Speak Outs
Speak Out
Who should decide a quarantine policy?

Nov 5, 2014

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

As an increasing number of U.S. aid and medical workers return from Ebola-stricken West Africa, questions have arisen on whether they need to be quarantined. Depending on the state, returning workers may face anything from a 21-day isolation period in a hospital to a recommended, but not enforced, at-home quarantine. This may seem like a straightforward medical question, but states and the federal government disagree.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the national public health institute, recommends that only people who have come into direct contact with Ebola patients without protective gear submit to an at-home 21-day isolation period.

Ebola is spread when an infected person’s bodily fluid comes into contact with another person’s skin, which would rarely happen outside a medical setting. The disease is not easily transmitted. The 21-day period is based on the fact that this is the longest period of time a person with the disease can go without developing symptoms.

The federal government, following the advice of the CDC, recommends that returning health care workers quarantine themselves at home for 21 days, and avoid public places and travel on public transportation and other crowded areas. The governments of the West African nations that are experiencing the Ebola outbreak monitor individuals’ temperature as they board planes and have them fill out a questionnaire to determine if they have come into contact with the disease.

U.S. military personnel who have been sent to the infected areas for support are mandated to undergo a 21-day quarantine. According to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, this is due more to the uncertainty of exposure the personnel may have had, in addition to the fact that the service members are volunteers. Hagel said, “This is also a policy that was discussed in great detail by the communities, by the families of our military men and women, and they very much wanted a safety valve on this.”

After three isolated cases in Texas and New York, a lot of people around the country have heightened fears about the disease, much of which the CDC says is unfounded.

The governments of Illinois, New Jersey and New York, fearing a potential outbreak in their states, require quarantines for all people returning from working with Ebola patients in West Africa, regardless of whether they show symptoms. Meanwhile, Maryland will monitor people who return from Ebola-affected countries for 21 days, taking their temperatures and looking for other symptoms. Illinois has established a 21-day at-home quarantine for anyone who may have come into contact with the disease, including health workers.

These mandatory quarantines have been criticized by the CDC, the federal government, and many in the medical community as unnecessary and potentially damaging to the international effort to combat the disease. Organizations like Doctors Without Borders, a nongovernmental international aid organization, argue that they could deter doctors from volunteering abroad because of the scrutiny they would experience when they return.

“I’m concerned of the disincentive for the health care workers” to travel to West Africa, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“This is an overly extreme and non-evidence-based policy,” said Dr. Anthony Harris, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “There’s no reason to have policies with that level of detail because there’s no risk.”

Some governors don’t see it as going overboard when it comes to protecting their states. Citing the case in Texas, where a Liberian man arrived in Dallas with the disease and infected two nurses who cared for him, Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Pat Quinn of Illinois say hospitals are not prepared to deal with Ebola.

“This protective measure is too important to be voluntary,” Quinn said.

Criticized for quarantining a nurse who returned from West Africa and registered a low-grade fever after arriving at the Newark, N.J., airport, Christie argues that New Jersey’s quarantine is necessary to protect his state. The nurse later tested negative for the disease and was allowed to return to her home in Maine.

“The reason she was put in the hospital in the first place was because she was running a high fever and was symptomatic,” Christie said. “If you live in New Jersey, you’re quarantined in your home. That’s always been the policy. If you live outside the state, and you’re symptomatic, we’re not letting you go onto public transportation. It makes no common sense. The minute she was no longer symptomatic, she was released.”

This patchwork of health policies is the result of President James Madison’s ideas on federalism and the Tenth Amendment, which give a considerable amount of power to the state to regulate the well-being of their citizens.

Federalism, backed by an 1824 Supreme Court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, gives states significant power when dealing with issues that happen only within state boundaries.

The Public Health Service Act allows the federal government to override states on public health issues. The act empowers the U.S. secretary of health and human services, an executive branch position, to take measures to prevent a disease from coming into the country and crossing state borders.

What do you think?

Should states or the federal government decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries? Do the states with strict quarantine policies go over the line, or are they necessary to prevent an outbreak? Should the medical community or the government have a greater say in a policy? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
12/4/2015
Watertown MA
Taylor
John Rimas/ Watertown high school
I think individual states should decide what is appropriate for handling quarantine situations, whatever they feel is safe should be what they go by. If they think 2 months of quarantine will declare them safe so be it. I don't think it's right for the government to have to be in charge of this matter when states are more than capable of handling it themselves. Some states this may be a bigger issue than in others therefore it wouldn't be fair to the states that it's rare to happen to have to be quarantined for an insane amount of days or weeks.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg/ PA
Demari
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg jr high
I believe that the federal government should decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola affected countries along with help from the C.D.C.. States with strict quarantine policies do not go over the line but are only taking extreme precautions as to prevent a disease outbreak which could lead to epidemics or even pandemics. The medical community should have a greater say in policy because they are the professionals that have studied and done their research so the know what's best.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Rebecca
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that states should be able to issue their own quarantine policies. If any nurse or doctor comes back from treating infected patients or have been in a infected area should be quarantined. New Jersey had every right to quarantine that nurse. The staes were given power to protect their citizens if that means having home quarantines so be it. The governers job is to address community issues. Ebola could have become a national issue but quarantines helped keep us safe. Chris Christie is completely justifyed in his actions.

2/25/2015
Murrieta, CA
Cash
Jabro/Creekside
Yes they should, three people in Texas were infected from the Ebola virus and thats something that should've never happened and when that did happen everyone had a panic attack cause they didnt know what it actually was they just knew what it could do. If the CDC had everything under controll none of this wouldve never happened, they need to just take control and do what ever they need to do so something like this will never happen.

2/11/2015
murrieta CA
Steven Garcia
Jabro/Creekside
Because the federal government has failed to mandate the seclusion of returning visitors from West Africa, i think that their should be a evenly balanced amount of authority given to both the CDC and individual states when it comes to quarantining. I think it would be best if the CDC overlooked each individual states regulations with these visitors and provisioned them in order to correct any loose ends each state may have.

1/19/2015
Irving Tx
Alejandro
Ms. Bradley Nimitz High School
The idea of a federal government is one where the national and state governments have equal sovereignty in running the nation. Each has their own sphere of influence with the states acting on local matters while the national government oversees international issues and sometimes steps in to regulate the states when the states are unable to handle a situation. In the case of quarantining Ebola victims it makes sense that the states should take any measures that they see fit in order to prevent the disease from spreading and becoming a pandemic . If it became apparent that state policy and or procedures were unable to sufficiently take care of the infected, than it would be the duty of the federal government to step in and ensure that an outbreak is prevented. Whether either should follow the warnings of the medical community, it would seem that the best solution would to always be over prepared rather than under, which in this case would warrant the extended quarantine that is being carried out .

