Ebolapalooza
Ebola is in the news these days.
This is what is known as a satirical understatement, which I use mainly because these days, it seems, Ebola is the news -- all the news, pretty much all the time. It has not only been the lead story on the nightly news for the past three weeks or so, the story has grown to overwhelming proportions on the airwaves. And that's not even counting what's going on over on cable news, where they have a full 24 hours to fill each day rather than just 30 minutes each night. Fear of the unknown, of course, sells a lot of newspapers, attracts a lot of viewers, and draws a lot of eyeballs to websites. This has always been the case, and it obviously hasn't changed (although the metaphors continue to evolve -- once, just "sells a lot of newspapers" would have been enough).
For one television news personality, at least, things are getting so out of proportion that he had to issue a call to reason. Shepard Smith of Fox News (of all places), recently begged his viewers to ignore what all the other "journalists" have been guilty of, lately:
You should have no concerns about Ebola at all. None. I promise. Do not listen to the hysterical voices on the radio and the television or read the fear-provoking words online. The people who say and write hysterical things are being very irresponsible.
We do not have an outbreak of Ebola in the United States. Nowhere. We do have two healthcare workers who contracted the disease from a dying man. They are isolated. There is no information to suggest that the virus has spread to anyone in the general population in America. Not one person in the general population in the United States.
. . .
Someday there may be a real panic. Someday, something may start spreading that they can't control. And then, do you know what we're going to have to do? We're going to have to relax and listen to leaders. We're not going to panic when we're supposed to and we're certainly not going to panic now. We have to stop it.
Smith, however, is a lone exception (there are others, but they are precious few right now). The media, as a whole, are delighted to ratchet up the panic levels without any self-reflection that their own obsession might be counterproductive in any way, shape, or form. The height of this irresponsibility comes from NBC, without question. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, head medical reporter for the network, just returned from West Africa, where she and her crew had reported on the disease in the affected countries. Because they had been exposed to such conditions (a cameraman in her crew has been diagnosed with Ebola), the rest of the crew was put under "voluntary quarantine." Snyderman then decided that she was perfectly healthy and went out with other members of her crew to a public restaurant -- voluntarily breaking quarantine. TMZ (my apologies for that source, but when mainstream media refuses to follow up a story, somebody usually steps into the void) is now reporting that this little jaunt has already caused the sister of one of the restaurant workers to be fired from her job as a maid. Snyderman issued a very third-person "apology" ("members of our group violated those guidelines"), but she apparently still has a job at NBC.
This sends a terrible message to the public: "Quarantines are for the little people, we of course are above all of that." You can read that "we" as either the "royal 'we'," or perhaps "we who are doctors and therefore don't have to follow medical advice if we don't feel like it." Either way, the message stinks.
Quarantining someone is serious business. It has to be, because it is the most effective weapon against an outbreak of disease. Find "patient zero," and then find all of his contacts while he was even remotely infectious. Quarantine them all. If any of them develop the disease, quarantine all of their contacts, too. Continue until the disease dies out among the quarantined population. If the disease spreads faster than your ability to quarantine, then you lose the race and an epidemic or pandemic is the result. Quarantine is a very old concept -- the original Italian word is "forty," as in how many days questionable or infected people were essentially locked away from society during the bubonic plague. But it only works if there are no exceptions whatsoever. Dr. Snyderman should be aware of these basic facts. So should NBC's news organization. She should be allowed to continue her health insurance until the quarantine period is up, and then she should be summarily and very publicly fired for putting the public at risk -- the very antithesis of what her job description is supposed to be ("soberly inform the public on matters medical").
The facts of the Ebola cases that have been widely reported: a man who had just returned from West Africa went into a hospital in Texas. He was given some pills and told to go home. The hospital obviously didn't do their job as front-line responders to a deadly disease. Even after he returned to the hospital, further mistakes were made, and two nurses have now been diagnosed with Ebola (after the original patient died). One of these flew on a commercial flight with a slight fever before being quarantined.
However, even with the unbelievably obsessive coverage of Ebola on television (one day the "breaking news" was exactly how high a patient's fever was, which shows you the lengths the media has been reaching in order to "keep the story fresh.") -- there are a few angles to the story which have been almost completely ignored. The first is the guy in Texas, who reportedly had no health insurance. Might this have been a factor as to why he was simply handed antibiotics and turned away during his first hospital visit? We do not really know the answer to that question, because nobody in the media is asking it. Would the hospital have screwed up equally as badly with a patient with premium health insurance? We simply don't know, because the issue hasn't been discussed much (and not at all on primetime broadcast news, at least that I've seen).
