She walks. Federal court in line with feds on not having travel ban from the region, too. Good for her. Bad for us. This is all mental masturbation with 4 cases. State court would have used the "some risk" to enforce probably. There's no getting around politics. I am surprised by that decision, but also not. It is decisions like this that let the genie out of the bottle. We've been lucky, thus far.
We may be lucky in perpetuity. In the meantime I buy VIX under $15.00 and i sell DRI and UAL. Just being prudent. To each their own.
You certainly won't post any links.
To each his own.
You're accusing people of mental masturbation while going into full-blown fear panic and death mode when there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support your position. Very hypocritical of you.
"On Thursday, after Hickox refused to stay home and abide by what Maine called a voluntary quarantine, the state went to court to try to impose restrictions on her until the 21-day incubation period for Ebola ends on Nov. 10. State health officials were willing to let her go out on a jog or a bike ride, but wanted to bar her from crowded public places and require her to stay at least 3 feet from others."
They wanted her to stay 3-feet from others and to avoid crowded places, just like the CDC recommends.
Which is what the court just ordered.
What are you arguing here?
Use your words, Darrin.
You missed this part, chief: "after Hickox refused to stay home and abide by what Maine called a voluntary quarantine"
I.e., she wouldn't comply with their request to stay in her home, so they're giving her a tether as long as she's not going to go engage in Halloween shenanigans.
https://news.yahoo.com/showdown-immi...060038440.html
Very first sentence:
Insisting she is perfectly healthy, nurse Kaci Hickox again defied the state's Ebola quarantine Thursday by taking a bike ride with her boyfriend, and Maine health authorities struggled to reach a compromise that would limit her contact with others.
judge knocked down the lockdown, she's free, just has to self-monitor and check in every day until 21st day.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/health...ola/index.html
Judge struck down the quarntine.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ow-quarantine/
Maine health officials said Tuesday that they are prepared to go to court to force nurse Kaci Hickox to comply with the state's "voluntary" 21-day quarantine period for health care workers who have treated Ebola patients, as the nurse vows to defy the state.
But Mayhew said her department and the attorney general's office were prepared to take legal steps to enforce a quarantine if someone declines to cooperate.
"We do not want to have to legally enforce in-home quarantine," she said. "We're confident that selfless health workers who were brave enough to care for Ebola patients in a foreign country will be willing to take reasonable steps to protect residents of their own country. However we are willing to pursue legal authority if necessary to ensure risk is minimized for Mainers."
Typical, most of the people on the state's side of the argument don't even know what their argument is.
But that wasn't good enough for this attention .
Gov. Paul LePage said state attorneys and Hickox's lawyers had discussed a scaled-down quarantine that would have allowed her to go for walks, runs and bicycle rides while preventing her from venturing into populated public places or coming within 3 feet of others.
When all else fails, increase font size.
I love how you assholes expect people who are treated unjustly just to shut their mouths and take it.
Conservatives love black people, women and gays unless they're talking.
Go yourself, Darrin, and same to everyone else like you.
He struck down any restriction. She can go wherever she wants. IMNO, the recommendations of CDC weren't unreasonable.
So after allowing her to go on a bike ride the state freaked out when she went on a bike ride?
Seriously Darrin, what the are you trying to say?
When all else fails, increase font size.
LMAO. Again, I have provided it, I am not saying you are, but if you are too lazy or stupid to go back and find it, that's on you. It was a NY Times article. But, I only included a little bit because if I would have included a lot I would have just gotten complaints that it was too much to read. But, even the little I did include, you didn't read, and still complained, and now you're whining that I didn't reproduce it. The hilarity. Regarding "30 minutes" going by...I know in your world this place has linear time where no one is doing anything else tangent to posting here, and I am your personal errand boy that has nothing else to do but fetch you articles I've already fetched, but that's not reality, you know. Suffice it to say it took me less than 30 seconds to find a brand new article on the topic of asymptomatic people possibly being capable of transmitting the disease. You haven't been able to find one in 30 minutes, even though one was posted in this thread, and I'm supposed to feel bad about that.
I could post link after link from scientists. What good would it do.
Will not post more until you acknowledge the first. I will not throw good labor after bad.
If my punishment is your ignorance, then I will just have to suffer that.
I acknowledge you haven't posted any links at all.
Once you post the links, I will acknowledge your posting the links.
That court order has nothing to do with a pandemic. The pandemic is the spinning fan. If anything, the court order is a payment to the electric company to make sure the juice isn't cut off.
I don't have to know what their reason is to agree it is the right thing to do from an epidemiological point of view. I am sure if you get 100 epidemiologists in a room, you would not have 100 percent agree she should be allowed to work at a salad bar. This puts no restrictions on healthcare workers coming from Ebola treatment centers in west Africa. That's a bad precedent, and only found tolerable because we are still so isolated from the events in Africa. If things change, the "some risk" terminology could easily be interpreted differently by the court, depending upon political winds or their own conscience.
The New York times link just sent me to a page to subscribe. Is there a way to repost that article or do we have to subscribe to read it? Was it an actual article, or just an op-ed like you posted before?
I can concede a point. On her court victory, I was wrong. But, in retrospect, not that surprised.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote