Kevin's Watch

Allright, so today I heard something from a friend of mine, and I thought I would post the gist of it here, just to find out what other Watchers think of it.

A woman I know is a group leader in my old lab. She is in her mid-thirties, and has a young son. The son got chicken pox, and passed it on to his mother. Now, chicken pox can be quite hard on you if you get it as an adult; however, she has repeatedly refused her boss's suggestions to go home and rest, and keeps going to the lab every day, including the days in which she was highly infectious. As if this weren't enough, she also held at least one three-hour-long, closed-door meeting with her group members.
Of course, many people in the lab already had chicken pox as children; several didn't, however, and what's even more important, there are some people in the lab who have either young children, or whose wives are currently pregnant. Now, even if you did have chicken pox as a child, and you can't get it again, you can still be a carrier, so potentially you could still infect your child with it if you were exposed to it; this obviously means that not only several people in the lab might be in for an unpleasant Christmas gift (since chicken pox has a 2-week incubation time), but also that several of their children, or possible pregnant mothers, might equally get the disease in a short time, all because the woman who originally got it is a workaholic who cannot stay home. Obviously, from her point of view, as a foreigner, a woman, and young for a group leader with such responsibilities as she has, she believes she must go far beyond the extra mile each day in order to build her reputation and keep the honors she has received thus far.

It's probably rather obvious what my thoughts about this are, but I'm curious to know what others think too... so, what is your opinion?

That's a no-brainer. As a scientist and as a leader she should have the sense to go home rather than put her people (and subsequently the WORK) at risk.

My guess is that she is proabably insecure, or for whatever reason lacks confidence in the staff to do the work, but that is still no excuse. By staying, she is undermining her credibility and whatever trust her staff has for her.

I'd go ovewr her head to the next level. I'd demand she go home.

To quote what they said in the local news recently about something else, "They are not using good judgement but they did not do anything illegal".

Ethically, it's not ones responsibility to keep other people from getting sick.

Nor does self-quarantine help anyone else because, if it's going around, it's going around, and there's not one single person whom you can isolate to stop the spread of a disease. Why put that kind of onus on yourself when it doesn't help anyone?

Most people believe kids should get chicken pox, and some have gone so far as to arrange play dates with kids who have it. So there's really not much of a case that this person is endangering any children. And if there is an adult around who does not have it ... do they really expect everyone else to do the job of keeping it away from them? (Nor would it be difficult for them to point out to this chicken-pox person that they have a problem -- did they?)

Wayfriend wrote:To quote what they said in the local news recently about something else, "They are not using good judgement but they did not do anything illegal".

Ethically, it's not ones responsibility to keep other people from getting sick.

Nor does self-quarantine help anyone else because, if it's going around, it's going around, and there's not one single person whom you can isolate to stop the spread of a disease. Why put that kind of onus on yourself when it doesn't help anyone?

Most people believe kids should get chicken pox, and some have gone so far as to arrange play dates with kids who have it. So there's really not much of a case that this person is endangering any children. And if there is an adult around who does not have it ... do they really expect everyone else to do the job of keeping it away from them? (Nor would it be difficult for them to point out to this chicken-pox person that they have a problem -- did they?)

Well, that's the point: chicken pox wasn't "going around" in the lab, she was the one who got it from her son and brought it into the lab. So, if she had stayed home as soon as she found out she had chicken pox, no one would be at risk within the lab.

And I disagree on the point of endangering children. See below...

Kidshealth wrote: Typically, chickenpox is a mild illness, but can affect some infants, teens, adults, and people with weak immune systems more severely. Some people can develop serious bacterial infections involving the skin, lungs, bones, joints, and the brain (encephalitis). Even kids with normal immune systems can occasionally develop complications, most commonly a skin infection near the blisters.

Kidshealth wrote:Pregnant women and anyone with immune system problems should not be near a person with chickenpox. If a pregnant woman who hasn't had chickenpox in the past contracts it (especially in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy), the fetus is at risk for birth defects and she is at risk for more health complications than if she'd been infected when she wasn't pregnant. If she develops chickenpox just before or after the child is born, the newborn is at risk for serious health complications. There is no risk to the developing baby if the woman develops shingles during the pregnancy.

Since she knows at least one of her employees has a pregnant wife in her first trimester, and she cannot possibly know whether the kids of the other members of the lab (which include at least three newborns) have perfectly strong immune systems, she should have thought at least to find out whether she could pose a danger to any of these kids.

And since she's the group leader, no one dares to point out she should be home, except for her boss, whom she doesn't listen to. She is the same person, after all, who regardless of how sick you were, believes that sickness is not an acceptable excuse not to go to work.

