View Full Version : Question about ebola/beliefs/government........
I was thinking about this the other day and want to ask.
For those of you who usually feel the government doesn't know what it's doing and you don't trust it, you have been some of the strongest supporters of saying that there's not a real problem with ebola and that according to the CDC, etc.........we have nothing to worry about if we follow the guidelines, etc. (boy....that was a long sentence!) I'm trying to understand, how, in this case you are believing everything the government says..........where in a lot of other instances, you don't believe them.
Just curious.
oops.........I thought I put this on the Simple Public Policy forum. Can you move it there Alan? Thanks.
I'm not convinced the risk of catching the disease if exposed is as low as the CDC wants us to believe. However, I think the chance of exposure at all, provided the level of vigilance stays as high as it's been, is extremely low. So ... while I don't exactly believe there's transparency here, I'm not concerned about becoming infected.
gimmethesimplelife
10-27-14, 11:39am
SPOLIER ALERT***** I'm about to go radical and take an anti-Obama stance.....
Seriously, I don't understand the refusal to temporarily end flight service from West Africa - at least from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia - into the United States. I just don't get it to the point where I wish on this one (just this one) issue we had Romney in office instead - yes, I said it (!!!!!) as I do believe under Romney these flights would have been by now suspended until further notice - better control/eradication of the virus. I've lost some faith in Obama for not ending these flights, I really have.
I also believe that we don't fully know all the means by which this virus is transmitted and that the government is not admitting this, which I find very off putting to say the least. I also believe that this will (probably) die off and not become this horrible thing that many seem to fear but that before this happens there will be a lot of political theater and drama. Nothing new on this last. Rob
My feelings are............and here goes my broken record speech............We are all (in the U.S.) accustomed to so many freedoms and rights that we have become the "me" country. And we've lost our way in terms of thinking of the good of the whole. I realize the latest R.N. to return from treating people in Africa with ebola probably wasn't treated as well as she should have been. But now she's hiring an attorney to maybe sue the state/federal government for being treated so poorly? She says her civil rights have been violated. This is new to all of us.....citizens, officials, everyone and so there's probably going to be mistakes made. But I think our need for so much me-freedom is causing problems in how we handle this. We don't want to upset anyone, we don't want to upset anyone's money-making ability or their vacations, etc.
Anyhow.......back to the regularly scheduled program.............just curious why those of you who never side with the government, are actually taking what they say about ebola as truth. Not trying to start an argument.......just trying to understand the whys and wherefores of your beliefs.
iris lily
10-27-14, 12:00pm
I was thinking about this the other day and want to ask.
For those of you who usually feel the government doesn't know what it's doing and you don't trust it, you have been some of the strongest supporters of saying that there's not a real problem with ebola and that according to the CDC, etc.........we have nothing to worry about if we follow the guidelines, etc. (boy....that was a long sentence!) I'm trying to understand, how, in this case you are believing everything the government says..........where in a lot of other instances, you don't believe them.
Just curious.
Not exactly, you are distorting my outlook by trying to represent it.
Generally applicable to most situations:
1) big government tends to f**k up a lot
2) the government's intrusion will likely not make bad things a lot better (see #1)
3) government intrusion into my personal life in an attempt to "help me" not worth it due to #1
4) big gubmnt carrying out quarantine requirements --wow, that's a pretty big civil liberties issue--I know that *I* would be skeptical of Nanny's ability to judge the threat I pose to society and any consequential tamping down of my ability to leave my house, drive in my car, walk my streets, etc. When Nanny G has that much power over me, it may be time to break out the long guns, polish them up, load them.
Ebola is a deadly disease. Of COURSE it's a problem. How big is that problem right now? Not very big. How is it affecting me? It's not. How big will it get? I don't know, but since you do know that, could you also peer into the future and tell me the winning Loot ticket number up next?
Cathy, you like to worry, you like to bring your worries to this board. So be it. But not everyone needs to share your point of view.