Similarly, the television news media is completely ignoring the fact that America has no confirmed Surgeon General right now. The confirmation is in the midst of a political fight. President Obama nominated a doctor for the position last November, but the nominee's view that guns in the house can be considered a medical problem made him toxic to the National Rifle Association (and, by extension, Republicans). But while Republicans have been vocal about their opposition, Democrats bear an equal share of the blame for why he has not been confirmed. Harry Reid, you'll remember, dropped the "nuclear option" a while back, and since that point any presidential nominee cannot be filibustered -- it requires only a majority vote in the Senate for confirmation of anyone below the Supreme Court. Reid has not pushed the nominee to the floor because he thought it would be tough politically for Democrats during an election year. So there's more than enough blame to go around, on this one. But a different kind of blame belongs solely to the news media, who refuse to even mention that we lack a Surgeon General during a disease outbreak. They'll breathlessly report that John McCain is calling for Obama to appoint an "Ebola czar," without the slightest mention that we already have a job like that, but it is unfilled right now due to politics.
The third unreported (or "seriously under-reported," at the very least) Ebola story is really the biggest sin of journalistic omission from the talking heads on television -- a breaking-news interview which appeared last week in the Huffington Post. In it, the head of the National Institutes of Health baldly stated:
N.I.H. has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001. It's not like we suddenly woke up and thought, "Oh my gosh, we should have something ready here." Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would've gone through clinical trials and would have been ready....We would have been a year or two ahead of where we are, which would have made all the difference.
That's a pretty stunning admission about a subject the television media is obsessing over, and yet it sank into the media swamp without even raising a ripple of interest in the surface of the muck. Follow the link to that story, and you'll see a graph which plainly shows the severe budget cuts over the past decade. Once again, though, this isn't as politically one-sided as you might think, because while Republicans pushed hard for austerity measures and budget-cutting and sequesters (their own budgets slashed N.I.H.'s budget as well as other federal public health budgets), President Obama also took some pretty large chops with a meat axe towards public health in his own budgets.
Republicans, of course, are looking for political advantage in the public's fear. That's what they do. It's an election season, after all. You can hardly fault them for doing what comes natural, really. But it is more than passing strange that the media isn't even interested in the "finger-pointing" or "blame game" on the subject, since they usually dish that sort of thing out with a very large spoon. At the end of the day, though, Republican politicians aren't the ones who are supposed to be informing the public what the actual facts are, and also who should be interested in quelling public panic before it has a chance to grow. That job is supposed to fall to "journalists" (I simply have to use "scare quotes" around that, because there are precious few actual journalists left on television). They are not only failing miserably at this job, they are instead stoking public fears, to boost ratings. Don't believe me? Watch some news tonight -- I guarantee there'll be at least one clear example of fear-mongering, no matter what channel you choose to watch.
Ebola is a scary disease. It is scarier than some, but not as scary as others. The scariest aspect is the mortality rate, of course. Ebola kills. In West Africa, the mortality rate seems to be about 50-60 percent, from the published figures. But left untreated Ebola's mortality rate can be as high as 90 percent -- which is insanely high. We don't have enough data (not enough cases have happened) to know what the mortality rate will be in America -- where treatments and quarantines are possible and available. Once again: not enough people have caught Ebola to even begin to estimate the mortality rate when patients have access to American medicine. One guy has died. Two more remain alive, for the time being, and several who caught Ebola in Africa and were returned to America survived. That is not a big enough statistical universe to draw any sort of conclusion.
Still, the death rate is frightening. The influenza pandemic of 1918, in the midst of World War I, had a mortality rate of only 10-20 percent, but it killed an estimated 3-6 percent of the entire population of the world (estimates range as high as 100 million dead). The Black Death of the 1300s (the various bubonic plague outbreaks) had an estimated mortality rate of around two-thirds when left untreated (which covers everybody back in the 14th century, as medical practices were laughably crude back then and often counterproductive), and fully one-third of the population of Europe died. Those are sobering figures.
But the good news is that Ebola does not have the worst transmission vector. It is not an airborne disease. You could stand in an elevator with an infectious patient and as long as you didn't touch them (or anything they touched), you would not contract the disease. Ebola is transmitted the same way AIDS is -- through bodily fluids. This is an inefficient way for a virus to spread, when all possible vectors are considered. This is also the reason that the public shouldn't give in to panic. As Shepard Smith said, sooner or later there is going to be a super-bug which is transmitted through the air -- merely breathing the same air as a patient could be infectious. Ebola, however, is not.
