Ebola

[frugalnacho]

Well, I've got a MMM-topical question on this topic- what do people do for income when they are in quarantine? As we all know, a lot of people are in jobs with no paid time off at all, and many of them have little savings. I have been wondering what that poor Liberian man's family in Dallas did while they were in quarantine- I recall that two of them were nursing assistants, jobs that usually don't have much in way of pay and benefits. It's easy for politicians to demand that people who have had contact with a suspected Ebola case go quarantine themselves at home, but what do you do if that person can't pay his rent because he's lost his job?

I also wonder who will pick up the tab for hospitals to isolate uninsured Ebola patients, if it turns out to be necessary to take care of more than a few.  (I bet that the real reason Gov Christie relented on Nurse Hickox's hospital confinement was that the hospital was going to charge the state a ton of money for that tent.)

There is also the issue of it being both unnecessary and unconstitutional. 

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

[Cpa Cat]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

Volunteers with Drs Without Borders are compensated - It's up to individual volunteers to decide if that salary is enough to compensate them for their time spent abroad and their quarantine.

Workers who are exposed and quarantined as part of their job at a hospital in the United States will likely be entitled to Worker's Compensation.

People who are secondarily quarantined (significant others, kids, etc) would use their paid sick leave (if they have it) and FMLA to protect their jobs if they don't.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

Ideally, those people who have been exposed to Ebola will avoid interacting with their friends and family members who don't have paid sick leave. But if they choose not to, that's tough luck. The person without benefits absorbs the cost.

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

[PeteD01]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

Volunteers with Drs Without Borders are compensated - It's up to individual volunteers to decide if that salary is enough to compensate them for their time spent abroad and their quarantine.

Workers who are exposed and quarantined as part of their job at a hospital in the United States will likely be entitled to Worker's Compensation.

People who are secondarily quarantined (significant others, kids, etc) would use their paid sick leave (if they have it) and FMLA to protect their jobs if they don't.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

Ideally, those people who have been exposed to Ebola will avoid interacting with their friends and family members who don't have paid sick leave. But if they choose not to, that's tough luck. The person without benefits absorbs the cost.

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means. It is enforced isolation and, once in quarantine, the quarantined individual does not have a choice regarding obeying or not. Quarantine requires a court order and to obtain that the authorities have to demonstrate objective need for the measure proposed. In the US, this requires a medical expert opinion and that needs to be grounded in current science. Just prior to the release of the nurse in NJ, there was mention in the media that there was no medical need to continue to hold her. The source of that was not disclosed but for anyone who has been involved in involuntary confinement cases on grounds of public health concerns it was clear from that moment that NJ would have to release her. Christie's lawyers didn't even let the case go to court and let the issue evaporate in Maine.

If you really want to get excited about risk to the public from infectious disease you need to educate yourself about tuberculosis. That disease is endemic and often quite transmissible but we still let people go back into the community despite being infectious while undergoing treatment. There are some restrictions placed on them and if they do not follow them they get locked up with a court order.

I recommend to educate yourself as much as possible before airing mere opinions about matters that require a little more depth of thought and consideration of facts than displayed here. Remember that every single person who doesn't think this stuff through and yet speaks up is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Here is a starting point: quarantines for health workers involved in the care of Ebola patients as currently proposed are not grounded in science and therefore unenforceable and are at best an annoying distraction and at worst are a crippling complication and a terrible waste of resources for the system actually dealing with the problem.

[Cpa Cat]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means.

I don't think your response has anything to do with mine. Perhaps you should reread it.

Things I did not discuss:
1. The meaning of "quarantine" - either the legal definition or the popular use.
2. New Jersey's recent issues.
3. Maine's recent issues.
4. The level of risk involved with the transmission of Ebola.
5. The level of risk involved with Ebola as compared with other diseases.

My post was entirely about who bears the costs of quarantines if they have no PTO benefits. Please reread.

[PeteD01]

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

So somebody else must have slipped it in. My apologies.

[Cpa Cat]

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

So somebody else must have slipped it in. My apologies.

My suggestion is that you educate yourself by watching Dirty Dancing to see if your opinion about quarantines is similar to Patrick Swayze's opinion about dancing. Although Footloose might be more on point. Apology accepted. :)

[Lyssa]

I really don't care how "low risk" asymptomatic or "not really fully but nearly asymptomatic" or "asymptomatic when the flight started but not so much now..." patients are.