Wow......thanks Iris Lily. That was helpful.
JaneV2.0
10-27-14, 12:06pm
Nurse Kaci Hickox is free and en route to her home state, where she will be monitored. Common sense triumphs over political posturing.
SPOLIER ALERT***** I'm about to go radical and take an anti-Obama stance.....
Seriously, I don't understand the refusal to temporarily end flight service from West Africa - at least from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia - into the United States. I just don't get it to the point where I wish on this one (just this one) issue we had Romney in office instead - yes, I said it (!!!!!) as I do believe under Romney these flights would have been by now suspended until further notice - better control/eradication of the virus. I've lost some faith in Obama for not ending these flights, I really have.
I also believe that we don't fully know all the means by which this virus is transmitted and that the government is not admitting this, which I find very off putting to say the least. I also believe that this will (probably) die off and not become this horrible thing that many seem to fear but that before this happens there will be a lot of political theater and drama. Nothing new on this last. Rob
Rob, my deep and extensive knowledge gleaned from driving around town listening to NPR tells me this is the logic: most US airports are not temperature screening their arriving passengers. There are loads of ways to get into the country without a direct flight from one of the infected nations. So if they ban flights from, say, Liberia, people in Liberia who want to get to the US might for example fly to Quebec and then Cleveland. They would, inadvertently, avoid being screened at all. Maintaining a straight route where everyone gets screened appears to be a safer course of action.
http://notopramen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/124_burning_man.jpg
Well....
iris lilies
10-27-14, 12:35pm
SPOLIER ALERT***** I'm about to go radical and take an anti-Obama stance.....
Seriously, I don't understand the refusal to temporarily end flight service from West Africa - at least from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia - into the United States. I just don't get it to the point where I wish on this one (just this one) issue we had Romney in office instead - yes, I said it (!!!!!) as I do believe under Romney these flights would have been by now suspended until further notice - better control/eradication of the virus. I've lost some faith in Obama for not ending these flights, I really have.
I also believe that we don't fully know all the means by which this virus is transmitted and that the government is not admitting this, which I find very off putting to say the least. I also believe that this will (probably) die off and not become this horrible thing that many seem to fear but that before this happens there will be a lot of political theater and drama. Nothing new on this last. Rob
I always find the POV amusing that there is government cover-up when I believe it is Goobment flub-up. Rob thinks that the Goob knows but isn't saying, I think that the Goob doesn't know (and probably even doesn't know that they don't know.) Both of these represent typical Rob 'n Iris world views.
But Rob, I will say this: Buddy, don't put that on Mitt Romney. Don't ascribe civil liberty limiting actions to that guy. You are REALLY projecting your own paranoia into that thought.
Look, it may come that limiting movement among populations takes place but I have to wonder who you think will carry that out? Carried to the logical extreme THE POLICE who you loathe and despise will be locking you up, will be monitoring your quarantine, will be manning control points of population movement, demanding your health papers.
Bae, How about a little english with that? On second thought, if it's a put-down like Iris Lily was so kind to give me, just go your merry way.
Bae, How about a little english with that?
I thought it was pretty clear. Your opening post was erecting a straw man (with several seasonings of other sophistries mixed in). Feel free to burn it down yourself if that's what you need to do to be happy.
On second thought, if it's a put-down like Iris Lily was so kind to give me, just go your merry way.
It was a kindness, not a put-down.
My original question was a sincere, not-meant-to-be-hostile question. I wasn't trying to put anyone down........just trying to understand. Funny how it was received.
iris lily
10-27-14, 12:53pm
Bae, How about a little english with that? On second thought, if it's a put-down like Iris Lily was so kind to give me, just go your merry way.
Let's see, you ascribe to me a point of view that I don't have (believing that Gooberment/CDC words are all tally-ho), berate me for not having the same POV that you have (I am not logical) hint that my POV is selfish (the "me-me-me" idea) and then bemoan that I answered you as clearly as I know how (the "put-down.")
