Ebola – Err on the Side of Caution

It’s understandable that people returning from West Africa who have provided care for Ebola victims want to be appreciated for their help and be permitted to resume their American lives without delay.

But that’s what they want.

But maybe the American public has a right to insist that they be Ebola-free – for sure. 

Being without symptoms for twenty-one days after possible exposure to those infected is supposed to insure that one is not infected himself.  That’s the reason why three weeks is the period proposed for such people to be isolated – quarantined - from the general population.

 

[As an aside, no one has suggested that the incubation period might be longer than twenty-one days so it’s probably reasonable to think that beyond that period is safe territory.  But it’s also fair to ask are we really sure?]

Yet some returning healthcare workers have protested.  In particular, Kaci Hickox has loudly objected to her confinement in New Jersey when she arrived in the U.S., then in Maine where she was ordered to stay home.  In fact, she persuaded a local judge to greatly reduce her movement restrictions during the quarantine period.

The nurse’s position is that she is not sick and so any restrictions are unnecessary and, therefore, constitute an unwarranted limitation on her freedom.

And she might be right.  But maybe not.  Public health official assumptions about the potential, and method, of contracting the disease have proven to be suspect.  Assertions that are based on probability, rather than certainty, are not reassuring when dealing with such a deadly and scary illness.  There may be a lot about contracting Ebola that we do not yet know.  So as sympathetic as one might be to returning workers from infected areas of Africa, common sense demands that a quarantine be fully enforced.  Indeed, the seriousness of Ebola makes obvious the appeal of a policy that errs on the side of caution.

Viewed from this perspective, nurse Hickox is being childish and selfish.  The inconvenience of having one’s freedom of movement and association limited for three weeks hardly outweighs the potential risk one may pose to the broader community.