[quote=Zeitgeist]zk,
I pray you are right and I am wrong. This is something I do not want to be right about. I hope the government is handling infection in a competent fashion and that the public is protected from this and other diseases that are being brought in from other countries as well as our own homegrown seasonal varieties. I remain hopefully skeptical based on how this first case was mishandled. Perhaps the various agencies involved will learn from their errors. [/quote]
Totally agree.
[quote=Zeitgeist]
This is why I am skeptical, since you like to know these things: “U.S. officials initially described the number of people potentially exposed as a handful, and on Wednesday said it was up to 18. But on Thursday, the Texas health department said there were about 100 potential contacts. However, Dallas County officials said more than 80 had direct or indirect contact with the patient. ‘We are working from a list of about 100 potential or possible contacts,’ Texas health department spokeswoman Carrie Williams said.” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/02/us-health-ebola-usa-exposure-idUSKCN0HR18720141002
The way I understand math, 100 is more than a handful and that is what I consider as lack of transparancy.[/quote]
Interesting points. It could be, as you say, lack of transparency. It could also be incompetence and stupidity and poor communication. It’s probably a bit of all of them. I don’t think any of that rises to the level of major conspiracy, nor do I think there will be a major conspiracy.
My view of how ebola spreads and what the potential is for the current situation is informed by scientists, not the government. Scientists, as a general rule, get their view from the science of a situation, not the politics of it. There are some scientists out there whose view of how ebola spreads is scarier than the government’s view. But even those scientists think a widespread outbreak in this country is highly unlikely.