1/15/2015
Irving/Tx
Tyler
Bradley/Nimitz
In an effort to try and keep other's safe I feel the federal government should pass an official quarantine of all people returning from the Ebola-affected countries. It's the governments job to keep us safe, they do it every day on the battle field and in police uniforms. Why should that stop with something that cannot be seen except through the symptoms that may or may not develop within twenty-one days. If I was one of the health care workers returning from West Africa I would want to be quarantined. If I'm quarantined the officials can catch my symptoms and save my life before it gets out of control. Like wise if I knew that someone around me had recently been to west Africa (or had been around someone who had Ebola) I would be concerned. Living near a big city, I feel the more protection the better. If the lives of my family and my friends are at stake then why should we not do everything in our power to keep ourselves safe?

1/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Rachel
Bradley/Nimitz
Throughout the history of the United States, there have been times where the government has had to overstep its bounds as set by the constitution in order to protect the population of the nation as a whole. Some examples are the executive actions taken by Lincoln to protect the capital in the Civil war, the Alien and Sedition acts, and detainment of protestors during wartime.The thing is, when it comes to public safety, the government tends to try to uphold its responsibility to the public as a whole to keep the US safe, and it has to step on the toes of a few citizens to do this sometimes. The case of Ebola quarantining is a modern example of sacrificing the good of the few for the good of the many, and perfectly justified.

1/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Jorge
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes the CDC need to get their act together. Three people in the state of Texas were infected with the Ebola virus causing panic around near by cities. This caused hospitals to start asking if you've been to Africa recently, and questions to keep everyone safe, but people should have been quarantine before they were allowed into the public. This could have been a epidemic if we weren't lucky. We as a nation should have done something.

1/13/2015
Irving/TX
Victor
Bradley/Nimitz
I think the federal government should be in charge of deciding how to handle health care workers from Ebola-affected countries. The states will most likely differ on how they would handle the issue. If the federal government is in charge they will all have the same rules. I think that the states with strict quarantine policies did not go over the line. They are trying to prevent an outbreak and should be able to do everything that ensures the public's well-being. I think that since the medical community is better informed on the issue they should be the ones to have a greater say in a policy.

1/13/2015
Irving/Tx
Jocelyn
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
The states should be the ones who handle it themselves unless there is type of process that would keep the nation itself in a safer condition. Then again, if there were a way to keep the nation up to date in the best medically approved system to handle the disease, it would benefit the nation’s control to be able to keep a good hold on the situation. Overall the federal government should create a general principle for everyone to follow and the states themselves to use that principle as a blueprint on how to treat the ebola situation their own way. The states can make their own rules on handling ebola epidemic with the guidance of medical experts as long as they keep the overall federal principles in mind for their public’s safety. Citizen’s tend to over exaggerate certain state’s strict quarantine policies. The policies are implemented for the public’s safety to prevent further outbreak of ebola, it’s not as if they’re putting out these rules just to lock people up in quarantine for twenty-one days for the fun of it . Since the medical community have more of an understanding of the ebola virus than the government does, it’s best that they have a greater say in the policy. They know more on how to treat the ebola virus and in methods to prevent from getting infected by the virus. In the end the states should have the final say in how to treat the health care workers who might possibly carry the ebola virus and the medical community should have more say in it.

1/12/2015
Irving/Tx
Katherine
Bradley/Nimitz
With advice from the medical community, I believe that the states should be able to decide whether to implement quarantine policies on the basis of the tenth amendment. However, given that Ebola has the potential to become a crisis the federal government should put in place general guidelines that require states to take some action, while allowing state governments to decide the extent of the action required. A quarantine policy may seem rash, but without further knowledge of the disease, the government may have no other choice when it comes down to public safety or a violation of rights.

12/17/2014
Murrieta/ CA
Miguel C.
Jabro/ Creekside High School
In my opinion if they show the symptoms of Ebola and its a very serious situation, the doctor or med man on the scene should decide. Because its better safe than sorry cause then a major outbreak starts. 21 days to see if they show more symptoms or if they're fine is not a big deal for someone who may or may not have a very serious disease. No one else other than the doctor should have authority to send someone into quarantine.

12/15/2014
Irving/Tx
Luke
Bradley/Nimitz
States should handle most health care problems. The federal government should should step in when states go over the line with their policies, such as overly-strict quarantine policies. The government should have the final say in policy, but if the medical community does not have a large influence, then they will make the wrong decision.

12/13/2014
Irving, TX
Mark
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the federal government should be supreme in cases surrounding medical procedures. States are much too divided and will present different views based on what they think is best. I do not believe that any quarantine procedure is too over the top, as they are implemented to protect people, however I believe that the medical community, who are the real experts, should decide what the quarantine standards are. I would also like to point out that every person returning from Africa should be tested as diseases can be passed through insects such as mosquitos even if they are not in contact with sick patients.

12/9/2014
Irving/Texas
Kierria S.
Bradley/Nimitz
Ebola has become one of the most talked about diseases to hit America in 2014. I say why not have incoming medical assistants quarantined; this won’t prevent Ebola but it will decrease the chance of being infected by it with less causes. If we were to let medical workers in without them being check then many of the people in the area can get ill. It is rather better for medical assistants to work on patients at longer rates because workers are quarantined, than to have many workers not be check and let in and out the country which can spread the disease more easily. When it comes to new medical findings that involve the disease, medical doctors should be the ones to declare what to do, but it is the government job to ensure that the safety and wellness of citizens is taken care of, and if they believe that there is a plan to protect human beings without there being as much mass hysteria as there already is, then it should be called into action.

12/8/2014
Irving,TX
Martin
Ms.Bradley/ Nimitz High School
The Federal State should be the one to decide how to handle Ebola patients, so there wouldn't be any problems throughout the other states. The states with stricter quarantine policies are not going over the line. They are ensuring that Ebola doesn't become an epidemic. The medical community should have a greater say than the government because they know more about the topic.

12/8/2014
Irving, Texas
Azaria
Bradley/Nimitz
The federal government should decide on how to handle and deal with the returning health care workers that have been to the areas in Africa with Ebola. Since it is not just happening in one state but many, the federal government should set regulation and put in effect a certain process for the whole country to follow to insure that not one state is going overboard while another is undermining the whole situation. Although the federal government should set the regulations, the medical community should have say on what the regulations and policies will be, after all they are more informed about the situation and have seen first hand what the virus does.

