etc. is NOT

[trebb]

IN the case of dangerous disease, YOU ARE VIOLATING OTHERS’ RIGHTS by being infected and getting others sick and possibly dead. Murder is depriving people of Constitutional Rights. Sometimes you have to deprive one person’s rights to protect the rights of others. I don’t believe things should be done without thinking, in fact, I’ve called, pretty much impulsively, the CDC’s BS immediately. Dangerous disease is a good case for temporarily suspending one person’s rights to protect the rights of other people. Tampering with elections, killing people to cover up the truth, etc. is NOT

No argument with most of what you say. The question is where do you draw the line when suspending someone's Constitutional liberties? Can you do it because there is a slim-possible-maybe-could be situation or do you need to have something of more substance?

I find it ironic that few will undertake a cogent argument/discussion because their emotions are running their brains off on this one. Many are starting to sound like Dems with the "common good" meme (while many Dems are starting to sound like Constitutionalists - ironic...no?).

I think we should close borders, regulate folks before they step onto our soil, and abide by the Constitution if we allow citizens back in without hard evidence that their liberties need to be suspended. Many here seem to have lost the ability to explore Constitutionality because they want to slam it down Obama's throat more than they want to actually have cogent discussions.

[Morpheus2009]

Obama is an expert on the constitution, says so himself and waves his constitutional law degree around.

[trebb]

Obama is an expert on the constitution, says so himself and waves his constitutional law degree around.

And that is relevant to the topic in what way? Either you have something cogent to say or you have something that serves as a diversion - I don't recall Obama waving the Constitution when he made his decisions/complaints. His whole deal initially revolved around calls to close the borders and stop folks from flying in from infected countries.

[null and void]

If a quarantine saves just one child's life, it's worth it.

Bring out your dead! The Dark Man cometh! Bring out your dead! The Dark Man cometh! Bring out your......

(Since all records of obama's past were lost in a tragic boating accident and fire, no one can be certain that the guy in the red circle isn't him...)

Post to me or FReep mail to be on/off the Bring Out Your Dead ping list.

The purpose of the “Bring Out Your Dead” ping list (formerly the “Ebola” ping list) is very early warning of emerging pandemics, as such it has a high false positive rate.

So far the false positive rate is 100%.

At some point we may well have a high mortality pandemic, and likely as not the “Bring Out Your Dead” threads will miss the beginning entirely.

*sigh* Such is life, and death...

[Jim Noble]

Can you do it because there is a slim-possible-maybe-could be situation or do you need to have something of more substance?

If quarantine (temporary seclusion to allow signs of dangerous disease to show) can be implemented AT ALL, it cannot be particularized to the level of the individual.

Judges and juries are in no way qualified to assess individual risk when arriving from an area affected by pestilence.

If the Quarantine Act of 1878 is not found unconstitutional, it must apply to all class members (in this case, arrivals with exposure to Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Liberia) in the past, say, 42 days.

[trebb]

If the Quarantine Act of 1878 is not found unconstitutional, it must apply to all class members (in this case, arrivals with exposure to Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Liberia) in the past, say, 42 days.

Finally - someone with a cogent argument. The latest version of the Quarantine Act set up specific quarantine stations to be used - if we are going to do it properly and by law, we need to use the existing program or, better yet, actually stop them from entering before their condition is known to be safe. This willy-nilly system is a confusion rather than a help.

Thank you for doing some research and providing an unemotional, and cogent input.