The President Gets It Right, and Wrong, On Quarantines

As quick as I am to point out when I believe the current president to be wrong, I should be just as quick to point out when I believe that he is correct. So, when Mr. Obama says that placing a mandatory quarantine on healthcare workers returning from Ebola stricken nations is likely to reduce the number of volunteers, I believe him. 

This is simply an example of one of the few rules in economics that (almost) always is true: When you increase the cost of the something, you get less of it. When you reduce the cost, you get more of it. Or, more succinctly, incentives work. I wish that he would take this uncharacteristic show of common sense and apply it to other things such as the tax code, health care, business costs, etc., but this at least shows that he can get it right if he wants to. Of course, after correctly assessing the effect of quarantines on health care volunteers, he immediately goes back into “irrationality” mode.

In the case of a disease like Ebola, quarantine is not simply “an option.” It is the only option that has ever been effective. While treatment has been able to minimize the number of fatalities in the past, it has always been a waiting game. You wait until everyone possibly exposed to the disease has passed the danger period after destroying the contaminated materials. That’s the way it always has been, and until there is an effective vaccine or anti-viral, that is still the case.

There is a tendency among many to picture those who travel to foreign lands to care for the stricken as saints, as though any action taken from there on is above reproach. Both tendencies are false and foolish. Don’t get me wrong. I have great admiration for people who take such risks and provide that kind of aid, whether voluntarily or paid. But in the long run, they still have the same flaws and weaknesses as the rest of us. 

So, when they return from their exhausting mission, while they may promise to “self-quarantine,” they do not. They travel, interact, considering themselves (perhaps unconsciously) as either so wise that they know without benefit of time that they have not been exposed. In some cases, they may even feel entitled, that the service they have rendered gives them the right to place others at risk. And what was a single outbreak becomes another. And another.

This is what we have seen so far. It is foolish to panic at this point, or to advise panic. As a nation, however, we have been given more than enough cause for concern. The administration started late when it came to addressing the problem, as usual. Rather than emphasizing the safety of many, the chief executive is pushing hard for the privilege of the few. It is not a position that inspires confidence. The administration is rightly known for denying problems or failures that it finds embarrassing. If the matter worsened suddenly, I doubt the president could be relied upon to deliver prompt or accurate information. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

I’ve heard it said that returning volunteers should be treated like heroes, that they should come back to accolades and respect. I quite agree. And as soon as they go through an appropriate quarantine period, I would be proud to applaud each and every one of them. But let’s also remember: It was their decision to volunteer and to put themselves at risk, not ours. 

I think it safe to say that if an infected doctor or nurse manages to spread the virus into a highly populated area of the states, the accolades will disappear rather quickly. Saving lives overseas counts for little when it puts your son or daughter of father into a sick bed, wondering who will survive. All it would take is one "hero" acting a little too much the fool.

As we do respect these fine men and women, let’s protect them from that indignity. And in doing so, we will protect ourselves and our children, our friends and our neighbors. Sounds like “win-win” to me.