Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Our Ebola Policy: Serious Grounds for Distrust
As you may have noticed, we now have at the federal level two, perhaps three, policies for dealing with those who have spent time in the countries in West Africa where Ebola poses health risks.
We have one policy for the soldiers we dispatched to the region. Before returning to the United States, they are going to be put into quarantine abroad for 21 days.
We have another federal policy for medical personnel, who are being urged to quarantine themselves but who are not going to be subjected to any form of constraint (except in those states where the state authorities intend to impose on them a period of quarantine).
And we no doubt have a policy of some sort with respect to ordinary folk from the affected countries who journey elsewhere and then hop on planes to the United States. The last time I knew, it was our policy to take their temperatures and let them go their merry way. Perhaps, however, by now something more is being done. I certainly hope so.
I will, in what I have to say, confine myself to the soldiers and the medical personnel. Yesterday, in an editorial, The New York Daily News commented on our policy in the following fashion:
The federal government could barely design a more discombobulated message about how it intends to reduce the risk that the virus will reappear on domestic soil.
While the CDC rolls its eyes at Cuomo and Christie — branding them politically driven alarmists — the military wisely followed Cuomo’s abundance-of-caution route. When consequences can be disastrous even though risks are small, it is better to avoid the possibility of grave harm.
What’s suitable for members of the armed forces — whose service we honor, just as we honor that of health-care volunteers — ought to be suitable for American civilians.
If I were called upon to respond to this editorial and to justify treating our soldiers and the health-care volunteers disparately, I would say the following: “You cannot expect young men to conduct themselves in a responsible manner — especially, given the fact that they are not fully informed concerning this highly contagious disease. Health-care professionals are a sane and sober lot. They know what is at stake. They know the dangers. We can trust them to conduct themselves with caution and care.” This would appear to be the opinion of President Obama and of the director of the CDC.
But is this so? Consider the case of Dr. Craig Spencer, a brave young doctor who treated Ebola patients in West Africa. As you know, he did not exactly quarantine himself when he came back. Before being diagnosed with Ebola, he traveled gaily about the city of New York. He went bowling; he fraternized with his longtime girlfriend. He used Uber. He took the A-train.
There are members of Ricochet who think that this was perfectly fine. After all, when his temperature went up, he called the responsible authorities and went to the hospital. He is a physician, they say. He is an expert. He knew what he was doing.
Well, we have learned something about Dr. Spencer in the interim that you might find a bit discomfiting, and you can read about it in today’s New York Post:
The city’s first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, law-enforcement sources said.
Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment — and didn’t admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.
“He told the authorities that he self-quarantined. Detectives then reviewed his credit-card statement and MetroCard and found that he went over here, over there, up and down and all around,” a source said.
Spencer finally ’fessed up when a cop “got on the phone and had to relay questions to him through the Health Department,” a source said.
Officials then retraced Spencer’s steps, which included dining at The Meatball Shop in Greenwich Village and bowling at The Gutter in Brooklyn.
Pause for a second and take that in. This “responsible” medical professional lied about his conduct. He claimed that he had “isolated himself in his Harlem apartment.” In short, he asserted that he had observed a self-imposed quarantine of the very sort that President Obama and his minions are recommending; and he stuck to this lie until the police reviewed his credit card statement and his Metrocard and caught him out.
Now, why, pray tell, would Dr. Spencer lie if his conduct was wholly unimpeachable — if it was perfectly safe for all concerned that a physician recently returned from treating Ebola patients wander freely about the city of New York?
In my experience, people ordinarily lie when they have something shameful to hide.
In the meantime, I read that nurse Kaci Hickox, another recent returnee from West Africa — who was, if you remember, quarantined in New Jersey on the order of Governor Chris Christie and who was released on condition that she proceed by private transportation to Maine, where she resides — has announced that she “is unwilling to agree to continue to be confined to a residence beyond the two days.” And, apparently, she intends to sue, claiming that the state of Maine has no right to subject her to a quarantine.
Dr. Spencer evidenced this virtue. He was ashamed of what he had done. Nurse Hickox is made of sterner stuff.
Are the doctors and nurses who journeyed as volunteers to West Africa more trustworthy and more responsible than the soldiers who were sent there by our government?
Not, I fear, to a degree that we can safely rely on.
In the end, I have to side with The New York Daily News and say, “When consequences can be disastrous even though risks are small, it is better to avoid the possibility of grave harm. What’s suitable for members of the armed forces — whose service we honor, just as we honor that of health-care volunteers — ought to be suitable for American civilians.”
Published in General
If you are protected by the US constitution, the federal government will behave as if you are not.