12/2/2014
Irving/TX
Erik
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz High School
Worker returning from Ebola infected west African nations should at least allow medical professionals examine them for any symptoms before letting them return to their normal every day life. The safety of the nation is a risk by not doing mandatory examinations to people how have come in contact to infected Ebola patients. The 21 days of monitoring however should not be intrusive to the privacy of the one being monitored.

12/2/2014
Murrieta/California
Curtis
Mr.Jabro/Creekside HIgh School
Federal Government should enforce quarantine policies in order to prevent catastrophic events that could possibly affect the entire nation in more ways than one. I don't believe there's such a thing as being overly prepared when it comes to combating infectious disease with a high level of priority.People need to be aware of the risks and take the situation seriously. I think the medical community should have priority when it comes to the say of their community, not the government. I also believe that the government should entrust funding to the medical community that way the public has the tools and force to handle infectious disease at a high risk level that could effect national security.

12/1/2014
Irving/TX
Gabriel M
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the federal government should have a minimum standard for the quarantine of people who come back from ebola stricken countries. I also believe that states have the right to implement more policies that they believe are necessary for the public good. States can go over the line when deciding quarantine policies and should not impose living conditions upon others that are sub par . When deciding the quarantine policies the federal government and the states should refer to health care professionals in order to ensure that the best procedures take place. In policy making regarding quarantine rules both the government and the medical community should work together.

11/30/2014
Irving/Texas
Flor
Bradley/Nimitz
The states and federal government should decide how to handle the situation if health care workers returned from Ebola-affected countries. It’s necessary to take precautions and certain measures to prevent outbreak of the disease, but it’s also not okay to go overboard and require everybody possible with contact to be quarantined. If they have been in contact, then most definitely, but if it’s a guessing game and we aren’t really sure, then it’s up to the states whether they “rather be safe than sorry”. But, they shouldn’t be going overboard with it either, and sending every single person coming back from Ebola-affected countries straight home to be quarantined. Both the medical community and the government should have a say in the policy, since they can talk this out and give their standpoints from their point of views. They can both then decide what is the safest approach to the situation, and create policies that can be placed for all the states to go by.

11/27/2014
Murrieta
Kailee
Jabro/Creekside
I think each state should be able to determine how they enforce their health quarantines. I think a strict quarantine is needed to make sure we do not bring the disease into our country. The government should have a greater say in policy because they are trying to protect the country and keep the people uninfected.

11/21/2014
Sidney/MT
Logan
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
I think that this is a matter that should be controlled by the federal government. I am usually for as little federal government intervention as possible, but the Ebola crisis is something that may turn out to be catastrophic. People returning from Ebola-affected countries should have to serve a mandatory 21 day quarantine. I don't think states with strict quarantine policies go over the line. Ebola is still an unknown disease and precautions should be taken. However, the medical community should have some say in the making of the policy. But like Kory said, the government should have a greater say in these policies, since they are responsible for making and enforcing laws.

11/21/2014
Irving,TX
Noemi
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
Ebola is no longer an isolated issue because it traveled across the globe and was transmitted into the United States. Of course, this caused nationwide panic and policies were put in place in order to protect the citizens. However, the question of who should decide a quarantine policy rose. The federal quarantine policy requires only those who have come in direct contact with Ebola patients without protective gear are to be isolated for 21 days. However state policies, as a result from cases in Texas and New York, have made it mandatory for everyone, regardless of direct or indirect contact with Ebola patients, to be quarantined. While Ebola is hard to transmit, the safety concerns for the citizens should be a top priority. Therefor, states should come up with policies because of stricter guidelines that can potentially prevent an outbreak and the evident concern for the public welfare. While the medical community has credibility, Ebola is a relatively unknown virus. Due to its unknown nature, the government should have more say in policy since the medical community is still unsure of the nature of the virus.

11/20/2014
Irving/TX
Colton
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The Ebola virus is extremely contagious and could eventually become a pandemic. There is still no specific cure for the virus. States are not going over the line with a quarantine policy because they are trying to protect the well being of the country. The federal government should have a specific quarantine time and if designated, a citizen must follow. However if a state wants to create an even more strict policy, that right should also be in effect. If a person who has been possibly exposed to the virus is given a quarantine and does not follow through, severe charges should take place. The medical community and the government should be on the same page about a potential outbreak so actions can be taken to try and prevent another pandemic.

11/20/2014
Irving/TX
Hillary
Bradley/Nimitz
Ebola is a very serious matter which should not be taken lightly. I believe that the federal government should decide how to handle returning health care workers from ebola-affected countries because it's their job to keep the people safe. The government knows what they're doing and has more experience and information as to who came from Africa to the U.S. The states should not have a say because it will probably be based on votes and what if one state votes that they don't want to be quarantine? That would put lives at risk and that is not what we want. Being quarantine is to prevent outbreaks and keep citizens safe. It's better to be safe than sorry. The medical community should have a greater say in a policy than the government because people in the medical field have more experience and knowledge than people in the government. Therefore they should be the ones advising people on what to do and what not to do.

11/19/2014
Irving/TX
Marilynn
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
There are different methods that are being used to prevent an Ebola outbreak from occurring in certain states,such as Ebola health care workers being quarantined for 21 days.The states which have returning Ebola health care workers, are taking safety precautions so that they don’t come into contact with the population within their borders. That being said, the states should have the option on what the guidelines for the prevention of Ebola should be. They are doing so to prevent the risk of a major outbreak of this dreadful disease. The medical community and federal government should also have a say in a policy because they to are very well informed of the disease and its dangers.

11/19/2014
Irving, TX
Jonathan
Mrs. Bradley Nimitz High School
It should be the federal government handling the decision on returning health care works returning from Ebola-affected countries. This would better suit everyone because the rules would be the same no matter where you go in the United States. Also the medical community, the ones that actually know what they're talking about, should be let in on decisions for policies with outbreaks and quarantines rules and policies. States with strict quarantines have the right idea, because what if someone actually is infected. That would cause an outbreak and it would have easily been prevented by the state with a strict rule. The safety as a whole country is more important then just one person. If one person where to make all decisions no one would enjoy it so why let one person decide if there may be a outbreak or not. As long as the limits are seen to restrictions by the state quarantine then it should all be fine and under control, and the best for the country and people as a whole.

