The facts of the matter are that you can get a political body to do anything, once you've talked enough people into believing that it should be done. And you don't have to talk people into believing in contamination because that's been part of our explanations forever, so arguing to isolate the potential vectors of contamination is a no brainer, hence a viable political policy for both Christie and Cuomo. That it's a viable policy doesn't prevent it from being a stupid policy for all the reasons Kaci Hickox and others have given.
But going beyond the best recommendations of scientists isn't totally irrational, either. Scientists have been known to change their recommendations from time to time. Being part of the road kill that led to a change of scientific opinion isn't a winning strategy. Note that everything that scientists knew about flu epidemics in March 1918 turned out to be piss poor preparation for the strain of influenza that appeared in August 1918 in Brest, Boston, and Sierra Leone. Diseases do change their characteristics, sometimes drastically, especially when large populations get infected so the disease can explore the adjacent possibilities. Pittsburgh quarantined Allegheny County from the rest of Pennsylvania during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic. Nothing of any use in fighting the flu was shared with any of the surrounding areas. What came into or originated in Pittsburgh stayed in Pittsburgh: medicine, hospital equipment and supplies, coffins, food, .... They were so successful in keeping it all for themselves that they were chastised in the pandemic post mortem by the national leadership of the Red Cross for their selfishness and the suffering that they caused their neighbors. We tell each other stories about how things work. Some are complete bullshit, but that never stopped anyone from acting as if they were the truth. When people decide how to act, their reasons become part of their own story of how they work. I guess that's why it's important to include "learning from experience" in one's own story of how one works. -- rec -- On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > I am of several minds on this: > > In general, I'm happy with the NEJM's medical analysis of Ebola... but it > *does* fall short in at least two areas: > > 1) it seems to ignore the long-tails of several distributions... are they > saying that not a single infected individual can ever be contagious without > having recognizeable symptoms... are they assuming that there is not a > single individual who might be infected with ebola *and* becomes > symptomatic who would choose to break self-quarantine out of denial or > frustration or even downright cosmic angst? I am afraid that the > *psychology* of extreme risk is not well understood, at least by the > general population (including the AMA, scientists in general, etc.). > > 2) there are social and political ramifications of such events and > circumstances. It is not hard to see that certain hardline right-wing > politicians are flexing their metaphorical pectoral muscles (insert pic of > Putin with his shirt off) by ordering mandatory quarantines... trying to > turn a medical and epidemiological challenge into a political solution. > > I personally find the Ebola "scare" almost entirely irrelevant to me > personally... just as the various Space-Debris falls: > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/02/01/shuttle-debris-falls-on-east-texas-louisiana/ > > or meteor strikes > > > http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/just-how-many-humans-have-space-rocks-killed-anyway/ > > don't make me even look up into the sky except maybe in awe during the > Persieds or Leonids... > > > I think that those of us who are uber-conservative (politically or > personally) are prone to focus on those "long tails" above (worst case > scenarios, etc). It is usually summed up with "You Never Know!" and > reflects a tendency to think that controlling other people's behaviour is > acceptable (required?) when a particular threshold of risk is exceeded. > > So, returning to my theme of being of "several minds": I think that > people such as the much-publicized Kaci Hickox are doing an important thing > by forcing the issue about limiting the powers of fascist politicians. > > The distinction between forced quarantine and "direct active monitoring" > are important and do not undermine public safety. > > Here is a very in-depth report from the CDC that might of interest to some: > > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6303a1.htm?s_cid=su6303a1_w > > > > I'll pull a Nick and say off the bat that I can't answer the question > directly. But I can transmit this: > > > http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/10/woman_visiting_from_liberia_ho.html > > That's the hospital where my SO (Renee') works. So, I may be able to learn > something interesting. > > > On 10/31/2014 09:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > To the Friam diaspora, > > > > So. At today’s friam we had a discussion about “the science of ebola” and > why so many well educated people are disregarding it. What interested me was > that amongst a table full of mostly scientifically committed individuals we > had a range of opinion about what should be done, despite a scientific > consensus from the medical community (see > http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139?query=featured_home&; ) > > Partly I think this is due to a piss-poor exposition by the government and > the media of why the disease is more difficult to contract than a cold. > Official explainers have appeared to rely on the idea that it is only > transmitted by bodily fluids, leaving everybody to wonder about sneeze > aerosols. But the fact that it is only transmitted by fluids alone is not > the key piece of information; the key fact seems to be the virus does not > make its way into those fluids until after it has caused a fever. These > facts are connected because the same event that causes the fever makes the > disease contagious. So, on this account, we weren’t on the same page because > the science had not been explained to us very well. > > One side conversation that grew out of this thread suggested that the > official explainers had confused us by not including social science in their > explanation. There are, the argument runs, highly predictable features of > human behavior in the aggregate (even tho we cannot necessarily predict which > human beings will do which behaviors) and this knowledge (from a long > history of experiences with epidemics) guided many decisions in the present > situation, but was not made explicit. A couple of people challenged the > premise the argument, essentially taking the position that “social sciences” > is an oxymoron -- social phenomena are too fast-moving, and two influenced > by science itself, to be included within the science of ebola. > > As those of you who have read my posts over the last year (all three of you) > already know, I am convinced that this all has to do with the decline of the > Deweyan consensus of the 50’s to the effect that a scientifically informed > democratic electorate will make the correct decisions in the long run. This > attack began with the antiwar left in the sixties (don’t trust anybody over > 30), was intensified under Nixon, extended under Reagan, and has reached its > apotheosis with the Tea Party. Science is just another opinion, on a par > with crystals, and scientists are just another cult. There are no > fact-facts; just your facts, and my facts. > > So am curious what you-all think out there. Do you accept the consensus > document of the NEJM? If not, WHY not? If you were the surgeon general, > what would you do? > > Nick > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
