Ebola or Hysteria Paranoia?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

lol. You are always a winner, Miss Nancy!!!

Oh wow, you know how to throw on the charm! Miss Hickox could learn a think or two from you!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

I am anxiously awaiting to hear what our new governor is going to do to address this issue and how Texas will be dealing with the whole ebola issue.

Something I would like to know is, do our governors always decide this? Shouldn't someone more knowledgeable decide this? Some of our elected officials just don't seem to have the capabilities to make such important decisions, especially those that are time sensitive.

[lynzy420]

These are the same "beliefs" that kept people like Ryan White imprisoned in his home and then when even that wasn't safe for him he had to flee his hometown and move to an undisclosed location...his entire family, isolated, imprisoned, yelled at, stalked, protested against, violated and essentially raped in so many vulgar ways....


because people believed that he had no right, because people refused to educate themselves....they too believed that he should stay quarantined away from the public to ease the public fear.......


This is a time for learning and educating and not attacking, for understanding and a real need to bring a calm an understanding to a community, a country about the real problems associated with Ebola and the need to find a way to stop it......

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Something I would like to know is, do our governors always decide this? Shouldn't someone more knowledgeable decide this? Some of our elected officials just don't seem to have the capabilities to make such important decisions, especially those that are time sensitive.

Like who??? The Feds ???? Where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and then everyone gets all confused and talks real big, then backs down, making changes daily on protocols, etc......also, alot of States accept money and stuff from the Feds, which makes them "beholding" to what Washington wants...Texas does not have that problem. Our new Governor elect will make decisions for how Texas will handle the issue of ebola, and that will be carried forward.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Like who??? The Feds ???? Where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and then everyone gets all confused and talks real big, then backs down, making changes daily on protocols, etc......also, alot of States accept money and stuff from the Feds, which makes them "beholding" to what Washington wants...Texas does not have that problem. Our new Governor elect will make decisions for how Texas will handle the issue of ebola, and that will be carried forward.

I don't know, some type of public health agency? It's great that you have confidence in your governor, but I know I always haven't had any confidence in some of mine.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

It's not about her having or not having the Ebola it's about public perception. It's about her not following an court order for just one more day. If she had, it would have given people confidence, this woman is doing what's right and if she has any type of symptom in the future, she'll do the responsible thing. But no, she has to act defiant and it was like, "Damn you, you aren't going to tell me what to do. I'm taking a bike ride, I'll show you." Real mature. This makes people scared and they feel like she's not responsible and she might even hide symptoms or do something esle stupid in the future to put others at risk. It's about reassuring the public that the workers volunteering in Africa are reasonable and prudent people and will do the right thing. She took a bad situation and made it worse and caused even more panic because now people feel like some people could have it, but won't obey court orders to stay confined to their homes. Perhaps she not spreading Ebola, but she's spreading panic and an uneasy feeling that we have no control, and in my opinion, that's almost as bad. I also think people might overreact and want everyone coming back from Africa quarantined.

If people are panicking that is only because the Media is looking to stir the pot. Yes, she was defiant and like you SNL skit pretty much looked like a crazy person.....like I said before it was her presentation and delivery. BUT~ Christie was overstepping his boundaries and IMO he is just posturing for a Presidential run and using the fear mongering as a way to get his name out there . She had a slightly elevated temperature and he tossed her into a tent in a parking lot with a port-a-potty and wifi

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

If people are panicking that is only because the Media is looking to stir the pot. Yes, she was defiant and like you SNL skit pretty much looked like a crazy person.....like I said before it was her presentation and delivery. BUT~ Christie was overstepping his boundaries and IMO he is just posturing for a Presidential run and using the fear mongering as a way to get his name out there . She had a slightly elevated temperature and he tossed her into a tent in a parking lot with a port-a-potty and wifi

Totally agree about Christy, that's why I asked this:

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Something I would like to know is, do our governors always decide this? Shouldn't someone more knowledgeable decide this? Some of our elected officials just don't seem to have the capabilities to make such important decisions, especially those that are time sensitive.

Even if he were smart enough to make the right decision, (?) once politics gets involved, decisions are based upon public opinion, and that's not a good thing on such important matters. I don't want them making decisions based upon whether they will get my vote next election, sometimes the unpopular decision is the correct one.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Like who??? The Feds ???? Where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and then everyone gets all confused and talks real big, then backs down, making changes daily on protocols, etc......also, alot of States accept money and stuff from the Feds, which makes them "beholding" to what Washington wants...Texas does not have that problem. Our new Governor elect will make decisions for how Texas will handle the issue of ebola, and that will be carried forward.

So what you are saying it that Texas has some special exemption to not follow Federal rules and laws?

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

So what you are saying it that Texas has some special exemption to not follow Federal rules and laws?

I posted this earlier. States have legal authorities and police powers to enforce quarantine and isolation. Links from the CDC:

Originally Posted by Maximo

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

From the link above concerning the legal authorities for Isolation (for sick and infected) and Quarantine (for persons who have been exposed, but who have not tested positive and do not exhibit symptoms):

"States have police power functions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons within their borders. To control the spread of disease within their borders, states have laws to enforce the use of isolation and quarantine.
These laws can vary from state to state and can be specific or broad. In some states, local health authorities implement state law. In most states, breaking a quarantine order is a criminal misdemeanor."