11/19/2014
Irving/TX
Briana
Bradley/Nimitz
If states decide, how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries, then all states will have different policies and patients that may not need to be quarantined in one may have to be quarantined in another and that could become a problem if the care workers travel from a state that doesn’t quarantine to one that does. Therefore, the federal government should decide what kind of policy all states should follow, in order for all workers to be treated the same in any part of the country. In order to prevent an outbreak, all possibly Ebola infected people should be put into quarantine because he can present symptoms within the 21 days, almost a month and if that person is not in quarantined and is infected, there is a possibility that anyone that he has contacted is too. To better protect the nation, the best policy is the 21 day quarantine, because of the fact that the spreading of Ebola should not happen. The 21 day quarantine is the safest solution to prevent Ebola from spreading. The government should have the greater say concerning the policy rather than medical community because the government has departments such as, the committees in Congress that specialize in different areas. An example is, in the House of Representative, the House Administration is specialized in health and other areas and in the Senate the committee of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions are well informed therefore both house are competent about Health issues and can make good decisions concerning Ebola.

11/19/2014
Murrieta CA
ed naeemy
Mr. Jabro creekside high school
I think the federal government should decide how to handle Ebola affected workers because they would know more about what to do in situations like this. States don't go over the line it is something that's necessary to prevent a very deadly contagious virus and that's the only way to prevent a breakout. I think that the medical community should have a greater say in this situation because they are doctors and they know what kind of devastation effects Ebola can have on a population of people they government should pitch in and help the medical community enforce those rules and just really look into the best interest of people and the society.

11/19/2014
Irving,TX
Miguel
Bradley/Nimitz
There are many different ways states deal with Ebola patients. Some states are very strict when it comes to dealing with these patients, requiring a 21 day quarantine process in a hospital. Others just recommend for people to stay at home for 21 days. These different ways of dealing with Ebola has brought many conflicts between states. Because of the inconsistent ways states have with dealing with Ebola, they shouldn't be the ones who decide the quarantine policies. The government should be the one to put a quarantine policy. A national policy that every state has to follow will not please some, but in the end the whole process of dealing with Ebola patients will be much easier and organized.

11/17/2014
Sidney/MT
Kory
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
Since this is a matter of public health, I believe that the federal government should have some say on the issue. This is granted by the Public Health Service Act; however, states should also have the ability to expand on the federal government's policy. For example, the federal government could set the quarantine at 21 days, and states could decide how it is carried out whether at home or in a hospital. Some of the strict quarantine policies seem to go over the line, but I would continue using something like the example I previously stated for prevention of Ebola. In the case of a health worker being quarantined in a New Jersey hospital, I would argue that she should have been flown to her native state of Maine instead. The government, whether federal or state, should have greater say in a quarantine policy, since they make and enforce laws. But, they should hopefully create these policies with the advice and guidelines of experts in the medical community.

11/17/2014
Sidney/MT
Hailey Steinbeisser
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
I believe that the states should be able to decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries. Like Joelle said below, different states have different needs. Meaning New Jersey has a lot more people and the virus could spread a lot easier than in Alaska. This makes it a lot more logical to let the states decide how to handle the returning health care workers. I do not think the states with strict quarantine policies are going over the line, they are just doing their job in keeping their people safe. These quarantines are being put in place only for the good of the people. In the article it talks about hospitals not being prepared to deal with Ebola and I agree with this. The Texas man infected two nurses and those two nurses could go infect more people if they are not quarantined. In the article it also talks about a woman that was running a fever and was returning from West Africa and was quarantined. She ended up not having the disease. Taking the precaution and making her quarantined had no harm on anyone. When a person decides to be expose themselves to the disease they should be willing to be isolated from public places so they do not harm anyone else. All in all, we need to take precautions and protect our nation.

11/17/2014
Irving TX
Alex R
Ms.Bradley Nimitz High School
The federal government should decide how to handle returning health care workers from ebola-affected countries because there is only one federal government and that will allow the decision to be the same everywhere. If you allow the states to make the rules then you can almost guarantee that the states won't all have the same rules. States with strict quarantine policies do not go over the line they are just doing the right thing to prevent an outbreak.

11/16/2014
Stroudsburg/ Pennsylvania
Karissa
Mr. Hannah/ Stroudsburg Junior High School
Due to the fact of Ebola I believe that the Federal government (CDC) should decide whether or not there should be quarantine standards and limitation rules. This is because the federal government hires highly trained personnel to direct these situations, so why should they not be able to do their job? The studies that involve outbreaks such as/including Ebola indicate that even one who is symptomatic could not possibly "spread" the given virus to another making them symptomatic. This is due to the fact that it is only spread through certain bodily fluids. Even so I am not saying there should be no such limitations. I believe there should be a minimal amount of limitations that would not affect the daily routines of those quarantined or not, and the CDC support this idea through their expression of it. States with strict policies exceed the recommended "line" because the people have their own right such as mentioned with people and their right of certain vaccinations. Their rules exceed the recommended because it also does not support the evidence that there has been no further cases of Ebola meaning that chances of receiving it are slim. So why should there be strict quarantine statuses. From my earlier discussion on this topic I believe that there should be a higher say in the medical community due to their education on the topic. The government has the minimal education on the topic if none at all.

11/16/2014
Irving/ Texas
Lidia
Bradley/ Nimitz
I think that the federal government should have a bigger say in allowing the return of those who have been in contact with those carry or have been in contact with the disease. After all we are talking about a epidemic that can harm the entire country and its citizens. I don't think that the states go overboard with the precautions that are being taken. The states are trying to help prevent such a horrific disease from spreading even more than what it already has. I think that government should make the policies that involve the treatment or precautions that should be taken but taking into consideration the advice of the medical community.

