First Case of Ebola in NYC Confirmed

A doctor in New York who recently returned from Africa has been confirmed to have Ebola. It was the main story on CNN (Sirius in the car) all afternoon, segment after segment.

He went bowling (I think they said last night) and he took an Uber taxi to the bowling alley. His girlfriend is in quarantine.

Every politician and doctor interviewed said there's no threat to anyone except those he came in direct contact with, which is very few people. Since he's a doctor, he knew what to look for and acted appropriately. So why is this such important news?

< Thursday Open Thread | Zale Thompson's Hatchet Attack on Police in Queens >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    FEEYAH (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    Like austrailian for beer.

    The news outlets could not wait for NYC to have a confirmed case.

    Ridiculous over hyping of a story.

    Utility (none / 0) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    What the story shows is the utility of Obama's enhanced screening at airports since this doc cleared them.  Just a waste of time and money for security theater.  This slavish devotion to open borders is over the top.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 08:19:36 AM EST
    I have no idea whether airport screening will be useful or not, but judging it based on a single case is just silly.  There are no measures that would stop every instance of a person with Ebola from entering the U.S.

    My wife travels in China for business (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    They don't mess around.  Temperature screening everywhere and they have since the bird flu began propagating.

    Yeah, you have to stand in line. But my wife says, if you're not in line in China, you're not doing anything anyway.


    You have no idea! (none / 0) (#144)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 08:39:39 AM EST

    How about these two facts.

    1. The enhanced screening failed to catch the Ebola effected NYC doc.

    2.  With a 21 day incubation period, a one time temperature check will only catch a small percentage of infected persons.

    So, what would you suggest? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    How about every person traveling has to tack 21 days onto the front end of their trip, arriving at the airport three weeks before the scheduled date of departure, and be monitored for the presence or emergence of symptoms before being allowed to board a plane.

    And, just to be on the safe side, you know, in case people are worried about mutating, three weeks would be tacked onto the trip upon arrival at the destination city.  After monitoring for 21 days after arrival, the asymptomatic traveler would then be allowed to leave the airport isolation facility and proceed with whatever personal or other business he or she had planned.

    This is going to require an unbelievable amount of resources and infrastructure - do you have any idea how many people fly every day?  Who will pay for all of this?  

    Okay, so now that you possibly can see that this is a pretty ridiculous overreaction - but in keeping with the kinds of proposals being suggested - let's return to reality, shall we?  

    Other than the two nurses who treated Duncan when he was at his most contagious, and not apparently protected adequately, no one else has contracted the virus as a result of being in his presence to varying degrees. Not the people who were on the plane with him, not the people in the apartment he stayed in as his illness was getting worse, not the EMTs who transported him to the hospital, not the ER personnel.  No one caring for the cameraman who was treated in Nebraska, no one treating the two nurses, no one treating the two aid workers who were sent here for treatment has contracted the virus - and given that they were caring for these people at the peak of viral load, it is utterly ridiculous for people to be freaking out like this.

    It's just not that hard to contract, unless there is direct contact with body fluids.  For the media to get all breathless about how the latest patient went bowling and rode the subway is close to being criminally irresponsible.

    One person has died in the US from Ebola.  One.  We aren't in the middle of an outbreak or an epidemic here.  No, I am not saying we don't need to be careful, or be prepared, or be aware or alert to possible new cases, but panic and overreaction is uncalled for.  We want people thinking and acting from reason and fact, and panic works against reason, which is why no good is going to come from intentionally and unnecessarily scaring people to death.


    Wow - impressive (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    ... recitation of the obvious.  How about these two facts:

    1.  No kidding.  Did someone say otherwise?  But the fact that you're judging the utility of a screening process that was never designed/intended/claimed to catch all infected persons by the fact that a single person was not caught is pretty amusing.

    2.  Oh, I see.  So you're saying that the airport screening will catch some of the infected persons.  So it's not, as you previously claimed, a useless "waste of time and money for security theater."  

    Glad we're cleared that up.

    The screening is supposed to test for (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    people who actually have symptoms, evidenced by the fever, and are contagious at that moment.  He passed the screening and was not contagious at the time he flew.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 08:46:15 AM EST
    This is security theater.  The screening as you acknowledge is designed to stop only a fraction of the infected.

    With hundreds of travelers arriving from the hot spot countries every day it's just a matter of time before more infected travelers arrive.  Some symptomatic and some not.

    At a common sense minimum our Liberian embassy should stop issuing visas until the disease is under control in that country.


    This "logic" is funny (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    The fact that a security measure will not stop every instance from occurring (i.e. a "fraction") means it is a useless "security theater".  You realize this means that every security measure (including the one you propose) is "security theater", right?



    The resident fearmonger (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Politalkix on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    in TL who seems to be scared sh$tl$ss that all of us are in danger from Islamic retaliation because of US airstrikes against ISIS has one more thing to fear and have a meltdown-EBOLA in NYC. It is a matter of time before he starts blaming the President for putting his "life in danger"!

    It is not just the idiotic media! The fringes in the political spectrum have gone off their deep ends with the media in tow. Misery loves company.

    Don't worry.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 04:26:42 AM EST
    Be Happy.

    "resident fearmonger" (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    There's nothing like ad hominem to debase a debate.

    If you can't find it in New York (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:02:29 AM EST
    it doesn't exist.

    Just another day in The City.

    Media In a nut shell (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:55:21 AM EST
    (and I do mean NUTshell)
    I just heard this-

    "Ok! So we thought we were done with this and now we have 21 more days to talk about Ebola!  Your thoughts?"

    It's coming up in a lot of political debates (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    Good for business, doncha know.

    Speaking of Ebola Scares... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    ...THIS is where I shop every Sunday morning, yeah the geniuses that put clinics in supermarkets should have their heads examined.

    "Hey honey, I feel sick, I am going to the supermarket to get it checked out.", "Well can you pick up some broccoli and hotdog buns while you are there ?"

    Yes, please, when you are sick go to a place where everyone else buys food...

    But fear not, it was a scare, not anything more, and I will be there Sunday morning as usual.  But I bet the store is a ghost town, which is cool with me as I try to go before the church crowd gets out and it turns into a zoo.

    Oh, heck (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    A lot of Walmarts, where a whole heck of a lot of people shop for food, as well as other stuff, have walk-in clinics.
    Forget Ebola.  You are very, very unlikely to get it.  But do you want people with the flu, or other communicable diseases (that, unlike Ebola, are, in fact, airborne) sneezing or coughing all over the produce or baked goods that other people are going to buy?

