Its being downplayed ... but the possibility exists that "Ebola Mary's" are out there. These would be people who actively carry ebola, but show no symptoms of the disease. Just like "Typhoid Mary" in New York, such folks could cause a bunch of problems. They probably DO exist. We have NO IDEA how to spot them. And any one of them can get on an airplane and go anywhere in the world. They will never be detected because they have no signs of fever.

Pete

New York and New Jersey have announced their own mandatory quarantines, using their own (State) authority.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/10/24/n...d-ebola-threat/

We can add Illinois to that last, too.

Here is a short firsthand account from one of the first people put under mandatory quarantine, a nurse returning to NJ from Sierra Leone.

By the way, this is the same unnamed person that Gov Christie had announced that returned from West Africa with a fever. The article explains how the infrared temperture "gun" can easily be fooled into displaying a higher temperature.

While I agree with a quarantine, the medical personnel returning to the US (NY, NJ, IL) should be treated as victims rather than as perps. Since most of these peeps will probably not test positive for Ebola, supervised isolation in a non-medical facility (I still like my resort/upscale hotel idea) would be better. If/when they do test positive they can be moved, but since most shouldn't, there's no need to waste a hospital bed when a hotel room would be more comfortable.

Hopefully the treatment of returning doctors and nurses will improve.

All people should be less worried about their feelings being hurt than about preventing contagion. While the people interacting with them should absolutely be professional and polite, I think that the individuals in question should not take it personally and give their full cooperation. If they have a complaint, give the feedback to the people or their supervisors, not to the press.

If one has traveled abroad to help treat--and save--victims of Ebola, one should be just as cognizant of the need to NOT infect others. If one has a problem with a 21 day quarantine, one should not put oneself in a position where one might take 21 days to exhibit contagion of Ebola: walk the walk, talk the talk, or take a hike: I don't need you to infect me, because you want to "save the world."

I've read arguments against quarantine for those who have come in contact with the infected and not found them persuasive. Is there an argument for quarantine besides potentially dissuading medical personnel from volunteering in Africa?

Quarantine everyone who works in that hospital in Texas! Also, isn't there a doctor in NY being treated for ebola? We've gotta quarantine that hospital, too. Don't infect me just because doctors "want to save the world." If we're going to quarantine, we've got to do it right -- don't quarantine just people who've been to Africa. We've gotta quarantine anyone with any possibility of coming into contact with this dreadful disease. And don't forget the whole of CDC. In fact, they come into contact with diseases so often, I don't understand why we don't keep them under quarantine all the time.

The nurse in NJ is being or has been released today.
nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/New Jersey releases quarantined nurse.

I find the constitutional arguments against quite persuasive.

One could, for example, *test* them. I know it costs money, but we generally require the government to go to great lengths, and expense, before imprisoning people. The only reason for the quarantine is to avoid paying for tests, and to let an-abundance-of-ignorance masquerade as an-abundance-of-caution.

Requiring blood tests every 24-48 hours poses no insurmountable constitutional hurdles and would likely be welcomed by those being tested - Mr. Duncan might be alive today with a testing requirement, but not a quarantine requirement.

It's generally a good idea to require society to try hard before violating civil rights this badly, yet New York and Illinois seem to have put no thought into this at all. Who pays for damages? Is the state prepared to provide as much support to someone imprisoned in their home as they do to a serial killer in the penitentiary?

PS. Does the number 21 actually have any scientific standing?