11/14/2014
Aurora/Ohio
Wendy
Mr. Frankmann/ Harmon Middle School
I personally believe that quarantining and testing all that may carry Ebola is extremely important. It’s better to be safe than sorry and precautionary measures can only help. The quarantine is only temporary and may be an important factor in how much the disease is unknowingly spread. By keeping everyone that has been exposed to the pathogens away from others, the disease is minimized. By testing people to see if they’re infected right after they came into contact with the germs, their chance of survival increases if they’re infected. Some people will be quarantined unnecessarily, but this is a sacrifice and risk that you take when you agree to be exposed to Ebola-carrying patients. Nurses and aids being quarantined agreed to help knowing that they risked becoming infected. They should have also known that they would have to spend additional time being tested before being able to potentially infect others. Even if they don’t carry the disease they will have only lost 21 days and will gain the peace of mind that they don’t carry the virus and don’t risk transmitting it to others. It’s a sacrifice that they must make in order to ensure the protection of everyone in America, including themselves. I hope that the idea of being quarantined doesn’t deter people from volunteering. Help is still needed as the disease grows, and people need to be more willing to sacrifice a small portion of their lives to determine a large portion of the lives of others that carry the disease. I support quarantines and believe that they should be a mandated policy for everyone that comes in contact with Ebola. It’s important to suffer a little now, so that the disease doesn’t grow out of hand and cause greater problems later on. We need to learn from our history and take all of the possible precautionary measures now so Ebola never becomes a widespread disease or threat in the U.S. that could have been prevented.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg PA
Danny
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg
I feel that people returning from our country should be put in a hospital funded by a government. I feel that the states should have good hospitals meant for outbreaks of a disease and keep up a strict if no stricter rule. The government should have a better say and know everyone who is coming or going to the country.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Joelle
Warren Hills, Rokosny
By quarantining the state of New Jersey, Chris Christie was able to prevent Ebola from entering the region. He was fulfilling his duty, to protect his constituents, as New Jersey’s governor. New Jersey has the largest population density of all the states. This means that a virus could easily be spread through New Jersey, faster than states like Alaska, where people come in contact with less people on a daily basis. There is a larger need for quarantines and the closing of borders in New Jersey than Alaska. Similarly, one of the largest cities in the country is Chicago, Illinois. International people would be passing through Chicago on a daily basis, making Illinois another high-risk area. Some places are at a higher risk for infectious diseases spreading. Why should people from all the states have the burdens of quarantines when they are not at a high risk? Risk of people to contracting a disease is more regional than the federal government. So it should be up to the states to decide health measures, not the federal government.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Sarah
Rokosny/Warren Hills
Although the cases have been few, it is inaccurate to claim, "There's no reason to have policies with that level of detail because there's no risk." Unfortunately it is too easy to take risks and cut corners, and too much of an imposition to ensure safety as a 21-day quarantine would be. Some argue that the questionnaire administered when traveling is enough to eliminate risk. Yet these are notoriously inaccurate means of security; the majority of travelers opt to lie in order to avoid inconvenience. It is this particular scenario that brought Ebola to the United States. Preventative measures need to be readdressed. As for impeding efforts abroad, compensation should be provided for those under preventative quarantine. Not only have volunteers been under compensated for their duties, this would provide an incentive that would detract from the inconvenience of a mandated quarantine. The states and CDC should not have a say whether or not the quarantine is instigated, as both may have alternative motives, and be willing to sacrifice safety for other non-related reasons. (ie The CDC wants volunteers, and the States do not want the additional expense) The Federal government has the most objective position and should therefor mandate the 21-day quarantine, and also provide compensation.

11/14/2014
Washington/NJ
Anne Marie Ward
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional High School
The issue of the Ebola outbreak has caused a lot of fear and anxiety. Perhaps some of this fear is unnecessary or blown out of proportion. That being said, I do believe that some precautions should be taken to prevent the further spread of the disease, and ideally it should be in the hands of the federal government. I believe that since it is a chaotic time, and since there is a lot of consternation among the people, it would be better, in the long run, if there was one uniform quarantine policy for the entire country to follow. Although it is great that states wish to create policies to best protect their inhabitants, too many individual policies would cause confusion, which could lead to lapses in the nexus of policies and regulations and protocols. In a time of uncertainty, in a time where many peoples' health is possibly at risk, I personally think that it would be better for the federal government to take the reigns. In the midst of the Ebola outbreak, we need security and unity. The federal government needs to step up on this issue, and at the very least, create a base policy for the United States to instate.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Sara
Warren Hills Regional High School
Leaving an issue as important as Ebola left up to the States or even voluntary is just allowing the disease the opportunity spread easily. We cannot expect all people returning from the West African area to self-asses their health and decide whether or not they are a danger to society. The nurse who returned to Maine was a far too close example that, luckily, did not go terribly wrong.Immediate quarantining should be put in place for the the 21-day waiting period which should occur in a medical setting, not voluntary, so when and if symptoms occur they can be treated right away. The standards of quarantining returning citizens should be left up to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Surgeon General as it is their duty to report on public health issues. One small mistake could result in a major outbreak across the country. Every precaution should be taken, and no one should be allowed to pass over the possibility that they could have contracted the disease. However this will require definite cooperation between the state and federal government to ensure there aren't any rejections to the measures put in place. When laws are put in place, States can strike back with their ideas and revoke it, but when the topic at hand can travel from state to state and harm citizens, that freedom should not be enabled. As Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn stated, it is "too important to be voluntary," whether under the states or up to the citizen.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Henna
Mrs. Rokosny/ Warren Hills
States should have the authority to decide what to do with Ebola patients. The duty of the states is to protect its citizens. As of now Ebola is only present in a few states, therefore we should not escalate the hype by involving the federal government. There are a lot of people panicking about Ebola even though there is not much to worry about if the necessary precautions are taken. Individual states know how to contain this disease as displayed by many states. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has implemented a 21- day quarantine which is great. That is a necessary precaution to take if someone is thought to have Ebola. I understand that medical workers will not want to go and visit Ebola stricken areas, but the 21- day quarantine Chris Christie has implemented can contain Ebola from entering New Jersey which is far more important than worrying about individuals not wanting to leave the country.

11/14/2014
Washington/New Jersey
Kemdi
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills Regional HS
I believe that the federal government should have very little responsibility over the management of a possible Ebola outbreak and Ebola prevention. The American public are already afraid of the recent outbreaks and I feel that the state officials are doing a good job containing the fear and controlling the recent health care worker incidents. The federal government should take action only if there is a major outbreak, and as of right now the federal government should stay out of it. The government should only be relied on for large-scale issues, Ebola has not gotten to that level yet. However, I do believe that the federal government should have a say in quarantine policies of the medical centers within the states. Also, the expertise of the medical communities should be greatly considered. To contain this problem everyone should be involved not just the state or federal governments. The cooperation between the two can help handle this "crisis" more efficiently without any conflict.

11/14/2014
New Jersey
Antonia A.
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills
As Ebola is spreading throughout other countries as well as our country, hysteria and concerns regarding how to handle this epidemic are circulating. This Ebola outbreak is something that affects each and every person regardless of the state they are in. Therefore, I believe that the federal government should decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries. It would not be beneficial for each state to make their own decisions in this situation, because the decision from the federal government would be the only measure all states will be following. Although the state quarantine policies are necessary in order to reduce the spread of the deadly disease, I do believe they are strict in the sense that quarantines should be limited to those who have had direct contact with an Ebola-affected patient. It may seem like the medical community and government should have an equal say in the policy, but I believe it is ultimately the medical community. There specialize in such health-related issues, making them more educated on the topic. With all of this being said, there must be some reform and different measures taken in order to further reduce Ebola from spreading, killing innocent people, and to eventually put an end to this outbreak.