History of Quarantine in the US:
History of Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Totally agree about Christy, that's why I asked this:



Even if he were smart enough to make the right decision, (?) once politics gets involved, decisions are based upon public opinion, and that's not a good thing on such important matters. I don't want them making decisions based upon whether they will get my vote next election, sometimes the unpopular decision is the correct one.

Political office holders consult experts in the decision making process, although obviously they are not required to do so. It's unlikely that a governor is sitting at his desk alone or relying only on his regular staff to make these decisions.

With regard to a potential health threat, public perception is not a negligible factor. You pointed this out in a couple of your posts. How much is pure politics and how much is genuine concern for public safety is a matter of debate.

No one wants to be the office holder who failed to act. There is a celebrity who is vocal about holding a particular US president personally responsible for the AIDS epidemic.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Political office holders consult experts in the decision making process, although obviously they are not required to do so. It's unlikely that a governor is sitting at his desk alone or relying only on his regular staff to make these decisions.

With regard to a potential health threat, public perception is not a negligible factor. You pointed this out in a couple of your posts. How much is pure politics and how much is genuine concern for public safety is a matter of debate.

No one wants to be the office holder who failed to act. There is a celebrity who is vocal about holding a particular US president personally responsible for the AIDS epidemic.

I should say, who is perceived to have failed to act.

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by Maximo

I posted this earlier. States have legal authorities and police powers to enforce quarantine and isolation. Links from the CDC:

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

So what you are saying it that Texas has some special exemption to not follow Federal rules and laws?

Not really a "special exemption"...more of a "States Right"....Apparently, all the States have this right....Texas is just very careful about "allowing" or "encouraging" the Federal Government to get into States Rights issues....cuts a lot of the government over-reach issues from muddying the waters in Texas politics. One way we keep the Feds out of our States Rights is by not accepting a lot of the funding incentives that comes out of Washington for various projects...."if we dont take your money, you cant come in here and tell us what we are going to do, how we are going to do it" kind of thing. It works out very nicely that way.....cuts way down on "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" activities.

[yorkietalkjilly]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Political office holders consult experts in the decision making process, although obviously they are not required to do so. It's unlikely that a governor is sitting at his desk alone or relying only on his regular staff to make these decisions.

With regard to a potential health threat, public perception is not a negligible factor. You pointed this out in a couple of your posts. How much is pure politics and how much is genuine concern for public safety is a matter of debate.

No one wants to be the office holder who failed to act. There is a celebrity who is vocal about holding a particular US president personally responsible for the AIDS epidemic.

....as opposed to laying personal responsibility for the AIDS epidemic on the generations who knew of the disease but still chose to hook up with strangers, often in establishments who hosted said activities for profit, to have unprotected sex? Or fail to blame the AIDS epidemic on the pandemic of drug dealers selling drugs/supplies to hordes of drug users in every country who then shared dirty needles with everyone within walking distance? Or shall we not blame the blood suppliers who failed to even properly test their blood supplies, long after they knew better?

All the while, far greater numbers of adults, teens, even little kids and babies, were dying from heart disease, crime, accidents, stroke and all forms of cancer,flu, pneumonia, etc., and all research foundations studying those diseases and their causes were begging for more funding.

Back then, when the disease was essentially an automatic death sentence, shouldn't the governors of the 50 states have been blamed by said celebrity for not acting like leaders and quarantining all those who were even possibly a risk to others due to being intimately exposed to HIV or for just being HIV positive - not even yet sick with the virus? Wouldn't that have been safer? Should those people all have been quarantined as Kaci Hickox was for possibility of the risk of causing an epidemic in this country and if not, why aren't all those governors to blame for allowing all those people infected with the virus or sick with it to live among everyone else and starting the AIDS epidemic in this country and then the world?

Interested to see where everyone who wants a quarantine for Ebola feels about an AIDS quarantine back in the day.

[lynzy420]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

[/B]

....as opposed to laying personal responsibility for the AIDS epidemic on the generations who knew of the disease but still chose to hook up with strangers, often in establishments who hosted said activities for profit, to have unprotected sex? Or fail to blame the AIDS epidemic on the pandemic of drug dealers selling drugs/supplies to hordes of drug users in every country who then shared dirty needles with everyone within walking distance? Or shall we not blame the blood suppliers who failed to even properly test their blood supplies, long after they knew better?

All the while, far greater numbers of adults, teens, even little kids and babies, were dying from heart disease, crime, accidents, stroke and all forms of cancer,flu, pneumonia, etc., and all research foundations studying those diseases and their causes were begging for more funding.

Back then, when the disease was essentially an automatic death sentence, shouldn't the governors of the 50 states have been blamed by said celebrity for not acting like leaders and quarantining all those who were even possibly a risk to others due to being intimately exposed to HIV or for just being HIV positive - not even yet sick with the virus? Wouldn't that have been safer? Should those people all have been quarantined as Kaci Hickox was for possibility of the risk of causing an epidemic in this country and if not, why aren't all those governors to blame for allowing all those people infected with the virus or sick with it to live among everyone else and starting the AIDS epidemic in this country and then the world?

Interested to see where everyone who wants a quarantine for Ebola feels about an AIDS quarantine back in the day.

Exactly...exactly....exactly......