When I see two handful of sick persons causing a handful of infections in first world countries despite being placed in the few available appropriate treatment units and with the possibility to plan and prepare in advance I really don't want to know how well a few dozen unexpected cases would be handled. From what I observe I am concluding that one infected family would have a major hospital at the end of its rope.

And what would happen should a really contagious disease arrive at our doorsteps/airports?

Want to know what happens to civil liberties then? During the last (imported) outbreak of smallpox in the 60ties in Germany the doors of a hospital were nailed shut from the outside after a quarantined patient tried to release himself/flee/insert wording of choice here. And this was with despite more than 95% of the population having been vaccinated.

For the record: I got my flue shot. And thousands of people dying of the flue each year are further proof for the point I'm trying to make: We're not so smart or capable after all.

Translation: I don't care what the facts are or what the science says, I let fear rule my decision making process.

Much rather: I don't care if risk under ideal conditions would be miniscule if time and again incidents like "ooops, guessed we missed a spot when disinfecting the car", "sure we have sent the guy coming from Liberia with fever home to see if a few cups of tea and a good night sleep would help..." and "ooops, nurse must have rubbed contaminated glove across her face" are reported. Those are facts too.

Just like in case of nuclear power plants my willingness to accept residual risk is very strongly correlated to the track record of the risk handler in question.

[frugalnacho]

I really don't care how "low risk" asymptomatic or "not really fully but nearly asymptomatic" or "asymptomatic when the flight started but not so much now..." patients are.

When I see two handful of sick persons causing a handful of infections in first world countries despite being placed in the few available appropriate treatment units and with the possibility to plan and prepare in advance I really don't want to know how well a few dozen unexpected cases would be handled. From what I observe I am concluding that one infected family would have a major hospital at the end of its rope.

And what would happen should a really contagious disease arrive at our doorsteps/airports?

Want to know what happens to civil liberties then? During the last (imported) outbreak of smallpox in the 60ties in Germany the doors of a hospital were nailed shut from the outside after a quarantined patient tried to release himself/flee/insert wording of choice here. And this was with despite more than 95% of the population having been vaccinated.

For the record: I got my flue shot. And thousands of people dying of the flue each year are further proof for the point I'm trying to make: We're not so smart or capable after all.

Translation: I don't care what the facts are or what the science says, I let fear rule my decision making process.

Much rather: I don't care if risk under ideal conditions would be miniscule if time and again incidents like "ooops, guessed we missed a spot when disinfecting the car", "sure we have sent the guy coming from Liberia with fever home to see if a few cups of tea and a good night sleep would help..." and "ooops, nurse must have rubbed contaminated glove across her face" are reported. Those are facts too.

Just like in case of nuclear power plants my willingness to accept residual risk is very strongly correlated to the track record of the risk handler in question.

Yea, you make decisions based on fear rather than valid science and facts, I got it.

[Overseas Stache]

The reason that a forced quarantine is not needed is because the very small reduction in risk does not outweigh the costs. As has been pointed out numerous times as scary as Ebola is it is very hard to catch when someone's only symptom is fever. So to quarantine people before they have a fever would not be of much help, and could actually cause more harm by encouraging people to lie about their past travel. If you are in the USA/Europe and you are scared of Ebola enough that you want to take other peoples rights away even when the scientific data says otherwise, I am sorry the politicians have you exactly where they want you.

[TrulyStashin]

PeteD01, I really liked your posts up until the one where you made the point that detaining citizens without just cause is unconstitutional.

Now, I think I love you.  Oh wait, that's not rational.  [grin]

This whole issue should remind us of a core principle in our Constitution -- the government cannot take away your liberty without just cause.  Hysteria doesn't count.  In this case, "just cause" means that there has to be a "clear and imminent danger to public health."  (paraphrasing Maine's legal standard on when a person can be ordered to quarantine). 

The fact that you might be afraid is the price of living in a free country.

[PeteD01]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

Volunteers with Drs Without Borders are compensated - It's up to individual volunteers to decide if that salary is enough to compensate them for their time spent abroad and their quarantine.

Workers who are exposed and quarantined as part of their job at a hospital in the United States will likely be entitled to Worker's Compensation.

People who are secondarily quarantined (significant others, kids, etc) would use their paid sick leave (if they have it) and FMLA to protect their jobs if they don't.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

Ideally, those people who have been exposed to Ebola will avoid interacting with their friends and family members who don't have paid sick leave. But if they choose not to, that's tough luck. The person without benefits absorbs the cost.

