Ebola

[cartman]

Search on word aerosol

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/human-transmission.html

And the article says that there have been no airborne transmissions between humans. Theoretically, due to pigs respiratory systems, they MAY be able to produce short range aerosol droplets.

FTFA:
A more recent experiment that was specifically designed to further evaluate the possibility of naturally-occurring airborne transmission of Ebola virus among non-human primates showed no transmission of Ebola virus from infected to control primates placed 0.3 meters apart in separate open-barred cages and ambient air conditions, but with a plexiglass divider that prevented direct contact between the animals.

[molson]

Poor monkeys and pigs...

Though it's kind of funny how scared people were early in this thread that about those ebola patients that were merely brought to the U.S. for treatment. When there are all kinds of tests carried out all the time evolving actual ebola, and actual intentional transmissions of it to monkeys and pigs. It's theoretically possible that those testers catch ebola themselves. Should they all be quarantined before they show symptoms?

(Edit: A Russian scientist once actually did give herself Ebola by accidentally sticking herself with a needle in a lab. So it's more than a theoretical risk. And it's just happened more times than a demonstrated airborne transmission in a real-life setting, a transmission by someone without symptoms, or even a transmission into a developed country's general population from a health care provider out on the streets.)

Russian Scientist Dies in Ebola Accident at Former Weapons Lab - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/world/russian-scientist-dies-in-ebola-accident-at-former-weapons-lab.html)

[Edward64]

And the article says that there have been no airborne transmissions between humans. Theoretically, due to pigs respiratory systems, they MAY be able to produce short range aerosol droplets.

It says more than that. On the original exchange with you

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
Then lets use the word aerosol(ized). Ebola can be transmitted through the air in the right conditions.
Citation Needed.

Here's more quotes from the article

Airborne transmission of Ebola virus has been hypothesized but not demonstrated in humans. While Ebola virus can be spread through airborne particles under experimental conditions in animals, this type of spread has not been documented during human EVD outbreaks in settings such as hospitals or households

Note it says "can". In the article, it cited 5 different incidents of transmission. Although nothing was positively proven on how, I did not see anything to say it was disproven.

In my original statement I did not say "human", is it a stretch to believe it can happen in humans?

Airborne transmission of EVD among humans has never been demonstrated in investigations that have described human-to-human transmission although hypothetical concerns about airborne transmission of EVD have been raised

Can you cite an article that disproves that ebola can be transmitted through "aerosol vs airborne"?

[cartman]

Can you cite an article that disproves that ebola can be transmitted through "aerosol vs airborne"?

The one you posted pretty much says that. You are trying to state that the hypothetical has happened.

[stevew]

Those Ebola pigs are the secret ingredient in the McRib.

[Edward64]

The one you posted pretty much says that. You are trying to state that the hypothetical has happened.

See the word "can".

[cartman]

Here's the qualifier from that one:

The authors concluded that “fomite and contact droplet” transmission to the control monkeys was unlikely, and that airborne transmission was most likely,30 but they did not discuss the potential behaviors of caged non-human primates (e.g., spitting and throwing feces) that might have led to body fluid exposures.

In the other experiment where they shared the same air space, but they controlled for no way of physical contact or fluid contact, there were no infections.

[Edward64]

Here's the qualifier from that one:

"airborne transmission" is most likely.

That's not an article saying it can't happen.

How about the other 4 incidents listed?

[cartman]

If you are that pants-shittingly scared of something that can't be reliably replicated in controlled lab scenarios, I don't know what to say.

[Edward64]

You asked for citation, I provided it ... I guess we understand English differently.

The only reason why we don't know about humans is I doubt there is a waiting list of volunteers.

[cartman]

And the citations you quoted came with huge caveats that you seem to ignore.

[Edward64]

CDC articles it quoted said it happened, not sure how it happened, but nothing has been proven or disproven.

It clearly said "airborne transmission is most likely". In another section is says "while Ebola virus can be spread through airborne particles under experimental conditions in animals".

What more do you want?

[cartman]

Read what I quoted above. RIGHT AFTER it says "airborne transmission is most likely", they state they didn't consider the throwing of feces or spitting. I guess if you consider throwing shit as "airborne", then it is likely. That's why the following test they quoted, where they completely avoided any kind of direct physical contact, but kept them a foot and a half apart, and there were no infections, leads me to believe the first study just might have been flawed for not considering spitting or feces throwing.

[Edward64]

How about the second quote?

"while Ebola virus can be spread through airborne particles under experimental conditions in animals"

[cartman]

Dola,

as for the pigs, that was covered back near the beginning of this thread, where their respiratory system is unique in how it aspirates a finer mist than just about any other animal, so their spit would be a likely candidate. But that is unique to pigs, not any other animal they have studied.

[cartman]

And again, they were doing these tests in controlled laboratory conditions, and they haven't consistently replicated these incidents.

[Edward64]

Dola,

as for the pigs, that was covered back near the beginning of this thread, where their respiratory system is unique in how it aspirates a finer mist than just about any other animal, so their spit would be a likely candidate. But that is unique to pigs, not any other animal they have studied.

In the long paragraph, my quote is at the top. Your pig quote is a different experiment?

[Edward64]

And again, they were doing these tests in controlled laboratory conditions, and they haven't consistently replicated these incidents.

Fair enough. It happened, not sure how it happened. Didn't see anywhere in the article where it was disproven. Let me know when you can cite one.

[cartman]

It is all in that "Transmission Studies" segment of the article you posted.

[cartman]

Didn't see anywhere in the article where it was disproven. Let me know when you can cite one.

Russell's teapot

[Edward64]

Let's make sure we are not talking past each other. I am going to restate my position and it would be helpful for you to do the same.

1) Ebola can be transmitted through the air in the right conditions. Admittedly no test showing this has happened in humans but evidence that this may have happened to animals. CDC reports cites 5 studies/incidents where this happened although not sure how it happened.

2) Agree that asymptomatic is not dangerous but do believe there is "x period of risk" as someone becomes asymptomatic to symptomatic. I do not know when/how long this period is. The example is someone infected on a flight from Africa to US, turns symptomatic in flight

3) We do not have a good sense of how ebola is transmitted beyond direct exchange of body fluids and the efficacy of these different transmission channels e.g. symptomatic coughing into someone's face; use of the same towel to wipe a face etc.

[Edward64]

Russell's teapot

Okay, I guess if we want to devolve into this level of discussion forget my above post and lets agree we comprehend English differently and agree to disagree.

[Easy Mac]

So do we have any Ebolas in the US right now, or have we gotten to reset the Ebola safety sign to X days Ebola free.

[cartman]

http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/colbertebola.jpg

[Dutch]

Since the Ebola Virus News first started....

First 60 days: 5 posts mocking Ebola
Last 30 days: 25 posts mocking Ebola
Last 8 hours: 70 posts mocking Ebola

If this trend continues, FOFC will be overrun by Ebola mocking threads by tomorrow morning around 9:30EST.

Here's a chart showing Ebola mocking posts by day plus future projections in red.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/umbraco/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/1282/hockeystick-profile.jpg&format=jpg&compression=80&width=190&height=190&constrain=false

[cartman]

Chances of dying the USA from various causes.

CAUSE LIFETIME ODDS YEARLY ODDS YEARLY DEATHS
Ebola 1 in 3,934,300 1 in 309,629,415 1
your pajamas catching fire 1 in 983,575 1 in 77,407,353 4
a spider bite 1 in 562,042 1 in 44,232,773 7
a snake bite 1 in 437,144 1 in 34,403,268 9
being struck by lightning 1 in 135,666 1 in 10,676,876 29
being scalded 1 in 131,143 1 in 10,320,981 30
an earthquake 1 in 119,221 1 in 9,383,710 33
a dog bite 1 in 103,534 1 in 8,148,143 38
a flood 1 in 100,879 1 in 7,939,216 39
legal execution 1 in 95,959 1 in 7,551,937 41
storm 1 in 83,709 1 in 6,587,860 47
a bee, wasp or hornet sting 1 in 75,660 1 in 5,954,412 52
clothes catching fire 1 in 57,019 1 in 4,487,383 69
riding an animal or in an animal-drawn vehicle 1 in 33,342 1 in 2,623,978 118
accidental hanging 1 in 15,309 1 in 1,204,784 257
choking on your own vomit 1 in 13,071 1 in 1,028,669 301
being electrocuted by power lines 1 in 12,143 1 in 955,646 324
being killed by a police officer 1 in 11,437 1 in 900,086 344
a boating accident 1 in 9,885 1 in 777.693 398
the bathtub 1 in 9,279 1 in 730,258 424
falling off a ladder 1 in 9,003 1 in 708,534 437
an airplane accident 1 in 8,335 1 in 655,995 472
falling out a window 1 in 8,129 1 in 639,730 484
an accidental firearm discharge 1 in 6,492 1 in 510,940 606
a swimming pool 1 in 5,786 1 in 455,337 680
suffocating in bed 1 in 5,752 1 in 452,675 684
tripping and falling 1 in 5,012 1 in 394,432 785
a bicycle struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 4,961 1 in 390,453 793
falling out of bed 1 in 3,765 1 in 296,296 1,045
choking on food 1 in 3,640 1 in 286,429 1,081
a knife assault 1 in 2,187 1 in 172,112 1,799
a river, lake or sea 1 in 2,134 1 in 167,912 1,844
falling down stairs 1 in 1,976 1 in 155,515 1,991
alcohol 1 in 1,867 1 in 146,953 2,107
a house fire 1 in 1,818 1 in 142,818 2,168
surgical complications 1 in 1,580 1 in 124,349 2,490
choking 1 in 1,234 1 in 97,123 3,188
a motorcycle struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 920 1 in 72,377 4,728
a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 721 1 in 56,740 5,457
suicide by poisoning 1 in 596 1 in 46,921 6,599
a car 1 in 491 1 in 38,660 8,009
suicide by hanging 1 in 414 1 in 32,617 9,493
a firearm assault 1 in 355 1 in 27,950 11,078
an illegal drug overdose 1 in 320 1 in 25,214 12,280
a self-inflicted gunshot 1 in 203 1 in 15,967 19,392
influenza 1 in 79 1 in 6,181 50,097
diabetes 1 in 57 1 in 4,482 69,071
Alzheimers disease 1 in 47 1 in 3,708 83,494
stroke 1 in 30 1 in 2,391 129,476
a chronic lower respiratory disease 1 in 28 1 in 2,242 138,080
cancer 1 in 7 1 in 538 574,743
heart disease 1 in 7 1 in 534 579,689

[Solecismic]

Odds are difficult to truly figure, though.

For instance, you may have a 1 in 203 lifetime chance of killing yourself with a gun, but if you don't ever pick up a gun and fire at yourself, the odds go down significantly.

You may have a 1 in 491 lifetime chance of dying in a car crash, but given the number of times you'll get into a car in your lifetime and how much your life would be different if you didn't, you accept that risk.

The flu is the closest relevant risk. And maybe we're not careful enough about that, though the risk for those under 65 is far less than for the elderly. You have a mortality rate of about 0.1% with the flu. With Ebola, that's around 60%.

So Ebola carries about the same risk as firing a gun at yourself, but there's no associated benefit that's part of a lifestyle, like riding in a car.

So I think it's a good idea to keep the odds at 1 in 300 million. A couple of months ago, the odds would have been 0. The question is what steps are reasonable to keep the odds extraordinarily low, because if (and it's fortunately a big if) Ebola gets a foothold here the way it has in west Africa, we're in a lot of trouble. And we won't have medical personnel to help, because most won't come to work any more.

[DaddyTorgo]

And we won't have medical personnel to help, because most won't come to work any more.

Why not?? :confused:

[flere-imsaho]

1) Ebola can be transmitted through the air in the right conditions.

This sentence is the problem. The use of language here doesn't correctly address potential frequency, leading the reader to make assumptions.

A better sentence would be: "Ebola can potentially be transmitted through the air in some rather unique and specific circumstances, and not consistently even in those circumstances."

The article you cited indicates that the only way they could do it reliably was to put closed hoods on monkeys and use a nebulizer to pump aerosolized Ebola directly into those hoods, which is the respiratory equivalent of injecting someone with a needle.

[flere-imsaho]

Why not?? :confused:

Another "big if", I presume.

[jeff061]

If we keep treating Ebola healthcare workers like criminals, yeah the help may diminish.

[Edward64]

This sentence is the problem. The use of language here doesn't correctly address potential frequency, leading the reader to make assumptions.

A better sentence would be: "Ebola can potentially be transmitted through the air in some rather unique and specific circumstances, and not consistently even in those circumstances."

The article you cited indicates that the only way they could do it reliably was to put closed hoods on monkeys and use a nebulizer to pump aerosolized Ebola directly into those hoods, which is the respiratory equivalent of injecting someone with a needle.

I honestly think I addressed that in my recap of my position in #3.

Before we get into another discussion, I do think its more productive for everyone to establish their position/beliefs which allows me the opportunity to respond with some context, what is yours?

3) We do not have a good sense of how ebola is transmitted beyond direct exchange of body fluids and the efficacy of these different transmission channels e.g. symptomatic coughing into someone's face; use of the same towel to wipe a face etc.

[Dutch]

Chances of dying the USA from various causes.

CAUSE LIFETIME ODDS YEARLY ODDS YEARLY DEATHS
Ebola 1 in 3,934,300 1 in 309,629,415 1
your pajamas catching fire 1 in 983,575 1 in 77,407,353 4
a spider bite 1 in 562,042 1 in 44,232,773 7
a snake bite 1 in 437,144 1 in 34,403,268 9
being struck by lightning 1 in 135,666 1 in 10,676,876 29
being scalded 1 in 131,143 1 in 10,320,981 30
an earthquake 1 in 119,221 1 in 9,383,710 33
a dog bite 1 in 103,534 1 in 8,148,143 38
a flood 1 in 100,879 1 in 7,939,216 39
legal execution 1 in 95,959 1 in 7,551,937 41
storm 1 in 83,709 1 in 6,587,860 47
a bee, wasp or hornet sting 1 in 75,660 1 in 5,954,412 52
clothes catching fire 1 in 57,019 1 in 4,487,383 69
riding an animal or in an animal-drawn vehicle 1 in 33,342 1 in 2,623,978 118
accidental hanging 1 in 15,309 1 in 1,204,784 257
choking on your own vomit 1 in 13,071 1 in 1,028,669 301
being electrocuted by power lines 1 in 12,143 1 in 955,646 324
being killed by a police officer 1 in 11,437 1 in 900,086 344
a boating accident 1 in 9,885 1 in 777.693 398
the bathtub 1 in 9,279 1 in 730,258 424
falling off a ladder 1 in 9,003 1 in 708,534 437
an airplane accident 1 in 8,335 1 in 655,995 472
falling out a window 1 in 8,129 1 in 639,730 484
an accidental firearm discharge 1 in 6,492 1 in 510,940 606
a swimming pool 1 in 5,786 1 in 455,337 680
suffocating in bed 1 in 5,752 1 in 452,675 684
tripping and falling 1 in 5,012 1 in 394,432 785
a bicycle struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 4,961 1 in 390,453 793
falling out of bed 1 in 3,765 1 in 296,296 1,045
choking on food 1 in 3,640 1 in 286,429 1,081
a knife assault 1 in 2,187 1 in 172,112 1,799
a river, lake or sea 1 in 2,134 1 in 167,912 1,844
falling down stairs 1 in 1,976 1 in 155,515 1,991
alcohol 1 in 1,867 1 in 146,953 2,107
a house fire 1 in 1,818 1 in 142,818 2,168
surgical complications 1 in 1,580 1 in 124,349 2,490
choking 1 in 1,234 1 in 97,123 3,188
a motorcycle struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 920 1 in 72,377 4,728
a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle 1 in 721 1 in 56,740 5,457
suicide by poisoning 1 in 596 1 in 46,921 6,599
a car 1 in 491 1 in 38,660 8,009
suicide by hanging 1 in 414 1 in 32,617 9,493
a firearm assault 1 in 355 1 in 27,950 11,078
an illegal drug overdose 1 in 320 1 in 25,214 12,280
a self-inflicted gunshot 1 in 203 1 in 15,967 19,392
influenza 1 in 79 1 in 6,181 50,097
diabetes 1 in 57 1 in 4,482 69,071
Alzheimers disease 1 in 47 1 in 3,708 83,494
stroke 1 in 30 1 in 2,391 129,476
a chronic lower respiratory disease 1 in 28 1 in 2,242 138,080
cancer 1 in 7 1 in 538 574,743
heart disease 1 in 7 1 in 534 579,689

I didn't see global warming on that list.

[flere-imsaho]

Those are all acute causes. Global Warming is an obtuse cause.

[flere-imsaho]

I honestly think I addressed that in my recap of my position in #3.

Your "#3" point is wrong. We do have a good sense of the efficacy of different transmission methods and is can be summed up as "quite low to almost no efficacy, unless you are explicitly trying to make it transmit via another method and even then still hardly effective."

Before we get into another discussion, I do think its more productive for everyone to establish their position/beliefs which allows me the opportunity to respond with some context, what is yours?

Science is science. I don't have to believe in anything.

The CDC report is written in pretty clear scientific language. You seem to be seeing things in the report that simply aren't supported by what's actually written in the report.

[Edward64]

Your "#3" point is wrong. We do have a good sense of the efficacy of different transmission methods and is can be summed up as "quite low to almost no efficacy, unless you are explicitly trying to make it transmit via another method and even then still hardly effective."

I googled to see if I could find studies on this but I saw news statements but no studies cited. Let me know when you find one, I would be seriously interested in reading one.

[DaddyTorgo]

I googled to see if I could find studies on this but I saw news statements but no studies cited. Let me know when you find one, I would be seriously interested in reading one.

Pretty sure his point is that's what the CDC report says. :banghead:

[Edward64]

Science is science. I don't have to believe in anything.

The CDC report is written in pretty clear scientific language. You seem to be seeing things in the report that simply aren't supported by what's actually written in the report.

As lessons learn from the above back-and-forth last night, don't think its worthwhile to try have a discussion if I do not holistically understand your point of view vs your challenges to snippets here and there. Let's agree to defer.

[Edward64]

Pretty sure his point is that's what the CDC report says. :banghead:

Okay ... I guess.

[molson]

If it's airborne, why hasn't it spread on planes? Or to a single person in the general population in Dallas? Or to the Texas patient's families? Or why hasn't there been a single proven airborne transmission in real life in history?

It's certainly theoretically possible for HIV to pass through cuts and open wounds. Earlier in the thread Edward64 was concerned about an ebola patient intentionally transmitting the disease in an airport. An HIV patient could obviously do the same thing with a needle. There's all kinds of wacky theoretical risks we can come up with.

[Edward64]

If it's airborne, why hasn't it spread on planes? Or to a single person in the general population in Dallas? Or to the Texas patient's families? Or why hasn't there been a single proven airborne transmission in real life in history? .

See #489. I've conceded it does not fit the medical definition of "airborne". The CDC document provides 5 studies that says transmission occurred without direct touching contact (or so they think). They are not sure how it happened.

It's certainly theoretically possible for HIV to pass through cuts and open wounds. Earlier in the thread Edward64 was concerned about an ebola patient intentionally transmitting the disease in an airport. An HIV patient could obviously do the same thing with a needle. There's all kinds of wacky theoretical risks we can come up with.

The context to the above was a terrorist organization wanting to purposely infect.

[path12]

The context to the above was a terrorist organization wanting to purposely infect.

