4 ms·

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

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.

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.