<p>Since Nigeria has now been declared Ebola-free, the US would be smart to look at what has now been proven to work. In addition to quick diagnosis, and a herculean contact tracing effort, Nigeria’s media behaved responsibly and became part of the solution:</p>
<p>What is wrong with that? Shouldn’t we focus on understanding the disease before figuring out what to do about it? What would be the point of say, spending $1 million on respirators in Africa, if we know ebola doesn’t spread via the lungs? </p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with it, bay. Some posters, as much as you seem to not agree, are spreading misinformation and using scare tactics. Then other posters respond with factual information and the reality that while ebola is horrible, there are far greater health risks to most posters. So when a poster incorrectly suggests that ebola "jumps"or claims that 99.99999% of other viruses don’t kill you (and other inaccuracies), posters will respond. This is what the conversation is all about. Some posters seem to want to pop in to lecture and pontificate rather than discuss. Seems a bit condescending.</p>
<p>And as igloo rightly pointed out (right after saying that discussing other viruses was stupid,or words to that effect), enterovirus is another scary and potentially devastating virus - the current strain , D68, is alarming, causing in some cases, neurological impairment or death.</p>
<p>Okay, well I am not interested in figuring out which health risk is most likely to kill me. I think we discussed that on an ACA thread years ago, and its actually easy to find the list on the internet. And nothing I’ve read on this thread has scared me, so I’m comfortable that the “scare tactics” have flown right on past. My impression is that everyone on the thread is well-educated, and does not need to be patronized for their thoughts about the disease, which is a pretty big deal for all of the world, including the US.</p>
<p>It’s not the raw numbers of people who die of a virus, its the percentage. No, I’m not afraid of the flu. My 95 year old mother survived a severe bout of the flu. What is the percentage of people with the flu who die? It’s not 70%.</p>
<p>When evaluating risk, you have to consider not only the severity of the possible harm, but also the likelihood of exposure to the harm. Thus, the risk of any individual dying from Ebola in the United States is currently much, much less than the risk of that same individual dying from the flu, or from a car accident, or from being murdered, or from being accidently shot with a firearm. It is typical that people will overreact to the severity of a risk, even if the likelihood is low. I recall that there were people who bought insurance to protect themselves against the risk that debris from Skylab would fall on them–this is an example of faulty risk analysis. People are also more nervous about getting on a plane than they are about getting into a car, although the actual risks suggest that they should be more worried on the highway.</p>
<p>I can’t help asking, as it seems as though you both view ebola as inconsequential, why do you waste time reading and commenting on the thread? Not that I don’t want you here, but I’d prefer it if you wouldn’t continually reference hysteria and the flu, while acknowledging it is your privilege to keep doing so.</p>
<p>And I would prefer you stop trying to run us off or direct the conversation, bay. You may say we have a right to posts, but your constant questioning suggests you may feel otherwise. JMO</p>
<p>I know lots of people who won’t go in the ocean for fear of sharks, and don’t like to fly on airplanes for fear of crashing. To me, their fears are rational, because sharks live in the ocean and planes crash. </p>
<p>jym,
My questioning is sincere. I am not a scientist or medical doctor and have no educational background in those areas other than what I read. I do have some background in investigation and law, which is probably why I tend to question things as a way to learn about them. It is not intended to personally offend anyone.</p>
<p>Putting risks in context is not the same as saying that they are inconsequential. However, it is useful to put risks in context when one is discussing what measures are called for to deal with the risks.</p>
<p>But to limit the point just to Ebola, it’s my view that the long-term risk to American interests is much, much greater from the possibility of Ebola spread in Africa than it is from the much less likely risk of broad spread of the disease in the United States itself in the short term.</p>
<p>Funny story, I went to one of the walk in clinics at Walgreens last week, for a sore throat that has been lingering for several weeks. The doctor there also has a private practice. She said she had seen so many patients in the last week, who wanted to know if they had Ebola. I laughed so hard! There have been two commonalities for the ebola cases, you either were in west africa or had come in close contact with an Ebola patient. If those two things havent happened, why in the world would you think you had Ebola?</p>
<p>bay, if oftentimes feel like you ask questions, posters post responses, you tell them their responses are unconvincing and then you ask more questions. Sometimes it feels like reaching for the golden ring, or that you have an answer in mind and we are supposed to guess what it is. JMO.</p>
<p>When information posted is misleading or inaccurate, others will post opinions and responses. Not understanding whats wrong with that scenario.</p>