Do you find yourself hiding from scary things a lot? Because just from reading this last page or so it seems like you might.

[Edward64]

Do you find yourself hiding from scary things a lot? Because just from reading this last page or so it seems like you might.

Nope. I'm a gun owner (but not card carrying NRA). Thanks for the insight though, I'll try to reflect.

[path12]

I didn't mean to be as shitty as that probably sounded. I understand it is a freaky disease. But it truly baffles me that people act like they are going to get it walking down the street.

[Edward64]

I didn't mean to be as shitty as that probably sounded. I understand it is a freaky disease. But it truly baffles me that people act like they are going to get it walking down the street.

Okay, no problem. I'm sorry for the sarcasm myself.

[Dutch]

Those are all acute causes. Global Warming is an obtuse cause.

Whew, I thought it was going to kill us all.

[nol]

DERP DERP DERP

k, thanks for that insight.

[Dutch]

k, thanks for that insight.

You should take things more seriously. Things like Ebola...and Global Warming...not just my joking around!

[BillJasper]

After having a brutal stomach bug for the last 24-hours, I'm not sure I could handle something like Ebola. I have never been as sick as I've been over the last few hours.

[BishopMVP]

Australia and Canada are now refusing to issue visas to people from Liberia/Sierra Leone. Irrational fear or common sense? (THERE CAN BE NO MIDDLE GROUND)

[JPhillips]

After having a brutal stomach bug for the last 24-hours, I'm not sure I could handle something like Ebola. I have never been as sick as I've been over the last few hours.

I hope you're self-quarantining.

[molson]

Whew, I thought it was going to kill us all.

I've been trying to figure out if there's a correlation between those who don't believe in the science of global warming and who don't believe in the science of ebola. I think there is some overlap. It's not total overlap, because there's a phobia/fear/societal thing going on with ebola too. But you can see some of the same tendencies, like deciding what you're going to believe and clinging to that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[BillJasper]

I hope you're self-quarantining.

We've all had it. Seven-year old brought it home from school on Tuesday. But none of us has went out since being sick. Thought the wife has to go to work tomorrow. :eek:

[Solecismic]

I've been trying to figure out if there's a correlation between those who don't believe in the science of global warming and who don't believe in the science of ebola. I think there is some overlap. It's not total overlap, because there's a phobia/fear/societal thing going on with ebola too. But you can see some of the same tendencies, like deciding what you're going to believe and clinging to that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

One could say that about the pro-AGW crowd, though. I see a lot of straw-manning from both the AGW group and those who say there's absolutely nothing to worry about with Ebola. None of it having anything to do with science. Belief can be quite dangerous. A true scientist aspires not to have any beliefs.

What concerns me about Ebola is not that I'll be exposed to it any time soon. That isn't reasonable. It's that a doctor who was so unconcerned that he broke his own organization's rules and traveled throughout the biggest city in our country came down with Ebola. A doctor. Someone who should understand a lot more than any of us ever will. Someone who saw the absolute horror of Ebola first-hand. It's quite unlikely he exposed anyone other than his girlfriend, and even with her it's not much of a risk, but the fact remains that if his fever had spiked while he was traveling rather than when he was sleeping, there might have been exposure. And a one-in-a-thousand chance (or whatever it is when a fever first spikes) of infecting someone with something that has a 60% mortality rate seems like it's worth at least a self-quarantine.

[Dutch]

https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/1174528_883160785030121_408387568809986548_n.jpg?oh=5402d3b2ed9e22d52096c663c1c09ebb&oe=54AD6C56

[Desnudo]

One could say that about the pro-AGW crowd, though. I see a lot of straw-manning from both the AGW group and those who say there's absolutely nothing to worry about with Ebola. None of it having anything to do with science. Belief can be quite dangerous. A true scientist aspires not to have any beliefs.

What concerns me about Ebola is not that I'll be exposed to it any time soon. That isn't reasonable. It's that a doctor who was so unconcerned that he broke his own organization's rules and traveled throughout the biggest city in our country came down with Ebola. A doctor. Someone who should understand a lot more than any of us ever will. Someone who saw the absolute horror of Ebola first-hand. It's quite unlikely he exposed anyone other than his girlfriend, and even with her it's not much of a risk, but the fact remains that if his fever had spiked while he was traveling rather than when he was sleeping, there might have been exposure. And a one-in-a-thousand chance (or whatever it is when a fever first spikes) of infecting someone with something that has a 60% mortality rate seems like it's worth at least a self-quarantine.

It's hard enough to get doctors to wash their hands to prevent infections so not completely suprising.

[molson]

What concerns me about Ebola is not that I'll be exposed to it any time soon. That isn't reasonable. It's that a doctor who was so unconcerned that he broke his own organization's rules and traveled throughout the biggest city in our country came down with Ebola. A doctor. Someone who should understand a lot more than any of us ever will. Someone who saw the absolute horror of Ebola first-hand. It's quite unlikely he exposed anyone other than his girlfriend, and even with her it's not much of a risk, but the fact remains that if his fever had spiked while he was traveling rather than when he was sleeping, there might have been exposure. And a one-in-a-thousand chance (or whatever it is when a fever first spikes) of infecting someone with something that has a 60% mortality rate seems like it's worth at least a self-quarantine.

The doctor's organization did NOT tell him he had to self-quarantine. They specifically say the opposite, that self-quarantining is not recommended or warranted where there's no symptoms. He followed all protocols.

NY Ebola doctor was told he didn't have to self-quarantine | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806696/NY-Ebola-doctor-told-charity-worked-did-no-need-self-quarantine-returning-Ebola-ravaged-country.html)

It's not like if he gets a cab feeling fine, but then starts to feel run down in the cab, he's suddenly contagious. Ebola doesn't work that way.

[molson]

I see a lot of straw-manning from both the AGW group and those who say there's absolutely nothing to worry about with Ebola. None of it having anything to do with science. Belief can be quite dangerous. A true scientist aspires not to have any beliefs.



I don't understand how you can see your side as the "science" side of this when you don't believe what the experts say, and when your conclusions are utterly unsupported by anything that's actually happened. Again, why no transmissions on those planes, or in Cleveland, or in the metro Dallas area? Why is it that only healthcare providers have gotten this in the western world if all the experts and all the science on this are wrong? And why exactly is the CDC, and Doctors without Borders, and all of the other organizations and charities and doctors and scientists that have been on the front line of this for decades so wrong about this? Political conspiracy? What's the angle here?

And we do have to worry about Ebola, my biggest fear is what impact the ignorance will have on our economy, and especially on fighting the disease in Africa. The U.S. has nothing to fear directly, but if the disease spread to say, India, that could have worldwide implications. Fear and ignorance and politics and stupidity could lead us to that point. And it will be because of ignorant mindsets like yours, it won't be because we didn't leave that Maine doctor locked up in a tent, and it won't be because a New York City doctor went bowling before he showed symptoms. But fear of those doctors and ignorance of ebola will cause more countries like Australia to back out of the fight in Africa, funding to dry up, and cause more doctors to second-guess their involvement.

Edit: And on that last point, it's not just the quarantines, its the perception, supported by anecdotal examples, that they're going to be treated like lepers and villains upon their arrival back, that their children will be pulled out of school and shunned there even if when they're let back in, that their neighbors will stop talking to them, etc. Though again, I have hope that those things won't be huge factors, because these people are cut from a different cloth than those who have so much fear here.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't understand how you can see your side as the "science" side of this when you don't believe what the experts say, and when your conclusions are utterly unsupported by anything that's actually happened. Again, why no transmissions on those planes, or in Cleveland, or in the metro Dallas area? Why is it that only healthcare providers have gotten this in the western world if all the experts and all the science on this are wrong? And why exactly is the CDC, and Doctors without Borders, and all of the other organizations and charities and doctors and scientists that have been on the front line of this for decades so wrong about this? Political conspiracy? What's the angle here?

And we do have to worry about Ebola, my biggest fear is what impact the ignorance will have on our economy, and especially on fighting the disease in Africa. The U.S. has nothing to fear directly, but if the disease spread to say, India, that could have worldwide implications. Fear and ignorance and politics and stupidity could lead us to that point. And it will be because of ignorant mindsets like yours, it won't be because we didn't leave that Maine doctor locked up in a tent, and it won't be because a New York City doctor went bowling before he showed symptoms. But fear of those doctors and ignorance of ebola will cause more countries like Australia to back out of the fight in Africa, funding to dry up, and cause more doctors to second-guess their involvement.

I especially love how he lumps folks who believe in AGW into the "none of it to do with science" crowd by virtue of mentioning it in his argument there. Sure, he'll deny it now that I've called him out on it, but that was clearly his intention.

What an uneducated _________.

(the ______ is me being "nice" and leaving the last word of that sentence for everyone to fill in in their imagination rather than saying what I would normally say.)

[Solecismic]

I don't understand how you can see your side as the "science" side of this when you don't believe what the experts say, and when your conclusions are utterly unsupported by anything that's actually happened. Again, why no transmissions on those planes, or in Cleveland, or in the metro Dallas area? Why is it that only healthcare providers have gotten this in the western world if all the experts and all the science on this are wrong? And why exactly is the CDC, and Doctors without Borders, and all of the other organizations and charities and doctors and scientists that have been on the front line of this for decades so wrong about this? Political conspiracy? What's the angle here?

And we do have to worry about Ebola, my biggest fear is what impact the ignorance will have on our economy, and especially on fighting the disease in Africa. The U.S. has nothing to fear directly, but if the disease spread to say, India, that could have worldwide implications. Fear and ignorance and politics and stupidity could lead us to that point. And it will be because of ignorant mindsets like yours, it won't be because we didn't leave that Maine doctor locked up in a tent, and it won't be because a New York City doctor went bowling before he showed symptoms. But fear of those doctors and ignorance of ebola will cause more countries like Australia to back out of the fight in Africa, funding to dry up, and cause more doctors to second-guess their involvement.

