<p><<<
A source told Hearst Connecticut Media that the patient who has been placed in isolation and put under evaluation for Ebola is an American Yale University student who was doing research in Liberia and returned to New Haven on Monday.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>oh sad…and another plane-full of people likely exposed.</p>
<p>By the way, I have nothing but respect (and prayers if it is Ebola) for the young grad students who offered to self-quarantine (for 21 days). Yale’s response, however, is pathetic. How would they know if the grad students (or anyone else that traveled to one of these West African countries) were exposed to Ebola? You have to take precautions and not try to downplay the threat of a deadly infectious disease. </p>
<p>@Gator88NE exactly! This is not rocket science, so I find it baffling that the supposedly “smart people in charge” can’t wrap their heads around quarantining EVERYONE who comes in from an ebola-affected area for 21 days. Too much? Then restrict travel from those areas to only US citizens and quarantine them for 21 days upon arrival. </p>
<p>“Great Job Yale!” - ??? Of course, our precious gover----ent is off the hook as usual, they have absolutely nothing to do with it and with the fact that the law dealing with this type of deseases was singlehandedly terminated, gone with the wind due to a leperson will…Great job government, protecting us! Realy appreciate the effort… </p>
<p>There seems to be some resistance to containing/quarantining those who have been exposed or are likely to have been exposed. Are they afraid that too many of a certain economic or ethnic group would be affected? Are they afraid that they’ll look insensitive to a certain group? Is this all because of political correctness? Don’t they realize what this nation could be facing? If so, then I suspect that we won’t see logic applied until one of their own is affected.</p>
<p>I don’t think we can predict right now what is “scare-mongering”. At this point, logic would dictate, air on the side of caution, because the cost could be catastrophic. </p>
<p>When you look at the modeling numbers of how a pandemic spreads, how can anyone logically not support taking a very cautious approach? </p>
<p>I think everybody involved in this is trying to do their best to protect people without going overboard. I am sure that cost is being considered at all levels of decisionmaking, and that that’s always a problem.</p>
<p>If the student is infected with Ebola (please let that not be the case), then you have to question their (university’s school of public health ) judgement in telling the students that self-quarantining would not be required (even though the students themselves proposed it). </p>
<p>Either way, it’s way too early to do much speculation. </p>
<p><<<
I think everybody involved in this is trying to do their best to protect people without going overboard. I am sure that cost is being considered at all levels of decisionmaking, and that that’s always a problem.
<<<<</p>
<p>While financial cost is always going to be in the background, I believe that the main concern is: How do we nip this in the bud before it kills hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc. </p>
<p>Who wants a situation where we look back and think, “gosh, if we had only done XX, we would have stopped this dead in its tracks…but now we have 20,000 body bags.”</p>
<p>I think we ought to shut down MetroNorth and not let anyone leave New Haven. After all, we need to nip this in the bud. And we shouldn’t let anyone from Spain, or Dallas, or Atlanta travel either. </p>
<p>Sheesh. Sorry, I have a kid at Yale, but I’m more concerned she hasn’t had her flu shot yet. </p>
<p>Our son attends the boarding school just up the road from Yale. The MD at the Choate health center sent an e-mail alert to all parents this morning notifying us of this situation:</p>