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means. It is enforced isolation and, once in quarantine, the quarantined individual does not have a choice regarding obeying or not. Quarantine requires a court order and to obtain that the authorities have to demonstrate objective need for the measure proposed. In the US, this requires a medical expert opinion and that needs to be grounded in current science. Just prior to the release of the nurse in NJ, there was mention in the media that there was no medical need to continue to hold her. The source of that was not disclosed but for anyone who has been involved in involuntary confinement cases on grounds of public health concerns it was clear from that moment that NJ would have to release her. Christie's lawyers didn't even let the case go to court and let the issue evaporate in Maine.

 
 

The bolded above is kind of true and kind of isn't. I use to be in the coast guard and dealt with migrant interdiction. If a person/people we picked up was going to be transported to a US facility and appeared ill, we had the legal authority to both isolate them and quarantine them (aboard their boat, on ours or at a land facility) with only a call to the CDC, as the lead Federal authority,  for their OK. There was no court order involved and we were able to hold them as long as we, non-medical people except an EMT or 2 onboard, felt it was safe to do so.  We have quarantined people for every long periods of time while awaiting expert opinions  and/or testing to be done or for an illness to resolve it self..

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

From the CDC's concerning Legal Authority to quarantine and isolate:  "When alerted about an ill passenger or crew  member by the pilot of a plane or captain of a ship, CDC may detain passengers and crew as  necessary to investigate whether the cause of the illness on board is a communicable disease"

Correct as far as federal authorities and immigration (in the sense of crossing the border into the U.S., citizens are also subject to this when returning to the U.S.) are concerned. Upon admission to the U.S., the legal situation changes and isolation and quarantine pass to the jurisdiction of the states and all laws apply. Of course, interstate travel is also under federal jurisdiction and it is conceivable that the federal authorities might override state authority and impose isolation and quarantine but that only means a change of court venue.

[TrulyStashin]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

Volunteers with Drs Without Borders are compensated - It's up to individual volunteers to decide if that salary is enough to compensate them for their time spent abroad and their quarantine.

Workers who are exposed and quarantined as part of their job at a hospital in the United States will likely be entitled to Worker's Compensation.

People who are secondarily quarantined (significant others, kids, etc) would use their paid sick leave (if they have it) and FMLA to protect their jobs if they don't.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

Ideally, those people who have been exposed to Ebola will avoid interacting with their friends and family members who don't have paid sick leave. But if they choose not to, that's tough luck. The person without benefits absorbs the cost.

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means. It is enforced isolation and, once in quarantine, the quarantined individual does not have a choice regarding obeying or not. Quarantine requires a court order and to obtain that the authorities have to demonstrate objective need for the measure proposed. In the US, this requires a medical expert opinion and that needs to be grounded in current science. Just prior to the release of the nurse in NJ, there was mention in the media that there was no medical need to continue to hold her. The source of that was not disclosed but for anyone who has been involved in involuntary confinement cases on grounds of public health concerns it was clear from that moment that NJ would have to release her. Christie's lawyers didn't even let the case go to court and let the issue evaporate in Maine.

 
 

The bolded above is kind of true and kind of isn't. I use to be in the coast guard and dealt with migrant interdiction. If a person/people we picked up was going to be transported to a US facility and appeared ill, we had the legal authority to both isolate them and quarantine them (aboard their boat, on ours or at a land facility) with only a call to the CDC, as the lead Federal authority,  for their OK. There was no court order involved and we were able to hold them as long as we, non-medical people except an EMT or 2 onboard, felt it was safe to do so.  We have quarantined people for every long periods of time while awaiting expert opinions  and/or testing to be done or for an illness to resolve it self..

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

From the CDC's concerning Legal Authority to quarantine and isolate:  "When alerted about an ill passenger or crew  member by the pilot of a plane or captain of a ship, CDC may detain passengers and crew as  necessary to investigate whether the cause of the illness on board is a communicable disease"

Correct as far as federal authorities and immigration (in the sense of crossing the border into the U.S., citizens are also subject to this when returning to the U.S.) are concerned. Upon admission to the U.S., the legal situation changes and isolation and quarantine pass to the jurisdiction of the states and all laws apply. Of course, interstate travel is also under federal jurisdiction and it is conceivable that the federal authorities might override state authority and impose isolation and quarantine but that only means a change of court venue.

Among our "fundamental rights" as citizens is the right to travel freely (note, this does not apply to noncitizens).  There are some limits -- if you elect to travel by air, you must submit to passenger screening that would normally violate the Fourth Amendment if conducted without a warrant.  However, fundamental rights cannot be infringed unless the government has a compelling need to do so and the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling need. 