I have no idea how long the panic on the airwaves is going to last. Sooner or later, the American public gets bored of any story, so sooner or later the blowdried news anchors are going to inevitably turn to some other story, or at the very least introduce a smidgeon of perspective to their reporting (by not leading the news each night when there are no new real developments, for instance). Until that point, the Ebolapalooza festival rages on, night after night.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
If only the Ebola had beheaded somebody on video a couple of months ago, it would have been taken seriously sooner. Instead, the media and politicians found it easy to ignore as long it was just those blah people dying "over there".
Apparently, the depth and breadth of sarcasm and cynicism know no bounds in the comments section, these days.
It is becoming quite disconcerting ...
Oh dear. Drudge recommends self-quarantine.
Similarly, the television news media is completely ignoring the fact that America has no confirmed Surgeon General right now
I know what you're saying and it IS a good point..
But if this were to be brought forward, do you know what the response would be??
"Oh my gods!!! DEMS/REPUBS or LEFT/RIGHT Wing media are politicizing this tragedy!!!"
That's why no one wants to mention it. Because, politically, it will do more harm than good..
But the good news is that Ebola does not have the worst transmission vector. It is not an airborne disease.
Yet....
That's the danger of diseases such as these. They can (and often do) mutate into something a LOT more dangerous..
I have no idea how long the panic on the airwaves is going to last. Sooner or later, the American public gets bored of any story, so sooner or later the blowdried news anchors are going to inevitably turn to some other story, or at the very least introduce a smidgeon of perspective to their reporting (by not leading the news each night when there are no new real developments, for instance).
Unless, the current strain goes airbone...
If/When that happens, then the current fear-laced media will look like a Sunday Sermon by comparison...
Liz,
Apparently, the depth and breadth of sarcasm and cynicism know no bounds in the comments section, these days.
:D
JFC,
Oh dear. Drudge recommends self-quarantine.
I highly doubt that...
LINKS, man!! LINKS!!!
Michale
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/six-reasons-panic_816387.html#
The Ebola issue is so fraught with mis-information and contradictory information that it makes sense that a little panic might be a good thing..
A perfect example is Obama saying that you can't get Ebola sitting next to someone on the bus, but the CDC says you shouldn't ride the bus because you might GIVE someone Ebola..
Get that??? You can't GET Ebola riding on the bus, but you can GIVE Ebola riding on the bus...
Yea, what's not to panic.... :^/
Michale
Michale,
That's the danger of diseases such as these. They can (and often do) mutate into something a LOT more dangerous..
The fact is that, as far as humans are concerned, a virus has never mutated into a form that makes it an airborne disease. NEVER. The point being that while this may be possible it is highly unlikely.
Just imagine how pleasant it would be if Republicans followed Drudge's advice and locked themselves in their houses and doomsday bunkers for the duration of the epidemic. The rest of us wouldn't have to deal with the old geezers on the highway and they wouldn't get a disease that they're not going to get anyway! Win-win. In addition, most of them* would be unable to get out and vote during their self-quarantine. That's the icing on Drudge's fruitcake.
* Early voters and voters-by-mail could still vote and play Ebola Armageddon in the basement. Republicans should think about that.
Liz,
The fact is that, as far as humans are concerned, a virus has never mutated into a form that makes it an airborne disease. NEVER. The point being that while this may be possible it is highly unlikely.
It's funny.. Obama said the EXACT same thing about Ebola coming to the US.. He said it was "highly unlikely"...
The fact that we know so little about the transmission vectors of this current strain does not give me confidence in anything that comes from government sources..
JFC,
Just imagine how pleasant it would be if Republicans followed Drudge's advice and locked themselves in their houses and doomsday bunkers for the duration of the epidemic. The rest of us wouldn't have to deal with the old geezers on the highway and they wouldn't get a disease that they're not going to get anyway! Win-win. In addition, most of them* would be unable to get out and vote during their self-quarantine. That's the icing on Drudge's fruitcake.
You still haven't proven that Drudge said that. So anything you extrapolate from bullshit is still bullshit..
I think it's much more likely that Obama will suspend elections so as to minimize public gatherings..
There really won't be any reason to do so unless Ebola goes airborne..
