Re: Doctor rushed to Bellevue Hospital with Ebola symptoms went bowling a day earlier
Okay, so you're not "mocking" people like some in this thread are doing, you're just belittling them. :roll:
If pointing out the scientific consensus on Ebola is belittling them, then I guess so.
The great majority of people are still understandably intelligently concerned about Ebola .. about the 24 hours prior to experiencing classic symptoms .. about how much of the virus truly is in saliva during those last 24 hours prior to symptoms .. about what happens if the doctors are wrong or somehow a very poor person gets infected and doesn't go to the hospital but is cared for at home (how the epidemic spread in West Africa) .. about how long the virus can exist on surfaces in the cold and dark as winter approaches .. about how healthcare professionals can contract the disease from ER walk-in patients they care for prior to them testing positive and being placed in protective isolation (how the two nurses got Ebola from Duncan in Dallas) .. about how each new case of Ebola exposes the virus to a new host that may be the right environment for mutating to airborne .. about the effect of each new case of Ebola in America on Wall Street .. about how deadly the virus is, especially without proper treatment from the onset of symptoms, proper treatment so many of America's own poor can't afford .. about how special prevention of the spread of Ebola will thus be a taxpayer burden ...
I'm trying to be reasonable, but it seems prudent to focus on the actual risks, and the bolded one is obviously a big one.
I can see you're concerned about what you deem to be "overreaction".
So far people have expressed their intelligent real concern, and authorities have or have begun to take intelligent action without overreacting.
I don't see anything for you to be worried about here with regard to overreacting.
Am I wrong?
Yes, IMO, you are wrong. People avoiding NYC, for example, because one doctor walked around midtown Manhattan could cause real harm, based on a risk that science tells us is remote. Risks of TB or Hep C are greater, for many people the risk dying from flu is FAR greater.
A number are concerned about underreacting.
I can understand both concerns.
I do as well.
No, they most certainly do. Mockers mock because they fear. The mockers are predominantly left-leaners. They are concerned that their political powers will take a hit by Ebola so they're attempting to silence intelligent real concern about it by attempting to mock people into silence.
It's quite obvious.
I'm sorry, but the fact that some disagree with you doesn't =====>>> they're only disagreeing because of political concerns, especially when the views expressed by those who disagree with you are based on the recommendations of experts dealing with Ebola, scientists, with years of experience and study of Ebola and other potentially deadly infectious diseases.
And here you hedge with your first word, and validate that you're thinking is all political.
I'm a centrist, not partial to the right or the left.
I am a psychologist, and thus I'm sensitive to the psychology of the great majority of Americans.
We would all do well not to belittle, mock, overreact, underreact, etc.
And perhaps not assigning bad political motives to those who disagree?
According to a recent poll, 91% want flights restricted. 91% would include people on both sides of the aisle. This is a non-political issue concern.
Treating it as political will actually hamper taking necessary protection steps (a la "Global Warming" flap), and will thus precipitate the very panic you'd prefer not to occur.
I do understand we have to deal with public opinion and their fears whether rational or irrational, but there is a real downside to a travel ban, huge practical difficulties enforcing a ban that would be effective in preventing the sick from coming here, it would increase incentives to take steps to avoid the ban, impose hardships on the area where the disease needs to be stopped, and more. So let's say it appears the decision is a VERY narrow tightrope.
And, again, when you dismiss those who disagree with you as doing so only for crass political motives, you're " treating it as political."
Though there may be some who want to see Wall Street tank and the nation go into another depression just so they can point their finger at Obama, the overwhelming vast majority of Americans and those presenting intelligent real concern aren't among them.
But keep thinking politically defensive .. and you'll reveal what you're real concern is: that it's better for your allied powers to appear safe from Ebola repercussions than for the physiological and psychological health of every American to be safe.
See above. It's entirely possible for reasonable people to rationally evaluate the facts and evidence available to laymen, and disagree on such a complex topic with incredibly complex and difficult public policy choices, each with their own huge downsides.
If you think that will be of value in addressing the intelligent real concerns of the great majority of Americans regarding Ebola, then do so.
I too have done the same.
But I recognize that the great majority are either not going to comprehend those details or be made aware of them.
They will also not trust the sources, due to all the politicking going on, and mocking and belittling them will only make them more concerned.
But many people are beating the Ebola!! drum are telling their audience to distrust the experts, and be afraid. There is perhaps a middle ground between travel bans, medical isolation for anyone who sets foot in W. Africa for 21 days and some reasonable steps to increase screening and follow up of people traveling here, better education, and calling out people who spread obvious disinformation and fears based on ignorance.
And, when there appears to be exceptions to the general rules, and the threat of mutation to airborne is real (which it is), you'll be hard-pressed to say "exceedingly low" and expect the mother of a 3-year-old not to be intelligently concerned.
What is 'intelligently concerned?' Mothers in Maine worried about a teacher who attended a conference in Dallas are not reacting based on 'intelligent concerns.' Those concerns aren't rational when weighed against the evidence, what we know of the disease, how it's spread, etc.
We know that viruses can mutate to whatever it takes to insure their survival, as Darwin so accurately presented. Airborne is just one of those known qualities.
That HIV is yet known to have mutated to airborne is meaningless.
Viruses CAN mutate but the medical profession treats viruses on what they are, not what they might theoretically become. The most common virus, one that regularly mutates, is the flu, but our public policy doesn't treat the common flu as potentially as deadly as Ebola although there does exist a non-trivial chance that it could mutate into a far more deadly form.