11/14/2014
New Jersey
Anthony Ventriglia
Rokosny/WHRHS
The CDC should decides the necessity of a quarantine. The governor reached out of his power appropriately to protect his citizens in a situation that he could consider an emergency and this led to the quarantine. The decision of the quarantine was appropriate as it was a necessary action to take but, the person who should have determined that is the CDC who are in the position to handle quarantines. This is not true in situations that require a quick response that a government body can't act upon quickly enough.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Luke
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills
Who should take charge on an issue like this? They call us the United States of America for a reason. We must be united and issue a mandatory quarantine throughout the USA. This is not something to take lightly. Ebola’s incubation period is 21 days, so it can go unchecked while traveling. Something that may seem like a common cold can turn into one of the deadliest diseases of all time. We should look back in history to the times of the Black Death or even at the Ebola outbreaks in the past century to understand how devastating an epidemic this could end up being. The medical community should also have a say in the matter. I wouldn’t go for a physical with President Obama or Governor Christie as my doctor simply because they’re not qualified. Theses state polices for quarantine are a good start for the federal government to base their action plan off of. All in all, the federal government should decide how to handle this epidemic, as it would keep everyone equally safe throughout the United States of America.

11/14/2014
Washington
Steven
Ms. Rokosny
I think the federal government should decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries. Ebola is an international issue, although we can only address this issue from the federal level in our own country. Yes, the states are responsible for the safety of there own citizens. However, the federal government should be responsible for the safety of there own citizens as well, especially in the case of a disease outbreak that can diminish a high percentile of the population. Overall this is both a federal and state issue, although mandates should be made to give a fair standard for controlling this disease. If there is no mandate preventing a state from disregarding this as an over exemplified issue then the Ebola outbreak can and will travel from state to state with no issue at all. In my opinion states do have too strict quarantine policies but as long as they have enough policies to prevent it from spreading I believe the law is justified. The government should always have the right to legislation and the greater say in a policy. The medical community can be involved by educating politicians, but they are nurses and doctors, not senators and committee members. Ebola is a serious disease that needs to be accounted for on the international level. Some things are too big to eradicate at even a national level. However since the UN doesn't have to power to enact an international treaty in a timely matter our federal government needs to look after it's own citizens and create policies that will prevent the spread of this dreadful disease.

11/14/2014
Washington/NJ
Tyler
Rokosny/Warren Hills
The federal government should indubitably secure the responsibility of quarantine guidelines. Unfortunately, the risk exposure to American citizens is not specific to a state by state basis, consequentially deeming Ebola as a national threat. The federal government needs to work in tandem with the medical community as a means of layered security to understanding and determining the extent of necessary precautions. While the states are understood to have to assume the responsibility of in-house issues, the Public Health Service Act obviously takes precedence in this matter in order to sustain public health of Americans with the federal government at the head of proceedings. While the funding of general welfare does indeed fall into the laps of both the state and national level, a cooperation of the two, in tandem with the appropriately knowledgable medical community, is crucial to the success of blocking an allegedly potential epidemic.

11/14/2014
Washington/NJ
Emily
Rokosny/WarrenHills
The federal government should be responsible for finalizing a quarantine policy. Even though each state may have different circumstances as to who entered the state while previously being in contact with Ebola, it is the federal government's duty to protect all states under the same quarantine. There are not enough measures that the federal government can take to protect the United States against Ebola.

11/14/2014
Washington/NJ
Roberto S
Rokosny/Warren Hills RHS
Rather than automatically assuming that our option of what to do in the Ebola crisis is a binary one--a choice of either the federal government mandating quarantines or the states enacting their own--perhaps we should examine the issue of whether we should be utilizing the force of government to quarantine citizens in the first place. Why would someone be imprisoned against their will for an act of charity? These nurses and doctors make a huge potential sacrifice by volunteering in West Africa, so why should they be punished? Diseases spread constantly; they are part of the natural struggle, and to discriminate against a group of philanthropic people for their potential exposure to one disease is only inhumane. Such action would even be against domestic authoritarian statutes: it is clearly expressed in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States' lauded Constitution that someone is not to be detained by the government unless there is writ of habeas corpus. Are the nurses being indicted? Detained? Are they under arrest? It wouldn't be the first time the government imprisoned someone for trying to exercise good morality. Perhaps we should let things take their course and trust that those who are generous enough to risk their lives for others would voluntarily quarantine themselves if they posed a threat to others.

11/14/2014
Washington, Nj
Matt
Mrs. Rokozny/Warren Hills High School
The Ebola epidemic should be handled by the federal government. The airports are run by the federal government and the federal government runs the CDC. Why should the state or local governments take charge of something that they don't even have control over. The federal government has the funds, resources and departments to control this issue. The CDC can monitor people during the 21-day incubation period, the states and cities can't do that. All in all the epidemic must be stopped and the best possible solution lies with our national government.

11/14/2014
New Jersey
Christian
Rokosny/WHRHS
The horrific, deadly nature of the Ebola virus is too much of a risk to be taken lightly. I therefore highly disagree with the CDC's recommendation of only quarantining individuals who have dealt with Ebola victims without wearing protective gear. Perhaps there was a tear in a glove or mask, or perhaps someone who was not in a medical setting shook hands with an infected person who did not show symptoms yet. It may not be probable, but it is highly plausible. The health and the lives of the American public is not something to be gambled with, and we need to take all of the precautions that we can in fighting the spread of this disease. It is imperative, therefore, to mandate a 21-day quarantine for any persons returning to the United States from infected areas of West Africa.

11/14/2014
New Jersey
Meg
Mrs. Rokasny/ Warren Hills
I believe the states should be the ones to decide when and for how long a quarantine should take place. The states should have the power to make this decision because an outbreak may not necessarily be happening in all the states; the outbreak may be limited to a few states. If the states have this power they will be able to control the situation faster and more efficiently. In regards to whether the government or the medical community should have more say in the matter, I believe the states should listen to the medical communities’ advice on the matter since obviously doctors will know more about an epidemic and how to control one than a government official would. The states should enforce the quarantine and the medical community should advise them on how to properly do this and the appropriate amount of time it should be enforced.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Patrick
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills
I feel that the Ebola situation should be dealt with by the states. I feel that the states have their individual views on the matter and believe that what they decide to do will be the best precaution or that state. Personally if I were deciding how my state were to deal with the situation I would have it be mandatory to quarantine anyone who was exposed to the disease without any medical precaution. It's unnecessary if they are exposed but have taken the necessary precautions to prevent the spreading of the disease. In any case the government will make the right decision and always have the health of the people in mind.