But "reason" has never been a word associated with the Obama Administration, so.......
Michale
http://online.wsj.com/articles/who-do-they-think-we-are-1413502475
That pretty much describes the government response to Ebola to a tee...
Michale
The critical factor in hospital care of potential Ebola patients in the United States appears to be managing the medical waste stream. Ebola patients produce a huge amount of medical waste, and most US hospitals simply aren't prepared to deal with it. Ebola isn't that hard to sterilize, sheer volume is the challenge. Texas couldn't cope, most hospitals probably couldn't.
If a victim contaminates a house, hotel or vehicle, the lack of adequate advance preparation seems even worse.
Medical professionals are vital, but at this stage, sanitation engineers maybe more so. Off the shelf equipment, available and affordable. Don't over think it..."The second best solution tomorrow." I would look to the military first. Mobility, experience, and the ability to ramp up operations quickly.
I forgot to mention that "Ebolapalooza" is sheer genius.
If there was a coffee mug emblazoned with it, I would buy it.
So much for American exceptionalism. If Senegal and Nigeria can beat back ebola with basically WHO/CDC recommendations what does that say about us and the current hysteria?
It's funny that the close the borders, quarantine everyone hysteria seems to be coming mostly from the right. Those overly vocal and highly selective protectors of Christianity should really ask themselves what would Jesus do. The bible mentions tests of faith, well here is your test, baby. And it's a doozy!
On the other hand, the hysteria could have some positive effects. If it becomes seriously looked down on to come to work or school with any showing cold and flu symptoms we might just have the lightest cold and flu season in history...
Side note: Drudge tweeted "self-quarantine". Whether it was for ebola or twitter, who knows?
If Senegal and Nigeria can beat back ebola with basically WHO/CDC recommendations what does that say about us and the current hysteria?
It says we're more concerned about political correctness than American lives..
Senegal & Nigeria "beat back" Ebola because they closed their borders..
The Obama Administration shut down flights to Israel when a small mortar landed within 10 miles of Ben Gurion...
But the largest Ebola outbreak in the history of the world??
"Ya'all come on over!!!"
The only good thing about this October Crisis is that Democrats and Obama get the blame.. :D
Much like Republicans and Bush got the blame for Katrina...
Michale
Senegal & Nigeria "beat back" Ebola because they closed their borders..
Ah, no. They beat back ebola by guaranteeing those effected and tracing all contacts. Both those countries borders are so porous, closing them is fairly meaningless and some have reopened once screening measures were ready. Senegal's "patient zero" came through closed borders by lying about his travel and point of origin, basically a text book example of why WHO/CDC are against travel bans...
Ah, no. They beat back ebola by guaranteeing those effected and tracing all contacts. Both those countries borders are so porous, closing them is fairly meaningless and some have reopened once screening measures were ready.
Ah, no..
AFRICA STEMS EBOLA VIA BORDER CLOSINGS, LUCK
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38
Granted, aggressive tracking did help, but its' undeniable that closed borders prevented new cases from coming in..
You can have all the aggressive tracking possible, but if you have open borders introducing new cases, tracking won't mean diddley squat...
Michale
Michale,
It's funny.. Obama said the EXACT same thing about Ebola coming to the US.. He said it was "highly unlikely"...
I'm not sure you got your quote in context there. I think what Obama said was that an Ebola outbreak in the US would be highly unlikely.
And, that remains a valid assessment.
Michale,
You can have all the aggressive tracking possible, but if you have open borders introducing new cases, tracking won't mean diddley squat...
Well, it matters what borders you are talking about. Tightening up the porous borders among the West African countries involved in this outbreak makes good sense.
Implying that the so-called (by some, ahem) porous US borders should be closed is non-serious and a great example of transference and conflation of the Ebola crisis with the immigration problem.
This "border" issue confusion on the part of one Republican congresswoman the other day at the Ebola hearing would have provided a rather amusing moment if it didn't demonstrate her complete lack of understanding of what will be effective in stopping the spread of Ebola and what will not.
I'm not sure you got your quote in context there. I think what Obama said was that an Ebola outbreak in the US would be highly unlikely.I'm not sure you got your quote in context there.
The quote is perfectly in context.
And we DO have an outbreak of Ebola here in the US. Whether it's a LARGE outbreak or not remains to be seen..
Well, it matters what borders you are talking about. Tightening up the porous borders among the West African countries involved in this outbreak makes good sense.
How can it "make good sense" there, but not here??