Edit: And on that last point, it's not just the quarantines, its the perception, supported by anecdotal examples, that they're going to be treated like lepers and villains upon their arrival back, that their children will be pulled out of school and shunned there even if when they're let back in, that their neighbors will stop talking to them, etc. Though again, I have hope that those things won't be huge factors, because these people are cut from a different cloth than those who have so much fear here.

The answers to your questions were included in that response.

[molson]

The answers to your questions were included in that response.

Not really. Maybe the part about why your fears aren't supported by evidence, one can always respond with that with "any theoretical risk is too much risk!" (Which completely ignores the risks all of us face every day, including from illnesses - check out the CDC website - people die every day of contagious shit that isn't Ebola.). But you haven't addressed why the CDC, doctors without borders, and every other charity and organization is lying (or just wrong) about this. Or why you keep insisting that this NYC doctor violated protocol despite the evidence to the contrary - his own organization said he didn't. Or why it's so important to keep non-symptomatic doctors out of bowling alleys, and how the vilification of doctors doesn't risk losing the real, important, struggle, on the ground in Africa. Why should we treat the U.S. like ground zero, when Ebola obviously spreads so much faster in underdeveloped regions? And even the 60% mortality rate is extraordinarily suspect because it's based almost entirely on treatment given in a region that has a life expectancy 20+ years less than the rest of the world. In the U.S. and Europe, the only one that has died is the one who wasn't treated until the end stages, and that includes the ones who we brought back to the states for treatment, despite the paranoid desires expressed by so many, including some in this thread, that they be left in Africa to die. Something like 8 of 9 have survived in the U.S. and Europe, and we're 8 for 8 when the ebola was recognized early.

I honestly can't understand why somebody is so awesome at creating text sims can be so dismissive of science when it comes to global warming and ebola. Oh well, I'm playing your game right now and it still kicks ass.

[Solecismic]

I'm not being dismissive of science. I'm taking a reasonable, open approach to reported facts. I don't think my response said what you think it said.

As for climate change, yes, the climate changes constantly. And 99% of the scientists who agree with each other agree that humans have a large effect. But they have also produced a staggering record of inaccurate predictions about recent years. It's not settled science. It's an assumption, and it's trumpeted by politicians and, as we saw from the leaked East Anglia emails, the scientists producing these results are not all that ethical.

So, we should take a pragmatic approach. Rather than shutting off Africa (making things worse) and panicking, we should ask medical personnel exposed to the disease to self-quarantine for three weeks upon returning. Rather than propping up politically-connected alternative energy companies and creating bizarre cap-and-trade mechanisms that will harm our economy, we should continue to research alternative energy plans and encourage the market to produce the winners and losers.

[sterlingice]

So, we should take a pragmatic approach. Rather than shutting off Africa (making things worse) and panicking, we should ask medical personnel exposed to the disease to self-quarantine for three weeks upon returning. Rather than propping up politically-connected alternative energy companies and creating bizarre cap-and-trade mechanisms that will harm our economy, we should continue to research alternative energy plans and encourage the market to produce the winners and losers.

We're way off topic here, but how does one "encourage the market to produce winners and losers"? Aren't "propping up alternative energy companies and creating cap-and-trade mechanism" two way to do that?

SI

[jeff061]

I'm not being dismissive of science. I'm taking a reasonable, open approach to reported facts. I don't think my response said what you think it said.

As for climate change, yes, the climate changes constantly. And 99% of the scientists who agree with each other agree that humans have a large effect. But they have also produced a staggering record of inaccurate predictions about recent years. It's not settled science. It's an assumption, and it's trumpeted by politicians and, as we saw from the leaked East Anglia emails, the scientists producing these results are not all that ethical.

So, we should take a pragmatic approach. Rather than shutting off Africa (making things worse) and panicking, we should ask medical personnel exposed to the disease to self-quarantine for three weeks upon returning. Rather than propping up politically-connected alternative energy companies and creating bizarre cap-and-trade mechanisms that will harm our economy, we should continue to research alternative energy plans and encourage the market to produce the winners and losers.

You just seem to be completely ignoring what everyone is saying and are absolutely not being being open to the facts, quite frankly you are being the exact polar opposite of "open to facts". You are taking a very theistic point of view on this and going out of your way to ignore or gloss over every single piece of documented evidence and scientific fact in order to support your flawed world view on Ebola.

People's ongoing idiocy in this country in regards to Ebola is really striking a chord with me and driving me nuts. Every day it's these morons saying moronic things and backing it up with the lie of "We don't know enough about Ebola". Newsflash to the people saying that, you don't, we do.

[JPhillips]

creating bizarre cap-and-trade mechanisms

I just want to pull this out. Whether or not you agree with cap and trade, it certainly isn't bizarre. Setting an overall limit on something and then letting businesses sell and buy shares is well tested and effective in both U.S and Europe.

[Solecismic]

It seems unproductive to call people names when you don't agree with them. I'll give it one more shot, because if this persists, I'll probably end up with a couple more people on ignore. It's either that or start responding in kind, which is only briefly entertaining.

Is your argument that Ebola is impossible to transmit if someone has a fever and, for instance, sneezes or throws up? Is it possible that, if monitoring your temperature twice a day, a fever could spike while you're out doing something and you might not be aware at the moment it could be an issue? Or maybe you're on public transport and you can't isolate yourself?

Is it likely that if you felt it was possible you had Ebola, you would self-quarantine away from others until you knew for certain? Especially your girlfriend? It seems likely this doctor didn't think it was possible he had it. That's the only logical conclusion for his behavior.

Is your argument that this doctor used a mask that wasn't sufficient to protect himself from Ebola when having direct contact with highly contagious patients because A) he's such a humanitarian he's OK with this sacrifice, or B) he thought that mask was sufficient, and didn't know all the facts himself?

I'll say this one more time... I'm not condoning closing all the schools over this... I'm not condoning quarantining the little girl who vacationed in Nigeria where they had one small outbreak that was contained quickly and she had no exposure. I don't want to close the bowling alley. I don't want panic at all. All I'm advocating is 21-day self-quarantine for people who had direct contact with highly contagious patients.

As for cap-and-trade, it's an artificial governmental limit on something people need. If we drive up energy costs, this harms the poor more than anyone else. Let's convince India and China (2.5 billion people) it's necessary before we try it, too. China is actually doing quite well trying to explore more sensible alternatives to cap-and-trade, though it's uncertain what they'll end up doing. As for the emerging energy alternatives, yes, encourage new development, but don't make it a boondoggle for the politically connected, like Solyndra.

[flere-imsaho]

Jim's certainly the master of taking an isolated anecdote and extrapolating it into a broad argument.

[Dutch]

No, what Jim is saying is that science is factual and therefore the solution to a scientific fact should be unequivocally factual as well. And we haven't come up with that yet.

[jeff061]

No, what Jim is saying is that science is factual and therefore the solution to a scientific fact should be unequivocally factual as well. And we haven't come up with that yet.

Which is back to the acceptable risk discussion. Why not have government enforced isolations and restrictions for every single possible perceived risk. Are we playing a zero sum game? The irony of that is not lost on me, as most the people calling for Ebola quarantines are also passionate about their gun rights.

[Solecismic]

Which is back to the acceptable risk discussion. Why not have government enforced isolations and restrictions for every single possible perceived risk. Are we playing a zero sum game? The irony of that is not lost on me, as most the people calling for Ebola quarantines are also passionate about their gun rights.

Is that a productive comparison? Guns are a completely different argument, because they have a legitimate use (as do cars, which kill a lot of people). And, if this is a response to me, quote me on where I stand on gun control, then.

Yes, we should assess the risk. We went from 0 to 2 people catching it in the US. That's a very low risk for the moment. Some scientists are trying to make that assessment now, but it's hard to do accurately. We have something with a 60% mortality rate. Getting into a car has a significantly lower mortality rate. I think the 60% warrants an extremely high level of safety for now. Especially since when looking at risk/benefit analysis, the benefit of bringing Ebola to the US is zero. And, again, we can assume this doctor thought he didn't.

But I do advocate bans on texting and driving, because texting adds very little value to the driving experience and studies show it makes drivers far more likely to get into an accident. Same for drinking and driving. Or drinking and hunting. Or texting and hunting, I guess.

[jeff061]

I would say not being forced into a unneeded quarantine is pretty legitimate, especially in the current discussed case as it amounts more or less to a punishment for people who are actually helping. Not going to resolve this at it's source if we are locking up the heroes that work on it.

To be clear, I'm not for gun control. But I'm also not for locking people up against their will for slim to zero risk, simply because some uninformed knee jerkers want to to feel safe at the expense of others. That sounds mighty familiar.

Maybe we should start locking up people who say or do odd things on the off chance that they will shoot someone.

[jeff061]

Yes, we should assess the risk. We went from 0 to 2 people catching it in the US. That's a very low risk for the moment. Some scientists are trying to make that assessment now, but it's hard to do accurately. We have something with a 60% mortality rate. Getting into a car has a significantly lower mortality rate. I think the 60% warrants an extremely level of safety for now. Especially since when looking at risk/benefit analysis, the benefit of bringing Ebola to the US is zero.
Also, as noted, it's 60% in locations that have the lowest life expectancy in the world. It's currently 0% for people diagnosed relatively early(read: not shitting blood) in the US.

The benefit of not quarantining workers is to not dissuade them from combating the disease at it's source. It's also a rather slippery slope when you start talking about forcibly confining people, you can't say there is no benefit to that in this country. We aren't North Korea.

You are treating this as a zero sum game and you are wrong. This is not captain trips.

[JonInMiddleGA]

because texting adds very little value to the driving experience

Eh, would have to disagree on that point, and I'm not even a texter.

Not worth a huge argument to derail the thread or nothing, I'm jus sayin.