11/14/2014
Washington, NJ
Matthew
Rokosny Warren Hills Regional High School
The quarantine should be handled by both the federal and state government. There definitely should be a quarantine for people who have been in contact with Ebola patients. The state governments should be the ones to actually make sure the quarantine procedures are followed, and if need be form facilities for quarantine. However, the Federal government may need to help facilitate the procedure. They should be overseeing everything to make sure the states are following the procedures. There needs to be cooperation between the federal and state governments. If Ebola became even more of a problem than right now, and extreme measures had to be taken such as suspending air travel, that would obviously become a national problem dealt be the federal government.

11/14/2014
Hackettstown, NJ
Mark
Mrs. Rokosny/Warren Hills
I believe it should be a federal act. If certain states decide not to quarantine people, those people in those states may spread to other states. This would defeat the purpose of the quarantine. Every state should set up preventive guidelines to help protect the general public.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Joshua
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that the states should because then you have options and most states seem to be handling this crisis pretty fine. The states with more stricter policies are handling it the way it should be. This disease is highly dangerous and should be handled with extreme care. I think actually the government because the hospitals are not being very smart and are getting more effected. That's what I believe how Ebola should be handled.

11/14/2014
Belleville/NY
Nick Neddo
Colby/Belleville Henderson Central School
Dealing with the fact that Ebola related illness is knocking on our doorstep hear at the U.S. I feel as if we should close all borders to and from Africa and Europe. We have already had a few cases of Ebola related illness in the United States already with probably more to come. Even here in New York we had a case in the city, the city is far away from my hometown but I felt as if it was closer than it really was. They say that it isnt airborne and we shouldnt worry because there is no way you can get Ebola unless you come in contact with them. Until Ebola is calmed down we need to enforce medical quarantine for a maximum of 42 days. Double what we have now just to make sure no sign of Ebola has come back and going to affect other peoples loved ones and harm them in any way. I couldn't live with myself if i knew i affected them with Ebola i couldn't live with myself.

11/14/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Adam
Mr.Hanna/ Stroudsburg Junior high
I think the president should decide. He makes the best sometimes worst decisions. Or we can go for the government.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg/PA
Mickenna
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think the government should have the choice of what to decide what to do with the health care workers returning from Ebola infected countries. I say this because states have different opinions to do something, if one decides for example allow ice cream and another to not allow ice cream one might get ice cream taxes the other one won't, but either one won't care. So if the government decided it would all be the same for every state so for example every state gets ice cream. When the states are taking per cations that might look like their over doing the ebola quarantine they're actually trying to protect the people inside and outside the state. It may seem like a pain in the butt, but it's worth not getting any unwanted disease/ebola. Both the medical community and the government should both have a say in these policies so we can share both pages on the same paper. They can discuss and agree terms for the ebola policies to help this country get organized and calm again.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Da-Nelle
Mr.Hana/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that the person should have a doctor checkup on them first.The doctor should be a allowed to determine if the person should be in quarantine or not based on their observed condition.

11/13/2014
Irving/Texas
Peyton
Bradley/Nimitz
I feel that the states should decide how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries because the states are in charge of keeping their state safe if each state takes care of itself the federal government doesn't need to step in, because if it's broken up to each state, more intensive care and a closer watch can be kept on patients with the disease. I don't think that the states strict quarantine policies cross any lines. They are willing to not take any risks and go to whatever measures it prevent an outbreak of this disease. Because Ebola is a seriously detrimental disease, the medical community would be the best people to have a say in a policy because they are best educated about the situation at hand. They know what's best and can make the safest and smartest decisions about this disease and it's policies.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg
Max Serrano
Mr.Hana
In my opinion the government should allow us, citizens of the United States to vote on quarantine rules. We are the ones at risk of the getting the virus so we should vote on how it's handled.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg Pa
Dylan
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg jhs
I think that the doctor who is seeing them should decide if they get guarante. Also they shouldn't be discard if they have Ebola.

11/13/2014
Irving,TX
Claudia
Bradley/Nimitz
When returning health care workers return from Ebola-affected countries, the federal government should have the ultimate decision on how to handle their being in the US. Since Ebola has recently become more of a world known disease, and the number of people being affected has increased recently, the federal government should take charge to make sure that the US can become an Ebola free country. As for the states with strict quarantine policies, they should have strict have strict quarantine policies, but also reasonable ones. If an individual is suspected of being contained with Ebola, stated should follow safety procedures, rather than taking the risk of having even more individuals being contained. The medical community and government should both discuss together and come to an agreement as to what are the safest ways to approach the deadly disease, and create policies that can be placed for all states to follow.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
colson
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think the federal government should decide what to do. I think this because they should know what they are talking about. Ebola is a serious disease that it gets out of hand many people will die. So the government should have strict laws on it for the protection of people.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
Brian Buzzard
Mr. Hanna SJHS
Since Ebola is such a dangerous disease, they should take multiple steps to contain and quarantine the people who have it or who way potentially have it. If a person is going to an infected country, they should be aware and expect to be contained from interactions with others when they return home. I think it is completely necessary to keep the rest of the country protected and free from outbreaks.

11/12/2014
Irving/TX
Jessica
Ms. Bradley/ Nimitz High School
I think the federal government should be in charge of deciding how to handle returning health care workers from Ebola-affected countries. The federal government knows how to protect the people and what is best for them. They are trying to save millions of lives, and they have enough power to do research and decision with medical professionals. Both of them combined is better than having only one of them make the final decision. The medical community knows what they are doing as they are protecting our health. Once they make a choice, together with the federal team, it can use its federal power to approve and apply the rules. I think that the states with strict quarantines are doing the right thing. It may seem like their process is over the line but like the saying goes, ‘‘better safe then sorry’’. They don’t want to take any risks that can affect so many people, it would make the people feel safer and know that it is trying to be controlled.

11/12/2014
Murrieta Ca.
Corrine
Mr Jabro / Creekside high school
If you are comming home from a country that has the worst Ebola out break in human history i think the usa should take major precautions. Just because someone i didnt even know went to africa, and they come back to the usa, and bring back Ebola, i dont want to get sick because they werent watched over for 21 days. SO i think it is very important to quarantine people that come back from that area.

