6 ms·

I hope the author isn't being naive in assuming that this outbreak will pass.

mlwarren 12y ago
Not trying to be snarky, but what makes you think that this one will not? The mainstream media seems to downplay it, and a good number of people online seem to be alarmist about it. I'm not sure what to think with the data I have available.
- nmjohn 12y ago
  > I'm not sure what to think with the data I have available. That usually means find more data! The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - but for someone in the US who doesn't work in a hospital, at least for now, you have nothing to worry about. If it starts spreading in the US, that is the time to start worrying (as an individual who doesn't work in the industry) I'm not saying doctors and scientists in this field shouldn't be worrying or doing anything about it - what I'm saying is if you are not one of those people and you're not traveling internationally, there is no logical reason for you to even think about it for the time being - things may change for the worse, but until then it is unnecessary worry for something you have absolutely no control over.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  Alarmists are using a lot qualified language, and remember, every statement with a qualifier like "might" or "could" is exactly as true as its opposite. So when someone says, "Ebola might mutate to become a flesh-eating flying monkey" (which is true, by the way, given enough time) they may as well be saying, "Ebola might not mutate..." Both statements are equally true, but they have chosen to say only one. Why? What actionable information is contained in that choice? I can't see any. Nor (one hopes) does it express their desired outcome. Statements like "Ebola could mutate..." appear to me to be some kind of verbal reassurance behaviour. From this I infer that they are motivated primarily by fear, and one of the things fear does in social primates is--rather like a virus--spread itself. About which I will now proceed to speculate in an unfortunately data-free way. People are hierarchical animals, and when we're afraid we feel better if we're not as afraid as everyone else, so we tend to do and say things that will raise alarm in others. Being afraid lowers one's status in the group (and lower status often leads to more fear). There are two ways of dealing with this: reducing one's own fear, or increasing fear in others. Again, this is purely speculative: I've searched around a bit but can't find any research that bears directly on this question. It would be interesting to see it investigated, and relatively straightforward to do. So "Keep Calm and Carry On" is a good motto to have. It helps us focus on maintaining our place in the monkey hierarchy by controlling our own fear, rather inducing fear in others. And given how frequently fear runs out of control and leads to uncivil behaviour, this seems like a desirable result.
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    So far everyone from the CDC has been describing what we know about Ebola spreading in scientific knowledge, which is extremely conservative. Everyone I know in my profession thinks about it like an pen tester would, "how would it get into the usa if there's screening?" "how would someone get Ebola without physical contact if it's not airborne?" "if bad sanitation in Africa is the reason that it's spreading so quick there, are there any places in my country that have bad sanitation?" It seems like a better strategy to think about these things and be wrong than have it kill a bunch of people, but I know good and well that my actual understanding is superficial. But it's seemed to have good explanatory power for everything that's happened so far that has taken people by surprise.
nathannecro 12y ago
For whatever people say, Ebola is still a fairly difficult disease to spread. True, it has jumped borders (even oceans). However, patient's don't become infectious until they start showing visible symptoms. Not only that, the symptoms are pretty obvious. Compounding all of that, the vector by which the virus travels is one of the "slowest" routes available. What I think this outbreak does show however, is that we as a global peoples, need to really rethink how we treat and handle the spread of disease.
- enjo 12y ago
  Not only that, the symptoms are pretty obvious. Are they? The guy in Dallas originally reported with nothing more than abdominal pain. While he quickly deteriorated after that, was he already contagious at that point?
- steven2012 12y ago
  Why do people keep saying it's a fairly difficult disease to spread, when a health worker in the US contracted Ebola, even while wearing protective gear. If a health worker with protective gear can contract Ebola, imagine how easy it is for someone infected with Ebola to transmit the disease on an airplane or a restaurant. If they start vomiting around people, and splatter the people around them, will those people not get infected? Will the workers who try to clean up the mess not get exposed as well? The symptoms are obvious, but they are obvious symptoms for much more innocuous diseases as well, so it's easy to miss.
  - serge2k 12y ago
    The health worker was working directly with Ebola patients, something went wrong there and should be investigated but, this is still better than a dozen random people contracting it because it actually does spread easily. Health workers contracting it means that their needs to be either more protective measures or better training to help prevent mistakes.
  - nmjohn 12y ago
    > Why do people keep saying it's a fairly difficult disease to spread Because that is the truth. When someone is working in close quarters to the disease they are substantially more likely to catch it, no? You can wear all the protective gear you want, if protocol for taking off the gear is not followed 100% every single time, you open yourself up to infection. Combine that with fatigue, mistakes happen unfortunately often. If you are just out walking around coming into normal contact with people, it is incredibly difficult to spread.
davesque 12y ago
There has never been an epidemic that didn't pass, otherwise none of us would be here. The question, of course, is how many Ebola will take before it dies out. His article didn't mention any figures along those lines.
- steven2012 12y ago
  That is survivorship bias. Just because the human race hasn't yet been completely wiped out by a pandemic doesn't mean that there is no possibility that a pandemic can kill every single human on Earth. The Black Death killed half of all Europeans, which is pretty horrifying.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    And that was before people lived together in a hyperconnected global urban society that eats petroleum and breathes electricity. A virus doesn't have to kill half of the Europe or US to kicks the western civilization back to medieval.
    - serge2k 12y ago
      No, it was when people in cities lived in terrible conditions and had nothing even approaching the basic aspects of modern medical care.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        Urban density back then was nothing comparable to what we have today. But still, the major issue is that feeding all those people heavily depends on long supply chains and energy infrastructure. In the US, only 2% of people are directly employed in agriculture, and that agriculture is working on "petroleum in, food out" basis. The virus doesn't have to kill half of the population to cripple the west. It only has to disturb food production and energy infrastructure enough for modern civilization to collapse under its own weight.
        12y ago

