We also need a law saying that companies cannot fire, terminate, or retaliate against those subject to the quarantine. Since they do not actually have a serious medical condition, it is my understanding that they would not be FMLA eligible (not like the FMLA even applies to enough workplaces anyway). So as it stands now, companies are currently free to fire anyone subject to a mandatory ebola quarantine.
Good luck getting any legislature to pass something like that.
Why would they not be FMLA eligible? If quarantine is not a medical leave, I don't know what is. That seems like something that could at least be addressed fairly easily.
Well would a doctor write you a note that says, "No medical condition, but the fear of potential exposure to a disease is keeping that person from doing their job?"
We also need a law saying that companies cannot fire, terminate, or retaliate against those subject to the quarantine. Since they do not actually have a serious medical condition, it is my understanding that they would not be FMLA eligible (not like the FMLA even applies to enough workplaces anyway). So as it stands now, companies are currently free to fire anyone subject to a mandatory ebola quarantine.
Good luck getting any legislature to pass something like that.
Why would they not be FMLA eligible? If quarantine is not a medical leave, I don't know what is. That seems like something that could at least be addressed fairly easily.
Here is what is required to be FMLA eligible:
"Serious health condition" means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves: any period of incapacity or treatment connected with inpatient care (i.e., an overnight stay) in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or
a period of incapacity requiring absence of more than three calendar days from work, school, or other regular daily activities that also involves continuing treatment by (or under the supervision of) a health care provider; or
any period of incapacity due to pregnancy, or for prenatal care; or
any period of incapacity (or treatment therefore) due to a chronic serious health condition (e.g., asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, etc.); or
a period of incapacity that is permanent or long-term due to a condition for which treatment may not be effective (e.g., Alzheimer's, stroke, terminal diseases, etc.); or,
any absences to receive multiple treatments (including any period of recovery therefrom) by, or on referral by, a health care provider for a condition that likely would result in incapacity of more than three consecutive days if left untreated (e.g., chemotherapy, physical therapy, dialysis, etc.).
Exposure to an ebola patient (especially when you've testing negative for ebola) would not fall under any of these categories because you are not incapacitated. Maybe a court could interpret it in that way, but I wouldn't count on it.
....Except for the simple fact that none of his family contracted the illness; while the caretakers taking proper precautions? Did.
It's well known that the hospital did not have proper protocols in place and that the nurses were not trained or taking the proper precautions. I don't think this is the case for this nurse.
The hospital was following the CDC guidelines, which have now changed several times since then.
People who think there should be a quarantine are you also suggesting that every dr. and nurse who treated the nurses be quarantined? so the cream of the crop from NIH and emory should be qurantined?
Here's the language from the article debatethis linked:
"High risk: This applies to people who have had direct contact with infected bodily fluids either through needles, splashes to the eyes, nose, or mouth or even handling bodily fluids in a lab setting without protective gear. If you were living and caring for a person showing symptoms, you’d also fall into this category.
They’re expected to have direct, daily monitoring, they should restrict public activities and they shouldn’t be travelling. If they aren’t sick, they still shouldn’t be travelling by plane, ship or long-distance bus or train.
“The reason for this is to prevent possible spread of Ebola if the person develops fever or other symptoms during travel,” the CDC said in its guidelines.
Some risk: This applies to people who come into close contact with patients showing Ebola-like symptoms, either in a household or health care setting. (Close contact means being within three feet of the patient with Ebola for a “long time” without wearing protective equipment.)
The CDC suggests this group should have its temperature checked twice a day, while travel and heading into public spaces should be considered on an individual case.
Low risk: This group includes people who have been to a country with widespread Ebola transmission within the past 21 days. They could have been in the same room with a person showing symptoms of Ebola, had brief skin contact with someone showing symptoms or even travelled on an airplane with a person showing symptoms.
In this case, travellers should be watched for symptoms but they don’t need to be restricted in any way.
No risk: This applies to people who came into contact with an Ebola patient before he or she was showing symptoms. It’s also for travellers who went to a country affected by Ebola more than 21 days ago. People in this group don’t need to be monitored at all."
She is no longer Christie's problem. She is now in Maine. Good luck.
People freak out when we have little to no leadership and no clear guidance they trust. The plan has changed several times.
And "If you like your Dr, you can keep your Dr." proves to not be true, you are less likely to believe the next promise "we are not going to be seeing Ebola in the US, and we are well prepared to deal with Ebola" -- and then 2 nurses become ill after dealing with a patient who died from Ebola - on US soil.
Well would a doctor write you a note that says, "No medical condition, but the fear of potential exposure to a disease is keeping that person from doing their job?"