11/12/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
colson
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think police have the right to search your phone if they have a reason to. If police have a reason then they should be allowed because they are the police. If the police want to search your phone they should be able to because they are probably doing it for a good reason.

11/11/2014
Aurora, Ohio
Grayson
Harmon Middle School, Mrs. Krupa
Ebola Debate: There has been a lot of argument and worries when it comes to the topic about Ebola. A lead researcher from Fox News, Charles Haas said "Twenty-one days has been regarded as the appropriate quarantine period for holding individuals potentially exposed to Ebola Virus." In my opinion this does not take away our civil rights as Americans. The reason why I think this is because we are only putting people in Quarantines to protect them from potentially being exposed to Ebola. If we have to force people to be checked for ebola then I think we should. We are trying not to expose this very deadly disease therefore I do not think that doctors are violating our civil rights. There is not a lot of benefits for the nurses or doctors that treat Ebola, but one benefit is having the feeling that you are helping the world by trying to figure out how we can cure this traumatic disease. The cost of taking care of an Ebola patient is your life, you can get it by physical contact with a person that has it. In that case, doctors will be directly taking care of patients therefore they have a bigger chance of having Ebola. There are ways to prevent from getting Ebola but with doctors there is a very slim chance that they are not gonna get Ebola. We thank those doctors and nurses for sacrificing their lives to try to cure this very deadly disease and we hope that we can cure it soon. Resources: http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/dpc/epidemic-a-pandemic-alert-and-response/epr-highlights/3648-frequently-asked-questions-on-ebola-hemorrhagic-fever.html http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/17/study-questions-21-day-ebola-quarantine-period/ Email:graysonmcmaster@aurora-schools.org

11/11/2014
Aurora/Ohio
Nick
Mr.Frankman
I strongly believe that the government should have the ultimate say in the quarantines. I think this because the government should not take any risks with this disease. The government is ordering quarantines to prevent an outbreak of the disease. I don't think the states should have any say in the quarantines. I say not to let the states handle the quarantines because if they vote not to quarantine someone who should be and they are out, after 21 they might infect one or two people outside and then they will spread it further. Then it will be too hard to contain. Also the states with strict quarantine policies are not going over the line because I would rather they have strict rules and be safe than be easy going and unprotected.

11/11/2014
Aurora/Ohio
Madison B.
Mrs.Krupa/Harmon Middle School
Ebola has taken a turn on the world. Not only is everyone worrying about themselves but the workers trying to stop Ebola. Even though they take huge training before working on Ebola it is still very dangerous. But when you think about Ebola its almost like another life threatening disease. Today we have to take huge percussion to help stop any disease. Personally I don't find Ebola that big of a deal. It is still a serious topic but should not be treated like its the only disease we should worry about. Also they have been working on a cure for a long time and probably already found one. The reason the nurses got Ebola was because their precautions about not spreading it didn't work. I think we should just keep going on about our day and let the doctors and nurses do their jobs.

11/10/2014
Aurora/Ohio
Jack
Mr. Frankmann/Harmon Middle School
I think that the federal government should handle the returning health care workers. Since the government backs up the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions, they know the right precautionary measures to take in order keep this disease from spreading. I don't think the states should be allowed to handle it because if even one state votes not to quarantine, those who don't want to wait 21 days can head over there and spread the virus. The states with strict quarantining polices don't go over the line in my opinion because what is too much protection? Would you rather be over protected but safe, or would you rather be unprotected and at risk of getting ebola? Finally, although the government should decide how to handle the health care workers, I think the medical workers should have in a greater policy. The government is doing their research on ebola and becoming aware, but the medical community has much more experience and expertise in such an important matter.

11/10/2014
Aurora, Ohio
Emily byard
Mr. Frankman
Every body is taking huge precautions for Ebola. Yes their was thousands of people killed in places such at north America. Ebola is being treated and trying to be prevented as much as possible. But a lot of people are worried about the workers who are treating Ebola patients. Are they going to get Ebola? Well the Hospital are going through some major training to prevent Ebola. Yes we should take as many precautions as possible but we shouldn't over react about this because we are working on the best possible treatment.

11/10/2014
Murrieta, California
Justin Reed
Jabro /Creekside Highschool
I strongly believe that the federal government should have a complete say in handling returning health care workers from West Africa. The states aren't exactly going over the line, I just think the federal government should be prioritizing quarantines and avoiding any risks. This virus may be rare to catch, but no risks should be taken. I highly believe that this is necessary to prevent any outbreak, including any other virus/disease.

11/9/2014
Aurora/ Ohio
Lexi
Mr.Frankmann/ Harmon Middle School
Ebola has been a huge thing that everyone is worrying about. Everyone needs to calm down because we have scientis working on stopping and treating ebola. There are so many opinions on what is said about quarantining health care workers. I believe quarantining people with the chance of getting ebola is very important. I understand you are being caring enough to help people with ebola but sometimes there are consequences. People are being brave enough to help people with ebola, and thats shows a lot of character. I think sense they are being brave enough to help they actually wouldn't mind being quarantined for 21 days. If I were a nurse I wouldn't mind being under strict rules because I wouldn't want to pass on ebola even more than it already is. I that if you are worried about being quarantined for 21 days then you shouldn't be helping people with ebola. I understand nobody wants to get ebola but there are risks you have to take sometimes that you might not like. For say veterans they are also risking their lives to help the country also. They now they could die but they are doing it for the sake of our country. I hope health care workers feel the same way I do and don't stop volunteering to help the cause of ebola.

11/7/2014
Irving/Texas
Carlos
Bradley/Nimitz
The federeal government should have the decison to protect the nation. These kind of decisons should only be made after hearing out the medical community because they are the experts. For the states that do have strict quarantine polices go over line because quarantine itself already seems strict enough. They should just allow a more leaning way of dealing with this situation, by leaving it to the federal government and the medical community.

11/6/2014
Murrieta, CA
Tre Gudger
Jabro / Creekside Highschool
I agree with the CDC and the federal government in that making a mandatory quarantine will dissuade medical workers from visiting, and helping, Ebola stricken areas. However I also agree with the governments of New Jersey and New York in that a 21 day quarantine could prevent the outbreak of the disease.

11/5/2014
Murrieta,Ca
Elena
Mr.Jabro/Creekside Highschool
The CDC should definitely be able to handle this, after all it is their forte and we aren't entirely knowledgable when it comes to infectious diseases! Since the disease hasn't reached a fair amount of people I think the government shouldn't really get involved, but if the disease does get out of control, then by all means have the government get involved.

Related News
Related Resources
Share