Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

Lasrick writes: David Ropeik explores risk-perception psychology and Ebola in the U.S. "[O]fficials are up against the inherently emotional and instinctive nature of risk-perception psychology. Pioneering research on this subject by Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, and others, vast research on human cognition by Daniel Kahneman and colleagues, and research on the brain's fear response by neuroscientists Joseph LeDoux, Elizabeth Phelps, and others, all make abundantly clear that the perception of risk is not simply a matter of the facts, but more a matter of how those facts feel. ... People worry more about risks that are new and unfamiliar. People worry more about risks that cause greater pain and suffering. People worry more about threats against which we feel powerless, like a disease for which there is no vaccine and which has a high fatality rate if you get it. And people worry more about threats the more available they are to their consciousness—that is, the more aware people are of them."

Comments

As some one recently pointed out to me

[peragrin]

More americans have married Kim Kardashian than have died from Ebola.

And what is the land of the free creating more czar's for? a czar answers to no one. Instead how about we make the people in charge responsible for their actions. oh wait congress can never take responsibility for their failures.

Re:What does require those things?

[the eric conspiracy]

While this is a Fox News topic, the comments are not as bad as what you would get there.

For example not one reference to Obola yet.

Re: Politics

[budgenator]

American Hospitals are almost always Non-profits.