Did you notice we survived 2014?

 Image: gopixpic.com

According to conservatives, the world was almost certainly going to end in 2014. The Russians were overrunning Ukraine (due to Obama's incompetence), ISIS was going to take over the Middle East and launch massive attacks on western countries (due to Obama's incompetence), and Ebola was going to decimate the US (due to Obama's incompetence).

If these things didn't happen, does that mean that Obama isn't as incompetent as portrayed? According to classic symbolic logic (if X, then Y), yes, it means Obama isn't as incompetent as stated. But, honestly, 1) conservatives aren't interested in logic and 2) classic symbolic logic is so limited as to be pretty useless. Here's a little known fact--logic doesn't deal with actual causation. 'If then' isn't necessarily a causal statement in classic logic. This is deeply disappointing.

Crisis contained - Russia and Ukraine

I think Obama did pretty well in each of these crises, mostly by not flipping out. Instead of starting a war with heavily armed Russians, he encouraged the Ukrainians to stand up for themselves, which is a VERY GOOD THING. More countries should do this instead of whining for the US to intervene and also conveniently bear most of the costs. The sanctions have hurt, but what's even better is that Obama has let the Russians show their true nature--militaristic liars. If we had gone to war, the narrative could have been that the US is the world-wide bully, and the Russians are heroes making a stand against the US. Instead, the Russians are the local bully, and the Ukrainians are the heroes. Other countries around Europe are seeing that you can make a stand against Russia. (At least I hope this analysis is correct. World affairs isn't my strength.)

(As an aside: This also bolsters the first lesson I learned that disproved a liberal tenet. Liberals said that demilitarization was good and morally superior. I learned, by observation, that being strong enough to defend your country was much more important, and the supposed moral superiority of demilitarization was hogwash. Liberals are so stupid sometimes that it boggles my mind.)

Crisis tested - ISIS

The surge of ISIS definitely was a crisis instead of being a faux-crisis trumped up by opponents. Obama reacted in way we haven't seen before--turning the crisis into a teaching moment. That may sound ridiculous--that you would allow a deadly crisis to play out instead of ending it as soon as possible. But I think this was the right approach.

In the Mideast, as in much of the world, too many people want the US to swoop in and save them (while also conveniently bearing most of the costs). It's a VERY GOOD THING for countries to get a reality check that the US might not be willing to do this, so they better be ready to defend themselves. Plus, they may want to identify threats early and do their best to avoid them.

Perhaps some people in Iraq finally learned the lesson this time. If you oppress large numbers of Sunnis, you create an angry insurgency that will try to take over the country. So don't oppress them. That's a relatively simple lesson that Iraq government under Nouri al-Maliki refused to learn. (Another aside--much of the Mideast, having been locked into strong-man dictatorships for so long, is now learning a lot of lessons. The learning process is important, so we shouldn't short-circuit it by swooping in like a helicopter parent.)

Crisis wildly overestimated - Ebola

The last threat that we survived was Ebola. The conservative response was so stereotypical as to be laughable. Talk about people not learning lessons--the conservatives really don't seem to understand science, and that the US response was going to be scientifically sound and based on evidence. So we brought a few infected citizens back to the US for treatment, and we learned from doing it. When we made mistakes, we learned and didn't repeat those mistakes. It is so incredibly simple, but partisan politicians seem not to know how to learn from mistakes. This is very strange, and I'll have to research why reality doesn't force politicians to learn.

Crisis for dollars - Underage immigrants

While we're reviewing crises that didn't pan out, there was one liberal crisis that didn't end up nearly as horrible as predicted. The crisis of immigrant minors crossing the US-Mexico borders supposedly required an infusion of $3.7 billlion. Not surprising, but the House did not dutifully comply with the request. Somehow, the Obama administration managed to deal with the crisis without the cash, so perhaps they didn't need the money after all.

Congratulations, everyone, we survived! Well, to be more specific, congratulations everyone except:

• Militaristic Russians
• ISIS and their sugar daddies
• Stubborn Iraqi politicians
• Overheated American conservatives
• Pollyanna American liberals

Trust whom?

Image: craftymcclever.wordpress.com

Why don't we have a travel ban?

The Ebola issue is much more political than it should be. Of course, many politicians can't restrain themselves from engaging in bashing their targets over a disease that's as deadly as Ebola. In the 1980's, the politically-infected arguments raged about AIDS, and we haven't had a disease with this much potential since then. However, the politics around AIDS perhaps should have been a lesson to prevent politics from ruling the discussion. But we're Americans, so we inject politics into everything.

