Ebola in America

Dr. Keith said:
You are overlooking the fact that the disease is not very communicable in most situations, but even less so in the early stages.
Click to expand...

I'm not overlooking that at all. The lethality of the disease means that it needs to be treated extremely seriously even in cases of low communicability. In addition, we know less than you presume about the actual communicability of the disease.

Waiting until clear symptoms, not just feeling fatigue or a normal fluctuation in temperature but nausea and high temperature, appears to be a rational approach. Based on the science.
Click to expand...

You're not basing that on science. You're basing that on your own assessment of risk tolerance, but it's not a risk tolerance you have the right to demand others accept.

The only transmissions in the US were the result of those rational guidelines being ignored and inadequately trained and equipped personnel being pushed into the resultant mess.
Click to expand...

Again: you're using the outcome to argue that the process was acceptable. Which is the logical equivalent of saying that it was the right decision not to wear your seatbelt if you didn't get in a crash.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not overlooking that at all. The lethality of the disease means that it needs to be treated extremely seriously even in cases of low communicability.
Click to expand...

I would think that it would be a combination of both its lethality and its contagiousness. Otherwise meteor defense would be our priority all the time. Didn't I make this comment before ?
 
Belz... said:
I would think that it would be a combination of both its lethality and its contagiousness. Otherwise meteor defense would be our priority all the time. Didn't I make this comment before ?
Click to expand...

Yes, ebola isn't very contagious (largely because it's so quickly lethal), but it's extremely infectious. As little as one virus may be enough to infect a person. So yes, even if you look beyond just the lethality once infected, the virus is pretty dangerous.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, ebola isn't very contagious (largely because it's so quickly lethal), but it's extremely infectious. As little as one virus may be enough to infect a person. So yes, even if you look beyond just the lethality once infected, the virus is pretty dangerous.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address what I said however: one factor isn't enough to evaluate the risk that is posed and the efforts you should take to mitigate them.
 
Ziggurat said:
We live in a democracy. Do you really think your risk tolerance is more in line with the electorate's than mine? Because I'm pretty sure it's not.
Click to expand...

We also post on a skeptics' forum. Do you really think the fact that your opinion is popular means it's more rational ? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
 
Belz... said:
We also post on a skeptics' forum. Do you really think the fact that your opinion is popular means it's more rational ? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Risk assessment is a question of facts. Risk tolerance is not. It is a subjective evaluation. Dr. Keith's risk tolerance for ebola is no more based on rationality than mine. And the fact that my opinion about risk tolerance is popular is very much relevant to what our government should be doing.
 
Belz... said:
That doesn't address what I said however: one factor isn't enough to evaluate the risk that is posed and the efforts you should take to mitigate them.
Click to expand...

It does address that, in the only way relevant to my argument. Take all the factors into consideration that you want to, the conclusion is still going to be that ebola should be treated with extreme caution.
 
Belz... said:
Not sure about that last part, however. The fatality rate seems pretty high once you've got it.
Click to expand...

Um, 1:10 is high to you? Or 11 if you count the NY Doc.

Transmissible rate seems to be 2 per hundreds, what with nurses, roomies, fellow passengers on planes, buses and elevators, fellow patients in the waiting rooms, clean up crews, peace officers exposed, hospital staff....... Weren't there a hundred under watch from direct contact with Duncan? And there must have been at least that many to his infected nurses.

Move along, these are not the infected Droids you are looking for....
 
casebro said:
Um, 1:10 is high to you? Or 11 if you count the NY Doc.
Click to expand...

The measures we have been able to use so far in many of these cases are not and will not be available to everyone should a wider outbreak occur.
 
Ziggurat said:
Risk assessment is a question of facts. Risk tolerance is not. It is a subjective evaluation. Dr. Keith's risk tolerance for ebola is no more based on rationality than mine. And the fact that my opinion about risk tolerance is popular is very much relevant to what our government should be doing.
Click to expand...

Curious. I would think that you would champion a more rational approach to risk tolerance...

It does address that, in the only way relevant to my argument.
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not agree that risk assessment should take into consideration other factors than impact ?
 
Ziggurat said:
We live in a democracy. Do you really think your risk tolerance is more in line with the electorate's than mine? Because I'm pretty sure it's not.
Click to expand...

My observations of risk tolerance in America is that we are very willing to tolerate risk as long as

1. The risk only applies to other people or
2. Risk mitigation would require government spending that might result in a tax increase.

If neither of those conditions are met, we demand action and we demand it now.
 
Ziggurat said:
You have not established that my approach is in any way irrational.
Click to expand...

First of all, I have no said that, so why would I need to establish this ?

Second, you certainly implied that your approach wasn't particularily rational when you a) appealed to popularity and b) used a tu quoque.
 
Belz... said:
Mortality is between 25% and 90%, avg 50%, according to wiki. Are their numbers wrong ?
Click to expand...

It depends on where they are treated. In West Africa you may be approaching 90%, in a modern medical environment it looks like we will end up being well below 25% when this outbreak subsides.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not overlooking that at all. The lethality of the disease means that it needs to be treated extremely seriously even in cases of low communicability. In addition, we know less than you presume about the actual communicability of the disease.
Click to expand...

But, what we do know from decades of research is backed up by recent evidence: Duncan lived with several people in Dallas who did not contract the disease despite living with him as he developed symptoms and even after he had developed symptoms.

The disease, so far as all evidence is concerned, has been transmitted by close contact with bodily fluids of the obviously ill. Not casual contact with the mildly ill. This is consistent with 40 years of research and the latest evidence.

Your fear mongering reminds me of those who would keep AIDS patients off the bus or out of restaurants. It is simply counterfactual to what we know about the disease. And what we are learning about the disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom