3 ms·
It's wise to prepare. Panicking and being prepared are two very different though overlapping behaviors. The part that 'bugs' (sorry) me the most lately is when
by aric 12y ago
It's wise to prepare. Panicking and being prepared are two very different though overlapping behaviors. The part that 'bugs' (sorry) me the most lately is when someone claims certainty about Ebola's chances of spreading. It's un-scientific to speak with literal, absolute certainty in most contexts. The early guest on The Colbert Report last Thursday, for instance, was resolute in saying the chance of Ebola spreading in the United States is "zero." Attempting to balance against a flip-side of sensationalism is an inadequate excuse. Sure, memories of The Hot Zone panic are alive and well. That came and went. Too many factors are at play though. Anyone who states proof of "zero" seems to only play a fool or propagandist (unless the topic is mathematics).
Ebola is probably high on a list of threats in the form of plausible terrorism. I'll be glad to be wrong. There's no shortage of it to procure. It presumably can't be detected easily. It can survive numerous transatlantic mailings for cultivation. It has about a week delay in symptoms. Short bursts of it in dense populations where people eat/interact would cause huge catastrophe in panic alone. That's one factor. Hopefully, an increased response will thwart its growth altogether and we can again see it as "zero."
- spindritf 12y agoFrankly, I'd like to see some panic, a few closed borders, cancelled flights... This seems like the time when panic can still help. BTW, I have a question for the people who are flagging the post, have you read it? It's pretty informative with past cases referenced, probability of transmission discussed based on real life observation, and so on. Good reporting overall.
- 001sky 12y agoWe're in an election year...pretty much explains everything
- maxerickson 12y agoHe tells Colbert that he has a zero percent chance of getting infected (it's as a response to a question). I take your point that he is being somewhat dismissive, but he doesn't actually say that there is zero chance of it spreading. The rest of the discussion is quite a lot more measured: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/03/dr-kent-goes-toe-to-toe-with-colbert-on-ebola.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/03/dr-kent-goe...
- aric 12y agoColbert: "What are the odds that I'm going to get Ebola?" Sepkowitz: "Zero. Next question." --- Thanks for posting the link. I wouldn't interpret what he said as only directed to Colbert. It's normal for an interviewer to place him/herself as the subject where it's understood that the implied subject is [any other person like me in this region/nation]. He's being far more than "somewhat dismissive." Even if he (oddly) were only specifically addressing Colbert by saying zero, that would be presumptuous. But that's my take.
- maxerickson 12y agoI admit the possibility of a conversational zero. I don't see much point in arguing over it. Given current information, I don't expect to even change my behavior over Ebola (but I'm not in Dallas and I already didn't have plans to travel to west Africa). That meets my hand wavy, just invented definition of a conversational zero. I posted the link because you said resolute in saying the chance of Ebola spreading in the United States is "zero.". I figured it was fair for people reading that to have an easy shot at interpreting the video themselves.
- aric 12y agoYou're quite right to post it. It confirmed how I remembered it. He was resolute in that sense. To say that an arbitrary person (the implied subject) has a chance of "zero" is to effectively say it's "zero" for a whole. Anyway. Keep it easy. Get in the habit of bowing instead of shaking hands and you'll have already made inroads. :)