This a.m., I read a provocative article in the NYTimes about an apparent political purpose for the seeming fear-mongering. According to the NYT article, the Repubs have launched a new version of fear-mongering just in time for the November election ... the technique in several important races is to plow money into ads pointing to an Obama/Dem failure as seen in the ISIS/ISIL situation, the ebola occurrence, and the problems within the Secret Service community. The expected result is to portray the WH and Dem allies as not being fierce & aggressive enough, thus not being competent in national security.

I think the NYT's article is onto something.  In recent days, friends here have alluded to the growing national anxiety--hyped, naturally, by a hungry news media--and wondered aloud about the whats & whys.  In Colorado, it is clear that the Repub challenger has used the not-taking-ISIL-seriously-enough charge against Senator Udall effectively so as to catch and overtake the incumbent. Fear often leads; and, voters may well temporarily "forget" or put aside other issues to appease the fear.  Heck, years ago, the constant hype about Swine Flu got a nation so worked-up, there were immediate long lines for flu shots and it was the top topic of the fall.

The fall hype this time, the hype that there is no defense, is very similar to the notorious Bush hype in 2002. It worked then (except that survivor Landrieu out-maneuvered the macho talk.) I'm tending to think that the constant fear-talk will work again for those with a certain election agenda. Absent strong, solid push-back, it should have a shelf-life at least through the fall.

And yes, anne, like those on the Right who jumped to defend the Reagan administration's poor response to AIDS, you are worried about politics and not the health and welfare of your fellow citizens.

You wrote:

And sorry - there hasn't been a day since I encountered you here, jim, that I have ever been afraid you've been right.

And I guess anne you do not approve of my positions on gay rights, single payer health care, women's right to choose, drug laws to name a few.

Like most "progressives" no opposition is tolerated.

The president of the World Bank, Jim Kim, admitted on Wednesday that the international community had "failed miserably" in its response to the Ebola virus that has killed more than 3,800 people in west Africa and warned that the crisis now affecting Spain and the US was going to get much worse.

Amid signs yesterday that western governments were being forced to take the risks of a global pandemic more seriously, Kim said he wanted them to back a new $20bn (£12bn) global health fund that would be able to react instantly to emergencies.

"It's late. It's really late," he said in an interview with the Guardian before the annual meeting of the Washington-based organisation this weekend.

"We should have done so many things. Healthcare systems should have been built. There should have been monitoring when the first cases were reported. There should have been an organised response."

Kim's warning that the global community was still not "moving fast enough" came as the Ebola virus claimed its first victim in the US and news of a case in Spain sent shares in travel and airline companies tumbling on stock exchanges.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) said the number of deaths from Ebola in west Africa now stood at 3,879 with no evidence that the epidemic was being brought under control.

It is not the ease of transmission that is creating the larger-than-expected outbreak, it is the inadequacy of the response in the region that started later than it should have - health care and treatment infrastructure here and in the first-world countries are well-able to control this.

I mean, he should know what he was doing.

In the meantime:

Michael T. Osterholm - director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota - wrote in the New York Times last month:

snip

"In 2012, a team of Canadian researchers proved that Ebola Zaire, the same virus that is causing the West Africa outbreak, could be transmitted by the respiratory route from pigs to monkeys, both of whose lungs are very similar to those of humans. Richard Preston's 1994 best seller "The Hot Zone" chronicled a 1989 outbreak of a different strain, Ebola Reston virus, among monkeys at a quarantine station near Washington. The virus was transmitted through breathing, and the outbreak ended only when all the monkeys were euthanized. We must consider that such transmissions could happen between humans, if the virus mutates."

But perhaps most challenging to the mainstream assumption that Ebola can only be spread through physical contact with a person who is showing symptoms of infection is the following explanation by two national experts on infectious disease transmission, both professors in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago (footnotes omitted):

"We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks. [Aerosols are liquids or small particles suspended in air. An example is sea spray:  seawater suspended in air bubbles, created by the force of the surf mixing water with air.]

The important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract."

snip

"There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route. Jaax et alreported the unexpected death of two rhesus monkeys housed approximately 3 meters from monkeys infected with Ebola virus, concluding that respiratory or eye exposure to aerosols was the only possible explanation.

Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols. [Ebola is a type of filovirus]

Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission. That is, other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.

Link

Yeah. I know. None of these people are scientists...

I did want to offer this, considering that the person with Ebola in Dallas, was being considered for criminal charges in the US and Nigeria, there is an excellent incentive for future carriers to lie, especially if they were less than honest on their import/export documentation.  Not letting people leave who are high risk is great, but it's the honor system, and when that is put up against possibility of dying, people are going to lie.

So maybe the journalist knows, maybe he doesn't, maybe he's honest, maybe he isn't, but whatever he says does not qualify as evidence, nor should it be used as proof that the scientific community is wrong.

I don't think we should be freaking out, but the virus has already mutated some thing like 45 times, and I think it's best we be prepared just in case.  

While I don't know, it seems very odd that the rooms and gear I see on the TV look like they are made to deter airborne transmission.  If people in the know, with advanced degrees, are being overly precautious, it wouldn't hurt for us to do the same.

I don't like that we don't seem to have any kind of national plan in case this gets serious.  The hospital in Dallas is prime example, here are people who should know, not following any sort of protocol for people who show particular symptoms coming from particular areas.  Why not, that should be a CDC directive, "Here is what to look for and here is what to do."  Same for the general public, "Here is what you should do, who you should call, what you should avoid, and why it's important."  Followed by a detailed explanation of how the disease is spread and why it's raging through Africa and most importantly, why not to freak out.

And in this case he knew head been exposed and why the question was asked.

But you make a good point.

And prosecuting the liars is only going to make figuring out how they got it even more difficult

Yep, definitely over Farmers. Probably written by a faming conglomerate now  anyway. ;-D

"They say from November 5 thru 10, for that whole period: sunny/cool. If one day is sunny and cool, does that count? Does every day have to be sunny and cool? If you held them to every single word for the entire area and every word for the entire period, then I say they might not even be right one third of the time. In fact, they might be right 10 percent of the time." Acknowledges Knight, "I don't think they're holding themselves to that degree of accuracy, and I don't think other people are either."

"I could say things like October 8 to 15 in this area: generally dry, very cool weather expected; first frost and freezes in the valleys. And I would be right probably eight out of 10 years," says Knight. "I could say February 12 to 19: heavy snow along parts of the eastern seaboard. I'm going to be right seven out of 10 years. There is some relative frequency to these things, but to say that this is of great scientific accuracy would be a real misnomer."

POCATELLO -- On a per capita basis, only Montana leads Idaho as the state with the most number of right wing extremist groups, says a sociologist who has studied the so-called hate groups.

Jim Aho, an Idaho State University sociology professor, said when he did his research on the Christian patriot groups, he assumed that such groups would be more prevalent in the deep South.

He was surprised to learn otherwise.