NJ Gov. Chris Christie to Ebola Quarantine Nurse: Go Ahead, Sue Me
Source: NBCNEWS.com
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie practically dared a nurse to sue him for quarantining her even after she tested negative for Ebola. "Whatever. Get in line," the brash Republican said Tuesday during a campaign stop in Rhode Island. "I've been sued lots of times before. Get in line. I'm happy to take it on."
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/nj-gov-chris-christie-ebola-quarantine-nurse-go-ahead-sue-n235436
This mind-numbingly humorless cockhole has absolutely no sense of empathy for anyone whose behavior or problems don't comport with his narrow view on things. I think I've only seen him smile about four times, and I've never seen him laugh. He's a fricking angry robot.
Even if it was true that the nurse was more comfortable than she's leading on (I'm not saying she was, but *if* she was) then - as an elected official and public servant - he *still* must exercise some restraint and at least project some sort of forgiving, compassionate response.
Instead, he basically gives a great big "fuck you" to this nurse who has experienced something completely unique and which should open up new dialogs about how we handle Ebola issues.
I really hope the Dems are keeping recordings of all this for the negative advertizing blitz in 2016. This man does NOT have the temperament to be president. He's totally Archie Bunker.
<Edited to correct source.>
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
PatSeg
(47,602 posts)That is why he will never make it through a presidential campaign. He can behave somewhat for short periods of time, but eventually that nasty side comes to the surface and it is rarely followed with an apology.
He is just a mean-spirited, self-centered, dishonest, ugly person (ugly, not in reference to his appearance, more on the inside).
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)former NY Governor David Patterson and his scathing take on New Jersey:
"Deliverance on snow mobiles!"
Vestigial_Sister
(182 posts)someone in the crowd yelled "Sooie"
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)Please sue this dirt bag, pretty please, I will donate money to the cause, since they will not look at the Hurricane Sandy money and where it went
He is such an ass
George II
(67,782 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)Cons love people like this, if you hate most people, cons love you...
Dont count him out, the right in America worships hate.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)This incident may be his undoing.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)against the bullying of a hero.
The medical workers should be welcomed with open arms, more and more folk are seeing this and
Christie is digging his own grave now.
lob1
(3,820 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)their actions, no matter how many people they hurt.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)Paper scrubs, and be isolated in a tent with no running water or entertainment for three weeks.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)
I've seen polls discussed today on CNN and MSNBC that indicate support for quarantining medical professionals exposed to Ebola at about 78%, and very bipartisan. Whether you like it or not, Christie actions have the support of the majority of the American people. The current state quarantines are not just by Republican governors like Christie, but also by Democratic leaders in very blue states like NY, IL and CT. Apparently, the army is also quarantining soldiers returning from Africa overseas in Italy for the full 21 day incubation period.
Accordingly, I can see many courts, particularly state trial courts with elected judges, being very deferential to public health concerns, even if not fully supported by all health professionals. On the federal side, I can also see a conservative Supreme Court and some Circuit Courts being similarly deferential.
If some courts begin to rule in favor of the mandatory quarantines, given the political climate, I would imagine that other governors of both parties would institute their own broad, mandatory quarantines with the legal rulings providing any necessary political cover, with added pressure on the White House. If that happened, returning medical workers would soon become even more unpopular, and such pariah status would strongly discourage health workers from going to west Africa.
As an overall legal and political strategy, I would recommend that Ms. Hickox be happy she is under observation in her home in Maine, and not risk making things worse for other returning Ebola volunteers and inadvertently improving Christie's political profile and popularity.
Christie may be an ass, but he's currently an ass that most of America thinks is right about the quarantine.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Many of them are volunteering their time and tacking on 3 weeks in which they can't earn income makes it prohibitive for many. So what you think might happen is already happening. Civil rights should never be subject to popular opinion and in this case it's not only wrong, but dangerous because ultimately it makes everyone less safe for the sake of making everyone wrongly think they are more safe.
branford
(4,462 posts)Nevertheless, I'm cognizant that given the political and legal conditions, the situation could be far worse.
In any event, it is my understanding that most of the aid groups recommend that the returning Ebola health care workers simple rest for the three weeks after leaving Africa, carefully self-monitor, and actually do not go to work or public gatherings. Therefore, if these individuals are following the recommendations, loss of income should not be a primary concern.
