fate

Fortunately, we have Ricky to feel in the gaps of our ignorance..

.
I do what I can, but Fate is particularly resistant to rationale argument or the application of evidence based science.

Why are you digging up stuff from 1999 when many of the links provided previously, especially say The New England Journal of Medicine are current?


freeman

You know, if you persuade people in the West that Ebola poses no threat to them, they might very well decide that we do not need to send large amount of resources to West Africa. Even if people are overly concerned about Ebola in the West, what exactly is the harm being caused? Yeah, a few people are quarantined and they don't like it but what else? Because, in my mind, it would be far worse if people were convinced that this was only a West African problem.

if the genuine risk was being properly presented people would understand the actual threat. and that is if Ebola gets out of control in Africa. When 100 s f thousands are infected... Then there will be so many points of contact, and so much difficulty tracking movements of potentially exposed people for monitoring that there could be real out breaks outside of Africa, rather than occassional infected persons.
That's why the travel quaratines are difficult to justify. They make the job of getting qualified people to help more difficult. A 21 day quarantine, for someone who can commit a month to Africa cuts their effective working period down to a week...
And provides nothing in the way of added protection. After all,anyone who has been in West Africa, who returns to the west and subsequently gets a fever is going to seek medical assistance. Its self preservation. And no one is contagious until that point at least, and probavbly much later in the disease progression.

For what's worth I think DF's concerns about Ebola are genuine, not a pretense for partisan gain.
And Owen at least we agree on a massive response at the source of the problem. Whatever resources we think are needed, double it. I doubt very much we will regret doing too much...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, I know they have risked much, but it is the "professionals" who are getting sick. Apparently, knowledge they are dealing with a deadly virus is not keeping them from getting sick.

Sneer-quotes noted around professionals.

If I wanted to sneer, I'd sneer. I was just using that as a group term.

Yes, they are professionals, and they are risking their lives to help deal with an outbreak of a disease. They are not perfect, and accidents will happen, which is why it's a tragedy.

No, accidents happen--which is why an abundance, even an over-abundance of caution is warranted.

repeatedly quoting this does not change the meaning of it

Teaching demands repetition.

There is no 'standard' set to never have any cases arrive or for the medical staff in private hospitals to be flawless.

C'mon. It's not just that mistakes were made. They made a hash of it. They sent a symptomatic man recently traveled from Liberia HOME!

Then, when they knew he had it, two nurses came down with it! Those are not "flaws." It's pretty much failure.

Btw, true or false: even those cured of Ebola can suffer chronic after-effects.

True. And? I've said already that it is a nasty disease and should be taken seriously. But the Western panic about it is overshadowing the real problem in Africa. I wish people would be shouting and wailing and panicking about the death toll there.

No, I think we can do both.

There is no reason to allow non-emergent travel to/from hot zones. None--except politics. That's not "panic." It's called "containment." Look it up.

rickyp wrote:fate

Fortunately, we have Ricky to feel in the gaps of our ignorance..

.
I do what I can, but Fate is particularly resistant to rationale argument or the application of evidence based science.

Well, what you can't do is . . . communicate.

First, confusing me with freeman3 . . . that's quite silly.

Second, I'm not the only one debating with you.

Third, your idea of science is to dredge up irrelevant facts, such as how many old people die of flu or the number of chipmunks per acre in New England (okay, I made the second one up, but the first one was yours).

if the genuine risk was being properly presented people would understand the actual threat. and that is if Ebola gets out of control in Africa. When 100 s f thousands are infected... Then there will be so many points of contact, and so much difficulty tracking movements of potentially exposed people for monitoring that there could be real out breaks outside of Africa, rather than occassional infected persons.

Right, so the focus should be on getting aid to West Africa, yes?

That's why the travel quaratines are difficult to justify. They make the job of getting qualified people to help more difficult. A 21 day quarantine, for someone who can commit a month to Africa cuts their effective working period down to a week...

Hmm, so, we should just let people with Ebola mill around until they self-report?

I have a counter-proposal. What if we subidize them at double their normal rate while they are in quarantine?

And provides nothing in the way of added protection. After all,anyone who has been in West Africa, who returns to the west and subsequently gets a fever is going to seek medical assistance.

Yes, but the more they are in the public, the more chance there is for a "mistake" or a previously unknown situation taking place. Again, why roll the dice--even if the odds are 1:10 million or 100 million? Why do that?

Its self preservation. And no one is contagious until that point at least, and probavbly much later in the disease progression.

I'm going to give you a real life situation--one that actually happened. There is one key difference: the person I'm describing did not have Ebola.

Suppose someone lives in Colorado and goes to West Africa to do some medical volunteering. After they have been back for a few days, they have a brain aneurysm and are unable to move for 24 hours. A neighbor notices, but by now the person has lost control of bodily functions. She is rushed to the hospital where her fever is first noticed. And, on it goes.

Accidents happen. Plans go awry.

This is a matter of public safety.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, I know they have risked much, but it is the "professionals" who are getting sick. Apparently, knowledge they are dealing with a deadly virus is not keeping them from getting sick.

Sneer-quotes noted around professionals.

If I wanted to sneer, I'd sneer. I was just using that as a group term.

It is a group term without the need for quotes.

Yes, they are professionals, and they are risking their lives to help deal with an outbreak of a disease. They are not perfect, and accidents will happen, which is why it's a tragedy.

No, accidents happen--which is why an abundance, even an over-abundance of caution is warranted.

Not to the point of inertia, though.

repeatedly quoting this does not change the meaning of it

Teaching demands repetition.

Sometimes. A good lesson doesn't need to be repeated. On the other hand, repeating X and saying it means Y, when it does not, teaches us only one thing - that the repeater does not understand what they are saying.

There is no 'standard' set to never have any cases arrive or for the medical staff in private hospitals to be flawless.

C'mon. It's not just that mistakes were made. They made a hash of it. They sent a symptomatic man recently traveled from Liberia HOME!

"They" being the Presbyterian hospital. Not the government.

Then, when they knew he had it, two nurses came down with it! Those are not "flaws." It's pretty much failure.

"They" being the Presbyterian hospital. Not the government.

Btw, true or false: even those cured of Ebola can suffer chronic after-effects.

True. And? I've said already that it is a nasty disease and should be taken seriously. But the Western panic about it is overshadowing the real problem in Africa. I wish people would be shouting and wailing and panicking about the death toll there.

No, I think we can do both. [/quote]And yet, I see precious little of your demanding effort in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Guinea, and plenty of you attacking the US government.

There is no reason to allow non-emergent travel to/from hot zones. None--except politics. That's not "panic." It's called "containment." Look it up.

There are other issues like security and whether it is actually effective, but hey, you make it all about the politics is you want...

danivon wrote:It is a group term without the need for quotes.

Meh, I know what I meant. I know, so far, it's been the nurses (stateside) who have taken ill. There are various levels of nurses, and I don't know what the level of the victims is, so I put the quotes to cover every category.

You are doing what you claim others do--assigning motives.

Not to the point of inertia, though.

Never asked for that. I think containment is agreed to be step 1. However, permitting travel FROM those areas is not "containment."

Sometimes. A good lesson doesn't need to be repeated. On the other hand, repeating X and saying it means Y, when it does not, teaches us only one thing - that the repeater does not understand what they are saying.

Nah, it means an unwilling student.

There is no 'standard' set to never have any cases arrive or for the medical staff in private hospitals to be flawless.

"They" being the Presbyterian hospital. Not the government.

The government improperly made promises that it trusted others to keep.

Then, when they knew he had it, two nurses came down with it! Those are not "flaws." It's pretty much failure.

"They" being the Presbyterian hospital. Not the government.

Again, government made the promises--and issued the standards. Oh, and they assured us the standards were sufficient and then changed them.

No, I think we can do both.

And yet, I see precious little of your demanding effort in Liberia/Sierra Leone/Guinea, and plenty of you attacking the US government.

I've focused on where the conversation is. When freeman3 brought up the aid to Africa, did I agree or disagree with him?

There are other issues like security and whether it is actually effective, but hey, you make it all about the politics is you want...

It's more effective than checking temperatures. Look, if they are "checking" for guns and yet guns get through at airports, then what makes you think they will be able to detect temperatures?

And, how about the memo floating around the State Department to bring the sick from Africa to the US? How many Africans do we suppose would like that?

Meanwhile . . .

Australia gets all "political" by enacting Anti-Obama travel ban!

And, could it be that even a doctor would lie?

Dr. Craig Spencer at first told officials that he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment — and didn’t admit he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling until cops looked at his MetroCard the sources said.

“He told the authorities that he self-quarantined. Detectives then reviewed his credit-card statement and MetroCard and found that he went over here, over there, up and down and all around,” a source said.

Spencer finally ’fessed up when a cop “got on the phone and had to relay questions to him through the Health Department,” a source said.

Officials then retraced Spencer’s steps, which included dining at The Meatball Shop in Greenwich Village and bowling at The Gutter in Brooklyn.

And, how about the nurse?

“I don’t plan on sticking to the guidelines. I remain appalled by these home quarantine policies that have been forced upon me, even though I am in perfectly good health and feeling strong and have been this entire time completely symptom free,” said Hickox, who wouldn’t emerge from Maine’s 21-day voluntary quarantine until Nov. 10.

“I truly believe this policy is not scientifically nor constitutionally just, and so I’m not going to sit around and be bullied around by politicians and be forced to stay in my home when I am not a risk to the American public.”

Always thinking of others . . . er, maybe not.