Laws that infringe on fundamental rights are presumed to be unconstitutional.  They are subject to "strict scrutiny" review which places the burden of proving that the law is not unconstitutional on the government.    Quarantining a citizen when there is no rational basis to do so is unconstitutional. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny

[Abe]

Regarding quarantine for Ebola - if a patient is suspected to be at high risk of having Ebola, we must inform the hospital's Infectious disease department, which then notifies the state board of health. They are allowed a temporary quarantine of up to 48 hours, during which time the state must obtain a court order allowing for further quarantine for testing. In the case of Ebola, criteria are 1) they must come from a country with epidemic Ebola, 2) they must have a fever, bleeding or other signs of infection with a hemorrhagic virus, 3) they must not have a reasonable, testable other source (i.e. malaria, typhoid, etc). If they are febrile, a PCR can essentially rule out Ebola if it is negative. This is performed by the CDC, and the results take 48-72 hours. We are NOT allowed to keep a person against their will if they do not meet all 3 criteria.

[PeteD01]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

Volunteers with Drs Without Borders are compensated - It's up to individual volunteers to decide if that salary is enough to compensate them for their time spent abroad and their quarantine.

Workers who are exposed and quarantined as part of their job at a hospital in the United States will likely be entitled to Worker's Compensation.

People who are secondarily quarantined (significant others, kids, etc) would use their paid sick leave (if they have it) and FMLA to protect their jobs if they don't.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

Ideally, those people who have been exposed to Ebola will avoid interacting with their friends and family members who don't have paid sick leave. But if they choose not to, that's tough luck. The person without benefits absorbs the cost.

If you're thinking the government should protect people - FMLA is all of the protection they will get. Quarantines are also public protection - in theory, if people were to obey quarantines, there would be very few accidental exposures. 

But you know how people feel about obeying quarantines: "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means. It is enforced isolation and, once in quarantine, the quarantined individual does not have a choice regarding obeying or not. Quarantine requires a court order and to obtain that the authorities have to demonstrate objective need for the measure proposed. In the US, this requires a medical expert opinion and that needs to be grounded in current science. Just prior to the release of the nurse in NJ, there was mention in the media that there was no medical need to continue to hold her. The source of that was not disclosed but for anyone who has been involved in involuntary confinement cases on grounds of public health concerns it was clear from that moment that NJ would have to release her. Christie's lawyers didn't even let the case go to court and let the issue evaporate in Maine.

 
 

The bolded above is kind of true and kind of isn't. I use to be in the coast guard and dealt with migrant interdiction. If a person/people we picked up was going to be transported to a US facility and appeared ill, we had the legal authority to both isolate them and quarantine them (aboard their boat, on ours or at a land facility) with only a call to the CDC, as the lead Federal authority,  for their OK. There was no court order involved and we were able to hold them as long as we, non-medical people except an EMT or 2 onboard, felt it was safe to do so.  We have quarantined people for every long periods of time while awaiting expert opinions  and/or testing to be done or for an illness to resolve it self..

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

From the CDC's concerning Legal Authority to quarantine and isolate:  "When alerted about an ill passenger or crew  member by the pilot of a plane or captain of a ship, CDC may detain passengers and crew as  necessary to investigate whether the cause of the illness on board is a communicable disease"

Correct as far as federal authorities and immigration (in the sense of crossing the border into the U.S., citizens are also subject to this when returning to the U.S.) are concerned. Upon admission to the U.S., the legal situation changes and isolation and quarantine pass to the jurisdiction of the states and all laws apply. Of course, interstate travel is also under federal jurisdiction and it is conceivable that the federal authorities might override state authority and impose isolation and quarantine but that only means a change of court venue.

Among our "fundamental rights" as citizens is the right to travel freely (note, this does not apply to noncitizens).  There are some limits -- if you elect to travel by air, you must submit to passenger screening that would normally violate the Fourth Amendment if conducted without a warrant.  However, fundamental rights cannot be infringed unless the government has a compelling need to do so and the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling need. 

Laws that infringe on fundamental rights are presumed to be unconstitutional.  They are subject to "strict scrutiny" review which places the burden of proving that the law is not unconstitutional on the government.    Quarantining a citizen when there is no rational basis to do so is unconstitutional. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny

Well, we are getting into the finer legal distinctions here. To the best of my knowledge, the federal authorities can put a person in quarantine without having more than a CDC clearance if the person happens to try to enter the U.S. this applies to citizens and non-citizens equally. That does not mean that the decision cannot be challenged after the fact of quarantine is established. In the US, a court order generally has to be obtained to quarantine a person in the strict sense of the term. This does not preclude holding a person in isolation when an imminent danger appears to be present until the court order is obtained. In fact, that is standard procedure in mental health holds and subsequent involuntary commitment and the like.
The procedures are different and in the first case the person has to argue to get out of quarantine and in the second the person has to argue against being put into quarantine, but ultimately a judge will have to decide on the matter and, for the affected individual, there is little difference in the actual experience. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how things appear to a non-lawyer looking in from the outside. I would be happy to hear more about the legal background.