Put me down for calling the woman a stupid ignorant selfish bitch, and a whore too (just because she pissed me off).

If I worked with her and she got me or my family sick with chicken pox, pretty much on purpose, I'd light her house on fire.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Put me down for calling the woman a stupid ignorant selfish bitch, and a whore too (just because she pissed me off).

If I worked with her and she got me or my family sick with chicken pox, pretty much on purpose, I'd light her house on fire.

What he said.

Why don't you point her in the direction of this thread? Her co-workers may be to chicken to call her on this, but HLT and I aren't.

Waddley Hasselhoff wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Put me down for calling the woman a stupid ignorant selfish bitch, and a whore too (just because she pissed me off).

If I worked with her and she got me or my family sick with chicken pox, pretty much on purpose, I'd light her house on fire.

What he said.

Why don't you point her in the direction of this thread? Her co-workers may be to chicken to call her on this, but HLT and I aren't.

Ditto!

Just so you know, chicken pox in an adult can cause sterility.

Lorelei wrote:

Waddley Hasselhoff wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Put me down for calling the woman a stupid ignorant selfish bitch, and a whore too (just because she pissed me off).

If I worked with her and she got me or my family sick with chicken pox, pretty much on purpose, I'd light her house on fire.

What he said.

Why don't you point her in the direction of this thread? Her co-workers may be to chicken to call her on this, but HLT and I aren't.

Ditto!

Just so you know, chicken pox in an adult can cause sterility.

AND leave nasty scars!! (Ok, it does that in kids. Still...)

I wouldn't burn her house down, but I might print out some info about chicken pox and leave it lying around the workplace.

If that didnt' work, I'd key her car with the words, "Go home b*tch!"

You guys are so demonstrative with your disdain! Clearly her postion undercuts her efficacy and her abilities as a scientist. Go to HER boss...she must be sent home.

Malik23 wrote:I wouldn't burn her house down, but I might print out some info about chicken pox and leave it lying around the workplace.

oooohhh... subtle, yet likely to be effective, if only to embarrass her or take her down a few notches.

A Gunslinger wrote:You guys are so demonstrative with your disdain! Clearly her postion undercuts her efficacy and her abilities as a scientist. Go to HER boss...she must be sent home.

She's ignoring her boss, which doesn't say much for him/her being a "boss".

And just for the record, *I* wouldn't literally burn someone house down for such an offense.
*I'm* not going to jail.
*But* I do know people who know people...........

Malik23 wrote:I wouldn't burn her house down, but I might print out some info about chicken pox and leave it lying around the workplace.

If that didnt' work, I'd key her car with the words, "Go home b*tch!"

yeah, that's what i'd do

Xar wrote:

Wayfriend wrote:Ethically, it's not ones responsibility to keep other people from getting sick.

Nor does self-quarantine help anyone else because, if it's going around, it's going around, and there's not one single person whom you can isolate to stop the spread of a disease. Why put that kind of onus on yourself when it doesn't help anyone?

Well, that's the point: chicken pox wasn't "going around" in the lab, she was the one who got it from her son and brought it into the lab. So, if she had stayed home as soon as she found out she had chicken pox, no one would be at risk within the lab.

"no one would be at risk"?

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!

If she stays home, no one in the Lab can get chickenpox?

Please explain how this miracle happens ... how one person's commute pattern affects other people's immune systems ... if this is right, we can eradicate chickenpox in our lifetime!

I think you mean "it's less likely that the people in the lab will get chickenpox ... during the two weeks person X has it ... ". But when you say it like that, it doesn't sound like it's much, does it.

But then ask yourself, how MUCH less likely ... let's put a number on it. 99%? 80%?

You can't say, because those guys could walk out of the lab, and get on a bus full of people carrying chickenpox, and never even notice. They could very well get it anyway. You have to examine everyone in the world that they come in contact with, and then determine how eliminating one of them affects the risk.

So the only affect chickenpox person really has on everyone in the lab is that everyone in the lab KNOWS she's carrying chickenpox. The only thing increased is the number of people they can pin blame on.

Q.E.D.

Wayfriend wrote:
You can't say, because those guys could walk out of the lab, and get on a bus full of people carrying chickenpox, and never even notice. They could very well get it anyway. You have to examine everyone in the world that they come in contact with, and then determine how eliminating one of them affects the risk.

So the only affect chickenpox person really has on everyone in the lab is that everyone in the lab KNOWS she's carrying chickenpox. The only thing increased is the number of people they can pin blame on.

Q.E.D.

You were a memeber of the OJ Simpson jury, weren't you?
Just admit it.