[flere-imsaho]

One could say that about the pro-AGW crowd, though. I see a lot of straw-manning from both the AGW group and those who say there's absolutely nothing to worry about with Ebola.

What you call a "strawman" related to Global Warming is actually established scientific fact. As usual you are playing fast-and-loose with what you'll deign to recognize as actual scientific facts.

None of it having anything to do with science. Belief can be quite dangerous. A true scientist aspires not to have any beliefs.

You seem to believe pretty fervently in an unfettered market, Jim, despite considerable evidence against it. Why is that?

It's that a doctor who was so unconcerned that he broke his own organization's rules and traveled throughout the biggest city in our country came down with Ebola. A doctor.

The doctor's organization did NOT tell him he had to self-quarantine. They specifically say the opposite, that self-quarantining is not recommended or warranted where there's no symptoms. He followed all protocols.

NY Ebola doctor was told he didn't have to self-quarantine | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806696/NY-Ebola-doctor-told-charity-worked-did-no-need-self-quarantine-returning-Ebola-ravaged-country.html)

Oh dear, called out by the facts again, Jim. By someone providing a citation? Will we see a retraction?

I'm not being dismissive of science. I'm taking a reasonable, open approach to reported facts.

As usual, you choose to believe in certain facts, and not in others. This is why people don't take you seriously.

As for climate change, yes, the climate changes constantly. And 99% of the scientists who agree with each other agree that humans have a large effect.

Did you intend that tautology? Here's the facts:

http://www.jamespowell.org/files/2013piechartbyred2.png

But they have also produced a staggering record of inaccurate predictions about recent years.

Yep, woefully inaccurate:

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/)

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

It's not settled science.

Given your posting history, I think we're all justified in asking you to define "settled science".

It's an assumption, and it's trumpeted by politicians and, as we saw from the leaked East Anglia emails, the scientists producing these results are not all that ethical.

Ah, you mean the "Climategate" scandal dreamed up by skeptic, which was later investigated by eight independent committees who all found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?

UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html)
Oxburgh Report Clears Controversial Climate Research Unit | Science/AAAS | News (http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controversial-climate-research-unit)
Climate Scientist Mann Partially Absolved by Penn State | Science/AAAS | News (http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2010/02/climate-scientist-mann-partially-absolved-penn-state)
Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations | Science/AAAS | News (http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-penn-state-inquiry-finds-no-substance-allegations)
BBC News - Scientists' 'Climategate' e-mails 'just discussions' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538)
U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html

No, what Jim is saying is that science is factual and therefore the solution to a scientific fact should be unequivocally factual as well. And we haven't come up with that yet.

No, he's saying the science that supports his beliefs is factual, but the science that doesn't, isn't.

[Edward64]

Not really. Maybe the part about why your fears aren't supported by evidence, one can always respond with that with "any theoretical risk is too much risk!" (Which completely ignores the risks all of us face every day, including from illnesses - check out the CDC website - people die every day of contagious shit that isn't Ebola.). But you haven't addressed why the CDC, doctors without borders, and every other charity and organization is lying (or just wrong) about this. Or why you keep insisting that this NYC doctor violated protocol despite the evidence to the contrary - his own organization said he didn't. Or why it's so important to keep non-symptomatic doctors out of bowling alleys, and how the vilification of doctors doesn't risk losing the real, important, struggle, on the ground in Africa. Why should we treat the U.S. like ground zero, when Ebola obviously spreads so much faster in underdeveloped regions? And even the 60% mortality rate is extraordinarily suspect because it's based almost entirely on treatment given in a region that has a life expectancy 20+ years less than the rest of the world. In the U.S. and Europe, the only one that has died is the one who wasn't treated until the end stages, and that includes the ones who we brought back to the states for treatment, despite the paranoid desires expressed by so many, including some in this thread, that they be left in Africa to die. Something like 8 of 9 have survived in the U.S. and Europe, and we're 8 for 8 when the ebola was recognized early.

I honestly can't understand why somebody is so awesome at creating text sims can be so dismissive of science when it comes to global warming and ebola. Oh well, I'm playing your game right now and it still kicks ass.

Specifically to CDC is "lying (or just wrong) about this". I do not believe the CDC has a grasp of the efficacy of transmission and that the "science" around this is still evolving and not known with certainty at this time.

The original CDC created flyer (came out around 10/30 or 10/31) referred below about "a person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose" which was then withdrawn the next day. I think this shows CDC itself has not completed an internal assessment (or has agreement) on the science to efficacy of transmission methods yet.

CDC Removed Info On Coughing And Sneezing From Ebola Q&A (UPDATE) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/cdc-ebola_n_6078072.html)
WASHINGTON -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has quietly removed some Ebola information from its website. The changes follow claims from news outlets and conservative blogs that the agency hasn't been forthcoming about how the virus spreads, but it was not clear on Thursday afternoon whether the removal was related to the reports.

The New York Post reported Tuesday that the agency "admitted" Ebola can be contracted through casual contact with a doorknob, seemingly contrary to the CDC's insistence that Ebola is only transmissible through direct contact with bodily fluids from a person sick with the disease. The Post cited a page on the CDC's website that said Ebola spreads through droplets that can travel short distances when a sick person coughs or sneezes.

The page was a PDF document that explained the difference between infections spread through the air or by droplets. The PDF had been taken down as of Thursday afternoon, with this message in its place: "The What’s the difference between infections spread through air or by droplets? Fact sheet is being updated and is currently unavailable. Please visit cdc.gov/Ebola for up-to-date information on Ebola."

An earlier version of the page is still available in Google's cache. It said that while Ebola is not "airborne" like chickenpox or tuberculosis, it can travel a few feet in the air inside droplets emitted when someone coughs or sneezes.

"A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose," the document said.

[Edward64]

The irony of that is not lost on me, as most the people calling for Ebola quarantines are also passionate about their gun rights.

Majority of American's want quarantine. No breakdown on demographics that I could find but sure its coming.

Ebola: 71% Back Mandatory Quarantines for Health Workers in New Poll (http://time.com/3554336/ebola-poll-quarantine-health-workers/)
More than seven in 10 Americans support mandatory quarantines for health professionals who have treated Ebola patients in West Africa, even if they have no symptoms, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

[molson]

Majority of American's want quarantine. No breakdown on demographics that I could find but sure its coming.

Ebola: 71% Back Mandatory Quarantines for Health Workers in New Poll (http://time.com/3554336/ebola-poll-quarantine-health-workers/)

The majority of Americans want to ban flights from the impacted countries to the United States - even though no such flights actually exist. The majority of Americans are either too stupid to process nuanced information from the CDC, haven't educated themselves on ebola, have some kind of agenda that can't be overcome with facts, or are overwhelmed by fear and can't process any of this rationally.

[jeff061]

Majority of American's want quarantine. No breakdown on demographics that I could find but sure its coming.

Ebola: 71% Back Mandatory Quarantines for Health Workers in New Poll (http://time.com/3554336/ebola-poll-quarantine-health-workers/)

All idiots and the reason for my frustration. I worded it poorly. A lot of people including gun rights activists are for quarantines.

[molson]

And I don't really believe that alarmists would be OK with just a home quarantine. That's just where the discussion point is now. I think the doctors are worried about that too. A few weeks of limited interaction with the public might not be the end of the world. But that wouldn't be enough. See the shitshtorm in in this thread when doctors were flown on a non-commercial plane directly to the U.S., when that doctor without symptoms went to get take-out food, when New Jersey released that doctor from the tent, or when a non-symptomatic doctor went bowling. If doctors were staying at their homes the same people would just be saying that they should be in a more controlled environment like a military tent. (Edit: And if those doctors should be locked up, then there's no reason we shouldn't also lock up those who conduct Ebola research or treat ebola patients in the U.S. Because hey, it's possible to transmit it health care workers, we've actually seen that happen in real life.)

The gun control comparison is fascinating too. I'm not a big gun control guy for the same reasons I don't go overboard on Ebola. I don't think that restricting guns makes anyone safer, and the cost of the loss of rights is too great for any minimal reduction of risk. And I think many of the gun control zealots, like the ebola zealots, are motivated by things other than safety. But ya, if you're basing your arguments that we should involuntarily detain people on theoretical risks, I can think of some more-than-theoretical risks involving guns.

[flounder]

Who's to say that the CDC isn't lying about the 21 day incubation period too? We should probably quarantine these people forever just to be safe. I'll bet you could find a majority of Americans that would agree.

[BillJasper]

Took my seven year old to the doctor today because his stomach bug came back. First question asked: "Have you or anyone you know been outside the United States in the last thirty days?" :lol:

[JPhillips]

My niece was exposed to pertussis at her school.

Thanks anti-vaxers.

[BillJasper]

My niece was exposed to pertussis at her school.

Thanks anti-vaxers.

FREEDUM!!!

[larrymcg421]

Hickox's boyfriend has been asked to stay away from his nursing school, even though there's no way he currently has it if she's not symptomatic.

[Radii]

Took my seven year old to the doctor today because his stomach bug came back. First question asked: "Have you or anyone you know been outside the United States in the last thirty days?" :lol:

I was at the Urologist last week (getting older is awesome) and they didn't mention anything but there were signs in the waiting room and in the back saying that if you or someone you are close to travelled internationally recently to please tell the staff. Given the type of office it stood out.

[larrymcg421]

So I brought up the Ryan White thing before and most people who support quarantines said they wouldn't have had a problem with Ryan White at their school. But how do you differentiate that from Ebola? He got kicked out of his school for many of the same reasons people want quarantines or travel restrictions now. People didn't know about the disease.They were scared and wanted to be safe. How are you different from the people that chased him from his home? Should he have self-quarantined?