My doctor wrote me a note that said I was on "bed rest" because my blood pressure was continually going up and she was concerned I was developing pre-eclampsia even though I didn't have it yet. That fell under FMLA and STD. Also, "This person's medically indicated quarantine" is what is keeping them from doing their job.
True, I was being critical of potentially have a disease, but pregnancy is treated like a disease by most of the FMLA, so it's not too hard to get a doctor to agree that being pregnant can require more precautions. Also, why should someone have to use their FMLA for a government required (state or fed) quarantine? What if they also had a personal medical emergency that year?
a period of incapacity requiring absence of more than three calendar days from work, school, or other regular daily activities that also involves continuing treatment by (or under the supervision of) a health care provider; or
I would think this would qualify. Continuing treatment under the supervision of a healthcare provider. After all, I believe during quarantine, they are taking their temp regularly and reporting those results. And certainly a quarantine very easily involves an absence from work, school and other daily activities.
You know what else is bothering me about this? I feel like we were blasting the CDC about improper guidelines regarding PPE and they've changed those guidelines a few times since the starts of this. But now we've had Duncan's immediately family who were in an apt. With him vomiting and having diarrhea and no PPE not contract it, but nurses who had at lease SOME PPE come down with it.
That's a little bit crazy and I wonder if maybe the CDC and WHO etc don't know for certain what the virulence of this really is and what protective gear is the gold standard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm still shocked that nobody in Duncan's family got it but nurses did.
She is no longer Christie's problem. She is now in Maine. Good luck.
People freak out when we have little to no leadership and no clear guidance they trust. The plan has changed several times.
And "If you like your Dr, you can keep your Dr." proves to not be true, you are less likely to believe the next promise "we are not going to be seeing Ebola in the US, and we are well prepared to deal with Ebola" -- and then 2 nurses become ill after dealing with a patient who died from Ebola - on US soil.
a period of incapacity requiring absence of more than three calendar days from work, school, or other regular daily activities that also involves continuing treatment by (or under the supervision of) a health care provider; or
I would think this would qualify. Continuing treatment under the supervision of a healthcare provider. After all, I believe during quarantine, they are taking their temp regularly and reporting those results. And certainly a quarantine very easily involves an absence from work, school and other daily activities.
Right but they aren't physically incapacitated in any way, particularly if they are testing negative and not showing any symptoms.
Incapacity is key. Arguably lots of people are required to be absent from work and are also receiving treatment from a health care provider. For example, someone on active duty might be absent from work due to training and also going to the doctor regularly for something. Their absence isn't because they are incapacitated, it's because the government requires them to be out. KWIM?
You know what else is bothering me about this? I feel like we were blasting the CDC about improper guidelines regarding PPE and they've changed those guidelines a few times since the starts of this. But now we've had Duncan's immediately family who were in an apt. With him vomiting and having diarrhea and no PPE not contract it, but nurses who had at lease SOME PPE come down with it.
That's a little bit crazy and I wonder if maybe the CDC and WHO etc don't know for certain what the virulence of this really is and what protective gear is the gold standard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm still shocked that nobody in Duncan's family got it but nurses did.
So, was Duncan's family in west Africa recently or were they exposed to earlier strains of the virus? I was reading an article on slight exposures or exposures to similar viral strains resulting in a "barrier population" who could contract, but has natural antibodies to deal with the virus. It's the same idea as vaccination, but by past exposure rather than a true vaccine. Maybe this came into play if his family has ever lived/worked/been in a past area of ebola epidemic?
ETA: I am not an epidemiologist or doc, just wondering out loud here.
Here's the language from the article debatethis linked:
"High risk: This applies to people who have had direct contact with infected bodily fluids either through needles, splashes to the eyes, nose, or mouth or even handling bodily fluids in a lab setting without protective gear. If you were living and caring for a person showing symptoms, you’d also fall into this category.
They’re expected to have direct, daily monitoring, they should restrict public activities and they shouldn’t be travelling. If they aren’t sick, they still shouldn’t be travelling by plane, ship or long-distance bus or train.
“The reason for this is to prevent possible spread of Ebola if the person develops fever or other symptoms during travel,” the CDC said in its guidelines.
Some risk: This applies to people who come into close contact with patients showing Ebola-like symptoms, either in a household or health care setting. (Close contact means being within three feet of the patient with Ebola for a “long time” without wearing protective equipment.)
The CDC suggests this group should have its temperature checked twice a day, while travel and heading into public spaces should be considered on an individual case.