And thank YOU for the put-down.
My original question was a sincere, not-meant-to-be-hostile question. I wasn't trying to put anyone down........just trying to understand. Funny how it was received.
There you go again. Assuming and misrepresenting the thoughts of others.
http://myfaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Mirror-mirror-on-the-wall.jpg
gimmethesimplelife
10-27-14, 1:03pm
I always find the POV amusing that there is government cover-up when I believe it is Goobment flub-up. Rob thinks that the Goob knows but isn't saying, I think that the Goob doesn't know (and probably even doesn't know that they don't know.) Both of these represent typical Rob 'n Iris world views.
But Rob, I will say this: Buddy, don't put that on Mitt Romney. Don't ascribe civil liberty limiting actions to that guy. You are REALLY projecting your own paranoia into that thought.
Look, it may come that limiting movement among populations takes place but I have to wonder who you think will carry that out? Carried to the logical extreme THE POLICE who you loathe and despise will be locking you up, will be monitoring your quarantine, will be manning control points of population movement, demanding your health papers.
Whoah IL....Whoah. Hold your horses as they said years ago. Somehow there is some miscommunication going on here - my implication was intended to get across that I don't think the government knows all the facts about Ebola transmission. I don't believe there is any cover up other than trying to do damage control to some degree as they seem to be flying by the seat of their pants.
Here's a radical notion - you say that you believe the government doesn't know.....I am saying the exact same thing. Hence, we actually agree here IL. Yes.....we actually agree. No sarcasm intended, it's just that it's not often that that happens, you know? About Mitt Romney - what I said was intended as nice words for the man and I genuinely do believe he would have handled this differently from how Obama has were he in office. Something that seems to be misunderstood here - just because I am a liberal and tend to be very pro Obama does not mean I carry this stance 100% of the time and this does not mean I can't see bad in the Dems and good in the Reps. Seriously. Did you not see my words of praise for Republican governor of Arizona Jan Brewer when she signed on the dotted line for Medicaid expansion? Democrat does not automatically equal good nor does Republican automatically equal bad to me - I do this more and more on a case by case basis. Rob
Iris Lily.......you're taking this much too personally. And I wasn't saying that that "YOU" are the "me-me-me" person. I'm saying the entire country is the me-person.
Sheesh. What hostility. I was foolish to think we could have a reasonable discussion of how these 2 different views of the government could make sense.
Gardenarian
10-27-14, 2:35pm
Hi CathyA - i thought this editorial in the NYT: "How to Defeat Ebola" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/opinion/nicholas-kristof-how-to-defeat-ebola.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) was very good at separating the actual ebola risks (such as it spreading to India, ebola used as a biological weapon) from the scare-mongering that is apparently going on in the news.
One thing I saw that I thought was funny: Keeping ebola in perspective - More American have been married to Kim Kardashian than have contracted ebola. :)
BTW CathyA, I enjoy your posts and appreciate your presence here. Don't let this little flurry of weirdness get you down!
gimmethesimplelife
10-27-14, 2:40pm
Hi CathyA - i thought this editorial in the NYT: "How to Defeat Ebola" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/opinion/nicholas-kristof-how-to-defeat-ebola.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) was very good at separating the actual ebola risks (such as it spreading to India, ebola used as a biological weapon) from the scare-mongering that is apparently going on in the news.
One thing I saw that I thought was funny: Keeping ebola in perspective - More American have been married to Kim Kardashian than have contracted ebola. :)
BTW CathyA, I enjoy your posts and appreciate your presence here. Don't let this little flurry of weirdness get you down!Thanks, Gardenian.....Rob
iris lilies
10-27-14, 3:01pm
\
Here's a radical notion - you say that you believe the government doesn't know.....I am saying the exact same thing. Hence, we actually agree here IL. Yes.....we actually agree. No sarcasm intended, it's just that it's not often that that happens, you know? About Mitt Romney - what I said was intended as nice words for the man and I genuinely do believe he would have handled this differently from how Obama has were he in office. ...
