Slashdot Mirror
The CDC Is Carefully Controlling How Scared You Are About Ebola
HughPickens.com writes: Russell Berman reports in The Atlantic that the Obama administration is trying to navigate a tricky course: Can officials increase public vigilance about the deadly Ebola virus without inciting a panic? "Ebola is scary. It's a deadly disease. But we know how to stop it," says Dr. Thomas Frieden, the CDC director. speaking "calmly and clearly, sticking to an even pitch and avoiding the familiar political image of the whip-smart fast-talker." International groups wanted the U.S. to step in sooner to help fight the outbreak in west Africa, while more recently some Republicans have called on the administration to ban travel from the most affected countries.
Frieden and other officials say such a move would be counterproductive, citing lessons learned from the SARS outbreak a decade ago. "The SARS outbreak cost the world more than $40 billion, but it wasn't to control the outbreak," says Frieden. "Those were costs from unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions and trade changes that could have been avoided." The government announced Wednesday that it was stepping up protective measures at five airports, where authorities will screen travelers from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea with targeted questions and fever checks, an action, officials acknowledge, that was taken not only to stop the spread of the disease but simply to make people feel safer. According to Berman, the message is this: Be afraid of Ebola. Just not too afraid.
Frieden and other officials say such a move would be counterproductive, citing lessons learned from the SARS outbreak a decade ago. "The SARS outbreak cost the world more than $40 billion, but it wasn't to control the outbreak," says Frieden. "Those were costs from unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions and trade changes that could have been avoided." The government announced Wednesday that it was stepping up protective measures at five airports, where authorities will screen travelers from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea with targeted questions and fever checks, an action, officials acknowledge, that was taken not only to stop the spread of the disease but simply to make people feel safer. According to Berman, the message is this: Be afraid of Ebola. Just not too afraid.
WTF am I supposed to do? Look around for suspicious hemorrhaging people?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The reason Ebola is spreading in Africa is because of poverty and customs. In some places the doctors have run out of gloves. With a disease like Ebola, that is not something you want. Secondly, in some places they have customs like washing the body of the deceased, then having the wife drink the water to prove she didn't try to kill him. Once again, that is not the kind of tradition you want to have if you're going to stop the spread of Ebola.
Airborne Ebola would be a serious problem. What we have with the current epidemic is an education/sanitation problem, not a disease problem.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Ebola is scary. It's a deadly disease. But we know how to stop it."
Full stop, that's it. Quit worrying. For better or for worse, the United States is not eastern Africa. We cannot and will not have a massive epidemic here. A coworker of mine died from H1N1 "swine flu" a few years back. RIP Dusty. Swine flu was a valid health concern, it was something to be alarmed about and take extraordinary precautions against. Ebola is not.
Media's doing what media does, hyping and scaring to rake in eyeballs and sell their advertisements.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Heard an expert on infectious diseases interviewed the other day and they said the temperature taking of passengers was a joke as Ebola victims don't show a temperature until many, many days after they've been infected (i.e. it would not have caught the guy who recently died in Dallas from Ebola because he didn't have a fever when he came in). It just gives the appearance the govt is in control somehow, when they really aren't.
Definitely can't trust the government is saying regarding the disease if/once it gets established in the U.S., as preventing panic is the highest priority. The disease expert did say the industry and Feds were working night and day to get a blood test created and available and said they were probably a month or so away from that (if things continued moving along).
Ebola is worse than the government says and this Ebola epidemic is all Obama's fault. If we only elected Romney and stuck with libertarian principles of government this Ebola outbreak would have never started to begin with.
Ebola has already gone from outbreaks in communities to outbreaks that threaten whole countries.
It's on the verge of repeating the process, but now at a global, not country or community level. So the question is, will it develop enough of a reservoir internationally to repeat its' performance, this time around? We simply don't know - and we won't know until we either beat it or lose to it.
To compound the problem, the right solution to this outbreak may not be the right solution to the next one, but we'll "go with what worked the last time" because that's both easy and politically correct.
