Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the only-thing-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-itself-and-liquefied-organs dept.

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."

11 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Politics by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If having a Czar will concentrate more power in their hands then a Czar is what they'll create. We already have the CDC. If this were about solving disease problems then the President would give the CDC more funding if they needed it. This is not about solving problems but about power.

    1. Re:Politics by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, that's basically what they've been saying this whole time. Lots of reactionaries in the media are screaming that those very statements are lies and cover-ups.

    2. Re:Politics by towermac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And look who's reacting to the reactionaries.

    3. Re:Politics by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not about solving problems but about power.

      You just summed up the Democratic party.

      He also just summed up the Republican Party.

    4. Re:Politics by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That why, even as an 'infectious disease response coordinator,' it's a lawyer and politician who got the call.
      If they had just stated the truth, that Ebola is hard to spread with proper controls, and can be contained, there would be no panic, there would be little media attention, and there would be no need for a czar. But as you said, there would be no need to concentrate power, so no dice.

      Dude,

      I see what you're saying, but you're missing something: Nina Pham is pretty. She's 26. She's got a college degree. She reminds everyone who makes decisions in the media of their daughter/girlfriend/best friend/etc. And she's got a very high risk of death because she caught a deadly disease on her job. Then her boss tried to blame her for it by saying she fucked up the protocol.

      The media could be convinced to ignore thousands of poor Liberians dying. It could be convinced to treat the missionaries and Doctors airlifted back to the US. That shit is supposed to happen in Africa. But Nina Pham has a really interesting story, great visuals, and a compelling main character.

      Appointing a political hack as "Ebola Czar" to shut the GOP up is the real world version of telling everyone to calm the fuck down and go the fuck home.

    5. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL. No. Written by Democrats and "Progressive" lobbyists, and voted for by Democrats. The Democrats own it lock, stock, and barrel.

      I'll just leave this right here for you.

    6. Re:Politics by gumbi+west · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, fucking Nigeria was able to contain an outbreak with... let's just say less resources than US hospitals and CDC. The real problem is that our "best health system" is actually an otherwise shitty health system with many very good doctors and nurses in it.

  2. Having a Surgeon General would help by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fools are yelling for an Ebola Czar.
    Perhaps filling the position of Surgeon General would be simpler. Controlling the spread of disease is one of the functions of that office.
    But, approving the the candidate for the office would require the Senate to actually do something.

  3. Maybe we need a Surgeon General by Zynder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would all of this talk about a Czar be an end run around the current problem of the Repubs blocking all nominations for a Surgeon General? Maybe that's the only way the administration feels they can have a real working department head?

    1. Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Interesting, the truth is overrated.

  4. Re:Until we upgrade the dumb bunnies by Minupla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There must be an optimal level of security

    If we wanted to actually make people safer we'd take very dollar we spend on airport security and Ebola beyond contact tracking, containment and isolation/care for the infected and spend it on:

    1) Traffic safety
    2) Finding better ways to fight the flu

    Those two things would be way more impactful in terms of lives saved then the money being spent to keep air travel safe from terrorists and mobilizing the national guard to fight Ebola (not sure how they're going to do that, absent a shrink machine, Fantastic Voyage style).

    Min

    --
    On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before