Closing the borders here will all but insure that we don't have the kind of outbreak they have over there..
PLUS, you have to consider the fact that we ALSO have the Enterovirus coming across the border, straining needed medical facilities and personnel...
Closing the border ANYWHERE there is an outbreak makes good sense..
The Obama Administration allowed Ben Gurion to be shut down just because a mortar landed somewhere nearby...
What we have coming across the border and what can POTENTIALLY come across the border??
A million times more the threat...
Michale
Lemme ask ya something..
What's to stop a few thousand terrorists from taking the grand tour thru West Africa, then taking a hop, skip and a jump over to Mexico. From there it's ridiculously easy to infiltrate the Southern Border and then ride public conveyances until the keel over....
What's to stop that now???
Answer: Absolutely nothing...
Michale
Michale,
Words matter. There is NOT an Ebola OUTBREAK in the US.
Michale,
How can it "make good sense" there, but not here??
Think about that for a moment ...
Michale,
Closing the border ANYWHERE there is an outbreak makes good sense..
What you meant to say, if I'm following what you're saying, is that closing the border EVERYWHERE makes good sense!
And, that's the kind of non-serious premise that precludes further discussion.
What's to stop a few thousand terrorists from taking the grand tour thru West Africa, then taking a hop, skip and a jump over to Mexico. From there it's ridiculously easy to infiltrate the Southern Border and then ride public conveyances until the keel over....What's to stop that now???
Answer: Absolutely nothing...
I'm sorry. My previous comment needs revision.
What you're really saying, Michale - and, I am definitely following what you're saying, God help me - is that closing the borders EVERYWHERE, ALL OF THE TIME, makes good sense!!
That kind of non-serious thinking will do nothing to solve this problem or any other potential problem.
Michale,
I agree with Obama and believe that an Ebola outbreak in the US is highly unlikely.
But, should an Ebola outbreak ever materialize within the US, then y'all should be very, very afraid. Check that. All of us who inhabit this planet should be very, very afraid. Because, if an outbreak occurs - ANY LEVEL OF OUTBREAK - then I'm afraid that the political dysfunction that permeates through your country will not allow for an effective response.
Oddly, Republicans have not been screaming for Middle Eastern flights to be banned. The hajj ended just last week.
http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/mers/
Liz,
We already have an outbreak as it is defined..
I agree that a large outbreak such as the West African outbreak is highly unlikely.
As to the border issue, no one is advocating closed borders everywhere..
Just every where that there is a health threat..
We have already had the Enterovoris D-68 come across our southern border that has resulted in the deaths of a dozen children.
How many more must die before the Left realizes that open borders is a really REALLY bad idea??
Michale
Michale,
You have one dead patient and two infected nurses who attended to him.
That is not an outbreak. Find another word.
Liz- Nanobreak?
That is not an outbreak. Find another word.
Semanticiz all you want. But, by any relevant definition, it is an outbreak...
Enterovirus D-68 has a handful of victims that have died. Yet, it's an outbreak...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that upwards of 500 people here in the US are under quarantine for exposure to symptomatic Ebola carriers...
No matter how politically correct you wish to be, we have an outbreak of Ebola here in the US..
Michale
We have already had the Enterovoris D-68 come across our southern border that has resulted in the deaths of a dozen children.
That is much more conspiracy theory than scientific fact...
That is much more conspiracy theory than scientific fact...
Let's examine the facts...
FACT #1
In Central America, Enterovirus D-68 is rampant amongst children.
FACT #2
Prior to this year, in the United States, there were 26 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the past decade...
Fact #3
Since Obama and the Democrats created an open border, there has been 700 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the United States...
Now, it HAS been a long LONG time since I have been in school, but I am still pretty sure that 1+1+1 still equals 3... :D
Seriously, while I won't say it's an absolute FACT that Obama's open borders caused the Enterovirus D-68 outbreak in the US (Joshua, YoYo and I just went thru this type of assumptions in a previous commentary :D ) I am hard pressed to find another explanation for the huge outbreak...
You???
Michale
FACT #1
In Central America, Enterovirus D-68 is rampant amongst children.
FACT #2
Prior to this year, in the United States, there were 26 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the past decade...
Fact #3
Since Obama and the Democrats created an open border, there has been 700 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the United States...
Let me put it this way...
Given these facts, it's "highly likely" that Obama's open border program caused the Enterovirus D-68 outbreak in the United States...
Michale
Let's examine the facts...