    They only have (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    them here in drug stores as far as I know but I guess I should avoid drug stores from now on if I don't want to get a virus or something.

    How About This... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    ...who in F goes to a grocery store for treatment when they think they have Ebola ?

    If this doctor "does everything right," (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    ie., "follows procedures to a T," how did he get the disease in the first place?

    Yes, I'm talking about his time in Guinea.

    Either he didn't do everything right or what has been decided is "everything right" ain't.

    If this is a reference to my comment (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    i was talking about how he behaved after exposure.   Checking his temp, reporting as soon as there was a reason.
    I have no idea what procedures he followed during exposure.  There seems to be an evolving ideas of what that should be.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    obviously ideas (and protocols) are evolving in light of known occurrences being observed that challenge the reliability of prior assumptions (and the protocols based on those assumptions.

     THAT'S how science really works. It is not a static body of knowledge. That's why I pointed out to some of the more vociferous critics last week that they were wrong to dismissively reject the possibility that just maybe the scientists lacked enough knowledge  even to  design protocols capable of stopping the transmission, and the problem could well not be limited to merely some providers not precisely following then existing protocols. You'd have thought I said the Earth is round to a 17th Century pope.

      I won't wait for the rush of concessions.


    that should be (none / 0) (#69)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    that the earth revolves around the sun. By the 17th Century the church did accept the earth is round.

    Not meant to be a direct response to you (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Just seems to me either the guy followed the accepted procedures, did everything "right" in Guinea, but got infected anyway, which makes me think, to use your phrase, procedures to prevent transmission need to "evolve" more, or he didn't follow the accepted procedures in Guinea, which makes me wonder about his judgement and actions here.

    I haven't really been following this much, but if what you say is true, that procedures for those working with infected patients is evolving, wouldn't that imply that our understanding of the disease and how it's spread is evolving?


    The one thing I haven't seen anyone (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 02:36:07 PM EST
    address is the difference between conditions in these West African nations and those that exist here in the US.  In some of the areas where the virus is most prevalent, there is no guarantee that medical personnel are going to have their contact with patients in the reasonably clean, reasonably sterile conditions that exist within the confines of a medical facility - they could be encountering patients on the street, be approached at times when the health care worker is not wearing protective equipment.

    I think this is about the human element - the one that throws the wrench into what would otherwise be fail-proof protocols.  At some point, the gear has to come off, and that's where I'm guessing the breaches occur.  Touch your face - we all do it hundreds of times a day without thinking about it.  Get some body fluids on a shoe and inadvertently transfer it to a hand.

    I don't think this is so much an evolution as it is a refinement, and I don't think it speaks to how the virus is actually transmitted; I think procedures are being refined as a way to capture all the ways in which those working with Ebola patients can breach the protocols.

    We are still only talking about one death in the US of someone who did not contract the virus here.  The two aid workers and the cameraman who contracted it in Africa have all recovered.  The nurse who treated Duncan is virus-free; her co-worker's condition is improving.

    Would it make sense for medical personnel returning from West Africa after directly treating Ebola patients to be placed in a 21-day isolation?  Maybe so.


    I think kdog touched on this very topic in one (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Angel on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    of the other threads.  

    One thing I don't get about people (fear mongers) who compare what's going on in some African countries to what has happened here in the US - don't they realize that the conditions are extremely different?


    There has been (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    An outstanding success story in Nigeria in response to an Ebola outbreak there.  While initially unprepared for it, they managed to marshal the resources to contain it and track everyone who had been exposed.

    Nigeria declared Ebola-free.

    And Nigeria has recently pledged to send 600 volunteers to the affected African countries.


    The one thing that (none / 0) (#131)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    Mr. Zorba (who is a molecular virologist) has said is that most probably, all of the infections can be attributed to human error of some type.  Either because of failing to follow proper protocol, or because appropriate equipment and conditions for treatment were lacking.

    You know, the sample size (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 02:36:57 AM EST
    here is so small that no causal connection can be made regarding the disease's transmission. There are thousands of bio-scientists worldwide conducting studies & experiments with extremely toxic, highly infectious agents, so, the field is not new. I, obviously, can't speak for them, but, if they haven't indicated any concern over this doctor's becoming infected I'm not going to either.

    Now, if we had several hundred doctors, all claiming to have followed correct protocols, and "a number" of them became infected, then, I think you could, confidently, deduce that we missed an important step in how the disease is transmitted. And, then the answer to your question would be an emphatic, "yes," "that would imply that our understanding of the disease and how it's spread is evolving."

    Anyway, you're correct in posing that question, at least in my opinion, and, you're not being a "fear monger" in doing so.

    It is something to keep an eye on, and, if it happens again, then I, and, many, many others would definitely join the ranks of "panicky bedwetters."


    Well said. (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    This whole discussion reminds me of a sign I often see around town (Hollywood). Many of the stages are plastered with signs that read "A Safe Set Is No Accident."

    A cute play on words, but also teaching that safety is the result of planning and following procedures, and also that an accident(s) literally means the set is by definition not safe and we failed to achieve our goal.

    While its obviously not realistic for absolutely no accident to ever happen on any set, the attitude and expectations that that sign establish I think are important.


    I'd imagine... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    you could do everything right and still catch it...aka Murphy's Law or sh*t happens.  

    If the number of doctors and aid workers coming down with it starts rising, then it's certainly time to take another look at the protocols and procedures.  But so far, granted I'm not following it that closely, it appears most doctors and aid workers aren't getting sick, which leads me to leave the protocols are probably sufficient, but there is never such a thing as zero risk.


    "sh*t" happens when you don't follow procedures or the procedures are flawed.

    It's science... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    practiced by humans...I guess I'm really saying there is no such a thing as perfect foolproof protocols, procedures, and techniques.  

    And there is such a thing as non-reckless unavoidable human error...aka sh*t happens.

    So far, I think the track record of whatever protocols are in effect, and the flawed human beings practicing them, are pretty damn good.

    It doesn't appear to have spread from the Dallas cases, and I'm confident it won't spread from this NYC case, in major part because the hero doc was so cautious upon his return from Guinea.


    Thankfully, (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    the standard of "sh*t happens" is not the one medical science aspires to.

    But, perhaps regrettably,,, (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    it is the industry standard of the human race.  I'm all for aspiring...but I'm also a realist.

    The realist in me says (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    if he followed all the proper medical procedures and got infected anyway, the procedures are flawed. If he didn't follow procedures I'd find out what happened and use that info to improve compliance, etc. I would not simply shrug my shoulders and say "sh*t happens."