If you are not protected by the US constitution, the federal government will behave as if you are.
Sounds legit.
Mis,
Now you are on the real Obamite schizophrenia. America = Bad, The Other = Good.
Facts have nothing to do with it.
Regards,
Jim
I was under the impression all these years that the US had strict quarantine laws. Remember the immigrants coming in to Ellis Island? They were either turned away or kept in the hospital for a time.
My mother, in April 1960, spent several days in Trans-Jordan for the Easter holidays. She had been in Israel for a year of post graduate studies, and being a Christian was allowed into old Jerusalem when Jews were not. Several weeks after visit to Trans-Jordan (maybe longer, I don’t know) she came down with “Amebic colitis.” Darn near killed her and she was one sick lady. She was supposed to return to the US in July, but didn’t get back until October/November of 1960 because of being quarantined. Her body had to be 100% free of any sign of that illness. Now, why is it that Amebic colitis with about 40% kill rate is more fearful than Ebola with about a 70% kill rate?
These folks remind me of the entitled Peace Corps folks — really working on their PhD research — who had to be evac’d when they got in trouble, sick, etc. after shagging a chief’s son, a Lagos catamite, etc.
This is why I always find it amusing when people who endorse rolling back immigration regulations are accused of endorsing the elimination of immigration regulation.
Meanwhile, has anyone heard a convincing argument as to why it was necessary to send the US military to Liberia. Seems like it is entirely so Obama and similar politicians can pretend to be doing something.
I figure that’s all snipers, so they can hit the little germs.
Well, it depends.
If the US has a military unit specifically designed, trained, and equipped for responding to international disaster situations, then it might be, arguably, defensible. At the very least, I’d have to recognize that reasonable people could disagree on the question.
For example, after the Rwandan genocide, in which Canadian aid workers were dropped into the middle of a Cholera epidemic with inadequate preparation, the Canadian government created the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), a rapidly deployable unit of about 200 Armed Forces personnel.
The idea behind the DART team is that it’s there to support civilian aid workers, not to replace them. The annual budget for DART is about C$500,000, although it gets additional funding during specific missions. A 1999 mission to help with the aftermath of an earthquake in Turkey cost about C$15 million. Chump change, relatively speaking.
This does not appear to be the sort of military deployment that the US government has undertaken in Liberia, unless the US really does have THOUSANDS of troops specifically trained and set aside for just this kind of mission.
Mis,
This is a very relevant point. We would never want to send the same troops into harms way without proper training and equipment. They don’t refer to medicine as the moral equivalent of war for no reason. This is stupid and dangerous.
Regards,
Jim
We had a discussion at lunch today about this nurse (all nurses at the table). One of the younger nurses (late 20’s) said she’s starting be a little put out with her and the way she is behaving. We all decided for the safety of our family and friends, if no one else, we would quarantine ourselves at least for the recommended 21 days. I still think there’s something more to this chick than what we know. “Thou doth protest too much.”
That’s a better justification than any the administration has given.
Blondie,
100%. I think she has been put up to this by political operatives.
Regards,
Jim
Meanwhile, another Blue State goes rogue.
I thought it was so Obama could use them to infect the entire military establishment with ebola and weaken us further.
(What? Don’t look at me like that. You were thinking the same thing, weren’t you?)
For what it’s worth, her lawyer is (allegedly) a friend of the Obama family.
At least one medical “professional” admits he can’t be trusted and is encouraging others to lie:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/27/Ebola-Aide-Doc-Im-Not-Telling-My-Team-to-Tell-the-Truth
hmmmmmmm…how much more of a direct biased connection could there be? Sound like Benghazi yet? So what if a few peoples wind up infected and one or two die. Winning the election is all that matters. Same tactics, same mindset, same people.
Regards,
Jim
Is Governor Moonbeam up for re-election?
Indeed he is.
How ever did you guess?
You mean beside the fact she’s a solid “Progressive” for Obama, is associated with the CDC and has a lawyer who is a White House guest?
As a parent of a 101st Airborne soldier who is at this minute on his way to Monrovia, I have had a particular incentive to give serious thought to this question, and others.
My thinking is that deploying the military was something Obama could speak into existence to demonstrate he was doing something. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that at the time he made the announcement that 3000 troops (since upped to 4000) would be deployed, nobody other than SecDef Hagel and maybe the Joint Chiefs had even been informed. It may have been completely extemporaneous, or a bug put in his ear by Valerie Jarrett that morning. A case of ready, fire, aim. I doubt very seriously that any operational planning had been performed at that time.
