Will Ebola become a big problem in the United States?

[dfreuter415]

They were developing their policy based on fear, not science. Bad idea.

So, does this mean that you do not believe the saying, "better safe than sorry?"

To me, at the time of the first Ebola case, the science of transmission was not completely understood. So, would it have been fear or prudence to have stricter restrictions based on the theory of "better safe than sorry."  Then, as the science of Ebola was discovered, ease the restrictions?

[Golfingdad]

That was on purpose and the whole point to show the irony. You said they "don't get to dictate" (which they do all the time) and then said "that doesn't make it so" which has been my argument about government intrusion for years.

Sure they did with "people don't get to dictate what is dangerous." That was the point I was arguing. They can and do dictate it. I'm not even in favor of a government imposed quarantine and rarely favor any imposition from the government.

I think the medical people are reasonable and would probably cooperate with self-imposed quarantines if leaders talked to them about it upon arrival and everybody could agree on some guidelines.

I happen to think it was ridiculous to take that nurse off the plane and take her to a tent like they did. An epidemic may or may not ever reach a point where that would be necessary but it's not there now IMO.

But you took a sentence fragment completely out of context.  That misses my entire point.  I said ...

Seriously, though, people don't get to dictate what it means to be endangered just because they feel that way.  Feeling endangered or thinking you're endangered is not endangered.  That's just being scared.

I added the stress this time on the key word.  Certainly they can dictate all they want, but them dictating doesn't make it so.

I can't speak for Golfingdad, but I'm pretty sure that what he meant was, just because they "think" it is dangerous doesn't make it so.

They were developing their policy based on fear, not science. Bad idea. But, it IS their right.

Exactly.

[Gunther]

So, does this mean that you do not believe the saying, "better safe than sorry?" To me, at the time of the first Ebola case, the science of transmission was not completely understood. So, would it have been fear or prudence to have stricter restrictions based on the theory of "better safe than sorry."  Then, as the science of Ebola was discovered, ease the restrictions?

You, of course, are using sound logic and are correct in doing do. I've learned through this event that Phan is a flame-thrower, continually ascribing this reasoned methodology as "fear" and "hysteria" and "panic" despite the multitude of posts here that describe the actions as "caution" or "preparedness". Typical stuff, insult and diminish those with a different point of view.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

They were developing their policy based on fear, not science. Bad idea

.Originally Posted by dfreuter415

So, does this mean that you do not believe the saying, "better safe than sorry?"

I try not to live my life by idioms and clichés. I live in the nuanced grey area between black and white, which requires critical thought, and I hope the people who make these decisions do the same thing.

[MS256]

LOL.

[dsc123]

We're still at 2 contracted here, 2 cured, right?

[Golfingdad]

So, does this mean that you do not believe the saying, "better safe than sorry?"

To me, at the time of the first Ebola case, the science of transmission was not completely understood. So, would it have been fear or prudence to have stricter restrictions based on the theory of "better safe than sorry."  Then, as the science of Ebola was discovered, ease the restrictions?

A couple of things:

1. You don't get to set the threshold for what is safe and what is sorry and then pat yourself on the back because you are on the safe side of your own arbitrarily set line.  Someone could just as easily come in here and say their belief is that "safe" means every human on the planet must quarantine themselves for 6 months to ensure that all current patients die and nobody else gets infected and then they can say "hey, better safe than sorry."
2. The science of transmission was not completely understood ... BY YOU AND ME.  But this disease isn't new to the world or the CDC or WHO.  They seem to understand it quite well.  My common sense tells me that if they say that you can't get it without coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, and then nobody gets it except for people who've come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, then they probably have a pretty good handle on the "science of transmission."

I try not to live my life by idioms and clichés. I live in the nuanced grey area between black and white, which requires critical thought, and I hope the people who make these decisions do the same thing.

Yup.

[Slice of Life]

We're still at 2 contracted here, 2 cured, right?

End times.

[dfreuter415]

Even though the CDC seem to understand Ebola, just today they changed guidelines for Ebola monitoring in the U.S.

http://www.wzzm13.com/story/life/wellness/healthy-you/2014/10/28/ebola-cdc/18066309/

My common sense tells me that if they say that you can't get it without coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, and then nobody gets it except for people who've come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, then they probably have a pretty good handle on the "science of transmission."