    I think a fair question to ask (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CST on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    Would also be - how possible is it realistically to follow proper medical procedures right now in guinea?

    I don't know the answer to that question, but I would imagine one of the reasons for a much higher survival rate/ low infection rate in the states is that it's easier to follow proper medical procedure here.


    Good point... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    I can't imagine the chaos over there, and the pressures/stress the medical professionals are under.

    Missing a pin hole in your rubber gloves at the tail end of a 24 hour shift during your equipment check is what I'm talking about by "sh&t happens".  I can't fault the protocol or the doc in a situation like that...it's a bad scene.


    People cannot wear this gear for 24 hours (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    Following the strictest protocols would require changing for every patient, to avoid cross contamination.

    The suiting may protect the doctor on the inside, but the contamination adheres to the outside, where she is in contact with patients.

    Maybe all the patients are already infected, so it doesn't matter(?).  But maybe they're in an American hospital, where they're inputting and testing people as possibles.  No room for cross contamination then.  People would scream in horror.

    The protocol is massively expensive.  All they can afford in the afflicted African areas is a crude imitation.


    If it's really not realistic (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    for docs to follow proper med procedures then it would seem reasonable that significant additional precautions should be part of that process for the 21 days or whatever following their last possible exposure.

    If what you suggest is the case, then the "proper procedures" aren't. Which is what I've been saying.

    If what suggest is actually the case, that safety from contracting the disease is unrealistic, what doc would willingly go there? And then jet home well w/in that 21 days and expose his GF?

    Sorry, I don't think proper medical safety procedures are unrealistic.


    To your point, and to lighten it up (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 05:58:29 AM EST
    Bill Maher: "It's the only disease that makes you want to sh**, vomit, and mingle"

    Can't we do both? (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    constantly test and try to improve protocols, while also acknowledging we'll never have all the answers and sh*t always happens?

    I mean we might win a battle against nature here and there, take life expectancy from 30 years to 80 years, but we can not win the war.  And we're never as smart as we think we are.

    It wouldn't surprise me that 100 years from now, some of the state of the art medical science we are so impressed with today (and I am impressed and amazed) will be debunked as dark age butchery/totally wrong...like how we look at treating the flu with leeches today.  


    "most" are not is true, but (none / 0) (#73)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:13:29 PM EST
     it doesn't need to be most or even close to it, to show shortcomings.

      If 1 out of 1000 contract a disease that improved procedures can reduce to 1 out of 10,000, the fact it's only 1 out of 1000 is not good reason to resist measures to reduce it further.

      You also have to consider the exponential difference over time that a higher rate of transmission causes.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    it's certainly prudent to always test and improve on the protocols...because there is always room for improvement, and new knowledge to obtain.

    1 in 10,000 is better than 1 in 1,000...but it can never be 0, imo.  Because we're human.


    The news conference held at (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    Bellevue Hospital by a panel consisting of Mayor de Blasio, Governor Cuomo, NYC Health Commissioner Dr. Mary Basset, NY Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker, and the President of the Health and Hospital Corporation of NYC, Dr. Raju (with CDC's Dr. Tom Friedan on the phone), was an instructive and constructive way of both allaying fears and avoiding complacency.  A difficult balancing act for public officials.

    The panelists, each in his or her own way, explained what is known about the situation, the protocols and drills undertaken in preparation, including taking into account the seeming mis-steps of the Dallas experience, and how the practiced protocols have been discharged in the case of Dr. Craig Spencer.  Information as it was known about Dr. Spencer's interactions was also provided, save for some un-essential private information.  

    Reiterated, in different ways, the point was re-inforced that the disease is hard to contract being transmitted by bodily fluids.  Accordingly, asymptomatic Ebola infections are not likely to be communicable since the dangerous bodily fluids are not evidenced.  As the disease progresses and becomes symptomatic, the body, essentially, becomes a bag of virus.  Illustrative of this progression is the case of the Dallas patient, Thomas Duncan, who was initially seen by Emergency Room health care professionals,  who ordinarily do not wear extensive protective clothing, were not infected.  The infection was early-on.  At a later point, nurses caring for him in protective gear (although not as complete as it should have been) became infected.  

    The news conference, from my perspective, was needed given the hysteria generated from  breathless reporting of Nielsen-conscious talking heads and the political exploitation of an infectious disease.  

    My only criticism of the panelists was their skittishness in offering more graphic clinical symptoms.  An earthier description is warranted to bolster their educational efforts.   The population can stand and understand terms such as explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting and grasp the need not to contact or be contacted by them.   Similarly mucous and saliva (although probably a lesser viral load) as well as semen should be stated up-front as the bodily fluids being referred.

    Blood is apparently not too puritanical to state, so no change necessary.  But, "gastro-intestinal problems" seems better suited for clinical rounds and polite company. However, it was encouraging to hear "disease detectives' rather than epidemiology tracing.

    Ebola is a serious, but manageable, public health issue.  While vaccines will likely come along in a year or so, effective education will always be a part of prevention and treatment.

    Nina Pham... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    ...was released and went to the White House.  This video of her press conference is pretty cool.

    But I gotta say, and maybe this isn't the right place, but how do you thank god for being alive without realizing is that was true, didn't that same god have something to do with you getting it to begin with.

    What a gig, getting praise when things go right, and when they don't just statement about being part of the grand plan.  

    Anyways, who doesn't like a happy ending, complete with a healthy pooch.

    I talked (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 05:27:48 PM EST
    to my mother yesterday and she said aren't you glad you aren't in NYC this week instead of when you were. sheesh. I said I'm probably MORE at risk here in GA an hour from Emory where they are sending all the patients than I would be in NYC with one patient.

    Honestly if there ever was proof that conservatives cannot ever manage anything this is yet another one.

    Because we didn't get panicky enough (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    when it happened in Texas, despite truly herculean efforts to scare the crap out of people.

    It just makes my blood boil to know that this most irresponsible form of reporting is blanketing the country.  He took a cab!!! He went bowling!!! How many people touched that bowling ball???


    Ruuuuun for your liiiiiiiiives!!!!!

    Media is increasingly taking this approach with everything: the Canadian Parliament shooting, the breach of the fence at the WH.  It's like the Drudge Report invaded the major networks and sucked the last vestige of responsible reporting out and replaced it with panic and fear and insanity.

    I hate it.

    WAKE UP ANNE (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    he could have fed pigeons.  And one could be sitting on you window sill right now.

    New York pigeons (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:33:50 PM EST
    do not travel to Maryland. And if they do, they stay in the coop for 21 days before going out.

    A pigeon flight ban (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    would make sure.