I think that NBC media doctor running-out for take-out while under a voluntary quarantine, and the doctor in NYC riding the subway and going bowling while feeling fatigued, make people distrust medical professionals and believe that they will not properly follow voluntary and permissive protocols. I would suggest that other returned and returning professionals be on their best, and most prudent, behavior lest public opinion will demonize them further.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If any such recommendation exists, I'm pretty sure it would pertain only those who know they were exposed to someone who has Ebola and even then the recommendations I've seen are for self-monitoring and testing if necessary.
What I do know is that the federal government is specifically recommending against such stupid blanket policies as counterproductive.
http://mashable.com/2014/10/26/ebola-quarantine-health-care-workers-volunteer/
adigal
(7,581 posts)We aren't hysterical, but we mostly think a 21 day quarantine is reasonable when a person has been off fighting ebola directly.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/29/cbs-poll-80-back-quarantines-for-ebola/
jwirr
(39,215 posts)they quarantined her in that idiot tent.
branford
(4,462 posts)
Cha
(297,692 posts)Christie.. hmmm.
branford
(4,462 posts)and the state quarantines have been instituted by governors of both parties, including Democrats in very blue NY, CT and IL. The army has also quarantined returning soldiers.
If you think this is an issue simply between Chris Christie and Kaci Hickox, you might be in for a very uncomfortable shock.
Cha
(297,692 posts)and this thread is about chris Bluderbuss Christie and Kaci Hickox.
branford
(4,462 posts)And, I would be so confident about the relative intelligence or conduct on the federal level. I would remind you that the army is quarantining returning soldiers, and Obama's press conference today was partially in response to poll numbers indicating support for strong measures like quarantines and travel bans.
Cha
(297,692 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)Plus they're getting paid for the duration of their service. So their situation is hardly analogous. I also imagine they're getting more respectful treatment than the nurse did. Unless you're telling me they're being issued paper uniforms for 3 weeks.
branford
(4,462 posts)not the lawfulness of a quarantine itself. If Ms. Hickox was remanded to an isolation room in the hospital or hotel with television, wifi and personal toilet and shower, would the quarantine then be ok?
Again, I care about the science. We have been repeatedly told, including by the President himself, that if an exposed aid worker is not symptomatic, they cannot transmit the disease, and a mandatory quarantine is unwarranted. If that is the science for aid workers, why is it different for the men and women in uniform?
The fact that the government has greater authority to restrict soldiers is in no way indicative of the wisdom or appropriateness of doing so. Absent some clear scientific rationale, if the aid workers should not be quarantined, neither should the soldiers. Conversely, if the soldiers need to be quarantined to protect the public, why should the aid workers be excused?
Demit
(11,238 posts)What an odd point to be making here. A side point. No doubt many soldiers throughout the ages have questioned the wisdom of their superiors. But they sign onto the military system, and they are in the care of the army for the duration of their service. You should rightly address your query to the general, on how he makes decisions affecting the soldiers under his command.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Just today, Obama emphatically advised the nation that quarantine decisions have to be made based only on scientific fact, nothing more. He even implied that certain governors, both Democrat and Republican, may be improperly instituting mandatory quarantines for returning aid workers based on unsubstantiated fear. If the soldiers' commanding officer was basing his quarantine decision based on such fears, rather than medicine, I would expect that the President and army brass would immediately reverse course, if nothing else than to set an example to the states.
Essentially stating that we shouldn't notice any hypocrisy from the White House because soldiers need to obey their superiors concerning a quarantine, is foolish and short-sighted.
Demit
(11,238 posts)I'm not essentially stating anything, other than what I explicitly said. Kindly don't put words into my mouth. You want to frame the situation as the president's hypocrisy, because he's treating the military differently from civilians. I already see military life as different from civilian life. I don't have the problem you have with it. I don't see any ominous implications, either.
branford
(4,462 posts)not fear or politics, and further stated that governors should not institute mandatory quarantines of returning aid workers exposed to Ebola.
However, he is permitting mandatory quarantine of returning soldiers that may have been exposed to the virus. Both I, and apparently much in the press, do not understand what scientific, not political, facts differ that would justify the soldiers quarantine, but not the aid workers.
If the soldiers prophylactic quarantine is warranted, why not the returning aid workers? The fact that the President may be lawfully able to institute greater restrictions upon service members has absolutely no bearing on whether such restrictions are in fact justified for medical reasons.
