You're right, I don't know that, which is why I said in several other times I made the same point, "so far" or the equivalent. But you're still left with the fact that no one outside care givers has been infected. Even in Africa, with terrible systems in place to identify and isolate those sick, the rate of spread is low, only 1-2.
The rate of spread of Ebola has always been about that rate.
That's good news, as it's not yet airborne, it would appear, even if it can also apparently travel over three feet in droplets of moisture under the right conditions (see below).
But two parents caring for a sick child here in one of America's poor enclaves .. would be two more too many.
As is clear from reports, The four people in the apartment with Duncan steered clear of him and the things he touched at the onset of his symptoms. Still, they were lucky.
Anyone else he had contact with has been at risk, even if such contact was minimal in numbers, but only those closely caring for him, like the two nurses who contracted Ebola prior to knowing that's what he had, contracted it.
Maybe in 2 weeks I'll be proved wrong and the Dr. infected bystanders, but it's an extreme step to require anyone going to Ebola to spend an additional 21 days (or 42 days!) under at least house arrest helping no one, when the evidence so far shows the risk of them to the general population is zero. It's a huge deterrent to those inclined to help out in Africa where a lot of help is needed (and where outside assistance will be needed for a very long time to come), a huge waste of their talents while sitting in isolation, and a huge incentive to lie on their return, send them underground.
I understand what you're saying.
But, we must weigh both sides, not just the inconvenience of the quarantine to the high-risk people.
If it stops an epidemic in America, the quarantine is clearly worth it.
This is one of those situations where, if we enact these quarantines and nobody gets Ebola, then we have to believe we did the right thing.
We can't simulate this situation and test it out in some microcosm to see what
would have happened if we hadn't enacted the quarantine.
Quarantines in America are all about preventing the spread of an epidemic
to Americans and in America.
West Africa is viscerally far away, from an emotional aspect.
Those griping about quarantines would feel very different if an Ebola epidemic took root here.
Better extra-careful safe than deadly epidemic sorry.
At the very least, we have to weight the expected benefit - which based on the evidence so far is zero - against the very real costs of the policies. Most favoring quarantine don't recognize ANY downside at all, when clearly that downside is significant.
But that's the flaw in your analysis: the evidence is simply
not zero.
The two nurses in Dallas who contracted Ebola from Duncan count in this equation.
If Dr. Spencer was roaming around freely in the populace and has contaminated someone when he was in the 24-hour period onset of symptoms during which time he is contagious, then he will have transmitted the disease to someone who, if they are poor and cannot afford hospital care, will be then cared for by his family at home once their incubation period is over and they're symptomatic .. and the epidemic begins.
Duncan's family members stayed away from him.
Spencer may not have stayed far enough away from someone during the onset of his symptoms (such as his fiancee who is, understandably, now in quarantine).
We can't allow that risk to start an epidemic.
That's flawless logic.
I really don't think anyone is ignoring the downside to those being quarantined you mentioned.
I believe they're simply accurately weighing
both sides.
I'll just say that the benefit may be entirely psychological, to prevent irrational panic, and that may be enough to justify the measures.
Yes, being sensitive to the psyche of the great majority of Americans and their intelligent real concerns on the matter is huge. It can't be overemphasized.
For one thing, being thus sensitive will keep Wall Street from being spooked.
When the quarantines are implemented, people feel safer, and the stock market isn't therefore likely to plummet.
But just let one poor enclave epidemic take hold, and then people will stop going to work in the area, and people will stop going to work if they know a coworker lives in the infected area .. and the downward spiral will be catastrophic.
We simply can't allow any risk of such a situation to occur.
Quarantines go a long way to preventing that, not only for the very health and lives of our people, but for our economic survival as well.
But that's entirely different than believing they're necessary based on the science, because the science and evidence to date indicates such measures are overkill, with significant costs not offset with any measurable benefits beyond appeasing the fearful.
What science?
The science you quote, or the science I quote?
The science the CDC and Obama quote, or the science that WHO presents?
Clearly there are exceptions to whatever policy rule is being stated.
For example, WHO personnel are now saying that a 21-day quarantine covers only 95 percent of cases, that an additional 21 days of quarantine is necessary to catch them all.
Also, WHO personnel are now saying that some contaminations in West Africa can only be explained by the virus traveling beyond direct-contact distance in droplets of moisture in the air. That's how the cameraman contracted the disease, they say, as he simply wasn't that close in proximity to anyone infected.
Scientific tests have concluded that the virus can remain on objects for a few hours in the cold and in a form whereby they can be picked up and function as a contaminate.
Scientific tests have also concluded that if it's cold enough .. and winter is approaching .. the virus can remain on objects for more than a week.
Etc.
The American people read all of this .. presented from scientists .. and, also, they read all of this presented by political factions, whereby trust is compromised by agenda on
both sides of the aisle.