Sure we agree on the root problem: the Goob doesn't know the entire story of Ebola transmission. We still disagree a little bit on what they are doing with that ignorance.
But mainly I wanted to refute your Romney projection. I get it that you are imagining he would act in a positive way.
I don't know that stringent governmental action is positive, but I have no freeking clue about how Romney would act nor does anyone else. I deeply suspect that his actions wouldn't look much different than those of our current President.
The medical professionals who do know--having worked directly with persons infected by Ebola--in every interview, stress that 1) you can't test for Ebola in an asymptomatic individual and 2) an infected individual is not contagious until he/she has symptoms, and then only if he/she is emitting fluids (i.e. vomitus). The reporters who interview them keep asking the same dumb questions, showing that either 1) they aren't listening to the answers, or 2) they're looking for "sexier" responses.
Some other questions about Ebola:
How much of the ruckus is because it is from Africa?
Because of the color of the skin of many of the victims?
Because they don't speak English?
Because of anti-immigrant isolationist sentiments?
Because of cool zombie-virus movies?
Because the media has nothing better to do?
Etc?
i just keep wondering how it is that we know it's a killer, and we know exactly how and when it's transmitted ... and yet two people with all that knowledge in the good old USA where we are so very very perfect and pristine in our process and the best medicine in the world that no one could ever catch ebola here and I could go on for three more paragraphs about our greatness, that two trained professionals who knew without a doubt that their patient had the disease, caught it anyway. One patient, two transmissions. To me thatsays the specifics are a bit blurrier than implied.
I understand why this is not emphasized . If there is no symptomatic person out there transmitting the disease, high and perhaps not 100% understood transmission risk is irrelevant, but I doubt people would make the distinction. I do appreciate NPR for trying to explore different aspects of what's going on and not just spouting rhetoric.
catherine
10-27-14, 3:34pm
Some other questions about Ebola:
How much of the ruckus is...
...
Because of cool zombie-virus movies?
Because the media has nothing better to do?
Etc?
I vote for this ^
Seriously, the only scary thing about this is the unknown. The chance that any of us are going to die of ebola is, I think, extremely remote.
Some have gone so far as to to say that the whole brouhaha is a conspiracy to distract us from what's going on in the Middle East.
Who knows? It's not much ado about nothing, but compared to things that pose real risk, let's put it in perspective.
When you get down to the basics, I pretty much trust the government with this. At first I think they were a little slack, but all the media coverage has gotten the public, including I think politicians, to get on the stick. One thing I worry about is that some of the discussion around restricting travel and isolating people in the slightest risk seems to almost be becoming a partisan issues. At least among the local politicians. Ebola is not doubt very serious, but the public outcry is generating some things that are an media generated, fear driven, and irrational over reaction. One of the CDC heads was on Face the Nation and explained how applying resources to Ebola means taking resources away from other important things. But I am generally satisfied with things for the current degree of risk and think we are close to following the example that Gardenarian mentioned that seems to have worked somewhere else. If we start seeing outbreaks in India or Europe or anywhere with a crowded population and poor medical facilities, then all bets are off.
I saw one politician in a short clip somewhere saying...You know how all the Zombie movies start out. Some government or health official comes on the evening news and sayings everything is contained and there is no risk to the general public. Fortunately I don't believe in Zombies and it's only a movie. At least at this point.
Did anyone here ever read The Stand by Stephen King? If Randall Flagg shows up in your neighborhood, be afraid, be very, very afraid. Otherwise....
