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

Sorry, but this line is just needlessly antagonistic. Whoever else may have put the same policies into practice, Chris Christie did, and as a result one person got caught up in it.

Not mentioning a great long list of everyone else who has similar policies is not a massive sin (and doing so every time would result in lots of long and repetitive quotes).

And that last response is pretty low. I know ricky can be frustrating, but being an asshat does not help.

Doctor Fate wrote:

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.

I'm not presenting it, I'm spotting it.

"You say caution is not scientifically supported." This is not the truth. The reality is that some degree of caution is indeed supported by the science (and the science will evolve). Ricky is not saying that no measure whatsoever should be taken, simply that the advice being followed is sufficient.

You disagree, but instead of discussing it as a matter of degree, you come back with this:

"Knock yourself out. Go party with Ebola-exposed people just to show how safe it is."

Just as with bbauska's post, this kind of behaviour is just needless.

If you want to treat this as an important debate, and one on a serious (deadly serious, even), subject, then perhaps behaving like stroppy teenagers is not the best way to convince anyone that you are.

danivon wrote: The reality is that some degree of caution is indeed supported by the science (and the science will evolve). Ricky is not saying that no measure whatsoever should be taken, simply that the advice being followed is sufficient.

Excellent point, except he's made it and it's not true. As we have seen repeatedly, the "advice" given has not panned out. Further, we don't know everything about Ebola. This is not something that has received the research money of, for example, cancer.

You disagree, but instead of discussing it as a matter of degree, you come back with this:

"Knock yourself out. Go party with Ebola-exposed people just to show how safe it is."

Just as with bbauska's post, this kind of behaviour is just needless.

Maybe. On the other hand, I grew tired of rickyp's repeated claims to science when much of the science is untested. And, in fact, the CDC's guidelines, aka "science," have been modified since this whole episode began. So, to pretend that we were ready and/or that we know exactly what will happen is not science.

If you want to treat this as an important debate, and one on a serious (deadly serious, even), subject, then perhaps behaving like stroppy teenagers is not the best way to convince anyone that you are.

Thank you for your substantive contribution.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I would love to hear why only Christie.

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

Physician, heal thyself!

(CNN) -- Canada will stop processing visa applications from foreign nationals who have visited West African nations with large outbreaks of the Ebola virus, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said Friday.

Applications will be returned to people from Ebola hot spots who have already applied for visas, officials said in a press release.

But wait! What about the Flu? What about Cancer? What about . . . ???

Fate I'm not responsible for everything that happens in Canada.
And just so you understand, the Canadian government is still allowing travellers with visas to travel. They just aren't starting new Visa processing.
Its a way to pander to the alarmists. without actually doing anything really stupid.

fate

Maybe. On the other hand, I grew tired of rickyp's repeated claims to science when much of the science is untested

.

Can you find a significant scientific report that supports this statement?

The State of Maine could not find sufficient support for their claims that quarantine was required.So good luck with your search.

"The State has not met its burden at this time to prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting [Hickox's] movements to the degree requested" is necessary, the judge wrote. He did order the nurse to immediately notify health officials if any symptoms appear

.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... aintain-3/

rickyp wrote:Fate I'm not responsible for everything that happens in Canada.
And just so you understand, the Canadian government is still allowing travellers with visas to travel. They just aren't starting new Visa processing.
Its a way to pander to the alarmists. without actually doing anything really stupid.

fate

Maybe. On the other hand, I grew tired of rickyp's repeated claims to science when much of the science is untested

.

Can you find a significant scientific report that supports this statement?

Hmm, let's think about that: a scientific report that supports the statement that much of the science is untested. Erm, you are approaching silliness. I should find a scientist who has tested the notion that some science is not tested. Right.

Are you saying that everything that can be known about how it spreads, what it does, how it might change, is known? Do you have a significant scientific report that supports that idea? If not, there are unknowns. Too much caution in such a scenario is not "anti-science;" it's prudent.

The State of Maine could not find sufficient support for their claims that quarantine was required.So good luck with your search.

Anecdotal nonsense.

"The State has not met its burden at this time to prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting [Hickox's] movements to the degree requested" is necessary, the judge wrote. He did order the nurse to immediately notify health officials if any symptoms appear

.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 ... aintain-3/

A judge . . . is not a scientist.

You're being, well, you.

fate

A judge . . . is not a scientist.

The judge had to weight the evidence presented to him by the state and the petitioner. The State had to provide the scientific evidence that warranted the quarantine order.
The State couldn't.
Neither can you.

So yes, I've asked you to present evidence to back up your claim that "much of the science is untested".
Try and find one scientist that makes this statement publicly.
Try and illustrate which parts of "the science" aren't supported with sufficient evidence.
Other wise stop making baseless claims.

rickyp wrote:fate

A judge . . . is not a scientist.

The judge had to weight the evidence presented to him by the state and the petitioner. The State had to provide the scientific evidence that warranted the quarantine order.
The State couldn't.
Neither can you.

So yes, I've asked you to present evidence to back up your claim that "much of the science is untested".
Try and find one scientist that makes this statement publicly.
Try and illustrate which parts of "the science" aren't supported with sufficient evidence.
Other wise stop making baseless claims.

Again, "Try to prove a negative." No thanks.

I'll state my case affirmatively:

1. We don't know everything about Ebola.

2. An overabundance of caution leads to a more calm populace.

3. None of the measures proposed so far are draconian.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you're right and yet more stringent guidelines are employed, no one is significantly damaged.

If you're wrong, lives have been saved.

Do the math.

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times indicating that the science on Ebola is not settled.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebo ... tml#page=1

2. An overabundance of caution leads to a more calm populace.

I disagree with this. It's more likely to convince people that ebola is a real threat and get them more worried about it than they would have been otherwise. That's what always happens with these public health panics. The government's job is not to pander to every irrational fear that the voters may have. It never ends well.

Sassenach wrote:

2. An overabundance of caution leads to a more calm populace.

I disagree with this. It's more likely to convince people that ebola is a real threat and get them more worried about it than they would have been otherwise. That's what always happens with these public health panics. The government's job is not to pander to every irrational fear that the voters may have. It never ends well.

So, is it "more likely" to calm the populace if the government makes statements that turn out to be false? This comes in a time when the government has been shown to be less than honest over the last few years. This article blames politics, but the reason(s) are, ultimately, immaterial.

Public health experts say that although they disagree with the majority view on quarantine, it makes sense, and politics and derision on either side are not helpful.

“I actually think it’s completely understandable that the public would have the reaction that they do, simply because this is uncharted water,” said Dr. Daniel J. Diekema, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Iowa’s medical school, and the president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

“When we issue statements, we tend to think all we have to do is go out and state the facts, but that’s not always enough, and we need to be sensitive to people’s fears,” he said.

Dr. Lynn R. Goldman, an epidemiologist and dean of the Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University, cited the newness of Ebola to Americans, adding, “It’s terribly lethal, it’s a dreaded thing, and that rightfully triggers a lot of concern.”

danivon wrote:

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

Sorry, but this line is just needlessly antagonistic. Whoever else may have put the same policies into practice, Chris Christie did, and as a result one person got caught up in it.

Not mentioning a great long list of everyone else who has similar policies is not a massive sin (and doing so every time would result in lots of long and repetitive quotes).

And that last response is pretty low. I know ricky can be frustrating, but being an asshat does not help.

His attitude in being so "anti-conservative" is the blatant issue. It makes me not want to even read any of his drivel. I see Steve has the opposite issue at times.

Are you saying he is equal in his response, or his attitude is different that what I am pointing out?

Antagonistic? Yep, sure is.
Asshat? Hardly. Perhaps calling him on his attitude more often would be more helpful to correcting the caricature he has become.

freeman3

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times indicating that the science on Ebola is not settled..

What do you mean by settled?
Science is never done ....
But there is a point at which a level of knowledge is accepted. And we act upon that level of knowledge. Not the implausible.

It would be nice if the LA Times article had been more comprehensive in examining the supposedly contradictory information . For instance this:
For instance this ...

Finally, some also question the official assertion that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air. In late 1989, virus researcher Charles L. Bailey supervised the government's response to an outbreak of Ebola among several dozen rhesus monkeys housed for research in Reston, Va., a suburb of Washington.
What Bailey learned from the episode informs his suspicion that the current strain of Ebola afflicting humans might be spread through tiny liquid droplets propelled into the air by coughing or sneezing.

What Bailey didn't explain was that his monkeys also did something that all monkeys do... They flung poop at each other from their cages... And the critics of his research asked him how he could make the conclusion he did, without controlling for the airborne poop. (This was in a previous link)

The rest of it is the same, what if the virus mutates nonsense. (Answered by Gladden article I linked to twice before...) But they theorize on this, without the journalists finding a scientist to explain why its as likely to happen as bats flying out of my ass,

fate

3. None of the measures proposed so far are draconian

Not according to a judge in Maine who considered the scientific evidence offered by the State and by 1 nurse.

fate

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Kind or ironic that you resort to this, when this is essentially what the opposition has been claiming.
How many people have been infected with Ebola in the US?

bbauska you're on a board arguing about science. You don't believe evolution or the science behind climate change.
My attitude to you is built on the knowledge that you have this built in limitation.

The fact you think that disclaiming the hyperbolic media reaction, and political reaction toward the ebola virus as "anti-conservative" is part of the enormous problem.
Everything is seen through a political lens. Especially by those without a decent grounding in science or a respect for it...

Instead of educating the public about the realistic risks politicians took the opportunity to fan fear. They weren't all conservative politicians. But, yeah, they probably were the major number as it fit their purposes...

What you say is just nonsense , Ricky. The Los Angeles Time talked to prominent scientists and they admit that there are a lot of unknowns. I knew this was the case because there was so little scientific study of the virus but you kept on and on that there is no dispute. And the monkey poop was simply a made-up hypothesis from other scientists to try to explain what happened--they weren't there and just because they have a hypothesis doesn't make it so. The researcher that was there was talked to by the Times and he thought the way they were catching the virus so quickly indicated that it was being transmitted by air. This pig study is even more proof of transmission by air . http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/ ... rne-112112

Now , the best scientific proof that the virus is not transmittable by air in human beings is the transmission rate of 2.0. But the transmission by air studies with other animals cause concern that if the studies are accurate that the virus could mutate to become transmittable by air in human beings. You sure as heck have no idea if this is possible, so your dogmatism on it is annoying. One study indicates it does in pigs. Another of course in monkeys .
Here is a article talking about that Ebola is notorious for mutations. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/op ... &referrer=
Another one quoting an expert as saying that it is probably unlikely but would take only a single amino acid mutation. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.2/Ebola.htm