Even if you don't think you personally are bringing politics into your viewpoint on Ebola, you probably are. To see how the politics play out, just ask yourself why we don't have a travel ban. Your answer is likely to fall into one of two categories, both of which are heavily influenced by politics.

There must be a good reason

I didn't ask myself about the lack of a travel ban for a while. I'm not sure why, but my left-of-center tendencies probably had something to do with it. I figured that the administration had a good reason for not banning travel from the epidemic areas. I didn't believe that cover stories that it was due to vital trade ties, or that commercial flights were necessary for our humanitarian efforts. I figured that there was a reason that the administration didn't feel comfortable talking about. Perhaps they were worried about human smuggling taking over if there were no flights. (That was my top theory.)

However, my support was based on faith or trust that there was a good reason. Faith and trust--not good scientific reasons.

So why don't we have a travel ban? Maybe it's the smuggling worry. Maybe we have a secret agreement with most European countries that we won't cut off flights. That way the affected countries have contact and a safety valve, but no country with good western medicine ends up with a disproportionate number of Ebola cases (that's another theory, in case you didn't notice).

This is still speculation, faith, and trust. If we based our policy simply on reducing our chances of an Ebola epidemic to the lowest possible level, we would have a travel ban. We would also not have allowed the American workers with Ebola to return and be treated in American hospitals.

So this administration is willing to take some risks. The science does show that the risks are quite low, and that's been born out in the US. The only known cases of transmission in the US occurred between a deathly ill patient (with copious diarrhea and vomiting) and his nurses. No one in his family became ill.

But the low chance of an outbreak here isn't the declared reason for a lack of a travel ban. We're still left wondering and coming up with our own ideas for the lack of a travel ban.

There must be a nefarious reason

If you don't trust the president and his administration, what do you make of the lack of a travel ban? I've read a bunch of theories on that:

• The administration doesn't want to be politically incorrect, so it won't cut off or stigmatize part of Africa.
• The administration supports open borders in every way, even if it lets Ebola into the country.
• Obama hates America and wants an Ebola epidemic here.
• Obama puts the good of other countries above the good of the US.
• This is payback for slavery.
• This is a good way to reduce overpopulation all over the Earth.

By not being clear in its reasons, the Obama administration has opened the door to a lot of speculation. That speculation is either supportive and antagonistic, and all of it is tinged with politics. If you thought your opinion was based solely on science, I hope this post showed you otherwise.

Image: microbiologyworld.com

Extras. Christie and Cuomo teamed up to show that they are post-political and would institute a quarantine together. It fell apart in a couple days because it was based on political gamesmanship. Ebola politics in Louisiana, a state that isn't likely to be a locus of Ebola issues. The media steps up to help Obama again--travel bans don't work. See, there must be a good reason.

Evidence-based thinking vs. assumption-based thinking

I've read many comments about how the US is doomed to have an Ebola outbreak because Obama is such a horrible president. I agree that there are plenty of reasons to think the Obama isn't a good president, but it's quite a leap to assume that we'll have people dying of Ebola because of it.

Of course, many people think we are doomed since the country reelected Obama. We were doomed by ACA, so we must be at least doubly or triply doomed. So if we are doomed, any crisis can obviously boil over and burn us all. We were threatened existentially over the summer by immigrants, which turned into immigrants with dread diseases. Then that story morphed into ISIS terrorists infiltrating through the Mexican border. Now we are doomed because ... Ebola!

Some of the concern  has some logic to it. For example, the administration loathes racial discrimination, so it won't ban travel to and from the African countries where the epidemic is occurring. There's some logic to that complaint. The administration hasn't done a great job in explaining why it allows recent visitors from the infected countries to come into the US without quarantine. It doesn't lay out the criteria for when to impose these kinds of measures, so it's reasonable to wonder if they've worked it out at all.

But some critics have leaped to the idea that the administration wants Ebola in the country. Limbaugh says the progressives believe that Ebola is our just desserts for slavery. I can't remember hearing that from the progressives I know, but Limbaugh talks about it quite extensively. Well, we know that Obama and liberals/progressives want to destroy the country, so Ebola would be nifty tool to do it.

Alex Jones thinks Ebola is a great tool for imposing "the medical tyranny state." First you bring people with Ebola into the US, then you release them to spread it around, and then you lock up and/or disappear Americans accused of having the disease. This warning, among others, is helpfully packaged on this Tea Party site, so you can clearly grasp what the real story is.