[TrulyStashin]

If there was a factual basis for quarantining someone, then the government can show compelling need and meet the legal test.  Protecting public health is a compelling need.   A recent counter example: we also have a fundamental right to marry and the government does not have a compelling need to limit that to opposite-sex couples (so the 4th Circuit ruled, anyway).

Also, the question of when to quarantine would be ironed out by now ("settled law") thanks to prior challenges and court decisions which have refined whatever laws might have been on the books in the past.  As a result, federal law likely has factors (e.g. "imminent danger") that are considered (by the CDC and, later if necessary, by judges) in determining when someone's condition merits quarantine.  So, if someone's condition did not meet the necessary factors for quarantine, then they could not be quarantined.  If their conditions do meet the factors, then they can be quarantined.  This is almost certainly why Pres. Obama didn't order a broader quarantine -- he knew it would run afoul of statutory law and Constitutional law. 

If the government quarantined someone even though that person did not meet the legal test set forth in the law, then the government (either federal or state) acted unconstitutionally.  Kaci Hickcox is an example of this.  Maine has a legal standard for when she can be quarantined and the facts, in her case, did not support the quarantine so the judge ruled against the government. 

All those who are advocating quarantine when it is not supported by the facts need to realize that what they're really advocating for is a more powerful government that is no longer bound by this Constitutional guarantee.   You are chipping away at the foundation of our liberty.  Stop it.

[TrulyStashin]

Spartana, agreed with your post.   There are certain areas -- the high seas and airports -- where our scope of rights are diminished because we've elected to go there and could elect not to be there.

My post is primarily applicable to a citizen on U.S. soil who is not a risk to public health.

[TrulyStashin]

Spartana, isn't the legal principle that supports the detentions you're referencing something like this.... there are special security risks and concerns inherent to border crossings, the high seas, and air travel that justify the universal search and detention of anyone within those areas?

Thinking back to Con Law class, I think that's the principle and the facts would have to support a finding that all are areas of high security concern/ risk.

That's why I don't think it would apply to a universal quarantine of every person in contact with Ebola, regardless of risk level.  There are no facts to justify ongoing, inherent risk for people who present no- or low-risk to public health.

[PeteD01]

“I’m a believer in an abundance of caution but I’m not a believer of an abundance of idiocy.” Ashish Jha, MD


The current state of "Ebolanoia":

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/molecules-to-medicine/2014/11/11/ebola-quarantines-can-we-stop-the-charade-now/

[PeteD01]

And another article from the same source:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/molecules-to-medicine/2014/10/28/quarantines-chaos-andconfusion/

[kite]

That's a valid question though.  Who absorbs all these costs?  I don't know how that would get handled.

But sometimes there is no one to pay. Same with getting sick with the flu or cancer. A person who is in a job that does not offer PTO can guard against Ebola quarantines by avoiding people who have been exposed to Ebola.

I don't think you even know what the term "quarantine" means.

I don't think your response has anything to do with mine. Perhaps you should reread it.

Things I did not discuss:
1. The meaning of "quarantine" - either the legal definition or the popular use.
2. New Jersey's recent issues.
3. Maine's recent issues.
4. The level of risk involved with the transmission of Ebola.
5. The level of risk involved with Ebola as compared with other diseases.

My post was entirely about who bears the costs of quarantines if they have no PTO benefits. Please reread.

Who bears the cost........
No one here has mentioned the 80 people who were under quarantine because of their exposure to Thomas Duncan.  This included healthcare workers and his family.   I'm sure the union members at the hospital were able to continue getting paid. But his family got nothing.   IIRC, an anonymous donor provided them with a place to live in a gated community after they were finally allowed out of their apartment.  What I find most distressing about the hoopla ove the nurse and her bike rides in Maine is that all the while, nobody was speaking up to say that the fiance and children of Thomas Duncan didn't need to be quarantined.   They never had a fever.   Nobody dared say that quarantine in Mali is unnecessary.   Nope, we're up in arms about the freedom of one white American lady.