Quarantine???

naturist wrote:
The only reason that Ebola is getting as much press as it is, is because it is NEW. We have lived for centuries with diseases as dangerous or more dangerous than Ebola without anything like as much public hand-wringing. For example, rabies, which is only slightly less contagious, but far more deadly (20% to 50% survival rate for Ebola, but something like 0.000001% for rabies).

The difference between rabies and Ebola is that to get rabies an animal infected with rabies has to bite you to transmit it. Most people don't just walk among animals on a regular basis. However, most people are surrounded by people all day long. Even so, if you get rabies and it is treated, you survive. There are known cures for someone who is bitten by a rabid animal. There are currently no known cures for Ebola.

Keep in mind this gentleman went to the hospital while he was contagious and he was sent home. It wasn't until he was picked up by an ambulance two days later that he was diagnosed with Ebola at the hospital. He was contagious for 2 days in public. He vomited before being brought into ambulance. Anyone in that apartment complex could have been exposed to his vomit.

Local police have to watch the home to make sure the current occupants that are quarantined stay there because they did not want to voluntarily. It concerns me that people that could be potentially infected with a deadly disease, won't voluntarily quarantine themselves to protect others.

I think the OPs question is valid. When this current outbreak began, the news reported how officials said it wouldn't come to the US. Now it is here, so why should we believe these same officials who are now saying it won't leave that small Texas town?

I don't think people are over-reacting. Maybe too many of them watched Outbreak and are believing that could happen, but I think Ebola is definitely a bigger concern than Rabies.

-Michael