Then why are you commenting :D
FACT #1
In Central America, Enterovirus D-68 is rampant amongst children.
Actually it's not. If you follow any of the conspiracy theory stories it will lead you to a study that will be quoted says that 3% of all tested had Enterovirus including 68. If you look at the actual data, turns out it's .3% tested specifically had Enterovirus D-68. The rest of the 2.5% (they rounded up) had some other version.
FACT #2
Prior to this year, in the United States, there were 26 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the past decade...
This is actually true. How unusual for you :D
Fact #3
Since Obama and the Democrats created an open border, there has been 700 cases of Enterovirus D-68 in the United States...
And yet the locations of outbreaks do not correlate at all to the distribution of families hosting the kids coming up from central America. Also the CDC have not found any of the kids they tested to have Enterovirus D-68.
The rate of virus in latin Americans is low enough that it could have just as easily started locally as the US is a major place for the virus. It could also have come from Asia or Europe where is it also endemic.
Correlation is not causation and in this case the correlation is pretty paltry...
Let me put it this way...
Let me put it another way: trust the premier scientific organization in the study of diseases or someone who has been known to never miss a anti-Obama/left conspiracy bandwagon?
Bashi,
Liz- Nanobreak?
I'm thinking I'd like to give Michale one of those.
I'm kidding, Michale. :)
Actually it's not. If you follow any of the conspiracy theory stories it will lead you to a study that will be quoted says that 3% of all tested had Enterovirus including 68. If you look at the actual data, turns out it's .3% tested specifically had Enterovirus D-68. The rest of the 2.5% (they rounded up) had some other version.
You misunderstood.. On purpose?? :D
In Central America, Enterovirus D-68 is rampant amongst children.
As far as testing the ones that came across the border, the medical tests were miniscule and many thousands were not even tested. This is established as fact by BP on the scene..
This is actually true. How unusual for you :D
Not so, but I'll let you have yer little dig. :D
And yet the locations of outbreaks do not correlate at all to the distribution of families hosting the kids coming up from central America.
Actually it does...
Also the CDC have not found any of the kids they tested to have Enterovirus D-68.
Yea, and we can trust EVERYTHING the CDC doesn't say, right?? :D
The rate of virus in latin Americans is low enough that it could have just as easily started locally as the US is a major place for the virus. It could also have come from Asia or Europe where is it also endemic.
Which doesn't explain the sudden explosion of D-68 that coincides exactly with the open border policy..
You may be right, Bashi..
But you don't adequately explain the coincident timing..
You basically rely on trust that the government is telling you and not telling you the facts...
Let me put it another way: trust the premier scientific organization in the study of diseases or someone who has been known to never miss a anti-Obama/left conspiracy bandwagon?
Which scientific organization would that be?? The political agency that said you can't get Ebola from sitting on a bus, but you can GIVE Ebola sitting on a bus???
The political agency that scapegoats victims to cover up their own incompetence??
That "scientific" agency???
Michale
The rate of virus in latin Americans is low enough that it could have just as easily started locally as the US is a major place for the virus.
In Latin America as in other regions, HRVs and HEVs account for a substantial proportion of respiratory viruses identified in young people with ILI, a finding that provides additional support for the development of pharmaceuticals and vaccines targeting these pathogens.
http://www.virologyj.com/content/10/1/305
Now I am sure you can nitpick your way thru the data and cherry pick some tidbits that support your claim...
Have a ball.. :D
Michale
You misunderstood.. On purpose?? :D
In Central America, Enterovirus D-68 is rampant amongst children.
As far as testing the ones that came across the border, the medical tests were miniscule and many thousands were not even tested. This is established as fact by BP on the scene..
Ah, no. I read the paper to which you linked to below.
Not so, but I'll let you have yer little dig. :D
Not a dig but accurate. And it gets better...
Actually it does...
Really? Then why does Texas and Florida not have huge outbreaks as they are taking in the most kids and Montana has an outbreak after taking one kid? Look at the states with outbreaks and the numbers of kids sent to each state and there is no correlation.
Yea, and we can trust EVERYTHING the CDC doesn't say, right?? :D
...
You basically rely on trust that the government is telling you and not telling you the facts...
The hallmark of a conspiracy theory...
Now I am sure you can nitpick your way thru the data and cherry pick some tidbits that support your claim...
No nitpicking required. Just reading comprehension. You posted it, why don't you actually read your link for once.