[AlexB]

Thought the attached article might be of interest given the way the thread has gone. The reaction to ebola is no different to people overestimating other facets of society

Today’s key fact: you are probably wrong about almost everything | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/todays-key-fact-you-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything)

[molson]

So I brought up the Ryan White thing before and most people who support quarantines said they wouldn't have had a problem with Ryan White at their school. But how do you differentiate that from Ebola? He got kicked out of his school for many of the same reasons people want quarantines or travel restrictions now. People didn't know about the disease.They were scared and wanted to be safe. How are you different from the people that chased him from his home? Should he have self-quarantined?

I think there's a lot of similarities between this and the early days of AIDS. HIV can theoretically be transferred through cuts in the skin, which all kids have. The information about how unlikely that is was out there, but AIDS was so new that it was easy to just say, "why take a chance?" There's no way anyone who is afraid of Ebola in 2014 would have wanted Ryan White in their school in 1985.

And Ebola itself appears to be about as contagious as HIV until a patient reaches the latter stages and shows obvious and severe symptoms. It's not like someone can get on a plane and then develop a fever on the plane and infect everyone. It takes days, sometimes longer, before an ebola patient presents a real risk to anyone. That's why healthcare workers are hit so hard by this, and family members and others in the general public aren't when the patient is taken to the hospital, as opposed to when they die at home, which is so often the case in West Africa. (and dying in a West African hospital is not all that different than dying at home.) That's why the protocols are the way they are - they're not arbitrary. (Aside from the politically-motivated protocols).

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/human-transmission.html

Vic_n_Ven comments on CDC and health departments are asserting "Ebola patients are infectious when symptomatic, not before"-- what data, evidence, science from virology, epidemiology or clinical or animal studies supports this assertion? How do we know this to be true? (http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2i51u1/cdc_and_health_departments_are_asserting_ebola/ckz1jnk)

(the latter is from a confirmed /r/askscience panelist, so not an official source, but he sourced his info and explains a lot of the same stuff from the CDC article in a reader-friendly way).

[Easy Mac]

I think there's been more posts in this thread since the last person in the US was cured than there was during the actual "outbreak".

[flere-imsaho]

Took my seven year old to the doctor today because his stomach bug came back. First question asked: "Have you or anyone you know been outside the United States in the last thirty days?" :lol:

Got a Chest X-Ray (because I got a small case of pneumonia a few weeks ago) and a blood draw (for cholesterol) today, and they asked this question as I signed in.

Speaking of which, I had a mild case of pneumonia a few weeks ago. Something everyone should be a LOT more afraid of than Ebola.

[Lathum]

This is going to explode in the USA very soon. People are so stupid. Why would she travel to a different city? Just dumb beyond dumb.

still waiting...

[JPhillips]

Got a Chest X-Ray (because I got a small case of pneumonia a few weeks ago) and a blood draw (for cholesterol) today, and they asked this question as I signed in.

Speaking of which, I had a mild case of pneumonia a few weeks ago. Something everyone should be a LOT more afraid of than Ebola.

Don't worry, we're all afraid of you and your death germs.

[flere-imsaho]

Don't worry, we're all afraid of you and your death germs.

Good. I never feel I have had a truly productive day unless I've managed to spread fear and terror. Looks like I'll be able to knock off early today.

[molson]

The brave Australian government has agreed to change course and will send help to West Africa - on the condition that they don't have to deal with any Australians who get infected. Any infected will be sent to the U.K. instead.

Ebola: Abbott government relents, will send Australian volunteers to treat victims (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ebola-abbott-government-relents-will-send-australian-volunteers-to-treat-victims-20141104-11grgy.html)

[rowech]

still waiting...

Hopfully, it stays that way.

[PilotMan]

Took my seven year old to the doctor today because his stomach bug came back. First question asked: "Have you or anyone you know been outside the United States in the last thirty days?" :lol:

I'm due for a physical sometime soon and having been out of the country 3 times in the last 30 days I'm think I'll just put that on hold for a little while longer.

[Kodos]

Hopfully, it stays that way.

But it's not looking good, right? An outbreak is imminent!

[JPhillips]

For fuck's sake.

Susan Sherman, a religious education teacher who is also a registered nurse, was recently on a mission in Kenya in eastern Africa. When she returned, St. Margaret Mary school requested she take a precautionary 21-day leave and produce a health note from her doctor, according to a statement from the Archdiocese of Louisville.

[Lathum]

For fuck's sake.

Is it a paid leave?

If it is I don't have a huge issue with that.

[cartman]

Well, considering all of the ebola cases were on the west coast of Africa, and Kenya is 3500 miles away, it doesn't make much sense.

[JPhillips]

Kenya is over 3000 miles from Liberia.

Are they doing the same for people that have been to Paris?

[BillJasper]

Well, considering all of the ebola cases were on the west coast of Africa, and Kenya is 3500 miles away, it doesn't make much sense.

There is no logical thought process on the subject of Ebola now.

[Buccaneer]

I blame Tom Clancy.

[larrymcg421]

Is it a paid leave?

If it is I don't have a huge issue with that.

I do, because it's ridiculous stupidity. There is no Ebola in Kenya. It's on the other side of the fucking continent.

[Buccaneer]

Without stepping into anything, how do you know that there is no Ebola in Kenya?

[Lathum]

I understand all that, but it is the perception, and perception is reality. If you have someone who is a teacher at a school where she is presumably around other peoples children there is a possibility parents can perceive it as a threat. That could hurt the overall livelihood of the school.

Not saying it isn't irrational, but I don't have a problem with it.

[DanGarion]

Ebola looking good in the offseason.

[DanGarion]

Without stepping into anything, how do you know that there is no Ebola in Kenya?

The same way we know there is no Ebola in the US.

[cartman]

Without stepping into anything, how do you know that there is no Ebola in Kenya?

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137424/1/roadmapsitrep_31Oct2014_eng.pdf?ua=1

[cartman]

I understand all that, but it is the perception, and perception is reality. If you have someone who is a teacher at a school where she is presumably around other peoples children there is a possibility parents can perceive it as a threat. That could hurt the overall livelihood of the school.

Not saying it isn't irrational, but I don't have a problem with it.

It is just plain stupid, and should be stopped, rather than encouraged.

[DanGarion]

Not saying it isn't irrational, but I don't have a problem with it.

Irrational fear is why the media exists. They love to hype that shit.

[Buccaneer]

Your faith in the WHO and in the accuracy of tracking everyone and their contacts is interesting. But the irrationality point is well taken, we've seen it many times before.

[cartman]

Your faith in the WHO and in the accuracy of tracking everyone and their contacts is interesting. But the irrationality point is well taken, we've seen it many times before.

I'd have enough faith that they would know about cases within +/- 3500 miles.

[molson]

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/137424/1/roadmapsitrep_31Oct2014_eng.pdf?ua=1

This may be easier since it doesn't require reading.

Map: The Africa without Ebola - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/03/map-the-africa-without-ebola/)

I wouldn't mind a 3-week paid vacation though.

[Lathum]

It is just plain stupid, and should be stopped, rather than encouraged.

Irrational fear is why the media exists. They love to hype that shit.

Not saying I disagree with this, however, you can't tell that to the parents of the kids who attend that school. And if they have fears about it, justified or not, it could put the school as a whole at risk.

[DanGarion]

Not saying I disagree with this, however, you can't tell that to the parents of the kids who attend that school. And if they have fears about it, justified or not, it could put the school as a whole at risk.

That's when the school needs to take the responsibility of educating the parents to protect their employee and the children from the parents own stupidity... :)

[flere-imsaho]

This thread is rapidly descending into hilarity. I approve! :D

[dubb93]

Not saying I disagree with this, however, you can't tell that to the parents of the kids who attend that school. And if they have fears about it, justified or not, it could put the school as a whole at risk.

Where is the line drawn? What if a parent doesn't like Kentucky? Can they demand anyone that comes from Kentucky get a quarantine? What about Europe? Didn't someone have ebola in Spain? We should probably not let anyone in from London then. You know...what with everyone needing peace of mind and all.

[sterlingice]

I blame Tom Clancy.

Robin Cook, right?

SI

[cartman]

Not saying I disagree with this, however, you can't tell that to the parents of the kids who attend that school. And if they have fears about it, justified or not, it could put the school as a whole at risk.

Why couldn't you tell that to the parents of the kids? They were a hell of a lot closer to an infected ebola patient (the ones in Dallas) than the nurse that was in Kenya.

[molson]

Your faith in the WHO and in the accuracy of tracking everyone and their contacts is interesting.

It's theoretically possible that someone slipped into Kenya on a plane from West Africa, developed symptoms, didn't seek treatment, and is either still hidden from view or has died without anyone recognizing he had ebola. And it's theoretically possible that this Kentucky teacher went to this country of 44 million people and unluckily came into close contact with the secret ebola sufferer - maybe she was in his house and tried to treat him and came into contact with his vomit and shit. And then she contracted ebola, but came to the states, and has not yet developed symptoms (I have no idea how long its been since she was in Kenya).

All of this is possible. It's also possible, and statistically more likely, that this lady is a child molester, or a murderer.

Ultimately, this whole ebola thing is about a recognition of the risks of ebola, and the risks of other everyday activities that we tolerate. I keep seeing that ebola is different because of it's 60% mortality rate. Even assuming that (and ignoring the fact that the U.S. and Europe mortality rate has been almost 0%), there's lots of risks of things with a greater morality rate that we tolerate. If you get decapitated on a roller coaster, your mortality rate is 100%. And that has happened more often than people in the general public being infected with Ebola. But most of us will still go on roller coasters and don't advocate that they be shut down. (Though I think we did have a spirited thread about that once here.)

[Buccaneer]

molson, I agree with you; I was throwing it out there, particularly reacting to knowing something that is probably unknowable.

[molson]

molson, I agree with you; I was throwing it out there, particularly reacting to knowing something that is probably unknowable.

Ya, I meant to throw in there, I wasn't attacking you Bucc, just throwing out thoughts too.

[cartman]

The teacher ended up resigning.