It is a perfectly legitimate question to pose both to the White House and those who strongly oppose the state quarantines. Why should the White House be able to make quarantine decisions based on political concerns, but not governors, both Democrats and Republicans?
The president is not a hypocrite only if there is an actual medical reason to treat the soldiers differently from the aid workers. Despite this very question today during Obama's comments, neither he nor any other federal officials have provided a scientific explanation for the different treatments.
adigal
(7,581 posts)approved by Obama, then there must be some science behind it according to the President's statement. Right?? Yes???
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)ebola nurse" for Kaci Hickox?
They are trying to dehumanized them, even as they mention the New Jersey Governor in the same headline and President Obama in the other....it is not unintentional, the corporate media is feeling the heat of their obvious false alarm they raised and the coming backlash.
"News Jersey Governor respondes to law suit of Kaci Hickok, Epidemiologist and Registered Medical Nurse" would be the opposite type of headline.
adigal
(7,581 posts)highest level. The brain matter of the CDC astounds me.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You don't lock people up without access to basic necessities just because the polls show it is popular to do so.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm simply stating the legal and political reality. Christie is talking big because he can.
Moreover, the issue of the legality of the quarantine is very different from the actual living conditions of any quarantine.
If they had moved Hickox into a hospital isolation room with a television, wifi and shower, it would not affect the constitutionality of the quarantine order itself.
You keep mentioning the soldiers that are returning from West Africa. When you join the Army the army owns you and if they say you are going to be quarantined for 21 days then you just say yes sir and do what you are told. This women was a private citizen and showed no sign of Ebola at all and she had been tested multiple times. We cannot keep treating our volunteer healthcare workers like this or they will not travel overseas and work in these area. Christie mishandled this situation plain and simple and I don't care what the polls say because most of the American public hasn't a clue about how Ebola is transmitted and are responding to those polls based on that lack of knowledge as well as fear. Had they let this nurse go home and self quarantine than nothing would have happened. Christie stepped in it when he diagnosed her as being sick. The GOP is full of doctors diagnosing from distance, see Bill Frist and Terri Shiavo as an example.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)They even call it a "liberty" pass, because without the pass you got none.
Kaci Hickox had and has the same livery as you and I that some folks seem not to give a shit about.
branford
(4,462 posts)Explaining why the army might have greater authority to institute a quarantine, without more, totally fails to explain the scientific necessity of quarantining the soldiers.
If the science states that if the someone, such as a soldier, does not show symptoms, they should not be quarantined, and I would expect them to have the freedom of movement and interaction of any returning soldier. I would imagine that these soldiers wish to see their friends and family as much as any returning health care worker, and I see no reason to punish soldiers simply because we can. It therefore appears to be no more than excusing sadism to politically protect President Obama from a seemingly inconsistent policy. The fact that these soldiers had no voluntary choice to be exposed to Ebola, actually makes them more sympathetic in many ways to the specially trained doctors and nurses who willingly decided to expose themselves to the risks on their own terms.
I also admit that I find the reasoning that a quarantine should not be imposed because American doctors and other health professionals will not readily volunteer to go to Africa to be unpersuasive. A quarantine is to protect the public from an infectious disease. The risk to the public from a returning aid worker exposed to Ebola neither increases nor decreases based recruitment difficulties of NGO's.
I appreciate the need for these individuals to help out in west Africa, but to the extent they present a risk to the public, if at all, any quarantine or other monitoring would be understood to be part of their commitment.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)(Greater risks than this one can arise in military service.) Military service can also involve lengthy separation from family. It’s part of the deal. They are not being punished, and in fact, part of the justification for the quarantine (see below) is to reassure families.
