It's baaaack Ebola - American Doctor in Nebraska

a reply to: JBIZZ

Influenza is not a cold. And there are vaccines for it, but no cure.

Seems to me like one would be wise to consider more than the odds of a negative outcome in a situation like this. What do the potential negative outcomes look like; how severe is the cost if something goes wrong?


If I get a chance to invest $1000 dollars in something that has a 84% chance of returning 10 Million in a few seconds; and there's only a 16% chance that I'll completely loose the initial $1000, I'll go for it every time. Great odds and all you know.

But turn that into a game of Russian Roulette where I get 10 Million if the hammer falls on an empty cylinder, the odds haven't change, but I'd pass every time given the catostrophic cost of failure.

I don't really see why it's different with Ebola, failure could be horrific and catastrophic, so better to error on the side of caution, what's the wording, " an super abundance of caution", yes that's it, that's what I'd like to see.

And I guess I don't see what benefit we derive from not treating these cases where they originate, or of quarrantining people offshore if there was a risk of exposure. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that account.

a reply to: imwilliam

The risk of infection is not as high as you seem to think.

a reply to: Phage

Again, sorry for my ignorance. Both cold and influenza are upper respiratory infections caused by a virus. A cold is just less severe & probably does not result in death. Just replace where I said cold with influenza in my previous posts and the point I was trying to make is still valid. Influenza is far more worrisome than Ebola.

a reply to: Phage

The risk of infection is not as high as you seem to think.

I haven't quantified the risk of infection, so I'm not sure how you've arrived at that. I've just given a scenario where arriving at the right decision is based on more than the odds of a negative outcome.

How would you quanitify the risk? Unless you're saying that there's absolutely no risk, shouldn't the severity of potential negative outcomes play some role in the decision making process?

What about the benefits?

a reply to: imwilliam

Keep a US citizen out of the country just because she may have been exposed? Someone who is asymptomatic? Very low risk, if any.

What benefit?

Maybe you should review some of the ignorance and fear from 2014.

a reply to: Phage

It would be wise to remember who ran America in 2014.

a reply to: Phage

Keep a US citizen out of the country just because she was exposed to someone who was asymptomatic at the time? Very low risk, if any.

Absolutely, if there's any risk. My point is that It's not solely about how low the odds are of a negative outcome, it's also about the severity of potential negative outcomes balanced against the benefits gained by taking the risk.

What benefit?

You tell me. From my first post in this thread:

And I guess I don't see what benefit we derive from not treating these cases where they originate, or of quarantining people offshore if there was a risk of exposure. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that account.

Maybe you should review some of the ignorance and fear from 2014.

Why?

originally posted by: KingJames
a reply to: Phage

It would be wise to remember who ran America in 2014.

Why?

a reply to: imwilliam

You tell me. From my first post in this thread:

Cases are being treated in the DRC.

Why?

Because the ignorance and fear came to naught. As usual.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KingJames
a reply to: Phage

It would be wise to remember who ran America in 2014.

Why?

Why not?

a reply to: KingJames
Why would it not be wise to remember who ran America in 2014?

I don't know, in this context. You're the one who brought it up.

a reply to: Phage

Cases are being treated in the DRC.

What are you playing the troll tonight? Its a simple question, there's a risk, what's gained by taking that risk? How can you make/evaluate a decision if you don't know what the potential benefits/costs are?

Because the ignorance and fear came to naught. As usual.

I'll take your word for it. I've no reason to doubt you're an expert on those, I think you could safely add arrogance as well.


Again, I'm saying that the serverity of the potential negative outcomes have to be weighed against the potential gains in decisions like this, not just the "odds" of a negative outcome.

a reply to: imwilliam

Its a simple question, there's a risk, what's gained by taking that risk?

Allowing a US citizen to return home as opposed to be held in isolation in the DRC. Making a statement that aid workers will not be penalized for traveling to help with outbreaks of disease overseas.

Again, I'm saying that the serverity of the potential negative outcomes have to be weighed against the potential gains in decisions like this, not just the "odds" of a negative outcome.

You are concentrating on worst case scenarios based on fear and ignorance rather than facts.

a reply to: Phage

You are concentrating on worst case scenarios rather than reality.

The consideration of worst case scenarios is part of sound decision making. Worst case scenarios and the occurrence of low odds events are part of reality. Seems to me that you're concentrating on best case scenarios rather than reality.

Allowing a US citizen to return home as opposed to be held in isolation in the DRC. Making a statement that aid workers will not be penalized for traveling to help with outbreaks overseas.

All trivial when compared to the potential negative outcomes. People who don't see that, when placed in positions where they either make decisions or advise the decision makers in scenarios like this are accidents waiting to happen.

a reply to: imwilliam

Seems to me that you're concentrating on best case scenarios rather than reality.

Nope. Just considering what is known about the transmission of the disease and history. Facts, not blind fear.

All trivial when compared to the potential negative outcomes.

Hardly. The less that is done to contain an outbreak at its source the more dangerous it becomes. Reducing incentive to help, doesn't help.