For if you did, you would know by now that they tested 3375 kids between 1 month and 25 years old with a median age of 3 that showed flu like symptoms (ILI = influenza like illness). Of those 3375, 10 tested positive for Enterovirus D-68, about .3%. Not exactly the standard definition of "rampant".
"Rampant" and "substantial proportion".. Close enough..
Like I said.. You believe what you want..
It's just uncanny that your "facts" are completely in line with your ideology..
Funny how that is, iddn't it.. :D
I bet you believe Obama never lied about TrainWreckCare, either, right?? :D
Michale
I mean, look at the facts..
Before this year, there were 26 cases of D-68 in 10 years... That is 2.6 CASES PER YEAR...
NOW, in ONE YEAR, there are over 700 cases, a 350% increase, immediately in the aftermath of Obama's open border policy..
And YOU claim, with NO FACTS to support it, that it's NOT related??
That it's just a huge coinky-dink??
I guess you must live in a state that has legalized pot.. :D
Michale
And, of course, if we had a GOP Administration, ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing that I am saying..
The only difference is, we would all be in agreement..
Funny, eh?? :D
Michale
"Rampant" and "substantial proportion".. Close enough..
.3% of tested sick kids with a certain virus is neither "rampant" nor "substantial proportion". Unless of course you have agenda...
It's just uncanny that your "facts" are completely in line with your ideology..
No, my facts come from a scientific paper that YOU POSTED
I bet you believe Obama never lied about TrainWreckCare, either, right?? :D
Yawn. Changing the subject?
And YOU claim, with NO FACTS to support it, that it's NOT related??
Nope, doubling down on ignorance (or are you going to read the paper you posted?). I guess it had to one or the other. In this case both...
Lets face the real facts. You jumped on the latest anti-left bandwagon. Never checked the facts. Posted the facts without reading them, again. Got caught, again. Then after all this high talk about how you admit when you are wrong, refuse to do so, again. And instead try to weasel out of it, again.
I guess you must live in a state that has legalized pot.. :D
Is it an ad hominem if you wish it were true? :D
M-41
Correlation does not demonstrate causality.
M-42
Above applies to all administrations. :D
.3% of tested sick kids with a certain virus is neither "rampant" nor "substantial proportion". Unless of course you have agenda...
According to the website that you quote re: the .3% from, it IS "substantial proportion"..
It's like I said. You want to cherry pick the stuff that supports your agenda and ignore the stuff that doesn't...
Lets face the real facts. You jumped on the latest anti-left bandwagon. Never checked the facts. Posted the facts without reading them, again. Got caught, again. Then after all this high talk about how you admit when you are wrong, refuse to do so, again. And instead try to weasel out of it, again.
Explain the coincidence.
You can't because no rational explanation exists..
TS,
Correlation does not demonstrate causality.
If it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and walks like a duck.... It's a pretty safe bet that it's a duck..
Unless you have an alternate explanation that covers the facts...
No?? Didna think so.. :D
Above applies to all administrations. :D
Bullshit.. I saw the hysterics when Abu Ghraib took place.. I saw the histrionics during the domestic surveillance..
You can't tell me that, if the open border crap coupled with the D-68 outbreak happened under a GOP administration, there wouldn't be hysterics and histrionics from the Left to bring the house down..
The bedlam would be breathtaking...
Michale
According to the website that you quote re: the .3% from, it IS "substantial proportion"..
No. The "substantial proportion" is all the variations of HRVs and HEVs in tested subjects combined and accounted for about 19%. 68 was the least found in HEV's and there was more HRVs found than HEVs. See figure 3 for the breakdown of different HEVs found and figure 2 for the total percentage of HRVs and HEVs found.
It's like I said. You want to cherry pick the stuff that supports your agenda and ignore the stuff that doesn't...
Again, no, just good reading comprehension.
Explain the coincidence.
You can't because no rational explanation exists..
.....
Unless you have an alternate explanation that covers the facts...
Yes. There has been a worldwide upswing of Enterovirus D-68 since 2009. Mostly in the North America, Europe and Asia...
Well, some good news.. No new Ebola cases..
Looks like the US outbreak is going to be very very small...
No end of the world today... :)
Michale
Yes. There has been a worldwide upswing of Enterovirus D-68 since 2009. Mostly in the North America, Europe and Asia...
And it waited til 2014 to hit the US???
To increase the cases in the US by 350%??
And there was a massive influx of "refugees" from Europe & Asia??