The military quarantine does not seem to be driven by scientific necessity, but other considerations, including foreign relations:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/politics/starr-ebola-general-interview/index.html
<<The quarantine procedure is meant to reassure both military families and the Italian government that the US is doing everything it can to protect troops, the families and the surrounding communities, Williams said. He noted the Italians had expressed concerns about troops returning to Vicenza after serving in Liberia for 30 days on the initial mission to set up a military effort there to aid in the Ebola crisis.>>
I agree this quarantine policy is inconsistent with other recommendations (since it is largely driven by non-medical concerns as indicated in the previous passage), but those affected are also different. Health care workers are not returning together in large numbers from West Africa, so there is not the same potential for negative public reaction (like, unwarranted panic) as there could be for large groups of service members returning from an affected area. (The general in the CNN piece mentions about 90 service members all returning around the same time.) Most health care providers can remain anonymous upon return from West Africa (only becoming known – and causing panic-- if they have actually become infected)…or remain anonymous when working with Ebola patients at US hospitals (for example, we still only know the names of the two nurses who became infected in Dallas, though there have been many nurses taking care of the needs of patients with Ebola at five US hospitals, now)… which doesn’t seem as possible for service members returning in large groups. In the current case, the military quarantine policy is not just intended to reassure military families, but to reassure the Italian government and the surrounding community in Italy. Another difference is the doctors and nurses are health care professionals who are highly trained at monitoring symptoms, and that would seem to warrant a higher degree of confidence in their abilities to self-monitor.
branford
(4,462 posts)When various governors are assuaging the fears of the citizens of NY, NJ, IL CT, FL and elsewhere, is that any less important that the feelings, irrational or otherwise, of the Italians or the residents near the army bases?
If the President tells us all decisions are being made because of scientific fact, I expect all decisions to actually be made because of scientific fact. Why should I or any other American take the President seriously when he complains about Christie, Cuomo or any other governor, when he too is making quarantine decisions for political, rather than medical, reasons?
If Obama was a Republican, I doubt very much anyone here would be excusing the hypocrisy. We would probably be complaining how he doesn't care about the men and women in uniform.
I'm a loyal Democrat, but I can still recognize when our politicians are being hypocrites.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Having a different policy for troops stationed in Italy than for civilians here doesn't seem hypocritical. I think the different policies are in response to different situations, but might be hard to explain in a "national" discussion. I don't know... maybe there is a way to do it without offending the Italians?
Again, my hope is that as facts become more well known (here and abroad), science can prevail.
My problem is more with some of the governors, the ones who have seemed to exacerbate unwarranted panic at a time when I thought the facts were starting to speak for themselves: Duncan's family was not infected (even though he became symptomatic while still with them); health care providers who dealt with Mr. Duncan when he came to the hospital the first time (while symptomatic) were not infected; the two nurses who did become infected became clear of Ebola within two weeks of diagnosis; etc.. The NYC mayor seemed to respond in a very calm and reasonable way to Spencer's diagnosis, and with the positive updates from the Dallas situation emerging, I thought maybe things might get on a more even keel... but then so much of that progress towards a more reasoned response (to something that is unfamiliar and scary, but WAY less threatening to Americans than a myriad of other health issues) was undermined by Cuomo and Christie almost immediately. (But, you know... state's rights.)
Something that does seem hypocritical to me is the focus on quarantines for health care workers or others coming from West Africa. Have there been mandatory quarantines for the health care providers at Emory, NIH, Texas Health Presbyterian, Bellevue, Nebraska Health Center...? Is Cuomo calling for that for Bellevue health care providers? I mean, when would it start? While they are still tending to Dr. Spencer? But they have to get back and forth to work... (Etc.) Do we have enough of these types of highly trained health providers to afford losing them for 21 days? (If the science doesn't warrant it?)
branford
(4,462 posts)If the quarantine of the troops is the result of anything other than pure scientific fact, particularly after Obama's comments today, it's most definitely hypocrisy. He's demanding that the governors not make decisions based on fear and politics, when he's permitting these factors to lead to the quarantine of the troops.
Note that I'm not arguing in favor of mandatory quarantines imposed by some states, but rather honesty from both the White House and governors, and likely the release of the soldiers consistent with the CDC policy on the aid workers exposed to Ebola.
If the White House is not being honest about the soldiers' quarantine, why should he be trusted concerning the aid workers?
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Obama has been advised by medical experts that a mandatory 21-day quarantine on health care workers returning from West Africa would be unnecessary and extremely counterproductive in the effort to stop the spread and devastation of Ebola. That's one issue: to make sure health care providers continue to volunteer for this critical but dangerous work, recognizing they are highly trained and very capable of self-monitoring.