Low risk: This group includes people who have been to a country with widespread Ebola transmission within the past 21 days. They could have been in the same room with a person showing symptoms of Ebola, had brief skin contact with someone showing symptoms or even travelled on an airplane with a person showing symptoms.
In this case, travellers should be watched for symptoms but they don’t need to be restricted in any way.
No risk: This applies to people who came into contact with an Ebola patient before he or she was showing symptoms. It’s also for travellers who went to a country affected by Ebola more than 21 days ago. People in this group don’t need to be monitored at all."
I think this group should be full quarantine. Stay at home. 21 days. And I *might* extend it to people who have had contact with fluids even with "protective gear" because it seems like the people who have gotten it have gotten in despite using protective gear...
So, pretty much all of the Ebola experts at NIH, Emory, etc. Awesome.
You know what else is bothering me about this? I feel like we were blasting the CDC about improper guidelines regarding PPE and they've changed those guidelines a few times since the starts of this. But now we've had Duncan's immediately family who were in an apt. With him vomiting and having diarrhea and no PPE not contract it, but nurses who had at lease SOME PPE come down with it.
That's a little bit crazy and I wonder if maybe the CDC and WHO etc don't know for certain what the virulence of this really is and what protective gear is the gold standard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm still shocked that nobody in Duncan's family got it but nurses did.
So, was Duncan's family in west Africa recently or were they exposed to earlier strains of the virus? I was reading an article on slight exposures or exposures to similar viral strains resulting in a "barrier population" who could contract, but has natural antibodies to deal with the virus. It's the same idea as vaccination, but by past exposure rather than a true vaccine. Maybe this came into play if his family has ever lived/worked/been in a past area of ebola epidemic?
ETA: I am not an epidemiologist or doc, just wondering out loud here.
Huh. This is interesting.
Does anyone know if you are immune for life once you've had it?
Here's the language from the article debatethis linked:
"High risk: This applies to people who have had direct contact with infected bodily fluids either through needles, splashes to the eyes, nose, or mouth or even handling bodily fluids in a lab setting without protective gear. If you were living and caring for a person showing symptoms, you’d also fall into this category.
They’re expected to have direct, daily monitoring, they should restrict public activities and they shouldn’t be travelling. If they aren’t sick, they still shouldn’t be travelling by plane, ship or long-distance bus or train.
“The reason for this is to prevent possible spread of Ebola if the person develops fever or other symptoms during travel,” the CDC said in its guidelines.
Some risk: This applies to people who come into close contact with patients showing Ebola-like symptoms, either in a household or health care setting. (Close contact means being within three feet of the patient with Ebola for a “long time” without wearing protective equipment.)
The CDC suggests this group should have its temperature checked twice a day, while travel and heading into public spaces should be considered on an individual case.
Low risk: This group includes people who have been to a country with widespread Ebola transmission within the past 21 days. They could have been in the same room with a person showing symptoms of Ebola, had brief skin contact with someone showing symptoms or even travelled on an airplane with a person showing symptoms.
In this case, travellers should be watched for symptoms but they don’t need to be restricted in any way.
No risk: This applies to people who came into contact with an Ebola patient before he or she was showing symptoms. It’s also for travellers who went to a country affected by Ebola more than 21 days ago. People in this group don’t need to be monitored at all."
So - this doesn't look like quarantine to me. This looks like various levels of monitoring. Kaci was told to not leave her house, correct? People who are against mandatory quarantine are against that, or putting people up in totally new locations for 21 days. Not "shouldn't be traveling".
So, pretty much all of the Ebola experts at NIH, Emory, etc. Awesome.
I guess you can be a sarcastic ass if you want to. But I honestly don't think there's much value in the don't be so serious attitude people were and have taken. We thought we as Americans would have some kind of advantage over the disease, I guess by virtue if our American-ness. That proved to be pretty fucking untrue. So what now? I find the memes comparing this to flu to be just as naive as you consider me to be reactionary. The way we approached this initially was grossly insufficient and even the continued talk now, I think fails to accord this bug the serious fucking respect and deference it has earned. I'm taking it very seriously. I think the questions are complicated and difficult. And I do not feel glib about it. Sorry, not sorry
We certainly won't have any advantage over the disease if all of our experts are in quarantine.
So, was Duncan's family in west Africa recently or were they exposed to earlier strains of the virus? I was reading an article on slight exposures or exposures to similar viral strains resulting in a "barrier population" who could contract, but has natural antibodies to deal with the virus. It's the same idea as vaccination, but by past exposure rather than a true vaccine. Maybe this came into play if his family has ever lived/worked/been in a past area of ebola epidemic?