IshbelRobertson
10-27-14, 6:52pm
I LOVED that book, although it gave me nightmares!
gimmethesimplelife
10-27-14, 7:05pm
Did anyone here ever read The Stand by Stephen King? If Randall Flagg shows up in your neighborhood, be afraid, be very, very afraid. Otherwise....One of my favorite books of all time.....the characterization was so believable and I loved the ending when Stu and Frannie are reunited and Fran's baby lives. Absolutely incredible. And King wrote in a way that made such a scenario not seem all that far fetched, and yes, I have thought of this novel from time to time during this Ebola thing. Rob
...I loved the ending when Stu and Frannie are reunited and Fran's baby lives. Absolutely incredible.
Dang it Rob, I'm only on Chapter 8! !Splat!
LOL.......yeah, I was thinking maybe there should have been a spoiler alert.
gimmethesimplelife
10-28-14, 11:43am
Dang it Rob, I'm only on Chapter 8! !Splat!Ouch....sorry Gregg! Really I am.....didn't know you were currently reading it. But the good news is that there are many other twists and turns in the plot that I have not given away to keep you engaged with the book. Rob
mtnlaurel
10-29-14, 10:19am
I am very late to the fray on this... I don't watch 24 hour news, right now
I did council my sister not to take a superfluous trip through NYC within the last 2 weeks.
She has kids and her reason for going was not pressing & she could get her points refunded.
I do however enjoy following Chris Christie. I get a kick out of him and sometimes even agree with him.
I truly want to have 2 parties functioning well for the American people and I think he gets things done.
(even if they are not always the correct things)
I don't get how such a snafu as the terrible conditions that the nurse quarantined at Newark happened.
Who was the PR person that signed off on that?
To ignore that there is a political posturing element to Ebola entering the US is naive.
The government HAS to at least appear to be handling this situation quasi-'correctly'
Perception does have value.
That's the problem with news as entertainment....
Granted not too many years ago families used to take picnics to the guillotines.
catherine
10-29-14, 3:43pm
I like this FB post. As Gilda Radner said, "It's always something…"
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10454296_10152752668718632_5216977658381510603_n.j pg?oh=40ed383d975cd068274aee1513adecfd&oe=54EE75C1&__gda__=1424341975_24717d77d892d2eef0eaade8eeee88a 1
ApatheticNoMore
10-29-14, 3:54pm
It will only kill a few people. Which come to think of it were probably disposable people anyway.
hardly needs a /sarc But I'm sure the bad economy did kill people and BP as well (although wildlife mostly but people doing the cleanup were exposed to a lot) and of course ebola has killed people. Where is: "fukushima is going to kill us all?" Is there a 1918 version: Spanish flu is going to kill us all! A cold war version: mutually assured destruction via nuclear weapons is going to kill us all!
There has to be a reasonable medium somewhere.
I have to say I don't remember the last time I worried about the freakout du jour--maybe when AIDS debuted? I think the world is a pretty intriguing place and a lot less threatening than in earlier eras. At least I don't have to worry about being burned alive because someone accused me of witchcraft or about dying a wretched death from bubonic plague. I don't have to submit to an arranged marriage or work myself to death on the family farm, or in some scullery somewhere. All in all, it could be lots worse. I suspect this Ebola brouhaha will blow over when Dr. Spencer finishes his treatment and any future infections are sporadic and treatable.
iris lilies
10-29-14, 9:52pm
Decades ago I used to worry about nuclear warfare. It actually colored my view and I remember that the world looked less bright. I guess that was during the cold war.
Since then, I don't worry about the scare of the moment. I lived through one scare mongering period and I don't want to be sucked back into that black hole.
Ouch....sorry Gregg! Really I am.....didn't know you were currently reading it. But the good news is that there are many other twists and turns in the plot that I have not given away to keep you engaged with the book. Rob
Ooohh The Stand - one of my favorites! I actually thought of that book when the first man with Ebola showed up in the US and you saw how many people he was in contact with and how easily a contagious disease could spread when just one person is infected. It's pretty amazing to see just how easy and fast a truly contagious disease could spread worldwide in a short period of time. Not that I feel Ebola is very communicable (it doesn't seem to be) but the "potential" for rapid spread of Ebola or any disease is an interesting thing to watch happen.