The second major issue is effectively deploying military service members in the effort to combat Ebola. (According to Obama's statements today, these service members have already had a very positive impact and they will continue to play a large and critical role in US efforts in West Africa.) I just read that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are advising a 21-day quarantine for returning troops. As we both have noted, this does not seem based on science... but it does seem based on expert military advice. For whatever reasons (I suggested a few possibilities, but those are just conjecture), the head military honchos seem to think the quarantine is necessary for returning troops. I don't think it's about hypocrisy, but about taking the advice of two very different groups of experts concerning two very different sets of actors in this extremely important mission. Should Obama override the advice of his military advisors? Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe they know something about military culture (etc.) that makes this seem advisable. (And maybe it will eventually seem absurd as it plays out in the real world... and will be modified to reflect that new understanding.)
I don't have a problem calling politicians hypocrites, since that seems to go with the territory, and if I ever start to hold a politician in very high regard, he/she inevitably says or does something to jolt me to my senses. But this is an unfolding situation that's... complicated.
I would think at this point, anyone who was anxious about "Ebola in America" would be feeling somewhat reassured. The CDC initially made some mistakes and misstatements (including what seemed like nurse blaming), but the major error was when the Dallas hospital misdiagnosed Duncan, which meant he didn't get a fighting chance to possibly be another success story. Hospitals (in general) were not adequately prepared for this development, but that seems to be changing (especially with advocacy from nurses).
I think Obama has tended to strike the right note in all of this--calm and rational, extolling the virtues of the health care professionals, the service members... trying to galvanize us regarding the US commitment to stopping Ebola in Africa and in stopping Ebola and the unwarranted fears of Ebola, here. Maybe he will disappoint me on this issue tomorrow. (As I said, whenever I start to hold a politician in very high regard...) I just hope American health care professionals and service members can join with West Africans and the rest of the world to end the devastation.
branford
(4,462 posts)or even the recruitment difficulties of NGO's sending medical professionals to Africa, have absolutely no bearing on whether any asymptomatic individual soldier or aid worker is any more or less a risk to the public and should face mandatory quarantine.
The president explicitly and emphatically stated that all quarantine decisions should be based exclusively on science and has argued strongly against the mandatory state quarantines of returning health professionals. When the press inquired about the differences in risk of transmission of the virus between the quarantined soldiers and civilian worker, his only non-response was that the soldiers will follow orders and they're used to hardship.
Until such time as the president or other top executive officials explain the scientific and medical differences justifying the mandatory quarantine of the soldiers, but not the civilian workers (who apparently have much greater exposure to the virus in Africa), Obama is, in fact, a hypocrite. You might believe that his hypocrisy is warranted or even prudent under the circumstances, but it is still hypocrisy, and therefore subject to justified criticism (as recent polls on this issue suggest).
deurbano
(2,895 posts)[As I said, he "demanded" nothing. Now you've switched to "emphatically stated".. but that still doesn't mean demanded. (Ah, geez... polls? Okay, that settles it; he is obviously a hypocrite.)]
I disagree that these factors have no bearing. Of course, they do. We are talking about two very different groups, in terms of training and experience, and their families are in very different positions, too. Do you actually care about why the policies might be different during this first experience of having troops return from duty in West Africa...or is it just about finding a reason to call Obama a hypocrite? I defend the health care providers not requiring a quarantine... and I defend the position of military families who seem to want a quarantine... because both positions seem warranted with the existing set of circumstances (some medical, some not!), and we NEED the support of both these groups in a struggle that is grim, overwhelming and catastrophic. It's sad to me that this has become just one more partisan football. I think people of good faith are trying to figure this out. (I don't believe Cuomo and Christie were acting in good faith.) It's important to figure this out.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/29/politics/military-ebola-quarantine/
<<In their discussions the chiefs—who each head one of the military services branches—noted that many of the US troops are young and inexperienced in any medical issues. There was concern they might not adhere to an informal protocol of taking their temperature twice a day on their own. And the official said, families and communities in the US and Europe where the troops are located had also expressed concern. The US already has 1,000 troops on the ground, and that force could grow to a total of 4,000. "That's the biggest group of Americans there," the official said, noting that also was a factor in the chiefs thinking.
"The chiefs believe it is better to start more restrictive and then reassess as we get further into the Ebola operation," the official said.>
Here are some differences between medical providers and military members:
1. Health care providers don’t want the quarantine.
2. The quarantine is not only unnecessary for medical providers, but would discourage their assistance in W/ Africa at a time when their participation is desperately needed.
3. Western health workers haven been treating Ebola for many years, so there is a lot evidence that their self-monitoring works. They also trickle home in small numbers.