No matter how you look at it, we're all in trouble.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Imagine a suicide bomber type of person deliberately exposing themselves to Ebola and traveling to a place that he wishes to attack. Then making it a point to shake hands with a lot of people in multiple areas. But even more likely is the idea that suggesting such a plan could be placed into action would shut down economies in cities all over the world. After all, how many people will eat at a fast food joint or attend a ball game if Ebola is known to be in an area. We suufer throm the very large system vulnerability in that our society is so large and so complex that there are just so many ways we can come to harm.
Finally, my strategy of spending all my time alone at my computer, having no close contact with other people is starting to pay off.
Once everyone else has died off from ebola, the geeks, nerds, and dorks shall inherit the earth.
People are the same the world over.
In many communities where Ebola is running rampant, superstition, and a belief in shamanistic or animistic magic are helping spread the disease and prevent proper care.
And here in the US, I've seen a well-shared Facebook link to a 'natural health' site that tells you how you can get Ebola from ATM keypads and doorknobs, but you can protect yourself via essential oils and the immune system boosting properties of silver! No need for autism creating vaccines!
I'm so glad I don't live in a place where people think magic potions and mystic talismans will ward off disease!
It seems to me the best way (every time) to alleviate fear is by spreading truth. The CDC should set itself the task of disseminating as much information about Ebola and how it's spread as possible.
We all agree that the US is not the World's police.
I think that'd be nice, but it's not quite a universal sentiment.
Since when did the US become the World's nurse?
Uh..... The 1800's?
A plane from Liberia arrives at JFK. When entering the country, agents are asking questions about whether the traveller has been in areas where Ebola has been present, have they been exposed, do they know anyone that was exposed, how are they feeling, etc. Finally they non-invasively check the traveller for fever. Ok.....so let's say a plane holds 200 people. The first 121 people off the plane all answer the questions properly, and test negative for fever. Out they go into the US. Traveller 122 has a fever, and has answered that he's been in an area where ebola is present. We throw this guy into isolation! What about the prior 121 people that were on the plane with him while he expressed symptoms, and are already shaking hands, kissing relatives and generally spreading into taxis and our general population. What about the next 78 people in line?
Are we (our wonderful ATA people) smarter than this? Doubtful.
After the Singularity, we'll get computer viruses and bad OS updates.
Unnecessary and ineffective travel restrictions? Have these guys been to an airport recently?
The government doesn't give squat about unnecessary and ineffective policies. It will be decades before we can get back to reasonable airport security. A waste and burden on all Americans, helping to keep the economy down (viz. international tourism) with no end in sight.
If the government believes that people will feel safer with more restrictions, then that's what will happen. Hell, even if that weren't the case the government will still do it because they can say that it's to keep people safer.
This will just be another excuse for draconian policies. Trading more freedoms for more safety, because "safety at any cost" lets them reform the nation.
An Intelligent computer would realize humans are a virus and exterminate us.
I suspect the TSA won't be as quick to do anal probes now the Ebola is a factor.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The fact is a travel ban would not affect the ability for aid to reach the countries where you have an epidemic, quite the opposite. The travel ban that would be implemented would be designed to stop people from leaving the hotzone countries who are not involved with any sort of medical or aid activities relating to control of the epidemic. It would not affect medical experts or aid officials from reaching the hotzone countries. The law would be designed to stop exactly the kind of people as Duncan who was coming to the US for personal reasons. All other travel except those experts and workers involved with control of the epidemic would be banned. By putting in such a ban, we are making the effort to contain the virus and the job of the CDC and WHO much easier by increasing the chance that the virus will not spread beyond the areas where it is currently found, thus allowing resources to be more focused on those particular regions, so that the CDC and WHO is not dealing with an ever increasing list of territory that is affected and so that it does not turn into a whack a mole game.
Restricting travel to just the experts and authorities would bring the level of travel to a relative trickle. This would make it much easier to carefully vet and examine the relatively few experts who might leave the hotzone countries, if necessary, through a isolation period and an intensive medical examination which is much more involved than what is done at an airport gate. So it makes the relative trickle of travel much easier to control and regulate and to assure that anyone crossing is not infected.
The problem with trying to detect the disease at a higher levels of travel where travel is not being limited to just experts and authorities, is the volume is higher and its not as easy to do the more intensive examination. Many everyday would-be travellers will lie on any questionaire, if they are experiencing any symptoms. The temperature symptoms can be covered up and suppressed with tylenol as well. There is a clear incentive for Ebola infected individuals to come to the USA, now that a Liberian has already done so and recieved free medical treatment, and many will lie, fake and cover up to do it.
The CDC knows all of this. That is why the CDC is lying through their teeth. The CDC is knowingly exposing Americans to increased danger from Ebola and when it is not necessary to do so. This is criminal negligence. The american people are being lied to.
Another fact is we have numerous experts who admit that we cannot take it for granted the virus is not easy to pass. There is a concern the virus may be airborne, and the more widely the virus would become geographically dispersed, the possibility of an airborne mutation increases. The fact that the USA has an advanced medical system is not an excuse or a reason to allow people to come to the country from areas which have an active outbreak, in fact such statements are the height of arrogance, especially since even our own resources would be taxed to deal with these situations, and as well the long incubation period and the tendancy for some people not to seek medical treatment and instead transmit the virus. The fact is despite all of the medical facility in the US the virus could be transmitted in the public nonetheless. We are dealing with human nature here.
To say that somehow that its okay to not be worried or to take lightly a very dangerous virus such as this because the US has running water and soap is such an arrogant and simplistic way of thinking, and it almost seems like they are exploiting the ignorance of the public to suggest such a thing. People obviously do not wash their hands every 20 seconds, even in the US, and all it would take is for someone to say come into contact with a bodily fluid say on a subway seat and then transfer that to their mouths via their hand within a period of just a few seconds. This may not be an unlikely scenario, especially with a virus that causes profuse secretions, but even if just one person were to die from such a
yes
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Nice rhetorical scoring, but, yes, it *is* totally different. Comparing the poverty, lack of trust in government workers and dysfunctional healthcare system in the US South to those factors in Africa is like comparing the neighborhood pool to Lake Erie.
There's a simple way of dealing with that. Don't be a racist nut job. Have actual valid reasons for your positions and keep the outrage to a reasonable level.
Coming from a person of color, far too often accusations of racism are used to silence legitimate dissent and debate.
Having valid reason and articulable concerns will not be enough to protect anyone from charges of racism.
We shouldn't be allowing anyone to enter this country if they have been to a country with an outbreak of any hemorrhagic disease in the past 90 days. For now, that means certain west African nations. The people in Zambia are every bit as black as the ones in Liberia and THEY aren't letting Liberians in.
Obama himself isn't a lefty, he's a moderate right politician. It's just the racism that blinds so many right wing nutjobs to what Obama is actually doing.
Depends on your politics. If you're an anti-war lefty, there's not much difference between Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Reagan.
If you're a small government righty, again, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan aren't much different.
Me, I'm a fiscal moderate and a social conservative. There are lightyears between Obama and Bush, from my perspective.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Can officials increase public vigilance about the deadly Ebola virus without inciting a panic?
No.
Some officials have a vested interest in intentionally inciting a panic. The fox is already guarding the henhouse, the REAL question is: How much of a panic will officials incite while increasing public vigilance.
Most officials will always have a vested interested in lying about it, regardless.
If Ebola is a big threat, they can prepare themselves while keeping the public blissfully unaware, helping to ensure their survival.
If Ebola is not a big threat, they can whip up a managed amount of fear in order to secure more funding, feel powerful, have fun dicking around with their toys, etc.
This is what scares me the most about Ebola. It's that the government is telling me that there's nothing to worry about and that everything is going to be just fine. I know that when they say I should run for my life and be scared shitless of something that it isn't a real threat. I assume the opposite rhetoric means that it really is a threat and I should probably be scared shitless hiding out somewhere until it all blows over.
Patch Tuesday will be the new weekend.
hiding out somewhere until it all blows over.
May I suggest The Winchester?
[Hospital sent home the ebola patient in Dallas, though he had classic ebola symptoms and had traveled to Liberia.]
Yep, especially when they deny all of the screening questions.. That's helpful.
He denied the screening questions at the airport. ('Let's see. If I answer yes you won't let me fly and will throw me in with everybody else who answered yes. Of COURSE I didn't have contact with Ebola!)
He DIDN'T deny the questions at the hospital. They knew he'd been to Liberia recently. But their bureaucracy didn't get that info to the person who made the release decision.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
More Important: Do you know where everybody that has come in contact with you or anything you have touched has traveled in the past 30 days? Why don't you know?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!