Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Enlightened1

The judges decision sure sounds like a restriction on her movement, only not confined to house but a wider area.

How does this get reported as a lose for quarantine advocates.


3 posted on 10/31/2014 3:04:35 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gunsequalfreedom
I agree. What's the difference between a quarantine and his order...."0".

Maybe she's not feeling so well that she took this sooooo gallantly.....besides being "dressed" by her attorney.

Yes, the judge is a Dem...former member of the House in Maine. Nuf said.........

8 posted on 10/31/2014 3:25:06 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: gunsequalfreedom
How does this get reported as a lose for quarantine advocates.

Because it's not a quarantine. Or really even a restriction on her movements. The order is available here. The order only requires Hickox to do three things:

1. Participate in and cooperate with "Direct Active Monitoring," as that term is defined by the United States Centers for Disease Control in its October 29, 2014 [guidance];

2. Coordinate her travel with public health authorities to ensure uninterrupted Direct Active Monitoring; and

3. Immediately notify public health authorities and follow their directions if any symptom appears.

This is a loss for quarantine advocates (and a win for Hickox), because these rules are consistent with (and do not go beyond) the CDC guidance for people in Hickox's risk class, and Hickox had already agreed to abide by the CDC rules.

11 posted on 10/31/2014 3:27:19 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson