rickyp wrote: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...

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else...

I believe creatures evolve. I also believe they were created also.
I believe temperatures are increasing. I have said so. I just think the temps are cyclical, and have stated and posted evidence thereof. I do disagree that this is a major threat.

That has NOTHING to do with my question. Why do you only list Christie as a quarantining official, when Cuomo did the same thing. Answer why you show nothing but bias. If our are trying to change " hearts and minds", that is not the way because all I want to do is ignore your continual bias.

By the way, a minor point about the ruling in Maine: the burden of proof was on the state and the standard was clear and convincing evidence (kind of a middle ground between preponderance of the evidence--more probable than not--and reasonable doubt). So the court found that the state did not meet that burden.

bbauska

That has NOTHING to do with my question. Why do you only list Christie as a quarantining official,

I already told you. He was particularly dickish.
Google the images of the isolation conditions that she was placed into, against her will and against the advice of the best authorities on the subject.
My particular favorite is her isolation toilet...
And as soon as Christie was faced with a law suit, he backed down. Even though, publicly he said about a potential law suit, "get in line"

freeman3

By the way, a minor point about the ruling in Maine: the burden of proof was on the state and the standard was clear and convincing evidence (kind of a middle ground between preponderance of the evidence--more probable than not--and reasonable doubt). So the court found that the state did not meet that burden

What they were trying to prove is that the nurse should be in quarantine (isolation) because she represented a risk to spread the disease.
They couldn't.

I'll note also, that your article from the LA Times, represents the kind of echo chamber that we saw for years over global warming. Issues that were raised, and discounted, keep being reraised by media without incorporating the corresponding contrary evidence. You know, stuff like, "yeah but temperatures are going down...."
For instance they quote the same scientist who claimed the possibility that monkeys could have seen ebola spread through airborne particles that the CDC noted in an earlier post of yours Freeman. But they don't post the aspects of his research that were discounted in the CDC study. Namely that monkeys fling poop.... especially in captivity. and that no research in the 25 years since has replicated his "fiindings".
The LA Times also don't take note of the fact that NOT one of the scientists they quote who are worried about "mutation" have offered any evidence that fundamental mutation is possible. That is that a virus can actually change its nature. But they offer their vague conjecture ....
Its irresponsible.
Mutation is change. But fundamental change is not a short term thing. Modern humans have mutated in geographic isolation for hundreds of thousands of years and we developed races. But there was never an isolated group that developed the ability to fly or breathe under water. Despite all the surface differences a pygmy is pretty much the same as an inuit.

The kind of mutation the scientists in the LA Times story muse about is like thinking "Its possible that a human could develop the ability to fly."

rickyp wrote:ffate

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.

I'll quote freeman3:

What you say is just nonsense , Ricky

What is "draconian" about requiring people to stay in their homes for three weeks? This isn't a prison cell. It's not a clean room. It's their own home!

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?

So, should we set our policies to risk maximizing the number or to minimize the number? (hint: less is better)

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That has NOTHING to do with my question. Why do you only list Christie as a quarantining official,

I already told you. He was particularly dickish.

Which is why I said it was attitude that bothered you and not equality.

What is "draconian" about requiring people to stay in their homes for three weeks? This isn't a prison cell. It's not a clean room. It's their own home!

I'll assume you use Draconian in the form of a connotation for "harsh" and not as Draco originally formed his code of laws... Death for everything.

House arrest, is often used as a form of punishment by the courts. She has not committed a crime.
Moreover, the authorities on infectious disease say she does not pose a risk.
This means that the order to house arrest had no useful function and can be seen only as an arbitrary gesture.
Forcing someone into house arrest also impacts them financially. She was not being compensated. Plus, her fiance was going to be kept out of his school, handicapping his educational efforts, again for no genuine reason.
Should either have begun a fever, or showed virons in their blood tests, isolation would have been appropriate. This nurse is particularly aware of the dangers of ebola. She had been treating people and wearing the gear, with the knowledge that she was at risk... If anyone could be trusted to self diagnose, she should.


fate

So, should we set our policies to risk maximizing the number or to minimize the number? (hint: less is better)

Minimize the number practically.
You do not respond to imagined dangers the same way you do to real danger.
And the over reach on ebola has been a manufactured fear resulting from irresponsible media reports and politicians burnishing their fear badges...

If it were governments role to always reduce the danger for the public, and if they acted consistently on this:
- the same governors who mandate the 21 day quarantine would support medicare for all. Because a public health care system is the best way to ensure the entire public is protected from health risks. And the best way to ensure that contagious disease doesn't spread. (Poor people without health care often carry contagions because they fear they can't afford treatments.)
- the same governors would favor restricting gun ownership, because epidemiological studies of gun ownership show that where gun ownership increases per capita, gun deaths increase....
- the same governors would favor restricting tobacco consumption with sever measures.
- ditto for alcohol.

This isn't about reducing the danger to the public. There really isn't any, Its about fanning fear, and appearing to act with authority for political benefit.
Its not the first time a manufactured crisis was used in this way.

I was reading a little more about the Reston outbreak. Apparently, an Ebola outbreak was found in Room F of the complex. These monkeys came from a certain farm in the Philippines. Another group of monkeys arrived from the Philippines on November 8. The monkeys in Room F were euthanized on November 16. The incubation period for Ebola is 5-7 days in non-human primates. It 's a bit unclear but after November 16 monkeys in Room H started dying. The below- cited source says it believes the room H monkeys already had Ebola since they came from the same farm in the Philippines. But the incubation period is 5-7 days so it seems the outbreak would have been noticed in room H by November 16. So if Room H monkeys got it after they got to the facility they got it by air ventilation. The timeline is too unclear to be sure what happened . But the monkey poop explanation is just that-- the real issue is whether the room H monkeys got it after they got to the facility, the incubation period implies that if they already had it it would have been noticed (and they would have euthanized on November 16 along with the Room F monkeys, but the timeline is not clear enough to know). https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/ebor.html

I don't think Ricky's blogger is right on several of his observations, Ricky. First, non- human primates have been shown to get Ebola by aerosol in controlled laboratory conditions. See, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997182/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 390624.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21651988/

Here is a a pretty good summation of the science by a blogger. http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.a ... e.html?m=1
For a more scientific assessment, see http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspect ... tion-ebola

And of course there is the pig study where pigs infected primates through non-direct contact. A study by the same group that did the pig study found no transmission by primates through aerosol transmission. http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140725/ ... 05824.html

Anyway , apparently the virus can gain entry though the lungs in primates. It can be transmitted by direct sneezing or cough. Whether a person could get it from virus left in the air is unproven. As long as the virus does not cause people to start coughing or sneezing in public it probably has a low risk in public (as long as a person does not another health issue causing them to couch or sneeze). But it seems hard to argue that the virus could not mutate to cause coughing or sneezing in human beings when it already causes that in pigs. Isn't that the best argument presented against a mutation causing airborne transmission that no virus has ever changed its mode of transmission? But ... It can infect the lungs of primates and it already causes pigs respiratory distress, so how exactly is it changing its mode of transmission?

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That has NOTHING to do with my question. Why do you only list Christie as a quarantining official,

I already told you. He was particularly dickish.

Which is why I said it was attitude that bothered you and not equality.

To be fair, Cuomo is equally dickish by nature and I have little doubt he would have been as heavy handed as Christie, but he just didn't have the same opportunity.