Posted on 10/23/2015 8:31:54 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
I’m assuming that Kaci, if she had landed in New York instead of Jersey would be suing NY and Andrew Cuomo since he and Christie had a joint policy for their states regarding Ebola? (I don’t think for a minute she’d be suing Cuomo)
When all the hubbub was going on around her last year, and she was basically giving all Mainers the finger while potentially putting them at risk, my comment was that "She'd better be careful. Lots of large unoccupied woodlots and deep dark ponds in Maine." Frankly, she should be glad that she - and her idiot boyfriend - are still breathing after the nonsense that she pulled.
I've never been to Jersey - just through it - but I'd imagine that there's a fair number of places to disappear in it, too.
yes, I agree with that, but in the big cities in which there was the spread in Nigeria and Western Africa, the conditions which exist now (unsanitary in all but the wealthy few), the death toll would have been astronomical due to the conditions in which the masses live. There has to be another factor in this disease. If this ever spread to India, with the lack of sanitary conditions in most of the cities, this would be a disaster. (unless there is another factor, genetic, that hasn’t been ‘discovered’ yet).
She went to Jersey, Oregon, and IIRC, she and her BF in Maine have broken up.
Ummm, she does not have (and never had) ebola. So, no, she’s not “out there spreading” anything.
I remember when “aids” first came on the scene. Govt. said it was “high risk to gay men”. The “gay community” in SF had a large faction that did NOT want to censor the RISKY behavior which allowed AIDS to explode and IIRC the Feds are now wanting to lift restrictions on blood donation from a population with a large AIDS risk/infection?
OK, ya got me there.
she’s not “out there spreading” anything.
She's a liberal, take your pick, she's probably had it, and don't stand too close, those things can jump you know.
You can say that now.
Hindsight 20/20 and all that.
Fact remains, Princess felt that rules were for everyone ELSE.
She failed to abide by the rules, and thus quarantine was forced.
Her room mate in the hot zone ended up with ebola.
And they didn’t know how.
So at the time, quarantine was the right thing to do.
And I note you failed to respond to:
http://throb.gizmodo.com/turns-out-the-ebola-virus-can-be-sexually-transmitted-1737730480
The fact that ebola can be sexually transmitted is irrelevant here, because Hickox never had ebola.
Perhaps she could ask Barack why tens of thousands of people (kids to the Feds) stream over the border un-screened for disease? (illegal entry)
At the time of the quarantine, that was unknown and NOT PROVEN.
She failed to abide by the self quarantine, and acted as if the rules did not apply to her.
And at that point, nobody knew if she did or didn't.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-1012-ebola-fever-20141012-story.html
Not everyone exhibits fever under ebola infection.
You have the timeline backwards. You're right that she acted irresponsibly once she was in Maine, under self-quarantine. The mandatory quarantine came BEFORE the self-quarantine. She was placed in mandatory quarantine (in the tent) before she ever did ANYTHING. And that is the quarantine she is suing Christie over.
UH, no.
Her roomie had ebola.
And she was repeatedly exposed.
And she did indeed fail to abide by the self quarantine, which brought about the forced quarantine.
Same with that idiot DOCTOR who decided to go and mingle in a heavily populated area.
AND sexual transmission is NOT irrelevant.
The lady in that article was given ebola via sex five months after the survivor was “cleared”.
Your arguments in defense of Princess are admirable, IF you are looking to play host to the next round of people exposed to ebola in your own home.
No. You're wrong. The forced quarantine happened immediately upon her arrival at the airport in New Jersey. The self-quarantine happened AFTER that, when New Jersey agreed to let her go home to Maine. She did fail to abide by the self-quarantine, but Christie's forced quarantine happened FIRST.
Nice to see how, with hindsight, you find fault with it.
Now, if she did have and spread Ebola, what would you be saying now?
It’s not hindsight. At the time, all of the medical and infectious disease control experts were saying the same thing (and I was agreeing with them then, too) - that ebola is not transmittable in the absence of symptoms, so there is no reason to impose a blanket quarantine like Christie (and Cuomo) tried to do.
And you continue, then, to ignore everything linked that shows there was cause for concern dye to them NOT knowing everything there is about Ebola.
How it can be spread sexually, how it doesn’t present fever in some, etc.
And yes, it is hindsight.
So, would you have been defending her still if she did indeed have and spread Ebola?
Answer the question.
Even where there is no fever, there are other symptoms. Ebola cannot be spread prior to the onset of those symptoms. You've shown nothing to disprove that.
The fact that it can be spread sexually is irrelevant to the quarantine question. Quarantines exist to protect the public from highly contagious diseases. Assuming someone is not out there having sex with everyone in sight, there is no reason to quarantine someone because they have a disease (or have been exposed to a disease) that can be spread sexually.
And no, it's not hindsight. I was saying the same thing AT THE TIME. My position is not a hindsight position, it's the position I've taken throughout. Just because the facts have borne my position out, doesn't make it a hindsight position.
So, would you have been defending her still if she did indeed have and spread Ebola? Answer the question.
That's a complete non-sequitor. She did not have it and, more importantly, she did not exhibit any symptoms of it (I say more importantly because, again, it can be spread only when symptoms appear).
So, the question you keep demanding me to answer is a completely meaningless hypothetical. But, fine - if she had developed symptoms and had continued to go into public (the only way she would have spread the disease), then of course I would not defend her. But, that didn't happen. So, again, irrelevant.
“. Ebola cannot be spread prior to the onset of those symptoms. “
They don’t know that for 100% certain.
And you’ve shown nothing to prove it is 100% so.
“The fact that it can be spread sexually is irrelevant to the quarantine question.”
No, it isn’t.
It can be spread FIVE MONTHS after being “cleared”.
Or 155 days, or beyond the 90 days recommended by the CDC.
“And no, it’s not hindsight. “
Yes, it is.
Keep trying to claim otherwise.
“That’s a complete non-sequitor.”
You have NO idea what a non-sequitor is.
IF she had indeed had ebola and indeed spread it, what would you be saying now?
I asked you THAT exact wording in post 136 which you failed to answer.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3352042/posts?page=136#136
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.