If you can't get it without coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, and then nobody gets it except for people who've come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, then they probably have a pretty good handle on the "science of transmission," then how do you explain Amber Vinson and Nina Pham getting Ebola if they followed CDC protocols?

According to Scott Pelley's interview with the Texas nurses say they looked up protocols from the CDC, and as of late September, that’s what the CDC recommended.  Scott Pelley: So the CDC protocols that you would’ve looked up the day he came into the emergency department was in your estimation deficient?  All four nurses: Yes.

[Golfingdad]

Your post was badly malformed so I could not quote it directly. Mods delete malformed posts so please take care in the future.

Looks to me like those guidelines weren't issued because they learned anything new about the disease;

"And these changes are meant to stress the scientific facts about the disease and hopefully reduce the fear."

They're trying to keep people from freaking out for no reason.

[trickyputt]

[quote name="dfreuter415" url="/t/77593/will-ebola-become-a-big-problem-in-the-united-states/360_40#post_1069668"]So, does this mean that you do not believe the saying, "better safe than sorry?" To me, at the time of the first Ebola case, the science of transmission was not completely understood. So, would it have been fear or prudence to have stricter restrictions based on the theory of "better safe than sorry."  Then, as the science of Ebola was discovered, ease the restrictions?

You, of course, are using sound logic and are correct in doing do. I've learned through this event that Phan is a flame-thrower, continually ascribing this reasoned methodology as "fear" and "hysteria" and "panic" despite the multitude of posts here that describe the actions as "caution" or "preparedness". Typical stuff, insult and diminish those with a different point of view.[/quote] It seems to transmit like hepatitus A,B,or C. Protocols for a lot of similar bugs are in place.This one is just a little new. A testical eating virus can get a lot of attention.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

The science of transmission was not completely understood ... BY YOU AND ME.  But this disease isn't new to the world or the CDC or WHO.  They seem to understand it quite well.

Even though the CDC seem to understand Ebola, just today they changed guidelines for Ebola monitoring in the U.S.

http://www.wzzm13.com/story/life/wellness/healthy-you/2014/10/28/ebola-cdc/18066309/

My common sense tells me that if they say that you can't get it without coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, and then nobody gets it except for people who've come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, then they probably have a pretty good handle on the "science of transmission."

If you can't get it without coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, and then nobody gets it except for people who've come in contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, then they probably have a pretty good handle on the "science of transmission," then how do you explain Amber Vinson and Nina Pham getting Ebola if they followed CDC protocols?

According to Scott Pelley's interview with the Texas nurses say they looked up protocols from the CDC, and as of late September, that’s what the CDC recommended.  Scott Pelley: So the CDC protocols that you would’ve looked up the day he came into the emergency department was in your estimation deficient?  All four nurses: Yes.

@dfreuter415 ,

When you quote, do not type in the quote box.  Type below the quote box.

[Jeremie Boop]

Interestingly enough, the nurse HIckox now is saying she won't follow the quarantine at home.

[David in FL]

Interestingly enough, the nurse HIckox now is saying she won't follow the quarantine at home.

So someone might not follow a voluntary quarantine, or other voluntary monitoring/protective measures? Who woulda thought?! :doh:

[Jeremie Boop]

So someone might not follow a voluntary quarantine, or other voluntary monitoring/protective measures?

Who woulda thought?!

Totally right, staying in the comfort of her own home for another 12 days is such an inconvenience, why would anyone possibly do that.

[MS256]

I have an idea.

Instead of flying them home and worrying about quarantines just rent a cruise boat and make sure the voyage takes 21 days to get here.

Since the CDC said you could give it to somebody on a bus, but you can't get it on a bus, I'm sure the same applies to a boat.

[Jeremie Boop]

I have an idea.

Instead of flying them home and worrying about quarantines just rent a cruise boat and make sure the voyage takes 21 days to get here.

Since the CDC said you could give it to somebody on a bus, but you can't get it on a bus, I'm sure the same applies to a boat.

That's hilarious, you can give it but it can't be gotten....

[boogielicious]

I have an idea.

Instead of flying them home and worrying about quarantines just rent a cruise boat and make sure the voyage takes 21 days to get here.

Since the CDC said you could give it to somebody on a bus, but you can't get it on a bus, I'm sure the same applies to a boat.

But if is a Carnival Cruise Line then they will catch some other nasty disease on the boat. It may then mutate with the ebola virus and become the Andromeda Strain.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/12/travel/cruise-ships-sickness/