Louisville elementary school teacher resigns over potential Ebol - WDRB 41 Louisville News (http://www.wdrb.com/story/27188811/louisville-elementary-school-teacher-resigns-over-potential-ebola-scare)

[Lathum]

Where is the line drawn? What if a parent doesn't like Kentucky? Can they demand anyone that comes from Kentucky get a quarantine? What about Europe? Didn't someone have ebola in Spain? We should probably not let anyone in from London then. You know...what with everyone needing peace of mind and all.

I guess you missed the part where I said justified or not.

I'm not defending the school, or any parents who have irrational fears. My point is something like this could literally put the school out of business, so I don't blame them for taking extreme precautions.

And neither you, nor anyone else has the right to minimize a parents concerns about their child. No matter how silly you think they may be.

[molson]

And neither you, nor anyone else has the right to minimize a parents concerns about their child. No matter how silly you think they may be.

Of course we do. What if you don't want any black kids your kids' class because you're afraid they'll teach your kid how to be a criminal? You'd deserve to be mocked. Parenthood isn't some badge that forgives stupidity and ignorance.

[BillJasper]

Of course we do. What if you don't want any black kids your kids' class because you're afraid they'll teach your kid how to be a criminal? You'd deserve to be mocked. Parenthood isn't some badge that forgives stupidity and ignorance.

Got to agree here.

[Lathum]

Of course we do. What if you don't want any black kids your kids' class because you're afraid they'll teach your kid how to be a criminal? You'd deserve to be mocked. Parenthood isn't some badge that forgives stupidity and ignorance.

fair point,but I think it is apples and oranges.

[sterlingice]

I guess you missed the part where I said justified or not.

I'm not defending the school, or any parents who have irrational fears. My point is something like this could literally put the school out of business, so I don't blame them for taking extreme precautions.

And neither you, nor anyone else has the right to minimize a parents concerns about their child. No matter how silly you think they may be.

As others have said, a parent doesn't get to do whatever they want by virtue of being a parent. We are all living the the same society and both the kid and parents are, as well.

SI

[JPhillips]

Discouraging nurses from helping the sick and allowing fear to tarnish an innocent individual seem to me to be the very opposite of what a Catholic school should be teaching its students.

[DaddyTorgo]

I guess you missed the part where I said justified or not.

I'm not defending the school, or any parents who have irrational fears. My point is something like this could literally put the school out of business, so I don't blame them for taking extreme precautions.

And neither you, nor anyone else has the right to minimize a parents concerns about their child. No matter how silly you think they may be.

Fine. So those parents who are so irrationally concerned can keep their kids home for 21 days.

[PilotMan]

I guess you missed the part where I said justified or not.

I'm not defending the school, or any parents who have irrational fears. My point is something like this could literally put the school out of business, so I don't blame them for taking extreme precautions.

And neither you, nor anyone else has the right to minimize a parents concerns about their child. No matter how silly you think they may be.

The only way that the school actually goes out of business is if every single parent unilaterally pulls their kids out of school and enrolls them somewhere else. The school is shunned for it's choices and ceases to exist, it's reputation torn to shreds. I don't see it as a viable alternative, nor one in which the school is protecting itself from if that teacher had decided not to stay away. Now we are back to the 'if it's possible let's avoid it' argument. Furthermore, schools districts have been minimizing the concerns of parents for years. If the district succumbed to every whim and fantasy of a parent they'd never get anything done. No, that's the entire point of a school board. To decide what the best course of action will be for the group at large. A parent is free to move to another district with their kid, but every parent can't force every school to bend to their every fear or concern. Look I get where you are coming from. I know how old your kids are and I feel just as protective. I've fought and yanked my kids from school. I've home-schooled them and re-enrolled in a new district. It's all be what's best for my kids, for what they needed. You want the world to bow to your wishes and needs, and sometimes they do, but they can't for everyone in all circumstances.

[dubb93]

This whole thing just keeps getting more ludicrous. Ebola isn't going to kill us. We are going to kill ourselves with our decision making.

[lighthousekeeper]

As others have said, a parent doesn't get to do whatever they want by virtue of being a parent. We are all living the the same society and both the kid and parents are, as well.

SI

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7958cwXxc1raxlzco1_500.png

[molson]

Here's a great example about how fear of ebola hinders the fight against it.

Exclusive - U.S. Ebola researchers plead for access to virus samples (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/uk-health-ebola-usa-research-exclusive-idUKKBN0IP1EF20141105?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNew)

Of course, if a lot of people had their way, these doctors would be quarantined and not doing this work anyway.

[flounder]

Why do they want to study Ebola? Sounds fishy to me. That's a quarantine.

[molson]

The Maine nurse doesn't have ebola after 21 days and the New York City doctor is cured and is being released from the hospital tomorrow. The monitoring of his contacts in the city will end Thursday or Friday. At which point the U.S. will be Ebola-free for now.

Craig Spencer, now Ebola free, to leave N.Y. hospital - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/10/health/new-york-doctor-craig-spencer-ebola-free/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Nurse who fought Maine Ebola quarantine moving out of state: report - Yahoo News (https://news.yahoo.com/nurse-fought-maine-ebola-quarantine-moving-state-report-230801459.html)

Edit: That should take this further off the front page in the U.S., but from I can gather, new cases are still accelerating in Sierra Leone and Guinea (but slowing in Libera).

[PilotMan]

And everyone who called her out, called her names, wanted her nursing license stripped from her, is going jump right out and apologize and say they were wrong, right?

[Buccaneer]

And everyone who called her out, called her names, wanted her nursing license stripped from her, is going jump right out and apologize and say they were wrong, right?

Those people are sitting tight waiting for the next scare to get their anxieties up.

[DaddyTorgo]

And everyone who called her out, called her names, wanted her nursing license stripped from her, is going jump right out and apologize and say they were wrong, right?

Nah. Because in their minds the fact that she ultimately didn't have Ebola is immaterial.

[JPhillips]

The Maine nurse doesn't have ebola after 21 days and the New York City doctor is cured and is being released from the hospital tomorrow. The monitoring of his contacts in the city will end Thursday or Friday. At which point the U.S. will be Ebola-free for now.

That's just what THEY want you to believe. I'm sure the government isn't reporting all the ebola cases. FEMA has set up ebola camps all across the country.

[Easy Mac]

Guess who's back, back again.

Ebola's back, tell a friend.

[DaddyTorgo]

Guess who's back, back again.

Ebola's back, tell a friend.

Oh?

[Kodos]

Are we all dead yet?

[molson]

I guess he's referring to the Sierra Leone surgeon (and permanent U.S. resident) who might be transferred to the U.S. this weekend, if he's stable enough to fly.

We know how well that went over when it was U.S. citizens last month.

[DaddyTorgo]

Aaah

[Desnudo]

That's just what THEY want you to believe. I'm sure the government isn't reporting all the ebola cases. FEMA has set up ebola camps all across the country.

#Ebolatruth

[Lathum]

This is going to explode in the USA very soon. People are so stupid. Why would she travel to a different city? Just dumb beyond dumb.

Still waiting

[Easy Mac]

Well, silver lining is we're ebola free again
Martin Salia dies: Ebola claims life of Maryland resident. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/17/martin_salia_dies_ebola_claims_life_of_maryland_resident.html)

[Butter]

At least until... Zombie Martin Salia!

[Lathum]

He was a Sierra Leonean citizen and a permanent resident of the United States whose family lives in Maryland; his wife, an American citizen, asked the State Department to evacuate him and agreed to reimburse the government for the cost of the operation.

Do permanent residents pay taxes? If so why should she have to reimburse the government?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Do permanent residents pay taxes? If so why should she have to reimburse the government?

Seems pretty common sense to me. I mean, people who place themselves at risk in something like hiking or climbing or the like are often responsible for the reimbursement of the rescue operation.

[molson]

Seems pretty common sense to me. I mean, people who place themselves at risk in something like hiking or climbing or the like are often responsible for the reimbursement of the rescue operation.

Trying to save peoples' lives to stop the spread of something that you yourself were ignorantly scared of is a little different than hiking or climbing in a dangerous place. But I'm just pleasantly surprised you didn't call for his execution, or for the plane to Nebraska to be shot down, or for us all to meet him with pitchforks at the airport. (Or maybe you didn't have time before Ebola got him first.)

[Lathum]

Seems pretty common sense to me. I mean, people who place themselves at risk in something like hiking or climbing or the like are often responsible for the reimbursement of the rescue operation.

Apples and oranges.

and that doesn't answer my question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Apples and oranges. and that doesn't answer my question.

How in the blue hell would a non-citizen's involvement in risky behavior become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

Hell, how would a non-citizen's involvement in ANYTHING become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

[molson]

How in the blue hell would a non-citizen's involvement in risky behavior become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

Hell, how would a non-citizen's involvement in ANYTHING become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

Nobody's going to raise your taxes. You won't get a bill in the mail. They have a budget. Maybe it would even be a win-win for you if they had to pull a little discretionary money that was designed to help some other person or group of people that you find even less desirable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nobody's going to raise your taxes. You won't get a bill in the mail. They have a budget. Maybe it would even be a win-win for you if they had to pull a little discretionary money that was designed to help some other person or group of people that you find even less desirable.

I have no problem with them underspending their budget (your argument is a great example for zero-based budgeting actually ... but that's a different thread)

[BillJasper]

Nobody's going to raise your taxes. You won't get a bill in the mail. They have a budget. Maybe it would even be a win-win for you if they had to pull a little discretionary money that was designed to help some other person or group of people that you find even less desirable.

Why the fuck would you want to help anyone one without getting something in return? Fucking commie! :lol:

[molson]

Why the fuck would you want to help anyone one without getting something in return? Fucking commie! :lol:

Ya, it's difficult to even discuss government and budgets with someone who generally opposes helping humans in all contexts. And I'm very fiscally conservative - but that's because everyone wins with a more efficient government. It's particularly amusing here when you compare and contrast these two types of Christians. The ones, like Dr. Salia, who truly back up their faith by making great sacrifices for the welfare of others - even before the Ebola infection. Then there's the southern U.S. version (not all of them, but too many of them), who are primarily concerned with hating gay people, and have no interest in the welfare of others, and in fact resent it when others help people, especially undesirable people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ya, it's difficult to even discuss government and budgets with someone who generally opposes helping humans in all contexts. And I'm very fiscally conservative - but that's because everyone wins with a more efficient government. It's particularly amusing here when you compare and contrast these two types of Christians. The ones, like Dr. Salia, who truly back up their faith by making great sacrifices for the welfare of others - even before the Ebola infection. Then there's the southern U.S. version (not all of them, but too many of them), who are primarily concerned with hating gay people, and have no interest in the welfare of others, and in fact resent it when others help people, especially undesirable people.

So this was some sort of Christian charity mission now?

Well that explains the reimbursement then, the ACLU would have had a fit.

[molson]

So this was some sort of Christian charity mission now?

Well that explains the reimbursement then, the ACLU would have had a fit.

That's actually a good point. Yes, he was very religious, prayed before every surgery, and went to work in a Christian hospital in Sierra Leone after he was trained through Pan-African Academy of Christian Surgeons, forgoing more lucrative private practice work. I can see that rubbing a lot of people the wrong way if there was any government involvement.

[BillJasper]

That's actually a good point. Yes, he was very religious, prayed before every surgery, and went to work in a Christian hospital in Sierra Leone after he was trained through Pan-African Academy of Christian Surgeons, forgoing more lucrative private practice work. I can see that rubbing a lot of people the wrong way if there was any government involvement.

I'm not a Christian and I have no problem with taxpayers footing the bill to bring this guy home.

[Kodos]

+1.

[Lathum]

How in the blue hell would a non-citizen's involvement in risky behavior become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

Hell, how would a non-citizen's involvement in ANYTHING become the responsibility of the taxpayers?

Hence my question if he pays taxes or not as a resident.

Cmon John, your reading comprehension is better than that

[DaddyTorgo]

His wife is a citizen - she pays taxes.

[JPhillips]

Then there's the southern U.S. version (not all of them, but too many of them), who are primarily concerned with hating gay people, and have no interest in the welfare of others, and in fact resent it when others help people, especially undesirable people.

I'm so old I remember when you'd berate me for saying similar things. Welcome to the pool, the water's fine!

[JPhillips]

His wife is a citizen - she pays taxes.

If he draws a paycheck in the U.S. he pays taxes, too. He also pays sales tax and any other fees that he runs into.

[DaddyTorgo]

If he draws a paycheck in the U.S. he pays taxes, too. He also pays sales tax and any other fees that he runs into.

Very good point!

[AlexB]

Ebola is yesterday's news. Bird flu's back headlining today!

[Desnudo]

Ebola is yesterday's news. Bird flu's back headlining today!

That's what they want you to think.

[Lathum]

Whatever happened to Ebola ?

[cartman]

I met her in a club down in old Soho
Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like Coca-Cola
C-O-L-A cola
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said Ebola
E-B-O-L-A Ebola

[claphamsa]

lots? we have a significant military presence in Liberia, we are scaling up hospitals to respond, spending 100s of millions on developing vaccines....

[lighthousekeeper]

CDC predicted 1.4 million cases by January 20. At the time that number simply did not seem to pass the sniff test, especially when you looked a little closer at their methodology for determining that value. there was no accounting for disease resistance in survivors, no accounting for population isolation. and just used magical "doubling" tricks. (i.e. since ebola has been underreported in the past, we're just going to double our numbers going forward indefinitely.) It just comes across like another case of a government agency with palm extended seizing the opportunity to ask for budget increase and willing to say what it takes to secure the funding. I could be totally wrong, but it just comes across that way. Just another WMD.

"1.4 million, *if* you don't give us the dough." perfect strategy. months down the road when the numbers don't match those highly inflated numbers, it's so easy to retort "see, you funded us and look - our effort saved 1.39 million lives!"

[mckerney]

Whatever happened to Ebola ?

It's close to being wiped out in Liberia (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-health-ebola-liberia-idUSKBN0KO2FU20150115). Other than that it looks like not much is going to happen until the eminent explosion of the disease that's bound to occur in the US.

[molson]

Interesting to see both this and the global warming thread bumped at the same time. I see a lot of parallels between the global warming deniers and the Ebola panickers. Even aside from just the fact that both groups are filled with morons whose opinions are based on emotion and politics and not science or reality.

[Dutch]

CDC predicted 1.4 million cases by January 20. At the time that number simply did not seem to pass the sniff test, especially when you looked a little closer at their methodology for determining that value. there was no accounting for disease resistance in survivors, no accounting for population isolation. and just used magical "doubling" tricks. (i.e. since ebola has been underreported in the past, we're just going to double our numbers going forward indefinitely.) It just comes across like another case of a government agency with palm extended seizing the opportunity to ask for budget increase and willing to say what it takes to secure the funding. I could be totally wrong, but it just comes across that way. Just another WMD.

"1.4 million, *if* you don't give us the dough." perfect strategy. months down the road when the numbers don't match those highly inflated numbers, it's so easy to retort "see, you funded us and look - our effort saved 1.39 million lives!"

...or for reference...

Ebola Virus Outbreak 2014: 1.4 Million Cases Predicted By January, CDC Says (http://www.ibtimes.com/ebola-virus-outbreak-2014-14-million-cases-predicted-january-cdc-says-1693608)

There could be 1.4 million cases of the Ebola virus by the beginning of next year if the epidemic stays on its current course, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned in a worst-case scenario outlined in a report released Tuesday. The best-case scenario would be that the outbreak will have “almost ended” in Liberia and Sierra Leone by Jan. 20.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the CDC, was optimistic that the more dire model wouldn’t become a reality. The forecasts didn’t have any projections for Guinea, which is among the three countries where the West African Ebola outbreak is concentrated. “My gut feeling is, the actions we’re taking now are going to make that worst-case scenario not come to pass,” Frieden said in an interview with the New York Times. “But it is important to understand that it could happen.”

Not even close to what you just suggested (CDC "predicted" 1.4m)...just best and worst case scenarios...which is actually there job, I would imagine. Does sound like the logic being used with regard to Global Warming though. :)

[lighthousekeeper]

OK, you are correct regarding that semantic distinction. It's an important one. But I don't think that necessarily undermines my original points. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy)

But I love how even the title of your cited reference exactly matches my semantics, and yet my suggestion is 'not even close'. It illustrates a possible irresponsibility on CDC's part for how they got their message out. It should not have been a surprise that, based on how they presented their findings that it would be reinterpreted my most. Especially in the media, and most likely by lawmakers as well.


But also...I dunno, I think an agency with the supposed collective scientific brainpower of the CDC should feel a little ashamed if the best answer they could provide is 'eh somewhere between 0 and 1.3 million new cases'.

[Dutch]

But I love how even the title of your cited reference exactly matches my semantics, and yet my suggestion is 'not even close'.

Hey! You just did it again! I defended 'not even close' with a whole bunch of words. :)

[BishopMVP]

Interesting to see both this and the global warming thread bumped at the same time. I see a lot of parallels between the global warming deniers and the Ebola panickers. Even aside from just the fact that both groups are filled with morons whose opinions are based on emotion and politics and not science or reality.Or one could say there are posters like myself who felt that most Ebola and Global Warming fears are overblown, and while both are worthy of looking at and trying to fix, neither is the imminent threat necessating drastic societal changes its more ardent proponents swore it was. But keep painting with that broad brush!

[BishopMVP]

OK, you are correct regarding that semantic distinction. It's an important one. But I don't think that necessarily undermines my original points. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy)

But I love how even the title of your cited reference exactly matches my semantics, and yet my suggestion is 'not even close'. It illustrates a possible irresponsibility on CDC's part for how they got their message out. It should not have been a surprise that, based on how they presented their findings that it would be reinterpreted my most. Especially in the media, and most likely by lawmakers as well.


But also...I dunno, I think an agency with the supposed collective scientific brainpower of the CDC should feel a little ashamed if the best answer they could provide is 'eh somewhere between 0 and 1.3 million new cases'.Blame the media's coverage, not the CDC on that. I never bothered to read the CDC report, but even the short excerpt Dutch posted has the CDC director saying it's unlikely the worst-case scenario will come to pass. (While supporting your point a little in that the CDC wasn't above using this crisis to get any extra money. Or more likely, politicking to keel their share of the pie whenever the next round of budgeting comes up.)

[JPhillips]

But also...I dunno, I think an agency with the supposed collective scientific brainpower of the CDC should feel a little ashamed if the best answer they could provide is 'eh somewhere between 0 and 1.3 million new cases'.

That's not at all what happened. They ran a number of scenarios based on different responses and came up with infection numbers for different scenarios. The don't have control over how the world responds, so they looked at different possibilities.

[claphamsa]

Blame the media's coverage, not the CDC on that. I never bothered to read the CDC report, but even the short excerpt Dutch posted has the CDC director saying it's unlikely the worst-case scenario will come to pass. (While supporting your point a little in that the CDC wasn't above using this crisis to get any extra money. Or more likely, politicking to keel their share of the pie whenever the next round of budgeting comes up.)

it wasnt the media...it was the Tea Baggers!

[Lathum]

This is going to explode in the USA very soon. People are so stupid. Why would she travel to a different city? Just dumb beyond dumb.

still waiting.

[rowech]

still waiting.

Looks like I was wrong. Not sure if it was you or somebody else but I made a donation to Doctors Without Borders this morning.

[larrymcg421]

Is it safe to go bowling yet?

[flounder]

Is it safe to go bowling yet?

Is it ever?

[cartman]

As long as Pumpy is rolling, no.