Genuine question for DF and Freeman. Would you guys still be advocating full quarantine and travel bans if ebola hadn't broken out in a dirt poor African backwater that very few Americans visit anyway and had instead happened in Canada or China or some other country that has extensive trade links with the US and where this level of excessive caution that you're proposing would have a serious impact on business ? If your answer is no, which I strongly suspect it would be, then this rather implies that your assessment of the risks is a little disingenuous.

Ricky, I love how you just made up the claim that doctors are doing the type of scientific correlation I a m proposing...transmission by sneezing does not require an airborne transmitting virus--do you really understand this stuff. ?
I quote you an article from a real expert in Ebola who is compiling the work of scientists in the field and the first thing he says is how ignorant we are of the virus. That's 1999, not 1899. So you're whole mantra that we really understand this virus is absurd (we don't know what animal human beings get the virus from, we don't know why this particular virus has had staying power whereas earlier outbreaks were limited, and the science on transmission is by no means definitive). Caution is in order. Your willingness to swallow what scientists say at face value without question is akin to religious belief. Always question people, scientists are just as prone to human foibles (Ego, a tendency to think one know more than one does,etc. ) as the rest of humanity. I actually liked the explanation of that blogger as to why he thought the virus was very unlikely to become airborne, because he gave a detailed explanation.
Anyway we need to use our common sense. The virus is too deadly to allow people who have been exposed to it to travel freely in the public until we are sure that they don't have the virus. There is the known risk of transmittal in public. (Sneezing, transference on surfaces), the exact point at when point when infected people become contagious is not precisely known, and and people may go into public even if they have some symptoms; it 's absurd to let people self-monitor)

Sass, I think your question assumes that we're not concerned about the risk. Clearly , a major outbreak in Canada would be much more difficult to deal with for than West Africa. Of course, we would close the border and cut-off all travel and trade. Yeah, it would have a big economic impact but we would have no choice . I don't think it's prudent to allow people from West Africa come here who could have Ebola, but it's a small number of people so we can probably handle it. Not true with regard to Canada. China? Again, I don't think economic considerations would enter into it. I think trade would be shut down.

What I'm saying is that it's easier to advocate a massive overreaction that isn't based on a rational assessment of the actual risks when there are few consequences that might result from it.

Agreed. There are no negative economic consequences with us breaking off relations with West Africa...but if you had lot of trade and a lot of people going back and forth between a country then the risk would not be overstated. In other words little trade=little risk, a lot of trade=high risk, so I think that the point you are making that we would have to be more realistic about the risks posed by Ebola when our economic interests are at stake isn't necessarily easy to make. But sure we can afford to overreact here because there is little downside.

I appeal to you, sir, get a spellcheck app!

I'm done with the argument. rickyp continuously appeals to authority, much of which may be right. However, this is a bit like assuring people in an airplane that even though the pilot has been incapacitated and the co-pilot has never actually landed a plane that they have nothing to worry about. In other words, even though it's most likely true, it is not going to put everyone at ease. Why not? Because Ebola is not like the flu. Ebola is not like a gun. Ebola destroys your body from the inside out. If you get Ebola, even if you are cured, you are likely to have life-long consequences because your organs are affected.

No one is proposing panic or burning people alive who have Ebola. We are proposing caution. You say caution is not scientifically supported. Okay. Help yourself. Knock yourself out. Go party with Ebola-exposed people just to show how safe it is. Feel free.

freeman3

Ricky, I love how you just made up the claim that doctors are doing the type of scientific correlation I a m proposing...transmission by sneezing does not require an airborne transmitting virus--do you really understand this stuff.

I think I understand it better than you.
because I do believe that the scientific community in infectious disease knows better than I. Or you. Or Chris Christie.
And I don't think an amateur can really contribute to the conversation they are having between themselves. For instance the notion you raised that there hasn't been blood analysis of people throughout the course of potential exposure up to infection is kind of silly. Of course this kind of analysis is being done.
I've linked you to several sources that say that Ebola can't be transmitted by sneezing in the way you propose. At least not in a realistic scenario that doesn't strain credibility.
The extent to which you and Fate seem to want to challenge the experts on this, reminds me of the strained opposition to the science behind Climate Change. And before that to the strained opposition by the tobacco industry to the science behind cancer and heart disease causation...

I trust scientists, and science. I also trust that there is a global community of scientists working on the subject of ebola, challenging each other and helping each other understand the disease.And the conversations they have, all evidence based, are miles beyond the conversation you and I could have. But when they are asked for their advice, and then we ignore it, and imagine scenarios and situations that challenge the science all that does is make the job of efficiently communicating the reality of the risk to an ignorant populace.

When a populace is used to arguments like, there is an industry behind global warming science that makes scientists wealthy only if they confirm climate science... (A standard argument by climate deniers), you have an environment where people simply don't trust the people who actually know stuff.
and that's to our detriment. because it leads to irrational behaviour.

rickyp wrote:I think I understand it better than you.
because I do believe that the scientific community in infectious disease knows better than I. Or you. Or Chris Christie.

Why do you only use the name Chris Christie? Why not Cuomo, or Hagel? They have done the same recommendation. It shows your bias... Blatantly, in fact.

I would love to hear why only Christie.

Doctor Fate wrote:No one is proposing panic or burning people alive who have Ebola. We are proposing caution. You say caution is not scientifically supported. Okay. Help yourself. Knock yourself out. Go party with Ebola-exposed people just to show how safe it is. Feel free.

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!

freeman3 wrote:Agreed. There are no negative economic consequences with us breaking off relations with West Africa...but if you had lot of trade and a lot of people going back and forth between a country then the risk would not be overstated. In other words little trade=little risk, a lot of trade=high risk, so I think that the point you are making that we would have to be more realistic about the risks posed by Ebola when our economic interests are at stake isn't necessarily easy to make. But sure we can afford to overreact here because there is little downside.

Not for the US perhaps, but potentially for those countries it is more significant.

The other side to it is if the experts are saying that an overreaction is not just redundant, but counter-productive, then perhaps it's not such a great idea.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No one is proposing panic or burning people alive who have Ebola. We are proposing caution. You say caution is not scientifically supported. Okay. Help yourself. Knock yourself out. Go party with Ebola-exposed people just to show how safe it is. Feel free.

FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!

Good catch. You are clearly presenting a false dichotomy. We can have caution and science, unlike what rickyp has proposed.

danivon wrote:The other side to it is if the experts are saying that an overreaction is not just redundant, but counter-productive, then perhaps it's not such a great idea.

Yes, but when they say it's "counter-productive," listen to their reasoning. It becomes so circuitous as to be worthy of any randomly-selected rickyp post.

bbauska

I would love to hear why only Christie.

Because he was particularly dickish in his attitude to ms. hickok.

Yeah, I think we have gone round and round on these issues so I will take a break for a while on arguing about it. But here is an interesting study on what scientists are looking at with regard to the virus. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10 ... -mysteries

Also, here is a study of 100 patients in Sierra Leone indicating a big difference in death rates between those under 21 vs those over 45--57% vs. 94% while the number is 74 percent for those between 21 and 45. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411680

This may have implications for First World results. We have been patting ourselves on the back with regard to mostly good outcomes but I believe most of the patients were relatively young . I know that two older Spanish priests died in Spanish hospitals and Michael Duncan was
42. So the results in the US may be being skewed because of a small sample size with patients in their 20s and 30s .

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I would love to hear why only Christie.

Because he was particularly dickish in his attitude to ms. hickok.

Got it. Equality doesn't matter to you. Only attitude.