1.Military families want a quarantine:
http://news.yahoo.com/hagel-approves-21-day-ebola-quarantine-troops-150204659--politics.html
Hagel: "This is also a policy that was discussed in great detail by the communities, by the families of our military men and women, and they very much wanted a safety valve on this," he said at a public forum in Washington.
2. Not imposing a quarantine could lead to the spread of Ebola if self-monitoring by these non-health professionals proves inadequate. (Don’t know if that is a realistic fear, but unlike with the health care providers, it is untested in the real world and they consider it a possibility.)
3. Hagel describes the quarantine as a “safety valve” wanted by the families. Having read of the stigma that nurses at Bellevue and the other hospitals have faced (if they reveal where they work, and even if they haven’t worked with any Ebola patients), I think that means a quarantine would serve to let some of the air out of possible community stigma the families could face as the service members return, in addition to allaying concerns of service members and their families that family members will be infected.
4.This is a new mission for the military, and members will be returning from W. Africa in large numbers.
5. The quarantine will initially be in place for 45 days, and will then be reassessed
You interpret the quarantine as the military (or Obama, actually) putting a greater burden on the troops—one unjustified by the science—than the health care providers… but it isn’t a burden if it’s what military families (themselves) want, and there is some medical justification, too, though hopefully that will be addressed with more training and experience.
Again, two different groups (and really two cultures) we are discussing:
1. The medical personnel are very familiar with the scientific facts regarding Ebola. They know they are putting their health at some risk by assisting in West Africa, but feel the benefits of service outweigh that risk. They have had extensive medical training, so are well able to self-monitor when they return home. They do NOT believe they are putting their families at risk. Their families (including significant others) have most likely agreed to this assignment… and while I’m sure the families are anxious about the loved one’s health status, they are not unduly worried about their own risk, since they are educated about the risks, and this is something they decided to do. (For some of those families, it is even a religious calling.)
2. On the other hand, the service members go where they are sent. You and Obama made a distinction between them and the “volunteers.” I made the point that they are volunteers, too, but it doesn’t seem they volunteered for this particular assignment. Normally, that shouldn’t be much of a distinction since they “volunteered” to go where they are sent by joining the military in the first place, and to put themselves in harm’s way, if necessary. BUT, they didn’t volunteer to put their families in harm’s way, and their families didn’t sign up for that, either.
Service members are not highly trained health care providers, and they probably harbor the same range of fears (including unwarranted ones) we see in the general population, as do their families. However, unlike the general population, they are being assigned to an area where they actually can be exposed to Ebola. According to the excerpt, a major reason for the quarantine is to allay the concerns of the returning service members and their families (which I assume includes concerns about the potential for infected members to spread the virus), and to allay the concerns of the communities to which they are returning (which will hopefully, prevent shunning and harassment), including communities not in this country.
This is all very new. As lessons are learned, as skills are developed, as the facts emerge, and as family concerns ease, the protocol will likely change.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, you often repeat that the families of the troops want a quarantine. I've only seen or heard this on the news from Sec. Hagel. There are a vast multitude of organizations of soldiers' families and related groups. Could you provide any links or citations where they are actually demanding a quarantine? Just because Sec. Hagel makes an assertion, does not make it true, particularly given the political sensitivities, immense scrutiny and apparently unforeseen criticisms of the policy.
Moreover, as you have conceded, the president has explicitly stated now on numerous occasions that the only basis for a mandatory quarantine is medical necessity, not fear or politics, and that asymptomatic individuals pose no risk to the public. If the families (or foreign citizens) are afraid, as Sec. Hagel suggests, the president should publicly counsel them that such fears are unjustified and our men and women in uniform pose no risk, just as he did today with the returned aid workers. He was happy to pose in front of the cameras with numerous returned doctors and nurses. It would have been no hardship to include some returned officers and enlisted personnel. What the president has done is effectively deify the returning civilian aid workers, while succumbing to irrational fears and his very own standards, likely creating unnecessary apprehension among and against our returning troops. I find that most disturbing.
I additionally think the suggestion that the soldiers cannot self-monitor, which really only requires they take their temperature, to be ludicrous and insulting. If they are not sufficiently dedicated and competent to use a simple thermometer, when we trust them with millions of dollars of military hardware, none of them should be in the service, and our recruitment and training regimens are inexcusably broken. I very much doubt the military brass wants to engage in such a discussion. The other obvious reason why the military and executive branch may have expressed such sentiments so obliquely is that to do so directly would be so insulting to our men and women in uniform as to constitute political suicide (and as the president is a Democrat, disastrous for our party).
