The New England Journal of Medicine came out strongly against the NY/NJ protocols, but I disagree with their position. I can appreciate that we want to encourage and respect selfless individuals that go over to help in any way, but to allow them to then come back and freely mix with random people after having direct contact with Ebola patients is insanity. While quarantine might seem severe, it's really our only legally tested tool (along with isolation) to address these types of issues. Of course it makes more sense to have specific travel protocols in place with detailed information regarding screening, temperature checks and evaluations but to expect all the States to create these policies and somehow equally enforce them is madness.Zarathud wrote:I have no sympathy as long as it's a reasonable policy with a scientific justification. You can't quarantine everyone, but a medical worker who was exposed? Yes.
The position of the NEJM seems to be more political in nature - that is, we need to stop focusing on workers returning from impacted countries and rather throw all of our attention at stopping the outbreak at the source. Well...yeah. But when you end up crippling state and local public health departments and ER services because of fear over disease, we need to step up. When the Texas Supreme Court officially recognizes the importance of considering the needs of the many, perhaps we should all take note.
Really, the issue is that no one has any idea what's going on (federally, state, local) and everyone is grasping for straws. This is exactly what happened with Anthrax and you would sort have assumed we learned from that horrific experience in the Fall of 2001...but apparently not.