“An abundance of caution” has led to the self-monitoring of several in New York City. As of October 31, that number was 117, but reports are now surfacing of 357 individuals under voluntary observation. Although, as a percentage of the U.S. population goes, even more than 300 potentially infected is insignificant, it is still a 357% increase over last year when there were 0 ever reported in North America, ever.
Read the lips of Americans, “travel restrictions.” Though reports do not specify precisely who is being “monitored” or why, it would appear at least some are a result of Dr. Craig Spencer’s recent diagnosis. Others, are apparently those who have traveled to the U.S. from Liberia and other Ebola ravaged nations. Is it really worth the risk? A 21 day quarantine that would protect U.S. citizens seems a rather minor inconvenience for the privilege of traveling to or returning to this country.
Read More: Ebola Grips THIS Unlikely U.S. State
While there is no need to panic, there is plenty of reason to be cautious. Ebola is as easy to contract as the flu with a much higher mortality rate and longer lasting, severe long-term effects. Perhaps day 1 of the new Republican Congress needs to include a very short, very specific limitation on travel to and from the heart of Ebola land.
Read More: Ebola Fears Grip Yet Another U.S. State
Whatever else may transpire, NYC is not the only city in which monitoring for symptoms is taking place. Philly has 30 under voluntary self-monitoring, which is not quarantine. These “monitor-ees” in both cities are free to move about. Other cities, like Atlanta, are actively treating people for Ebola. With all these heavily populated cities expressing at least some concern about individuals who are at risk for developing the disease, has there really been an “abundance of caution?” It would seem abundant caution would include specific quarantine location, duration, and travel restriction, not just self-monitoring for symptoms.
H/T: Conservative Tribune