    How do you take a pigeon's temperature? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    Wait - don't answer that!

    But what about peregrine falcons ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 04:05:32 AM EST
    ... who catch and eat those pigeons? One of them could also be roosting on the ledge outside someone's office window, even as we speak, after having just dined on that pigeon which was perched outside Anne's window.

    Hey! At least with the fence breach (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:49:53 PM EST
    we got to see some pretty doggies and learn that one likes to play with his kong :P

    I guess you ould call me one of those that say run (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Amiss on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:28:00 PM EST
    I live in a city in ME Fla.where one case was suspected. No one said anything until the person was discharged from the hospital.
    I honestly have a fear because I am in an MD.'s office, a lab or actually hospitalized close to weekly.
    I had worked as a floor nurse and an OR nurse until I was injured. Some of the truly dumb things that those that are in the medical professions are doing really appear to be irresponsible and selfish, thinking mostly of just themselves.
    I had something very contagious just before Christmas and I was in quarantine for three weeks. I know how careful you should be.
    I can catch an infection at the drop of a hat. An MD
    just acting so irresponsibly boggles my mind.
    I'll shut up now and pray no one else comes back with it or is lax in precautions.

    Of course we need to take the (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:47:15 AM EST
    proper precautions. Are you saying that the MD that has ebola acted irresponsibly? As an ebola doctor, he knows when he is contagious and when he is not, and how the disease is spread.  He checked himself into the hospital when he knew he was about to start being contagious. It is not his fault the overreaction is throwing a net over everyone he contacted when he was not symptomatic.

    Are you saying anyone that treats ebola patients should be quarantined?


    Everything I've seen (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:51:21 AM EST
    says he followed procedures to a "T"

    blech (none / 0) (#11)
    by Amiss on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:29:12 PM EST
    NE Florida.

    I agree that panic is not the proper reaction (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ZtoA on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:23:12 AM EST
    from us, the general public, but awareness is AOK. Panic in the daily news cycles leads to general awareness - that is just the way it works (and always has).

    I think of it like this: the great eye of the collective consciousness turns this way and then that (like in Lord of the Rings movies). It may not even see or recognize the true threats or benefits to the health of everyone even when it seems to perceive something.

    No need to look away, but there is a need to look deeper (and thanks to some, including TL) for pointing that way.


    The media is not working on (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 06:22:17 AM EST
    awareness, they are working on hysteria.  Just watched a bit of the Today show, and could not believe how hard they were working to get someone - the governor, a doctor - to give them an inch on the scare they were working on.  I suppose it's something that the people they had on weren't going along with the scare plan - I shudder to think what would be the result if they were.

    It's just so irresponsible; nothing good comes from panic.


    We can all relax (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:34:11 AM EST
    Darrell Issa is having a hearing on Ebola.

    The best part of this Hill article (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:12:23 PM EST
    about how Issa mispronounces Ebola several times in a row at his hearing today is that it doesn't even mention that in that same monologue he also confuses Guyana with Guinea which are of course on different continents.

    Panic is an evolved response, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    At times beneficial, at other times not.

    In history there are many obvious exemplars of times when panic and running would have been an excellent idea, a much better idea than steely-eyed mollifying.


    Well said. (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    Meanwhile we've recently had ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:57:33 AM EST
    ... five adult cases of measles, three on Maui and two in Kauai, an outbreak that's likely caused by increasing numbers of people who are declining to get either themselves or their kids vaccinated.

    Measles in adults over 20 years of age can lead to pneumonia, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), severe ear infections and potential loss of hearing, diarrhea, seizures and even death.

    But, hey, you know, Ebola.


    Is there sort of contest (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Jack203 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    On this board to see who can dismiss Ebola the most?
    Just because you will most likely be proven right and Ebola does not become a major epidemic (besides Africa). I still wouldn't push my luck and brag about it not being a big deal.

    5 to 15 thousand dead in Africa...so far.

    The United Nations has asked for a billion dollars to fight the battle, but hasn't received as much.  Paul Allen just donated 100 million.

    Am I personally scared?  No.  Are the people in WHO and CDC scared?  They should be.  It's their job to make sure this doesn't get worse.


    There is. (none / 0) (#95)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    And, if the rating scores are any indication, I'm winning.

    Were did the measles outbreak (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    come from? Who was patient zero?

    I mean measles was stamped out for years and years.


    You apparently (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:23:31 AM EST
    do not keep up with scientific data much. They've been "out there" all along but as long as people were immunized it didn't matter that the viruses were around. If you contacted them and were immunized you would not come down with them. I have neighbors who don't think their children should be immunized. She's a chiropractor and apparently buys into a lot of crackpot stuff.

    Yes Ga I am aware that (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    many people, too many in fact, are scared to or don't take the time to immunize their children...

    But, public schools require immunizations here in TN and I think that is true in HI.

    As a result, many childhood diseases have been wiped out. But now measles are back in HI.

    So was Patient Zero??

    And the hidden question is this. Have we immunized all the "new arrivals" that have recently been scattered across the country and quarantined/treated those with TB, measles, etc?


    Not so hidden Jim (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    public schools do not require immunizations if you can provide them with a reason you don't get them like religious reasons. I'm not sure exactly what reason she uses but two of her children to go a charter school so maybe they don't require immunizations.

    A friend recently suggested (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    that the recent wave of vaccine refusals is a Darwinian thing.

    Harsh, but......


    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    that is harsh but they are doing it to themselves. Very easy and very cheap to get a vaccination for something. I'm just waiting for someone in the family to come down with something really bad which is going to be really unfortunate and awful for the whole family because of the stupidity of one person who thinks cracking backs will prevent measles.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:00:37 PM EST



    TN, GA and HI allow philosophical objections. Only MS and WV allow religious ones.

    So Patient Zero must have had an uncaring parent or one who objected on philosophical grounds.

    So a paper trail must exist or else the school system failed to do their job.  


    I'm sure (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    there is a paper trail and she filled out the proper forms because she makes no bones about the fact that she does not believe in immunizations. If Michelle Bachmann was a chiropractor she would be this lady. I'm sure she thinks immunizations are some sort of conspiracy to "control" or "indoctrinate" her children. When I first moved into the neighborhood I noticed they had children the age of mine and I asked them what pediatrician they used and she said I"m a doctor so I don't have one. I said oh, what kind of doctor are you? She said chiropractor. Too bad someone did not have a camera in my face at the time to have taken a picture of the expression I had on my face.