You argue that factors other than science may be necessary when determining the appropriateness of a quarantine. That may in fact be true, but it certainly is not what the president has repeatedly told the American people is the appropriate standard. If he's not being honest, why should be be trusted any more the Christie, Cuomo or anyone else.
For what it's worth, absent some horrible spread of the disease, I predict that well within the 45 day review period, the military will back-off their mandatory quarantine policy. If the president wants to convince the 80% of the public that supports a mandatory quarantine of returning aid workers that they are wrong, apparently in order to encourage medical professionals to volunteer to go overseas, politics (and science) will demand that he ease off the restrictions imposed on the troops, a group who maintains immense sympathy from the vast majority of all Americans, and popularity the envy of both political parties.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Can you provide the links, please?
<<Moreover, as you have conceded, the president has explicitly stated now on numerous occasions that the only basis for a mandatory quarantine is medical necessity, not fear or politics, and that asymptomatic individuals pose no risk to the public. >>
bpj62
(999 posts)We are guests in Italy and they have been on of our allies since the end of WWII. It is sound diplomatic practice to reassure our allies that we are making sure that our soldiers who are stationed in Italy do not have Ebola. This is not a political decision. Obama is not being hypocritical at all.
branford
(4,462 posts)as the reason for the military quarantine.
In any event, either our asymptomatic soldiers post a risk to the public or they do not.
The medical science states that they do not. Obama believes we should only make decisions based on the science. Hence, hypocrisy.
If the president wants to admit that unjustified fear is sometimes a legitimate concern in formulating quarantine policy, he is free to do so, but he may want to dial-back the criticism of the governors.
bpj62
(999 posts)I wasn't aware that Obama had to make a statement about any conversations he may have had with the Italian government. In any event the Army operates under different guidelines then civilians do. Secretary Hagel just approved the 21 day quarantine today. Also the republican governors are doing this quarantine because they simply want to stir up their base. On the other hand I have no idea why Cuomo chose to do it. None of the Governors are epidemiologists and they are not qualified to make medical decisions. On a final note a soldier who is quarantined is not going to lose his job or his pay nor are they likely to be ostracized by the community because of a sense of fear.
branford
(4,462 posts)Accommodating Italian fears, even if true, is not based upon the actual, scientific risk to the public posed by asymptomatic soldiers.
It's also not a partisan issue differentiating Democrat and Republic governors. It's not just Cuomo in NY, but also deep blue Quinn in Ill, Malloy in CT, and others. Recent CBS and other polls show around 80% of the public want to quarantine returning aid workers. These governors are responding to their bipartisan electorate.
Obama has strongly criticized these governors for making quarantine decisions based on fear and politics. However, the decision to quarantine the soldiers, particularly since they appear to have had less exposure to the virus than the civilian workers and Italian sensibilities are not based on scientific fact, seems also to be based on non-medical principles.
The fact that Obama has more legal authority over the military than civilians in a quarantine scenario has no bearing on scientific and medical facts. The fact that he clearly can do something lawfully, does not change the science or justify the military quarantine. You complain that the governors are not epidemiologists who are qualified to make medical decisions. Let me respectfully remind you than neither is President Obama, Secretary Hagel or any of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The issue of pay and quarantine conditions is also a red herring. Quarantine conditions can easily be negotiated and altered to comply with any necessary legal or social standards, but does not reflect either the legal authority to actually implement a mandatory quarantine, whether civilian or military, or whether medical facts justify such a quarantine.
Lastly, why would a soldier be any less ostracized after returning from Ebola-stricken areas of Africa than any civilian, other than the fact that the civilians likely had greater exposure to the virus and therefore legitimately have a greater risk of infection. The level of social opprobrium that might be suffered by those in quarantine, again, does not alter the scientific facts concerning the risk posed by any of these individuals to the general public.
