Doesn't make sense

[seannx]

More about the nurse in Maine...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1993942
Doesn't appear so much to be about simple, self-centered refusal to obey a quarentine order, as a potential civil liberties issue.

IMO, Chris Christie took the easy way out, and now it's Maine's turn. We clearly need to send people and resources to stop the infection at the source, but the quarentine policies will add another three weeks, and it's hard to imagine that the extra time won't be a disincentive. While mandatory quarentines could make people feel better, are they really needed?

Will be interesting to see how this proceeds.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by 4mer618er

Probably wouldn't mater what was reported, if it came from FOX it would not be factual.

Factual?

How about slanted so much as to no longer be information but instead commentary.

The OpEd writer believes the 1 and 7 data point is evidence that the Obama Administration has condoned ineffectual protocols due to political correctness. Ponder that a moment. Isn't that kinda absurd? No matter how much one may think Obama sucks, can one really suspend reality enough to believe a president would put the people he has sworn to serve at risk out of political correctness?

Song believes he is informed after having this OpEd writer scope that data point for him. How about you?

max

[seannx]

Originally Posted by mjz

Factual?

How about slanted so much as to no longer be information but instead commentary.

The OpEd writer believes the 1 and 7 data point is evidence that the Obama Administration has condoned ineffectual protocols due to political correctness. Ponder that a moment. Isn't that kinda absurd? No matter how much one may think Obama sucks, can one really suspend reality enough to believe a president would put the people he has sworn to serve at risk out of political correctness?

Song believes he is informed after having this OpEd writer scope that data point for him. How about you?

max

In regards to your third point, I think he may just be messing with you. By focusing on the somewhat specious data point, and arguing as if it is correct, he's able to call everything else into question. That seems to be a common technique used to invalidate an opposing view, that's related to the practice of categorizing comments as being representative of a competing or opposite ideological view. Once they are labeled, they can be summarily disregarded, independent of any facts or supporting information.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by seannx

In regards to your third point, I think he may just be messing with you. By focusing on the somewhat specious data point, and arguing as if it is correct, he's able to call everything else into question. That seems to be a common technique used to invalidate an opposing view, that's related to the practice of categorizing comments as being representative of a competing or opposite ideological view. Once they are labeled, they can be summarily disregarded, independent of any facts or supporting information.

I agree with your assessment of Song's post and motives. My post was made in the spirit of him owning what he says he wants. If that's how he defines informed that's on him. And, in his mind, this may be preferrable to admitting he's messing with me. Doesn't much matter to me. I'm fairly convinced there's a bunch of that going on in Open Mic lately.

I come hear to learn.

I read a study today, found a new strange forum with a much more substantative conversation about Ebola (not so many one-liner monties and no substance as there is here), and emailed NEJM and WHO. Whether Song is messin' or his standards for being informed are really that low doesn't much matter to me.

max

[CodeBlueEMT]

Kaci Hickox, RN. We joke about registered nags all the time at work. Frankly, I wouldn't work with this woman or anyone else that refuses to follow established protocols. Freelancers get you killed in my line of work.

Having followed this thread from the beginning I can safely say: Being talked to death is a terrible way to die.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by CodeBlueEMT

Having followed this thread from the beginning I can safely say: Being talked to death is a terrible way to die.

If this is your opinion of the discussion, may I ask why you have followed it since the beginning?

max

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

The most interesting aspect of this is that the very people who rail against American exceptionalism are now the ones who hold it high like the torch on the Statue of Liberty. Not that long ago they were telling us that our medical system was a shambles and that even Cuba had a better one.

Who are these people specifically? Or are you just lumping anyone who was in favor of health care reform into some group who you can now say "rail against American exceptionalism"?

Please point me to the posts where someone says "Cuba has a better one". I'm willing to bet they said something like "everyone has access".

This is an egregious example of a strawman argument. You assign statements to vague, undefined groups of people who cannot respond because they don't exist, and you attack their positions.

Now we are the only hope of Africa. And must not only get in the fight against Ebola, but take over it. Send materials and put boots on the ground to save them because NO ONE else can!

Please point to a post which says "we are the only hope for Africa". Or a post which says "no one else can". Another ridiculous strawman.