    It's actually fairly mainstream (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:44:14 PM EST
      among chiropractors generally. Maybe not a majority but a significant plurality if chiros don't believe in mandatory vaccinations and a number preach about the dangers. I think it's more based on the pseudo-scientific theory underpinning the field rather than politics, though.

       I represented a chiro once who was otherwise liberal to moderate politically who firmly believed he could boost the immune system by bending a back. He also thought he could "cure" asthma and all sorts of maladies through spinal manipulation. Other than being a quack, he was pretty normal.

      A random google:

        Conservative chiropractors [base] their opposition to immunization upon imperfections in vaccines that relate to the efficacy, safety and necessity of immunizations. Further, they persist in a belief that chiropractic spinal manipulation provides an alternative method for achieving immune status. This belief has not been subjected to testing in clinical trials or laboratory experiments, and thus becomes a matter of belief rather than of scientific verity. A refusal to advocate or submit to vaccines serves conservative chiropractors as an understandable cultural symbol, but it is a symbol with sinister health costs to those who translate it into non-immune status in a world otherwise still hostage to disease-producing organisms.

    More detailed link

       ("Conservative" here is being used to denote an adherent to the Palmer method and the original  theory upon which chiropractic was founded not politics.)


    Okay (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:07:04 PM EST
    Well, first of all let me state that I'm friends with her on Facebook and she's Michele Bachmann politically. That being said I realize that not all chiropractors are conservative. And yes, she believes that everything can be solved by a spinal adjustment.

    There it is (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 08:23:53 AM EST
    And the hidden question is this. Have we immunized all the "new arrivals" that have recently been scattered across the country and quarantined/treated those with TB, measles, etc?

    The "not-so-hidden" accusation against undocumented immigrants.


    Let me see (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    The government is responsible for these children.

    And I am wrong in asking if the children are being given health care??

    Really??? Concern for their proper treatment, irrespective of one's position on whether or not they should be here, is an accusation?


    Yes - really (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    You're accusing undocumented immigrants of being responsible for these outbreaks, but you have absolutely no evidence (as usual) so you phrase it as a "question".  Now you couch it in crocodile concern for undocumented children.

    Do you seriously think you're fooling anyone?


    "Forget it, Jake" (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    It's Jim.    ;-)

    Have you become Yman's Assistant Shadow? (1.33 / 3) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 04:05:41 PM EST
    Jim, you might consider (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    consulting with medical professional.  Your paranoia seems to be starting to consume you.
    You cannot spew the type of comments that you do without expecting some push-back from others here.
    In fact, IMHO, you actually seem to like the push-back, because it allows you to present yourself as some kind of victim.
    You are not fooling anyone.  But hey, if it makes you happy, go to it.

    And you are making things up (1.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    I do accuse the Feds of not being open, I mean Obama promised us the most transparent admin in history.

    ha ha

    And I do hope these walk in children, and adults, are receiving proper medical care including immunizations and, when necessary, quarantine as our forefathers did when they arrived.

    But we're getting away from Ebola and on immigration. Join me on the open thread and I will state my position.



    No, "We" are not (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    But we're getting away from Ebola and on immigration.

    You are and have been from the moment you decided to blame these outbreaks on undocumented immigrants and then tried to cover it with crocodile concern for immigrant children.  And your latest straw argument and wildly, unrelated sidetrack - your claims of a lack transparency in the Obama administration.

    The only person you're fooling is yourself.


    And you are making things up (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    I do accuse the Feds of not being open, I mean Obama promised us the most transparent admin in history.

    ha ha

    And I do hope these walk in children, and adults, are receiving proper medical care including immunizations and, when necessary, quarantine as our forefathers did when they arrived.

    But we're getting away from Ebola and on immigration. Join me on the open thread and I will state my position.



    Please dont (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    So can I put you down as (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    not wanting to discuss serious issues??

    Works for me.

    Just scroll on by.


    Your compassion is moving (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    its moving me to want to punch you, you shameless hypocrite.

    Shall we have a duel?? (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    I haven't seen threats of violence here for quite awhile but I am not surprised its you seeing as how your SOP for over stating is everywhere.

    So I forgive you.

    My point remains. The government is failing to take adequate precautions to protect the country from Ebola.

    How can we trust them to give adequate treatment to the undocumented children who have walked across the border? Do you really think we are doing the children any favor if we don't provide health care?

    You see, Howdy, actions have consequences. If you are going to let people just walk in then you must accept the fact that you become responsible for them.


    It's Obama's America Anne (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:38:09 AM EST
    be afraid, be very afraid.

    (she said, ducking, in case Anne can throw things  800 miles)


    I'm not sure i follow the logic (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:14:02 AM EST
      A post  is started essentially complaining that the media informs that a doctor in NYC has Ebola, going so far as to ask: why is this news?

      Beyond the obvious answer-- because the media knows people are interested and the interest is because it's a contagious disease that can kill you, I can't think of any reason.

      I'm really not sure why anyone would think that is not a good enough reason.

      In the echo chamber that the post creates, supposedly "sophisticated" self-superior smirks predominate among the in crowd about how the great unwashed are foolish nervous nellies for panicking so (when the instances of actual panic appear to be no more prevalent than Ebola and likely less potentially fatal).

       I wonder if the responses would be similarly dismissive and "nothing to see here" if instead of a naturally occurring virus that has caused relatively few illnesses and death in this country, we had a similarly few number of deaths and illnesses caused by, say, a government agency laxly regulating the production and transportation of a toxic chemical produced by Megacorp.

      Would everyone just as quickly deride anyone who questioned the performance of the government and as blithely accept assurances the possibility of further harm is too remote to be newsworthy?


    Because it was Pig Flu... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    ...two years ago, West Nile virus fours years ago and on and on, it's always something we should freak out about that never amounts to a hill of beans.  But this time it different, this could be the one... pleaze.

    If you think a virus that has killed exactly one person in the United States is worthy of front page, take a look at the rest of pages, I guarantee they are plastered with things that have killed many more.

    It's important, but it's not front page news.  West Nile is still killing folks, way more than Ebola, by a factor of 1600.  But no one cares because reasonable human beings with function brains realize that the odds of getting it and dieing from it are so close to zero, it's not worth entertaining the idea.

    Divide those chances by 1600 and you might understand why Ebola infecting one person should not be front page news in America.

    Name one other thing that has killed one person in the US that has made the front page in the last decade.  And today's news isn't even about a death, it's one person contracting a disease that has killed one person.  I am going to repeat that, it's one person contracting a disease that has killed one person in America.

    That is not front page news to anyone but the people cashing in on the very fear they are manufacturing, news-makers and politicians.