What you post MAY be facts..
But since they aren't really relevant I didn't bother to confirm...
Fact 1 D-68 is common in Central American children.
Fact 2 In the immediate aftermath of Obama's Open Borders policy, cases of D-68 increased by 350% in the US.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that there MAY BE some connection...
Michale
I am not saying you are wrong, Bashi..
But you have to admit that I am possibly right.. Even, given the huge coincidence, probably right...
Michale
And it waited til 2014 to hit the US???
You mean other than the several clusters of outbreaks in the USA as mentioned by the link above?
Fact 1 D-68 is common in Central American children.
Evidence does not support "common". Exists in Central America yes, but at .3% of tested sick people, I don't think you can say it's common at all.
Fact 2 In the immediate aftermath of Obama's Open Borders policy, cases of D-68 increased by 350% in the US.
And yet it started in the mid-west but the unaccompanied minors came in through the southern border. How do explain that there were no initial outbreaks in border states where the kids were both entering the country and had the most host families taking them in?
It's possible the outbreak came from central America but the evidence does not come close to supporting "probably". Experts agree...
And yet it started in the mid-west but the unaccompanied minors came in through the southern border. How do explain that there were no initial outbreaks in border states where the kids were both entering the country and had the most host families taking them in?
Simple. The minors came thru the border in the south but they were relocated and lived in the areas that the D-68 is most prevelant..
It's possible the outbreak came from central America but the evidence does not come close to supporting "probably". Experts agree...
Democrats agree..
Big difference. :D
But, it's moot. We agree that it's possible.. That's all I wanted to hear...
Michale
Democrats agree..
Yawn. Scientists agree. If it had happened under a republican administration and the CDC said it was likely home grown, that's what I would believe. And I dare you to find anything I have written that would indicate otherwise.
But, it's moot. We agree that it's possible.. That's all I wanted to hear...
Double yawn. Are you going propose to screen air passengers from the Netherlands, Japan, Thailand or the Philippians? Because it's just as possible it came from those countries or was home grown, and much more likely. Or are you just trying to desperately find reason to hang on to an unlikely conspiracy theory to further your political agenda?
Yawn. Scientists agree. If it had happened under a republican administration and the CDC said it was likely home grown, that's what I would believe. And I dare you to find anything I have written that would indicate otherwise.
YOU?? Yea, I would concede that...
But you are not representative of the Left... If only... :D
Double yawn. Are you going propose to screen air passengers from the Netherlands, Japan, Thailand or the Philippians? Because it's just as possible it came from those countries or was home grown, and much more likely.
If people from Netherlands, Japan, Thailand or Philippines started illegally encroaching upon our borders by the tens of thousands??
Damn skippy!! :D
Michale
TheStig [11] -
{blushes} Why, thankew. Wondered if anyone would approve of that... had second thoughts as to the trivializing nature of it, but forged ahead with it anyway in the end, so I'm glad to see someone liked it!
As for the coffee mugs, dang, I should have provided some with this column...
:-)
BashiBazouk [12] -
Your first paragraph is addressed in today's [10/21] column. I think you'll enjoy it.
As for WWJD, how about "What would Father Damien do?" Ever been to Hawai'i?
M[13], BB[14] -
See today's column, especially the link to the Reuters article. They didn't let the guy out. That's what saved Nigeria. Even though he tried to force his way out and abuse his diplomatic clout. The doctor refused, and tied him down. She later died. She is the true hero of Nigeria's efforts.
Still missing from the debate in America: did Patient Zero in Dallas have health insurance? If he had gold-plated health insurance, would he have been turned away so cavalierly from the hospital the first time he showed up?
These are important questions which have received almost zero discussion in the media. Instead, we get Ebolapalooza.
OK, I gotta go watch Craig Ferguson now... I'll try to answer the rest of these tomorrow, promise...
-CW
M-45
There are a lot of Enterovirus strains, different strains break out in different years, much like different strains of flu virus do. Nobody really knows why.
A map of Enterero D-68.
http://www.cdc.gov/non-polio-enterovirus/outbreaks/EV-D68-activity.html
California is hot, AZ, NM and Tx are not. All border Mexico, prime entry point for those from Central America. How does your cross boarder hypothesis explain this. Why is Montana hot? Why Washington Maine and New Hampshire? Canadians?
Of 44 states reporting, 32 show low or declining EV-D68 activity, 12 show an increase. Are the 12 states getting proportionately more immigrants than the other 32?