Never mind it's only a couple of countries in West Africa. But let's loop in the whole continent to be as inaccurate as possible.

For decades we have been told how intellectually and culturally inferior we are to rest of the world. Especially Europe.

Who are "we"? Americans? No one has ever told me this. Who cares if they do anyway. It does remain a fact that our education system produces far fewer graduates. Maybe someone told you that FACT and you turned it into "intellectual and cultural inferiority".

Originally Posted by U.S. Census Bureau

How does this compare with other countries? In 2008, the U.S. high school graduation rate was lower than the rates of the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Finland and Denmark. That same year, the U.S. was the only developed nation where a higher percent of 55- to 64-year-olds than 25- to 34-year-olds had graduated from high school.

What about college? The U.S. once led the world in college graduates. As an example of this, Americans age 55-to-64 still lead their peers in other nations in the portion with college degrees (41 percent). But this number has flat-lined for Americans. In 2008, the same percentage of Americans age 25-to-34 and age 55-to-64 were college graduates.

I struggle to see what this has to do with Ebola, other than to point out that many in this country are less equipped to understand the details and science of this complex problem than those in other developed countries. But we have plenty of people who do understand it. Just because overall graduation rates (and any other meaningful education statistic values) are lower her, doesn't mean we don't have a tremendous number of brilliant people. We have 300 million people in this country, a fantastic culture and unmatched resources.

Mitz, who on these forums recently proclaimed himself smarter than 2/3 of Americans, is a great example of this.

There's a 1 in 3 chance he or she is right. Not exactly hard to imagine this might be true. Some people are smarter than others. Ever had an IQ test? You can match that score and see where you compare with the general population. What does this have to do with Ebola?

But now when we suggest that we might follow the lead of England, France and MANY other nations in restricting inbound travel from the Ebola nations.

Details matter. The UK government has not restricted flights. Some private airlines have temporarily done so.

I am not opposed to this. If private airlines want to restrict travel, I think that's fine. If the government wants to temporarily restrict COMMERCIAL flights in and out, I think that's fine.

What would clearly and unequivocally be bad is that if we stopped providing any way of getting aid into the stricken countries in West Africa. Even with this there are issues. We have strong, clear economic (oil) interests in Nigeria, which is also less affected by ebola than Liberia or Sierra Leone. So any restriction policy would need to be on a country by country basis. It's not "Africa", it's more complex than that.

IF we decided to restrict flights, it would (IMO) need to be balanced with a clear plan and resources aimed at getting charter and/or military flights in to the country. We are addressing this right now with the military plan.

Education matters. Understanding geography, our economic ties, and the science (among other things) is crucial to developing a smart, effective plan here.

And quarantining those who do come in until we know they are Ebola free. We are told that this is stupid and excessive.

The UK and France are not doing this. This is a fact. Do you understand this? Never mind that no one said it was "stupid".

France:

Originally Posted by Bloomberg

France ruled out quarantines for health workers returning from Ebola-hit countries, saying it was not necessary.

“Quarantines aren’t justified for people returning from an Ebola-hit country and who aren’t showing symptoms,” the Paris-based Health Ministry said in an e-mailed response to questions.

UK: Some people who have been confirmed to have the disease have been voluntarily quarantined. There is no general quarantine, and certainly none for people who "might" have it.

North Korea has though. Should we follow their lead? I'm going to go ahead and put them in the "generally crazy and irrational" camp. I don't think many would disagree.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-30705423.html

We're ABOVE this! It's not a problem until it becomes a problem. By which time of course it will be too late.
On the face of it, this may appear to be flagrant hypocrisy. But it's really not. It is entirely in keeping with their ideology. And the proof of that are the charges that the American fear and reaction to the Ebola crisis is rooted in racism. How can fear of dying in a pool of vomit and diarrhea be racist you ask? Because it is a disease that originated in Africa and has effected mostly Africans. And it simply isn't fair that Americans should be able sit safely across the ocean and watch this suffering, without having to experience our fair share of it. So let em in. Let em run wild in the streets. You have it coming.

Just outrageous and absurd. Absolutely no one has suggested anything like this. "Let them run wild in the streets. You have it coming." Just unbelievable.