Sassenach wrote:

If we had to replicate that on a mass scale, could we--or would thousands die? My guess is the latter.

This is more than a little hyperbolic. The current death toll from Ebola is about 4000, and this is in a region with a virtually non-existent healthcare system, very limited financial resources and dysfunctional government. It would have to 'break out' on an inconceivably huge scale to threaten thousands of American lives, and if it did that then it would probably be well on it's way to wiping out half the population of West Africa. This is not a plausible scenario.

Just on the small point of the number of Ebola victims in West Africa, I wouldn't trust the 4,000 number. It could be many times that. The health infrastructure is so poor in these nations that there is not accurate reporting of cause of death. They don't do autopsies and many people don't die in hospitals.

So, his own Administration is going "political" on the President:

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday approved a recommendation by military leaders that all U.S. troops returning from Ebola response missions in West Africa be kept in supervised isolation for 21 days.

The move goes beyond precautions recommended by the Obama administration for civilians, although President Barack Obama has made clear he feels the military's situation is different from that of civilians, in part because troops are not in West Africa by choice.

Wow. So, it's not just the coalition of Doctor Fate and freeman3! Who knew?

I look forward to the President's executive order mandating the same thing and then his press secretary arguing against it.

Obama has made clear he feels the military's situation is different from that of civilians, in part because troops are not in West Africa by choice.

I don't think quarantine is really necessary, as we've discussed, but this is a very odd argument that Obama is reported to have made. It would only make any kind of sense if the quarantine was for the benefit of the returning soldiers, where in actual fact it's designed for the benefit of society at large and is actually a massive imposition on the soldiers which they almost certainly don't want.

Sassenach wrote:

Obama has made clear he feels the military's situation is different from that of civilians, in part because troops are not in West Africa by choice.

I don't think quarantine is really necessary, as we've discussed, but this is a very odd argument that Obama is reported to have made. It would only make any kind of sense if the quarantine was for the benefit of the returning soldiers, where in actual fact it's designed for the benefit of society at large and is actually a massive imposition on the soldiers which they almost certainly don't want.

And, this is at the heart of my argument. I've said repeatedly I'm not "afraid" of Ebola. I'm not in a bunker. I'm not emptying drugstore shelves.

The problem is that the government does not have a coherent message or strategy. They "say" they do, but they contradict themselves, are proven wrong, etc. If anything is causing fear, it is the incompetence and/or incoherence of government.

I take your point Steve, but at the same time it's only an issue because people in America are making a mountain out of a molehill. Most western countries are adopting a similar policy without there being all these dramas.

Sassenach wrote:I take your point Steve, but at the same time it's only an issue because people in America are making a mountain out of a molehill. Most western countries are adopting a similar policy without there being all these dramas.

At the risk of being accused of "bashing," this is the President's Achilles heel. I was never going to like his policies because he is far more of a central government-centered thinker than I am, so this is not about that. His fault is what many saw as his strength: his deliberative manner. Oh, I think it's good to be thoughtful and careful. However, it is not helpful to have a leader who is paralyzed by decision-making. The President has to be someone who can listen to his advisers and dispose of most matters rather rapidly. This President does not have that capacity.

Would he have taken flack for travel restrictions? Yes. However, it would have given a clear direction. Instead, we watched the director of the CDC try to explain the inexplicable: why it was better for America to not restrict travel.

The President is not a man who likes to have his decisions second-guessed. That is not a good quality for a President. A President has to make the decision that accords with his/her own philosophy and be ready to be attacked for taking tough stands.

In this instance, he did not want to do the travel restrictions. I can empathize, but he ought to have erred on the side of clarity and safety. Instead, he has let this become an issue.

By comparison, I think GWB made a lot of mistakes. His single strength was that of making decisions. For example, whatever one thinks caused the Surge or led to its success, the Surge would not have happened without Bush's determination to fight for it. I don't think our current President has that same kind of resolve.

Again, it's not philosophy, but personality.

Fate:

By comparison, I think GWB made a lot of mistakes. His single strength was that of making decisions. For example, whatever one thinks caused the Surge or led to its success, the Surge would not have happened without Bush's determination to fight for it. I don't think our current President has that same kind of resolve.

Again, it's not philosophy, but personality.

I totally agree on the stark decision style difference between the 2 ... I also believe that GWB's decisiveness is part of the reason that we blundered into Iraq.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:

By comparison, I think GWB made a lot of mistakes. His single strength was that of making decisions. For example, whatever one thinks caused the Surge or led to its success, the Surge would not have happened without Bush's determination to fight for it. I don't think our current President has that same kind of resolve.

Again, it's not philosophy, but personality.

I totally agree on the stark decision style difference between the 2 ... I also believe that GWB's decisiveness is part of the reason that we blundered into Iraq.

Totally agree.

However, politics aside, I'd rather have the Alpha than the Beta.