Not trying to be snarky, but what makes you think that this one will not? The mainstream media seems to downplay it, and a good number of people online seem to be alarmist about it. I'm not sure what to think with the data I have available.

nmjohn 12y ago
> I'm not sure what to think with the data I have available. That usually means find more data! The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - but for someone in the US who doesn't work in a hospital, at least for now, you have nothing to worry about. If it starts spreading in the US, that is the time to start worrying (as an individual who doesn't work in the industry) I'm not saying doctors and scientists in this field shouldn't be worrying or doing anything about it - what I'm saying is if you are not one of those people and you're not traveling internationally, there is no logical reason for you to even think about it for the time being - things may change for the worse, but until then it is unnecessary worry for something you have absolutely no control over.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
Alarmists are using a lot qualified language, and remember, every statement with a qualifier like "might" or "could" is exactly as true as its opposite. So when someone says, "Ebola might mutate to become a flesh-eating flying monkey" (which is true, by the way, given enough time) they may as well be saying, "Ebola might not mutate..." Both statements are equally true, but they have chosen to say only one. Why? What actionable information is contained in that choice? I can't see any. Nor (one hopes) does it express their desired outcome. Statements like "Ebola could mutate..." appear to me to be some kind of verbal reassurance behaviour. From this I infer that they are motivated primarily by fear, and one of the things fear does in social primates is--rather like a virus--spread itself. About which I will now proceed to speculate in an unfortunately data-free way. People are hierarchical animals, and when we're afraid we feel better if we're not as afraid as everyone else, so we tend to do and say things that will raise alarm in others. Being afraid lowers one's status in the group (and lower status often leads to more fear). There are two ways of dealing with this: reducing one's own fear, or increasing fear in others. Again, this is purely speculative: I've searched around a bit but can't find any research that bears directly on this question. It would be interesting to see it investigated, and relatively straightforward to do. So "Keep Calm and Carry On" is a good motto to have. It helps us focus on maintaining our place in the monkey hierarchy by controlling our own fear, rather inducing fear in others. And given how frequently fear runs out of control and leads to uncivil behaviour, this seems like a desirable result.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  So far everyone from the CDC has been describing what we know about Ebola spreading in scientific knowledge, which is extremely conservative. Everyone I know in my profession thinks about it like an pen tester would, "how would it get into the usa if there's screening?" "how would someone get Ebola without physical contact if it's not airborne?" "if bad sanitation in Africa is the reason that it's spreading so quick there, are there any places in my country that have bad sanitation?" It seems like a better strategy to think about these things and be wrong than have it kill a bunch of people, but I know good and well that my actual understanding is superficial. But it's seemed to have good explanatory power for everything that's happened so far that has taken people by surprise.

nathannecro 12y ago

For whatever people say, Ebola is still a fairly difficult disease to spread. True, it has jumped borders (even oceans). However, patient's don't become infectious until they start showing visible symptoms. Not only that, the symptoms are pretty obvious. Compounding all of that, the vector by which the virus travels is one of the "slowest" routes available. What I think this outbreak does show however, is that we as a global peoples, need to really rethink how we treat and handle the spread of disease.

enjo 12y ago
Not only that, the symptoms are pretty obvious. Are they? The guy in Dallas originally reported with nothing more than abdominal pain. While he quickly deteriorated after that, was he already contagious at that point?
steven2012 12y ago
Why do people keep saying it's a fairly difficult disease to spread, when a health worker in the US contracted Ebola, even while wearing protective gear. If a health worker with protective gear can contract Ebola, imagine how easy it is for someone infected with Ebola to transmit the disease on an airplane or a restaurant. If they start vomiting around people, and splatter the people around them, will those people not get infected? Will the workers who try to clean up the mess not get exposed as well? The symptoms are obvious, but they are obvious symptoms for much more innocuous diseases as well, so it's easy to miss.
- serge2k 12y ago
  The health worker was working directly with Ebola patients, something went wrong there and should be investigated but, this is still better than a dozen random people contracting it because it actually does spread easily. Health workers contracting it means that their needs to be either more protective measures or better training to help prevent mistakes.
- nmjohn 12y ago
  > Why do people keep saying it's a fairly difficult disease to spread Because that is the truth. When someone is working in close quarters to the disease they are substantially more likely to catch it, no? You can wear all the protective gear you want, if protocol for taking off the gear is not followed 100% every single time, you open yourself up to infection. Combine that with fatigue, mistakes happen unfortunately often. If you are just out walking around coming into normal contact with people, it is incredibly difficult to spread.

davesque 12y ago

There has never been an epidemic that didn't pass, otherwise none of us would be here. The question, of course, is how many Ebola will take before it dies out. His article didn't mention any figures along those lines.

steven2012 12y ago
That is survivorship bias. Just because the human race hasn't yet been completely wiped out by a pandemic doesn't mean that there is no possibility that a pandemic can kill every single human on Earth. The Black Death killed half of all Europeans, which is pretty horrifying.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  And that was before people lived together in a hyperconnected global urban society that eats petroleum and breathes electricity. A virus doesn't have to kill half of the Europe or US to kicks the western civilization back to medieval.
  - serge2k 12y ago
    No, it was when people in cities lived in terrible conditions and had nothing even approaching the basic aspects of modern medical care.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Urban density back then was nothing comparable to what we have today. But still, the major issue is that feeding all those people heavily depends on long supply chains and energy infrastructure. In the US, only 2% of people are directly employed in agriculture, and that agriculture is working on "petroleum in, food out" basis. The virus doesn't have to kill half of the population to cripple the west. It only has to disturb food production and energy infrastructure enough for modern civilization to collapse under its own weight.
      - 12y ago