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
Either you or Dr Spencer are liars and have reason to be ashamed. On the basis of the NY Post article you flatly state that Dr Spencer is the liar.
First the article does not have one named source, does more characterizing of what their source or sources said than actual quoting and never exactly says that Dr. Spencer lied and nothing whatsoever about shame.
As has been reported by several sources let me SUGGEST that when Dr. Spencer first developed a low grade fever, 100.3 not 103 as was initially reported, he self isolated, called the appropriate medical personnel and was appropriately transferred to the hospital. When he got to the hospital he gave his history to the medical personnel stating that when he developed a fever he self-isolated and then proceeded to give his history since returning from W.A., including the fact that he and been self-monitoring and taking his temp twice a day as he was instructed by DWB to do. Nothing to be ashamed of or deceitful in this account. The above could be accurate and do to poor communication and/or a tendency to sensationalize and thus get published led to the Post story.
I nor you know what the facts are. But I submit anyone with even a minimum of critical thinking who read the Post story would consider the possibility that it was not totally accurate. When I read it I thought it was probably nothing short of a hatchet job, but decided it best to allow the facts to come out before drawing conclusions.
You might want to remember that Dr. Spencer was first labeled as irresponsible in news accounts, because he had waited until he had a temp of 103 before calling authorities, something that proved not to be true.
Of course, medical professionals are not all this self-important and deceitful. But he is by no means the only one who thinks like this.
Here’s another:
“Asked about the report, Health Department spokeswoman Veronica Lewin said: “Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department to establish a timeline of his movements in the days following his return to New York from Guinea, providing his MetroCard, credit cards and cellphone.”…
“When CNBC asked again if Spencer had at first lied to authorities or otherwise mislead them about his movements in the city, Lewin replied: “Please refer to the statement I just sent. As this states, Dr. Spencer cooperated fully with the Health Department.””
Which is entirely consistent with the NY Post report. He cooperated fully, ultimately.
My, my, I quote in detail a straightforward story from a reputable New York newspaper based on a reporter’s conversation with the police, and you call me a liar. Someone should teach you some manners, liberal jim.
If you think me in error, instead of disgracing yourself by hurling insults, you could at least direct me to a report in another venue which denies the truth of the report I relied on.
Do you no longer know the difference between argument and invective?
One final word. The fact that the New York Post reporter fails to identify his source means nothing. I used to work as a newspaper man and know something about the rules of the game. Good reporters have sources within the bureaucracy on whom, they know, they can rely. When these sources know that the folks up top want something covered up, they ask that their names be left out.
Can this arrangement be abused? Sure. Sometimes it has been abused. But it is normal procedure, and I know of no reason to distrust the reporter in question. If liberal jim knows otherwise, it is incumbent on him to come forward with the evidence. The fact that the story is unfavorable to Dr. Craig Spencer does not make it false.
That the official spokesman for the health department should cover for Spencer does not strike me as surprising. We all know where Bill de Blasio stands.