IshbelRobertson
10-30-14, 7:44am
Many years ago, long before The Stand, the BBC made a series, using the premise of a man, not a Westerner, because of course it had to be an apocalypse caused by Johnny-foreigner (!), arriving at a UK airport, coughing and sneezing. Then people started to die... The series was called The Survivors, and I LOVED it! They remade it a couple of years ago, with less mud and grubbiness, updated to more recent times. I watched it, but it wasn't a patch on the old series!
ETA here's a link to the wikipedia entry, it was made in 1975 and the remake in 2008
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_(2008_TV_series)
iris lilies
10-30-14, 9:10am
Ouch....sorry Gregg! Really I am.....didn't know you were currently reading it. But the good news is that there are many other twists and turns in the plot that I have not given away to keep you engaged with the book. Rob
Oh, I think he's pulling your leg. Even if he's not, there should be a spoiler statute of limitations. The Stand has been out for, what, 35 years? I'll bet that Gregg has a pretty good idea what happens in this book.:~)
The Stand has been out for, what, 35 years?
You know, until you wrote that and forced me to think about it, I'd have thought it was much newer than that. I read it when it first came out and then read it again when it was re-released with an additional 400 or so pages added. It just doesn't seem like that long ago.
...there should be a spoiler statute of limitations. The Stand has been out for, what, 35 years?
What can I say, my library only has one copy.
i just keep wondering how it is that we know it's a killer, and we know exactly how and when it's transmitted ... and yet two people with all that knowledge in the good old USA where we are so very very perfect and pristine in our process and the best medicine in the world that no one could ever catch ebola here and I could go on for three more paragraphs about our greatness, that two trained professionals who knew without a doubt that their patient had the disease, caught it anyway. One patient, two transmissions. To me thatsays the specifics are a bit blurrier than implied.
I understand why this is not emphasized . If there is no symptomatic person out there transmitting the disease, high and perhaps not 100% understood transmission risk is irrelevant, but I doubt people would make the distinction. I do appreciate NPR for trying to explore different aspects of what's going on and not just spouting rhetoric.
My guess would be that because once it finally does become contagious it becomes REALLY contagious and the procedures to avoid infection are tough to follow perfectly. And imperfection when dealing with a person at the highly infectious stage of the disease has a bad result. In other words, one patient, two medical provider minor, but potentially fatal, errors.
The health care workers weren't fully covered and the patient was spewing contagion copiously from every orifice. Apparently the amount of infectious material they contacted resulted in manageable cases. If medical personnel can isolate infected patients in the three countries where it is active, we should be able to eradicate it. Problem solved.
I'm just skeptical ... I mean if you were dealing with a substance that could easily kill you if it spilled on you, wouldn't you be ... almost psychotically paranoid about any exposure at all?
The number of ebola cases "confirmed or suspected" has tripled in the last month. 4500 to 13000. As far as the US is concerned, yes, problem solved. But isolating cases in the countries suffering? You must be joking. They don't even have bed space for these people, let alone isolation units. Hopefully the US involvement in building more care facilities is paying off, because otherwise, I can't see this ending for the "sick 3" until it plays itself out.
Nigeria is Ebola free now, so they made it work. As far as the other three countries go, if they can educate their citizens about the disease and enlist those who have survived to transport new patients to secure facilities--most likely with international help--they should prevail. As usual, the world community is slow to get off the dime, and that is indeed a problem.