If Obama now believes that factors other than scientific fact are a basis for a quarantine, as you appear to suggest concerning the case of the soldiers in Italy and, as of today, throughout the entire military, he should simply say so. Of course, his complaints about the state quarantines would then look quite foolish.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)There is a lot of education that still needs to happen. Hopefully, as the worst case scenarios do not materialize (in the West), the panicking will be replaced with greater understanding of the actual risks. (In the US, in Italy, among military families, etc...) But the crisis in Africa is real and devastating, so policies should encourage health care professionals who are willing to participate in the effort to alleviate that crisis. Everything we are hearing from those with expertise on this issue indicates that quarantine policies not grounded in science could discourage desperately needed assistance. In the case of the military, at his moment in time, it might be the opposite: a quarantine not based on science-- but on diplomacy, etc.-- might allow for greater military participation in the effort to deal with Ebola.
branford
(4,462 posts)It would be nice (and honest) if we heard it from Obama and other top officials, rather than the current hypocrisy.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)who presented a scanned fever of 101 (check), who was returning from West Africa (check), and who had worked with Ebola patients (check).
The citizens of New Jersey would be screaming angry if someone with those symptoms were merely passed through and then went on to develop full blown Ebola.
Mr. Duncan, under similar circumstances, would probably be alive today if he had been immediately isolated and tested.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)disease vectors all the more problematic.
This (quarantining an asymptomatic person) was a bad move all the way around. I hope she sues the pants off Christie and anyone in his administration who can be tied to this. 'False imprisonment' comes to mind.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Unfortunately, the level of scientific ignorance in this country, and here on DU, is quite appalling.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Horrific. Unbelievable. 
We could work on our vocabulary here to describe just how bad it is.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)and he knows it. He is just bullying for the sake of the cameras and his own mean ego needs. This man is a disgrace IMHO.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)with money matters in suing him?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)himself in a shit storm and the bullying act may work in N.J. and elsewhere.....by put against a well spoken intelligent Super Hero nurse and epidemiologist?
Please Super Hero Kaci Hickox, America needs you, book some media appearances, please.
And, really, she is not "quarantine nurse", she has a fucking name, you fucking propagandists.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)as an american she has certain rights. one of them is not to be imprisoned becasue a moronic governor wants to pander to fear
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
branford
(4,462 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)You might also recall the Governor Cuomo totally blindsided Mayor DiBlasio with the mandatory quarantine order despite their mutual press conference hours earlier.
It seems that many here refuse to acknowledge that the support for the quarantine orders (and other strict measures like a travel ban) enjoy very strong majority bipartisan support, and the governors, both Democrat and Republican, reflect the will of their constituents. Christie's bluster is probably making him more popular in NJ, and likely at the expense of President Obama. Do not forget that we have an election next week!
The CDC has not positively distinguished at all times during this Ebola mess, and their new, more stringent monitoring guidelines definitely reflect this political reality by an attempt to compromise between public demands, scientific understanding and the policy preference of encouraging volunteers to travel to Africa.
It might be satisfying to disparage Christie (although I find the weight jokes puerile), but the issues run far deeper and do not currently inure to the benefit of our Party in light of Obama's positions.
If more health care professionals or other African travelers are diagnosed with Ebola in the USA, do not be surprised if Obama's position of the quarantine begins to "evolve."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
VA_Jill
(9,998 posts)she sues his ass off. At least that's one way to get some ugly fat off him. 
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)still_one
(92,409 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:49 PM - Edit history (2)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Sienna86
(2,149 posts)The interview left me wondering, who would vote for this arrogant bully?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Oh ya!
Initech
(100,104 posts)
Blue Idaho
(5,057 posts)I'd love to see Governor Dickhead hauled into court. It would make some compelling opposition video if he decides to run for Persident.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)and imo, after watching and listening to him, I thought, this man is obviously ill.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,192 posts)In the alternative, I'll pay to be counsel.
Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #57)
nenagh This message was self-deleted by its author.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)since the big hug down the shore in 2012 to get back in the good graces of the ordinary GOP'er. This Ebola situation is his perfect opportunity to distance himself at polar opposites from Barack Obama.
The guy's a professional campaigner, he knows what he's doing here. Other than some mumbling by Rand Paul about Ebola on a troop ship, have any of the other Rethuglican potential candidates had anything substansive to say on Ebola?
Google up "poll quarantine Ebola nurse" and see what the anybody-can-vote-in-this-poll sites are saying.
Bartlet
(172 posts)an adult response from an asshlole like Christie was a stretch.
Iamthetruth
(487 posts)That got infected as well. She better hope she does not have have it. If it turns out she does have it and infects anyone else she should be brought up on murder charges.