Most of us want to find the best way to keep this disease from spreading. Some also want to help stricken countries out of compassion. No one, but no one wants anyone here to get the disease. You are way out of line and if you actually believe what you wrote here, it blows my mind.

Clearly impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who proffers these views in this way.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

if you actually believe what you wrote here

I think this line is crucial to understanding what's transpiring in this thread.

max

[KevWind]

Whoa guys lets not loose sight of the fact that Ebola is an extremely virulent
deadly disease that has only begun to be studied and understood.

Which unfortunately makes it a scary situation
And primal fear can and does easily overcome rational thought.
A fact that is universally exploitable
And unfortunately is routinely exploited by many facets of our society
Not the least of which are media outlets that depend on ratings

So in a shameless bit of self promo I will simply offer some lyrics from one of my songs as a perspective on what may be an underlying current in what's happing here. From the second verse

Politicians and the preachers call .....and talk show hosts and pundits all
Cast their nets try to tip the scales..... with chameleon skin through clouded veils
Claim the've found some Holy Grail
Desperately try to pull us in....... to fund their fears and help them win
There's nothing to win or loose.


In context

[4mer618er]

I need to clear something up. Where I come from, if you have a real dislike for something or someone, we say you have a real hard on against said thing or person. Hope that makes things clearer.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Whoa guys lets not loose sight of the fact that Ebola is an extremely virulent
deadly disease that has only begun to be studied and understood.

<<snip>>

Only since 1976...

They do understand quite a bit, including transmission issues...so I wonder why folks continue to point to our supposed ignorance in this fashion?

...but perhaps if the people that put "quotes" around "science" keep saying we don't understand the disease, then for some it will become (or has already become) true.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

They do understand quite a bit, including transmission issues

Yet somehow missed the fact that 13% don't present with fever . . according to several studies.

I wonder what ELSE they've missed . . . or don't understand?

It doesn't instill confidence when the "message" from the gov't and CDC is changing and often inconsistent with one another, either.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Yet somehow missed the fact that 13% don't present with fever . . according to several studies.

I wonder what ELSE they've missed . . . or don't understand?

It doesn't instill confidence when the "message" from the gov't and CDC is changing and often inconsistent with one another, either.

Doesn't add up.

You can say they missed it. That's your reality.
But it's not the reality for the people who have managed to have hundreds of doctors return from West Africa with exactly one active case presently on US soil.

I wonder why you so conveniently keep ignoring that.... wait for it...... fact.

The study to which you refer says the outbreak is the same as the previous 5 since 1976. Meaning it wasn't missed, has been understood, but apparently not as earth shattering when put into scope of a much larger picture.

And you have the proof of this non earth-shattering status right in front of you. Gleaned from nothing more than sensational headlines.

Again, one infected patient in the US. Certainly possible there may be more from the infected doctor's movements, but at the moment the tally is..................


one.

Pretty tough to build a case for distrust with those numbers. But I am certain you will keep trying.

max

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

Yet somehow missed the fact that 13% don't present with fever . . according to several studies.

I wonder what ELSE they've missed . . . or don't understand?

It doesn't instill confidence when the "message" from the gov't and CDC is changing and often inconsistent with one another, either.

A couple of key questions.

First, what evidence is there that anyone has missed this? Since you're referring to several studies, it would appear that it's not been missed.

Secondly, and more to the point, if 13% don't present with fever (or other symptoms, I don't know), can they transmit the disease? Can asymptomatic people transmit the disease in the cases you cite? In other words, what is the practical implication of this point you keep bringing up?

I personally don't know and I think the answer to those two questions would inform us all and maybe change some minds. As presented, it just leaves me with questions, but you seem to have reached a conclusion that this means we should not trust the CDC. But let's also be intellectually honest, from your postings it is clear you reached that conclusion long ago.

Would love to hear the specific answer to the transmission question at least. Thanks.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

First, what evidence is there that anyone has missed this?

Well, let's see. They're saying "let's screen passengers for a temperature" . . . never mentioning that 13% can be sick without the temperature.

They either MISSED that, or SUPRESSED it.

Secondly, and more to the point, if 13% don't present with fever (or other symptoms, I don't know), can they transmit the disease?

Why don't we asked those who MISSED or SUPRESSED the info in the first place? Although I'm not sure why one would want to completely trust their answer, given the above.