Another issue regarding when a patient becomes contagious seems to be exactly when they cease to be asymptomatic. Officials check for fever: 98.6*, good to go, but what about 98.7*? What about a person, like me, who has a regular body temp that is a little lower? I'm usually in the 96s somewhere so at 98.6* I could be well on the way to being sick, but might waltz right past the check point. The virus knows when it kicks in, the victim's immune system presumably knows as well, but I've yet to hear anyone say there is a hard line between contagious and non-contagious. That just seems like a scenario where there could be a lot of carriers scattered around the world who don't know they were exposed and/or don't realize its ebola until they get REALLY sick.
lessisbest
11-1-14, 7:07am
I've been reading some interesting Ebola information at Natural News.... http://www.naturalnews.com/
Uh Oh Lessisbest...........get ready to dodge the rotten tomatoes................
iris lilies
11-1-14, 11:53am
I've been reading some interesting Ebola information at Natural News.... http://www.naturalnews.com/
When I click on the Natural News site and click through to follow one thread, I don't see journalist integrity. I see headlines misrepresenting content and playing loose with definitions. Taking just one concept, aeorosolized spread of Ebola and following it through on the Natural News website, it looks like Natural News is the liar, not the CDC.
When I click on this news headline and story:
CDC admits it has been lying all along about Ebola transmission; "indirect" spread now acknowledged (http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_Ebola_transmission_CDC_quackery_aerosolized _particles.html)
http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_Ebola_transmission_CDC_quackery_aerosolized _particles.html
...But I don't see content to support the headline. The story says "The CDC has now released a document on Ebola that admits the virus can spread through aerosolized droplets. The document, quietly released on the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or-droplets.pdf) also admits Ebola can contaminate surfaces such as doorknobs, causing infections to be spread through indirect means. [1] (bolding mine)
But when I click here as Natural News suggests
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047457_Ebola_transmission_CDC_quackery_aerosolized _particles.html#ixzz3HpYqextC
...There is no CDC document that claims "aerosolized droplets" transmits Ebola. In fact, the CDC article linked from Natural News story declares the opposite:
HOW EBOLA SPREADS
Is Ebola airborne?
No.
I followed another story where headline declared that CDC had yanked a document in a nefarious way and replaced it with new information. First of all, that in itself seems reasonable to me, as facts come up, information should be updated on the web. But that's not what happened, Natural News lied again. In the old vs new document, the exact same facts were presented about Aeorosolized transmission of Ebola:
old CDC document:
Is Ebola airborne?
No. Ebola is not spread through the airborne route nor through water or food
new CDC document:
HOW EBOLA SPREADS
Is Ebola airborne?
No.
My conclusion is that Natural News is an unreliable source because its hysterical headlines aren't supported by the content it provides as fact. It insults me as a reader to assume that I won't read beyond the headlines.
None of this means that the CDC knows all facts about Ebola transmission, that the CDC is forthcoming with all facts, that the CDC is always right. None of it. It means that Natural News depends on fear mongering to sell whatever it sells.
I also understand that most people won't click through this post. I'd be interested if anyone, following my logic, sees something else.
tl; dr: Natural News lies
The link could be misleading if someone wanted to twist facts; on the top it explains how germs spread, on the bottom it explains how ebola spreads. It does not say that the information on the top of the page pertains to ebola, in fact I think it was meant to explain the difference between the two methods of transmission, not conflate them.
iris lilies
11-1-14, 12:18pm
The link is misleading because it's poorly constructed: on the top it explains how germs spread, on the bottom it explains how ebola spreads, but it does not say that the information on the top of the page pertains to ebola, in fact I think it was meant to explain the difference between the two methods of transmission, not conflate them.
I agree, it's badly constructed, I had exactly the same thought as I picture thousands of people pulling up that document to read about spread of "germs" in general although the top section talks only about TB and similar germs, not Ebola. OTOH I'm glad I don't have to write that stuff. In order to talk about safety practices "airborne" has to be defined.
I agree, it's badly constructed, I had exactly the same thought as I picture thousands of people pulling up that document to read about spread of "germs" in general although the top section talks only about TB and similar germs, not Ebola. OTOH I'm glad I don't have to write that stuff. In order to talk about safety practices "airborne" has to be defined. Yes, and 'direct contact' as well. I would be surprised if a highly infectious ebola patient sneezed directly in my face and I didn't get sick, to me that is just as "direct" as touching their blood and then wiping my eye.
iris lilies
11-1-14, 12:36pm
Yes, and 'direct contact' as well. I would be surprised if a highly infectious ebola patient sneezed directly in my face and I didn't get sick, to me that is just as "direct" as touching their blood and then wiping my eye.