    Thanks for making my point (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    To date, strains of the West Nile virus have been commonly found in humans, birds, and other vertebrate animals in Africa, Eastern Europe, West Asia, and the Middle East. Prior to 1999, the West Nile virus had not been recognized in the Western Hemisphere.

    The first recorded epidemics were reported in Israel in the 1950s and in Europe in 1962. A subsequent outbreak occurred in New York in 1999. The American strain of the virus is almost indistinguishable from a virulent strain found in a goose on an Israeli farm in 1998. Thousands of people travel between New York and the Middle East each year. The virus may well have hitchhiked a ride to New York with an infected traveler.



    Nothing to do With My Comment... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    ...and the rest is too idiotic to even comment on.

    Good GD Gravy, "...may well have..."


    Scott, you're comment proves (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    that viruses travel and then kill in the new population.

    Study up on how many died in the Polynesian islands and HI due to measles introduced by the European explorers.

    Different disease same results happened in what is now Mexico.

    Do you remember Polio? I had it as a child and was placed in a isolation hospital and the swimming pool in which they suspected I caught it in was closed.

    The family who owned the pool and the people who worked there lost their only source of income for the rest of that summer.

    Tough but it was deemed necessary.

    Quarantine as a method of fighting deadly diseases that we don't know how to prevent has long been used to limit the spread of the disease.


    Would not your (none / 0) (#53)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:51:15 AM EST
     assertion that it is front page news only to politician  and the media necessarily mean that the meme that the coverage is fomenting widespread panic leading to (presumably) harmful reactions among the populace is false?

      Once we agree that the coverage however sensational and (insert perjoratives) has little real world impact, does that not  suggest that if it is causing you so much distress the simple "cure" is for you to spend less of your time wallowing in it?

      I don't watch much  television except for sports and rarely ever even briefly watch any of the cable news channels. This has been going on for weeks and not only have I not run across a single person in my daily interactions who is panicking in any way, I rarely even hear it discussed. If you are being forced to deal with hordes of panicked folks in your life, in addition to watching less TV maybe you should choose to hang with different people.


    Don't think that was the assertion (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    On the contrary, the assertion was the media is doing its best foment widespread fear and panic, not that there is widespread fear and panic.

    and if it's failing (none / 0) (#59)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:22:59 PM EST
     then what exactly is the problem beyond the problem that exists with the TV media's coverage and discussion  of every important issue-- that, bluntly,  it sucks?

      That was pretty much precisely my point, the claims here that the media is causing panicked overreaction is false.

     If it upsets people so much to watch, don't watch because upsetting people who don't like the tenor of the coverage appears to be the only thing it is doing. Obviously the masses are not as dim and susceptible as the bright lights here like to portray them as being.



    We will agree to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    but not on the part about this is what people want.  As I already said in one of these threads, based on the reaction to this if there was ever an actual reason to panic people would be killing and eating their neighbors on the second day.

    I guess, have a somewhat (none / 0) (#63)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    more benign view of my neighbors and society at large.

      I'd add that one concerned about over-the-top sensationalism being a grave threat with the potential to cause extreme reactions probably should refrain from injecting the idea that we are one day of real crisis from people resorting to cannibalism. If you go around fomenting fears of cannibals roaming the streets you might just  provoke preemptive killings of hungry looking people who really just want a burger.


    Only 10:30AM out here, (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    but it's lunchtime in CaptHowdy's neck of the woods...

    Hey SUO (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    Warn me next time.... I think I cracked a rib when I fell out of my chair laughing.

    You live in the south? (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    "more benign view of my neighbors and society at large."

    The vast majority here do, apparently, (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    watch a lot of TV.  When they complain about what they watch, I ask myself, why do they keep on watching?

    George Constanza... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    ...would say, "Because it's on TV".

    Media Authority Frank Zappa - (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 12:35:54 AM EST
    The subject is Television:

    I'm the tool of the government
    And industry too,
    For I am destined to rule
    And regulate you,
    I may be vile and pernicious,
    But you can't look away,
    I make you think I'm delicious,
    With the stuff that I say,
    I'm the best you can get,
    Have you guessed me yet?
    I'm the slime oozing out
    Of your TV set.


    Hm, and, when you ask "yourself," (none / 0) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 01:56:41 AM EST
    does anyone answer?

    You do. (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    and, it's only because I like you

    thanks for sharing your problems... (none / 0) (#105)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:00:44 PM EST
    Instance of actual panic reaction (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 08:40:02 AM EST
    or maybe overreaction, perhaps.

    Quarantined Nurse: NJ Treated Me Like a 'Criminal'
    Kaci Hickox put through wringer, despite testing negative for Ebola

    On Friday, she flew into New Jersey's Newark airport--and straight into a bureaucratic quagmire that underscores the nation's struggle to respond to and contain the outbreak of the virus.

    Writing for the Dallas Morning News, Hickox describes six hours of questioning and cooling her heels at Newark, until a forehead scanner recorded her temp at 101 degrees--reversing an earlier normal reading "because I was flushed and upset," writes Hickox. She was then sent to the hospital. "Eight police cars escorted me," she writes. "Sirens blared, lights flashed. Again, I wondered what I had done wrong."

    The doctors at Newark's University Hospital using a more accurate oral thermometer found that Hickox's temperature was 98.6 degrees and a blood test for Ebola came back negative.

    Yet she sits in quarantine in an unheated tent in New Jersey, courtesy of that state's mandatory quarantine policy...

    Overreach of state powers? ACLU clearly thinks so.

    digby has a transcript from the nurse which provides a more detailed description of her treatment. Everyone might want to take the time and read it to discover how this trumped up panic will roll out if it continues.


    You Forgot... (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    ...the city of Dallas voting as to whether to declare it in a state of emergency, how many schools closing in Ohio, and event the dress shop closed.

    Over-reaction, i suppose, is subjective, but I mean seriously, they voted before the dude even died.  They voted no, but clearly some wanted Dallas declared as in a state of emergency over, at the time, 2 cases.

    Funny how republicans hate the government, but got their hands out when they think it's an emergency, and the best part is the incessant whining about the thing they hate, government, not doing a job they want it to do.  

    But who are they looking at for help and blame, not private industry, the folks running the hospital in Dallas or the folks who transported the guy here, nope it's the government.


    It might be a better idea (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    to stick with the facts we actually have.  Ebola is not easily spread.  The news media is milking it for all its worth.

    Add "lone wolf attacks" and they are absolutely breathless.
    Are you aware some have actually speculated ISIS may come across the border infected with the intention of spreading the disease?


