Hacker News Reader

Comment by itengelhardt | Hacker News Reader

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but taking away the freedom of movement (among others) of 76 people (potentially many more now) without proof is severe.

I believe it to be a good sign for the republic that the government has not resorted to do so.

View on HN

Even international law recognizes public health exceptions to freedom of movement. When you're dealing with a disease that has no known cure and a very high mortality rate, that's a good reason to invoke such an exception, notwithstanding the Ebola's lowish R0 of 2.

Really? Does it allow to do so without adequate proof? I think not. That's the point I am trying to make here: There were no hard facts - apart from her not feeling well.

Would it have been wise to quarantine her and keep her from traveling? in hindsight definitely.

Is it justifiable to restrict one's individual freedom on such a weak basis as "she's not feeling well, but is below the temperature threshold established by experts"? Here you can IMHO lean either way. If you are more utilitarian, you might argue for it. If you are more about individual rights, you might argue against it.

"she's not feeling well, but is below the temperature threshold established by experts" AND she was in close contact with a known Ebola infected patient?

There, now your question is factually complete.

Actually according to this article, the nurse was not supposed to be on public transit at all (cars / charter planes OK, commercial airlines no). It just seems that enforcement was lax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/ebola-outbreak-texas.ht...

I'm not a native English speaker. Does "should not" mean it is obligatory or is it a recommendation?

In normal English, "should" is a recommendation, "must" should be obligatory.

Check out the prefatory language of IETF RFCs, they generally give you a run down of these sorts of words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com