But you (the generic you) have to understand the terms. From my clicking around tht CDC site today, my take away is this:
When someone comes into contact with droplets, that is "direct" contact. Direct also means droplets spewed within about 6 feet. "Direct" isn't limited to touch transmission.
What is meant by "airborne" and "direct" has specific meaning that the CDC attempts to convey. Defining terms is always a problem in communication and sources like Natural News play that up.
Defining terms is always a problem in communication and sources like Natural News play that up.
I'll bet they manage to sell a fair amount of homeopathic ebola remedies however...
When someone comes into contact with droplets, that is "direct" contact. Direct also means droplets spewed within about 6 feet. "Direct" isn't limited to touch transmission.
What is meant by "airborne" and "direct" has specific meaning that the CDC attempts to convey. Defining terms is always a problem in communication and sources like Natural News play that up.
Which does make the site Natural News linked to confusing if not downright contradictory, because sneezing is in the section on germs, while it's not mentioned in the ebola section, so how is a layman supposed to know that the very picture in the "germs, not ebola" section is one way ebola could be transmitted. While I feel the CDC does indeed have specific meanings attached to their terms, I see absolutely no effort to convey that information, at least not in this particular link Natural News has seized upon. Maybe their headline should have screamed "CDC Writers Just As Incompetent As Everyone Else."
ETA: Iris, I agree entirely with what you posited somewhere else: government mostly isn't lying on purpose, it's just incompetent and usually tries to mask it with a lot of meaningless nonsense. I'm always amused to hear that "They" know everything there is to know about climate change, or for that matter, the intricacies of our economic policy. "Unintended Consequences" could be their epitaph.
ApatheticNoMore
11-1-14, 2:11pm
When someone comes into contact with droplets, that is "direct" contact. Direct also means droplets spewed within about 6 feet.
then direct contact is someone in the office being sick (the cubes don't even have 6 feet between them probably), which of course seems not just likely but pretty much inevitable that people will come to the office sick (though hopefully not with ebola and hopefully by the time ebola symptoms were contagious they would have no choice but to stay out no matter how determined they were to infect their coworkers. Yea that's how I see coming to work when genuinely sick - as biological warfare :~)). Not to mention any other public place, waiting in line at the supermarket, etc..
Yea homeopathy and selling stuff. Excessive profiting on lots of stuff pretty much leaves such a bad sleaze taste in my mouth. But at least if there was a vaccine it would actually work presumably, and there is something to be said for that!
As for the sleazy profiteering natural news is probably far from the worst. Some want to charge people for information on "how to prevent ebola". Such scumbaggery. But everyone needs to earn a living is the usual excuse for that. Yea and there are ways to do that that don't reek so much, though one might have to work and not relying on selling their "ideas" >8) to the desperate (scared people).
Meanwhile, the Ebola pandemic continues to devastate the USA! Look at how many cases we have now!
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2010/10/waking_dead_a_l.jpg
Horrible, just horrible. The poor horse.
Yes, ApatheticNoMore, I agree. While I do believe that some natural remedies can have beneficial effects (not on ebola, on health in general) I am soooooo tired of hearing that something is so good for you! or so bad for you! only to find out 98% of the hype was simply economic sleight of hand. I'm currently on a mission to do away with just about every "aid" I put in my mouth or on my body, regardless of the "evidence".
iris lilies
11-1-14, 3:48pm
... I see absolutely no effort to convey that information, at least not in this particular link Natural News has seized upon. Maybe their headline should have screamed "CDC Writers Just As Incompetent As Everyone Else."
Oh heck yes, I'd put that in my online publication "Down with Government News."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.