    You have to create facts in your mind (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    which I certainly did not misstate in my scenario, which you avoid facing. I'll add a couple of facts and see if you want to anwer.

     The toxic substances is only dangerous if one is directly exposed to it; no illness can be transmitted from person to person. The government is assuring you that did not laxly track possible exposure and that Megacorp's mishandling was isolated and only a small number of people are known to have been exposed.

      Look, I get the motivation of the people here who seek to downplay every threat whether it be disease, terrorism, crime or whatever. I share the concern to a large degree the concern is that if we empower our government it might well misuse or abuse that power and do the wrong thing or overreact by doing too much of something that would be appropriate in narrower scope or lesser scale.

      The entire history of mankind demonstrates that is a valid concern, in my opinion. I too start from that premise, but the difference is I don't go so far in the other direction as to feign inability to recognize that threats can be real and can require some response.


    The truth is (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    the threats are being responded to.
    They are.

    The original nurse is being released from quarantine today.


    But (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    as eloquently stated by MSNBC there is another case.

    So we have another 21 days to talk about Ebola.
    Thank the ratings God.


    A good question (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    and the answers are...

    It depends on who is in power.

    The Bush admin was beat silly over FISA and phone intercepts. Very little said about the huge increase by NSA while Obama is in.

    The Bush admin was beat silly over 9/11 but now any mention of the so-called "loan wolves" is derided as silly and the writer insulted as being paranoid.

    Reagan was beat silly over his admin's lack of response to AIDS yet any discussion listing the disconnects of how contagious Ebola is is derided as silly....

    These attitudes are not unique to TL but persist through out the Left side of our politics and many in the media.

    And to be fair, TL is probably the most balanced of all the Left wing sites and one of the few that tolerates dissenting views.

    And to be even more fair, the Right is just as bad as the Left in these matters.

    It is the new norm. Social media has created a genre of attack and protest available to and used by both sides. Whether or not this will improve society is yet to be seen.


    heh (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    "lone wolves"

    Has it been established which (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    country (ies) he visited in Africa?

    I think I heard (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    Guinea on CNN. Not sure if he was treating Ebola patients, I haven't been reading the followup stories tonight.

    Per NYT: (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:07:24 AM EST
    Dr. Spencer had been working with Doctors Without Borders in Guinea treating Ebola patients, and completed his work on Oct. 12, Dr. Bassett said. He flew out of the country on Oct. 14, traveling via Europe, and arrived in New York on Oct. 17.

    Who are all these people panicking Anne? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jack203 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    I haven't met any.  I am sure some people are.

    I also don't see the media out of control in their coverage. It's important news.

    The good news is that the last two weeks have been positive in terms of Ebola's lack of spread in Texas and Africa.  The projections (best case, most likely to happen, and worst case) are all looking better.

    State of New Jersey (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 26, 2014 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    did a pretty good job in displaying what panic looks like.

    Quarantined Nurse: NJ Treated Me Like a 'Criminal'
    Kaci Hickox put through wringer, despite testing negative for Ebola

    Writing for the Dallas Morning News, Hickox describes what what happens when an entire state panics. Please take time to read her description of her treatment.


    Well (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:11:12 AM EST
    thank heavens this guy was in NYC. I'm sure he'll be able to find good care there and people who know what the heck they are doing.

    This discussion came up this past weekend with my brother in law who works for a hospital and what he said is there are different levels of containment and there are only 19 hospitals in the US which are equipped to deal with something like Ebola of which I'm sure NYC has at least one.

    I think the people who are most afraid of this kind of thing are people who live in places like Texas where the healthcare is poor and know that if they contact something as unlikely as it may be they are going to die. Maybe living one hour or so up the road from Emory makes me not fearful though I have to say I'm about feared out on everything.

    It ends (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    up that Dr. Spencer has a mutual friend due to a Facebook group. Apparently he and his fiancee are great humanitarians and it is very sad that he has contacted Ebola but many are sending thoughts and prayers toward him and his fiancee and he is getting excellent care.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Jack203 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    Anyone from Doctors without Borders is a hero in my book.

    Dr. Spencer condition and Ebola in general are very important news I am concerned about.

    Let's hope the Ebola threat continues to wane.


    One thing I worry about... (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    in regards to the hysteria is making demons out of heroes like this young doctor.

    The bedwetters who want to shut down air travel and do mandatory quarantines may well discourage much needed medical and humanitarian volunteers from doing the most necessary work to contain Ebola in the afflicted parts of Africa.  


    Kdog you are as bad at spreading (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    fear as those you zap.

    If the government shut down commercial flights it would provide charter/military flights for medical supplies and people.

    Probably be better than commercial because it would be free. As of now these are being paid for by various organization that would then have that money freed up for other charitable work.


    Works for me ol' buddy... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    I'd give Doctors Without Borders and similar humantitarian efforts full use of our planes...a better use for taxpayer dollars would be hard to find...but some of your Republican buddies might object to the cost.  

    But ya still gotta let regular folks travel to and fro commercial, with reasonable precautions.  I see no reason to suspend commercial travel, at least not yet.  


    I don't know what my "Republican (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    buddies" would do. Some would probably object joined by some Libertarians and Independents who don't think we should be engaged with the world.

    And no, you don't have to let people travel to and fro via commercial airlines/ships. This latest case is a perfect example of the problem.

    A person can be a carrier and show no symptoms for up to 21 days after they have arrived here.

    At the risk of being snarked at by Anne and the usual suspects I believe in science and science tells me that viruses mutate. Keeping people out who come from areas with the disease seems to me to be a very reasonable precaution.


    Agree to disagree... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    the situation does not warrant denying the right to free travel...yet.  

    A better case could be made for mandatory vaccination of children...and I don't think we should go there yet either.  There's cautious, and then there's over-cautious.  Can't totally discount the toll of denying inalienable human rights just because people are scared.  


    The problem is there is no vaccine. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    And human rights don't give anyone the right to spread/infect others with a deadly disease.

    The shutting down of borders would only (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:43:31 AM EST
     Make things worse.

    Taking airline panic one step further, US lawmakers are now pushing to close off West Africa to the rest of the world. Allow Ebola to fester over there, and keep people safe over here.

    In opposing this idea, public health experts unanimously agree: sealing borders will not stop Ebola spread and will only exacerbate the crisis in West Africa -- and heighten the risk of a global pandemic.

    There are three reasons why it's a crazy idea. The first is that it just won't work to stop the virus. The weeks following 9/11, when people stopped getting on planes, provided influenza researchers with a natural experiment in what a travel ban might do to viral spread. They found it didn't stop influenza from moving, it only delayed flu season by a couple of weeks.