While I believe the chance of any particular troop contacting Ebola from a Liberian is slight, the numbers involved are large enough that the chance of some troops contacting it is fairly high. So far I haven’t seen any discussion of how this will be handled, and it should be kept in mind that these troops are going to be living in very close quarters. If one of them becomes infected, it will mean that a significant number of troops will have been exposed by that one individual before anything can have been done about it.
Liberia is relatively close (nearest border-to-border point about 700 miles) to Nigeria (Boko Haram, remember them?) and I expect our troops will be a magnet for terrorists and nut cases of all kinds. They’re going in with gear and ROE for a humanitarian mission, not a military one. What happens when IEDs start going off and mortar rounds start coming in? What happens if the IEDs and mortars contain Ebola-infected biological matter in addition to shrapnel? I haven’t seen any discussion about this either. For that matter an old inner tube can be rigged to be a slingshot to propel Ebola-infected material into the troop’s compound.
Look for a giant Left-lib handwringing panty-twisted meltdown when our soldiers have to use force to defend themselves.
The headquarters of the 101st Airborne is being deployed as the headquarters unit for Operation United Assistance. On 10/27/14 MG Gary Volesky, the commander of the 101st Airborne assumed responsibility of Joint Forces Command — Operation United Assistance. I would like to believe that there is no better qualified unit to undertake this task. In their minds, every day is a combination of June 6, 1944. I pray my confidence is not misplaced. Whether this is really a sensible use of one of the premiere light infantry units on the planet is another question.
Another question, indeed. We in the Rahe household will pray for your son.
Nobody apparently likes having their freedom inconvenienced. They prefer to apply their own judgement and they aren’t made to suffer consequences if other people get sick. There own judgement is to put it at a low risk that other people will be hurt by their behavior.
Regardless of what people as individuals can get away with (and apparently we can get away with a lot), do individuals have a moral imperative to refrain from behavior that might cause harm to others? Even if they feel a moral imperative, we know they likely can talk themselves into a position of believing the risks to others are minimal and they are unlikely to face consequences if they do not tell the truth. Still others within society might never acquired a conscious understanding of the requirements of this moral imperative. How is this shared moral imperative transmitted? How essential are individuals acting in accordance with this moral imperative to the health of our society? What is greater society’s moral imperative, knowing that individuals within society either choose not to act on the moral imperative or else have never acquired it? What actions will society take to protect itself? Will it use social institutions, government, or a combination of the two?
I never knew that the 101st Airborne was a rapid-response medical unit.
Lern sumthin’ new evry day!
Okay.
Has there been any explanation at all as to why combat units are being deployed? Their mission is to shoot people and blow things up.
Who are they going to shoot?
What are they going to blow up?
And Godspeed to your son Nick Stuart.
Tightly presented and well argued – and 100% right. Further:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/29/pentagon-issues-islamic-state-warning-to-staff-rem/#ixzz3HZWq5MO5
Anyone – especially a medical professional — who doesn’t self-quarantine after being exposed to ebola is beneath contempt, and should be treated as someone engaging in reckless endangerment of others. Until a great deal more is understood about the outer parameters of disease transmission, and the mutation trajectory of ebola the only responsible behavior is to be overly cautious.
As to sending the military, I fail to see how sending a tip of the spear unit like the 101st makes sense. I pray for their safety. Every member of that unit is a better man by far than the ones in the White House who sent them. Maybe that’s why Obama did it…
If medical professionals keep this up we will have no option but to slap a serious ban on travel. The arrogance and self importance of this guy boggles the mind.
A few points:
1. The U.S. Army response is based on decades of evidence based research, planning and training for Biological Warfare. (Disclosure: I served in one of those units in the Army Reserve.) It is <b><i>NOT</b></i> remotely in the same category as the <i>ad hoc</i>, politically correct BS coming from the current administration.
2. Since time immemorial, the response to breaking quarantine has been rocks (very early), arrows and spears (as they became available) and finally bullets (one for warning, the second to end stupid behavior – permanently). Someone needs to explain to Kaci Hickox that she has to contend with reality now, she’s not a special snowflake, and be very aware that the first shot wasn’t a miss, it was a warning.
3. Slap the idiot lawyer into quarantine with her. Keep slapping attorneys (and judges, as necessary) into quarantine until the rest get the message. Then charge all of them with a felony based on endangering the public through deliberately reckless behavior.
3. Friends who have spent time at the sharp end of the stick in crap holes, such as much of Western Africa, tell me that the Catholic nuns who provide medical care range very wonderful to sainthood. They will add that many other missionaries are in the same category. As to Doctors Without Borders, or Medicin Sans Frontiers, they tell me their PR is world class. Kaci Hickox, whose resume also includes Centers for Disease Control, is doing a great job of demonstrating that.