Wayfriend wrote:"no one would be at risk"?

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!

If she stays home, no one in the Lab can get chickenpox? Please explain how this miracle happens ... how one person's commute pattern affects other people's immune systems ... if this is right, we can eradicate chickenpox in our lifetime!

It happens that if the person stays home, she doesn't release viruses into the closed environment of the laboratory, where people have to work for hours each day, thus substantially lessening the chances of other people getting infected. What would be the chances of you getting infected with chickenpox if you worked 10-12 hours per day in a place where a highly infectious person moved about and called closed-doors meeting with you?
If you really think that that chance is comparable to being infected by a random passersby you sit next to for 10 minutes in a bus, then you might want to refresh your knowledge of virology and pathology.

Wayfriend wrote:I think you mean "it's less likely that the people in the lab will get chickenpox ... during the two weeks person X has it ... ". But when you say it like that, it doesn't sound like it's much, does it.

Er, it does, actually. 10 minutes of one single day in a bus are not comparable to 10 hours per day for a whole two weeks in a lab.

Wayfriend wrote:But then ask yourself, how MUCH less likely ... let's put a number on it. 99%? 80%?

If you take the estimates above, people in the lab have a chance of getting chickenpox about 60 times greater than if they just bumped into someone with chickenpox for 10 minutes each day. Given that the likelihood of bumping into such a person outside the lab is substantially smaller, because chickenpox is only infectious when you display boils and rashes, and therefore you would know the person is ill (and the person would know it himself, since the doctor would have told him or her), I would say it's a substantially greater risk.

Wayfriend wrote:You can't say, because those guys could walk out of the lab, and get on a bus full of people carrying chickenpox, and never even notice. They could very well get it anyway. You have to examine everyone in the world that they come in contact with, and then determine how eliminating one of them affects the risk.

Just how widespread do you think chickenpox is, and how much do you think it is likely that you wouldn't notice someone having it?

Wayfriend wrote:So the only affect chickenpox person really has on everyone in the lab is that everyone in the lab KNOWS she's carrying chickenpox. The only thing increased is the number of people they can pin blame on.

Nope. Statistically speaking (this is science here), if the chance of getting chickenpox is 60 times greater, or even just 5 times greater, because this woman spends her whole day in the lab, leaving viruses around, that's already enough evidence to prove that her presence in the lab HAS an effect on the infection of chickenpox among workers. Which in turn means that if, say, the man with the pregnant wife carries chickenpox to his wife, and the child is born with defects, he has the scientific evidence to sue, among other things.

The lady must be sent home.

When I had the flu a couple of weeks ago, we skipped couples baby shower for some of our closest friends, I called my buddy and said "I'm sorry, but I have this cold and I won't take the chance of giving it to your wife." She was 38 weeks pregnant at the time.

It's the decent thing to do. If she won't go home on her own, then it's the boss' duty to send her home. If he won't then he's a wuss and needs to be fired.

Wayfriend wrote:Ethically, it's not ones responsibility to keep other people from getting sick.

Nor does self-quarantine help anyone else because, if it's going around, it's going around, and there's not one single person whom you can isolate to stop the spread of a disease. Why put that kind of onus on yourself when it doesn't help anyone?

It may not be one's responsibility to keep other people from getting sick (unless you're a doctor). But it IS one's responsibility to not knowingly spread disease to others. Let's replace chickenpox with AIDS and see if the logic remains the same. Should someone with AIDS have no ethical responsibility to keep other people from getting sick? Shouldn't they inform others before having sex? What about at a blood bank? Do they have a responsibility to "quarentine" their blood from the general supply? Why? If AIDS is "going around," as you say, people can get it from others, so their self-imposed "quarentine" only lowers the probabilities.

This is some twisted logic. People DO have a responsibility to not knowingly spread their diseases to other people.

QED my ass!!

Malik23 wrote:Let's replace chickenpox with AIDS and see if the logic remains the same.

Aren't stupid comments like "Wayfriend advocates spreading AIDS!" supposed to be in the Tank.

Replace chickenpox with common cold and the logic stays the same. For all the glaringly-obvious-if-you-don't-want-to-be-snide reasons.

Do you stay home everytime you have a cold to protect the world? Do you expect everyone else to?

Hey, you made a general statement that is partially true in some circumstances (like having a cold) and not true in others (like having AIDS). And then you stamp a big Q.E.D on you're reasoning as if it were an abolutely rational conclusion under any circumstance. You've got to expect to be called on it when you do that.

No, I don't stay home when I have a cold. But I do make an effort not to sneeze on people. It's a matter of degree and common sense, not logic. As is every ethical issue.