    What's more, the researchers didn't measure whether this delay actually reduced flu cases or saved lives. But a look at the CDC data shows that flu deaths actually massively spiked during the 2001-2002 flu season, rising from about 3,900 the year before to more than 13,000 post-9/11.

    Writing in the Washington Post, Laurie Garrett -- senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations -- pointed out: "Many nations have banned flights from other countries in recent years in hopes of blocking the entry of viruses, including SARS and H1N1 'swine flu,'" she added. "None of the bans were effective, and the viruses gained entry to populations regardless of what radical measures were taken to keep them out."

    In CDC Director Tom Freiden's words, "Even when governments restrict travel and trade, people in affected countries still find a way to move and it is even harder to track them systematically." In other words, determined people will find a way to cross borders anyway, but unlike at airports, we can't track their movements.

    And, yes, viruses mutate, but, as in other organisms, most of the mutations are unfavorable to the virus, and different viruses mutate at different rates(the flu viruses have a high rate of mutation and recombination, but are not in the same family as Ebola, for example), so to suggest that Ebola could suddenly become the viral equivalent of pneumonic plague
    because "viruses mutate" suggests to me that you are trying to use a general statement to make a particular point.

    But, you know more than the people who make their living studying these things, I understand........


    That was from the noted Leftie website (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:45:54 AM EST



    I love qualifier words (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    or as I refer to them, "CYA's."

    most of

    And such logic as this:

    They found it didn't stop influenza from moving, it only delayed flu season by a couple of weeks.

    Yes because people started back traveling. OTOH if you kept it shut down........

    And thanks for providing a ridiculous quote that proves my point.

    so to suggest that Ebola could suddenly become the viral equivalent of pneumonic plague because "viruses mutate" suggests to me that you are trying to use a general statement to make a particular point.

    The point is that viruses mutate. A reasonable person, with no political agenda based on political correctness, will opt for shutting the doors.


    The shutting down led to an increase in flu cases, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    so your suggestion that there would've less flu if the airplanes were kept shut down makes no sense at all.

    As for a reasonable person, a reasonable person would be able to learn from the history of travel bans as a tactic in fighting air-borne diseases:

    "None of the bans were effective, and the viruses gained entry to populations regardless of what radical measures were taken to keep them out".

    Also, a reasonable person who was a techie could see what the people who study such things say about mutations in the Ebola virus, instead of arm-waving like Uncle Joe Bob in his rocking chair by the fireplace:

    However, the fact that the virus is evolving does not mean that killer sneezes are just around the corner. From tracking the evolution of other viruses, we know that there are some traits that viruses are much more likely to evolve than others. Viruses sometimes evolve traits that make them more or less virulent. The virus that causes dengue fever, for example, seems to be evolving characteristics that cause worse symptoms. We know that many viruses rapidly evolve in response to medications. For instance, HIV can quickly evolve resistance to antiretroviral drugs. And, of course, we have observed that viruses can adapt to new hosts. HIV came to humans from chimpanzees, SARS came from bats, and now it seems that Ebola has moved to human hosts from bats as well. However, evolving a new mode of transmission -- e.g., a viral lineage switching from being transmitted by blood to being transmitted by air -- seems to be much, much rarer. HIV has been infecting humans for more than 100 years, reached epidemic levels in the last 30 -- and yet remains a virus that is transmitted only by bodily fluids. We haven't ever seen a switch in transmission mode occur in any of the viruses that cause serious human disease today. In fact, the viral family to which Ebola belongs (the Filoviridae) seems be about 10,000 years old and, as far as we know now, is entirely made up of viruses that are transmitted by body fluids. Though it's not completely impossible that an unusual series of mutations, combined with natural selection or genetic drift, could result in airborne Ebola, based on the available evidence, it is extremely unlikely.

    The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
    Damon Runyon

    As for CYA, I'm sure you time in the service has made you the expert in these things compaired to cowardly pacifists and the like.

    If you want to live behind closed doors for 21 days to protect yourself, go for it, tiger.  You might be able to get a reality show out of it.  :-)


    Perhaps you didn't read (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    before you posted.

    The weeks following 9/11, when people stopped getting on planes, provided influenza researchers with a natural experiment in what a travel ban might do to viral spread. They found it didn't stop influenza from moving, it only delayed flu season by a couple of weeks.

    It delayed it until people started traveling again

    That proves that a shut down would be effective. Again. Thanks for proving my point.

    And your slur that the military is expert in CYA is so typical and defines your real feelings about the military.


    And the rate went way up afterwards. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    when the ban was lifted.  

    And, you've ignored the experience with SARS and travel bans.

    Why is that?


    Of course the rate went up (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    there was a large influx of travel.

    Proving my point again.


    Delay (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    Isn't what you want to do with Ebola, you want to stop it, and they've found that with SARS travel bans DON'T WORK IN COMBATTING EPIDEMICS.

    As for slurs, you bring up your service to mock others who didn't serve, so cry me more crocodile tears about being house on your own petard.


    Again I note that we have both been (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:45:12 PM EST

    If you want we can take it to Jeralyn who just wants us to quit sniping with the insults. I have. You have not.

    Let's be good guests and follow her rules.

    The delay proved that stopping travel worked.

    It was went the ban was lifted that the increase occurred.

    Cause and effect.

    And I'm done. The point is so plain it needs no further debate.


    Jim (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    I'll just leave you alone right now and forever, because you can't stick to the rules while you browbeat other to follow them.

    You are a very nasty piece of work, and I don't think you contribute anything here, so I'll leave you to Jeralyn to deal with as she sees fit.


    As far as I know the Plague (none / 0) (#65)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    was not a virus, it was a simple bacteria that could have been combatted with Penicillin had they had it then.  The Plague still crops up in several locations in the world, such as southern Colorado, but it is quickly diagnosed  stopped with antibiotics.

    Plague pops up in southern Oregon,too. (none / 0) (#104)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    Every now and again somebody in southern Oregon is diagnosed with the Plague, gets treatment and moves on.

    thank you airman jim... (none / 0) (#106)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    It seems (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    the only thing the media loves more that Enola in NY is another school shooting.

    Enola Gay... (none / 0) (#107)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:10:59 PM EST
    I'm going to blame that on spell correct (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    even tho the n is, you know, right next to be b.

    "even tho the n is... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by unitron on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 02:58:40 AM EST
    ...you know, right next to be b."

    Well, of course, that's why it was so easy for your spellcheck to screw it up.

    : - )


    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 25, 2014 at 08:24:53 AM EST