ETA: I am not an epidemiologist or doc, just wondering out loud here.
Huh. This is interesting.
Does anyone know if you are immune for life once you've had it?
It's so rare that I'm not sure anyone knows this for certain.
Go ahead and propose it smartypants. It's easy to sit back and take pot shots at someone who has asserted their actual position and rationale for something. It's considerably more challenging to actually assert that position and rationale.
Wasn't the CDC's guidelines the middle ground? I mean between quarantine and throwing caution to the wind.
Maybe I don't understand Ebola transmission (or virus transmission in general).
She's tested positive twice now. Is it possible for the virus to be in her system, but not "infecting" her (thus, tests for the virus show up negative)?
If she's testing negative now, back home in the US with no further contact with Ebola patients, how could she possibly test positive later on in the 21-day quarantine period?
Think of it like a pregnancy test. The virus could be present in small enough quantities to not be picked up by the test, but it could later replicate enough to show up on a test/make her sick.
ETA: I think the government should compensate them and arrange for as much of their conveniences as possible. If we want a quarantine, we need to pay for it.
Agreed. Really, a tent? Right now the quarantine "policies" appear to be a shit show. There is no job protection, no per diam for days gone without working, no secure facility in which to board people who are being quarantined, no policy to deal with family members or items that have possibly been contaminated.
If I were quarantined due to possible Ebola, I would want my own luxury cabin in the woods. Fuck staying home. I don't want you to have to burn down my house, euthanize my pets and quarantine my husband if it turns out I DO have Ebola.
It's hard for me to be objective about this because there's nothing I'd like more right now than to be alone in my house for 21 days with people bringing me food and stuff.
The only person at risk for Ebola exposure would be the UPS delivery man who brings my 40,000 Sephora packages.
I guess you can be a sarcastic ass if you want to. But I honestly don't think there's much value in the don't be so serious attitude people were and have taken. We thought we as Americans would have some kind of advantage over the disease, I guess by virtue if our American-ness. That proved to be pretty fucking untrue. So what now? I find the memes comparing this to flu to be just as naive as you consider me to be reactionary. The way we approached this initially was grossly insufficient and even the continued talk now, I think fails to accord this bug the serious fucking respect and deference it has earned. I'm taking it very seriously. I think the questions are complicated and difficult. And I do not feel glib about it. Sorry, not sorry
We certainly won't have any advantage over the disease if all of our experts are in quarantine.
In fairness, if someone was actually testing positive for Ebola, I'm sure the people in quarantine would be allowed to treat them in the Ebola ward since... the person would already have Ebola.
ETA: I think the government should compensate them and arrange for as much of their conveniences as possible. If we want a quarantine, we need to pay for it.
Agreed. Really, a tent? Right now the quarantine "policies" appear to be a shit show. There is no job protection, no per diam for days gone without working, no secure facility in which to board people who are being quarantined, no policy to deal with family members or items that have possibly been contaminated.
If I were quarantined due to possible Ebola, I would want my own luxury cabin in the woods. Fuck staying home. I don't want you to have to burn down my house, euthanize my pets and quarantine my husband if it turns out I DO have Ebola.
Ebola hotels are what are discussed by bioethicists for those who "fight on the front lines" of the ebola epidemic and return home...
So, was Duncan's family in west Africa recently or were they exposed to earlier strains of the virus? I was reading an article on slight exposures or exposures to similar viral strains resulting in a "barrier population" who could contract, but has natural antibodies to deal with the virus. It's the same idea as vaccination, but by past exposure rather than a true vaccine. Maybe this came into play if his family has ever lived/worked/been in a past area of ebola epidemic?
ETA: I am not an epidemiologist or doc, just wondering out loud here.
Huh. This is interesting.
Does anyone know if you are immune for life once you've had it?
Based on my television MD, the people who have survived during this outbreak are immune. For now.
There are different strains of Ebola. Some are more or less deadly. I do not know if they change enough that your immunoreceptor cells would not recognize it (like how there are 128ish different sub-strains of the flu, and being immune to one may give you partial immunity to other strains, maybe, but won't necessarily keep you from getting another strain). Obviously there are other viruses (measles, varicella, mumps) that do not mutate in a way that would keep you from obtaining immunity forever.
It's hard for me to be objective about this because there's nothing I'd like more right now than to be alone in my house for 21 days with people bringing me food and stuff.
The only person at risk for Ebola exposure would be the UPS delivery man who brings my 40,000 Sephora packages.
You know, I was thinking I could survive for a really long time on Peapod and Amazon delivery services. But now you have me questioning myself. I would have to wait to have $50 in items for the free shipping, though.