[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
Also, “casual contact” means contact that isn’t sexual or where one wouldn’t consciously expect fluids to be exchanged. And the story about the journalist didn’t say anything at all about the chair being soaked in any blood or bodily fluids. While I’m guessing a patient had used the chair, bodily fluids were not mentioned, and they made a point to say that safety measures were in place.[/quote]
In both the carrying of the woman and the decontaminating of the chair, you’re assuming a lack of bodily fluids. It’s those kinds of assumptions that lead to your invalid conclusions. It doesn’t make sense to use those examples to conclude that the virus is easier to transmit then “they” are telling you it is when you don’t really know what the situation was.
[quote=CA renter]
If someone picks their nose or sneezes into their hand, and then holds onto a stair rail or touches a door handle, it sounds like that’s enough for transmission. This sounds very much like a highly contagious disease. [/quote]
“Sounds like” doesn’t seem like much to go on. What makes it “sound like” to you that holding a stair rail after sneezing into your hand is enough to spread the disease?
[quote=CA renter]
Remember, the govt was telling people that the air was safe to breathe after the Sept 11 attacks, even when they knew otherwise. We have no reason to blindly believe what they are telling us. Their #1 job is to prevent panic and chaos, not necessarily to ensure our safety. If you need evidence of this, just look at the stories above about the guys with the pressure washer and the hiring of private “hazmat” guys from Illinois to decontaminate the apartment — where four people had been living with soiled sheets and towels — FIVE days after this man was diagnosed.[/quote]
No doubt some mistakes were made. But I don’t see how that translates into “the government is hiding things from us to a degree that makes a large –scale outbreak something to worry about.”
Unless you have a propensity to see these kinds of things where there is nothing. Conspiracy theorists and paranoids of all stripes are constantly seeing some massive, horrible, world-changing, armageddon-type event on the horizon, but they don’t seem daunted by the fact that they’re basically always wrong.[/quote]
I use the words “sounds like” or “seems like” or “IMHO/IMO” when I cannot say something with 100% certainty but have strong evidence or reason to believe something to be true. More people should try it.
As for those damned “conspiracy theorists”…
There is perhaps no more controversial issue in assessing the limits of political and
administrative discretion than the question of whether it is ever ethical for a public official to lie in the public interest. While we cringe at the thought of legitimating mendacity by public
officials, we have the realistic admonition of Michael Walzer that “no one succeeds in politics
without getting their hands dirty.” This paper will look first at the defense of official deception as
classically articulated by Machiavelli and Walzer. We will then look at the case against lying by
officials presented by Sissela Bok and Maureen Ramsay, with a focus on Ramsay’s extensive
arguments in The Politics of Lying against the “just
lie” theory. We will finally test the feasibility of the just lie theory by applying its standards to a case study based on actual administrative experience where recourse to deception appears to have achieved a good result.”