Contrast this "we-are-doomed" thinking with some scientific observations. Only two people carrying Ebola are known to have left the infected countries by commercial flights. Checking passengers for fever and the cost of tickets appear to have done a good job of deterring infected people, though not a 100% effective job.

Also, it's a fact that the US has handled Ebola patients successfully in this country, so we don't have to take a zero tolerance approach. We can balance the risks: the risk of one or more infected people arriving in the US vs. the risks of cutting off air travel.

Observation also shows that Ebola hasn't spread through casual contact. The only people infected (so far) in the US have been healthcare workers caring for a single patient. No one who had casual contact with the patient, not even the people who shared the patient's apartment, has gotten sick. Observation shows that healthcare workers at the Dallas hospital became infected, but not those at the Atlanta hospital.

Observation doesn't show any connection between Obama and who has gotten infected. So how is Obama responsible? The connection is only possible if you make assumptions, not if you depend on observation and logic. Those who are bashing Obama for presence of Ebola in the US have a bit of a logical case. He could have forbidden the travel of anyone from the effected region. But the bashing goes so far beyond that, and the predictions have been catastrophic because Obama is such a catastrophe himself. By warped logic, Obama is awful, and therefore any awful thing that happens is directly attributable to him.

And by the way, the new Ebola czar that he just named, that guy is a disaster too. Already. He must be, because Obama appointed him.

Image: youngcons.com

Extra. Zero Hedge starts by warning that your civil rights will be gone if there's an Ebola outbreak, Then he warns that Ebola is a "very, very serious disease," and that "we could truly be looking at the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen."

So which is it? Should we be protecting our rights and freedom of movement, or should we be cautious of our health? I wish he had decided before he wrote contradictory warnings in a single post.

Evidence-based medicine--Ebola edition

So at least two nurses caught Ebola from the Liberian patient cared for in Dallas. What does that tell us?

We already knew that cautious, well-trained American professionals could contract the disease because it happened with the American missionaries, including a doctor. Many African medical professionals have caught and died of Ebola too.

The right way to handle it

In contrast, three Ebola patients have been cared for at Emory University Hospital without a transmission. What does that tell us? That Emory knows how to handle this disease better than the Dallas hospital does. There must be important differences in how the personnel gown or perform tasks, and Emory does it in a superior way. So learn from Emory.

Also, it makes sense for current and future Ebola patients to go the Emory for treatment rather than have the treatment administered at a lesser hospital. We didn't know this beforehand, but we shouldn't be surprised. We did get a warning from African hospitals that were trying hard to prevent transmissions, but still failed. We had another warning from the Spanish nurse who caught the disease.

Luckily, the medical administrators (whoever they are) see the evidence too. One of the Dallas nurses has been flown to Emory. The other is quite healthy and was staying in isolation at the Dallas hospital, but has just been transferred to Maryland. Since she remains well, she probably doesn't require extensive care with lots of handling of bodily fluids. There's little chance that she'll infect someone else.

There's more luck too. Among the exposed civilians in Dallas, there are no reports of any developing the disease... so far. What a relief.

No abundance of caution

Another thing we learned is that the Dallas hospital wasn't careful enough. They didn't wear higher level protection gowns for the first two days of isolation despite the high chance that the patient had Ebola. They had a large number of staff caring for the patient instead of a small dedicated team. They didn't provide housing for this dedicated staff, who mingled with family. The second infected nurse even flew to Ohio and back again.

The Dallas hospital acted was though their precautions were 100% fail safe. That was an incorrect assumption and a stupid risk to take. A smarter approach would have been to limit the number of people exposed and limit their contacts with others. Finally the Dallas hospital is doing this. This precaution should have been implemented at the beginning. But at least they're learning instead of being in denial.

We still have to wait to see what happens with the exposed people in Dallas. Now we have to wait even longer to find out whether any relatives or fellow travelers caught Ebola from the second nurse. Those later exposures should never have happened. Instead of finding out around Oct. 19 whether we face a larger epidemic, we won't know until after Nov. 4. We didn't need this extra stress.

Possibly flying Ebola to your destination

Image: latimes.com

Extra. Read about and marvel at the facilities at Emory. Only three definite cases of Ebola have been imported to other countries (Nigeria, Senegal, and the US). Nigeria had the worst situation, but they have stopped the spread and ended the crisis. It never spread in Senegal. We'll have to see what happens here in the US, and also what happens elsewhere. Our response needs to be based on evidence and reasonable caution, not panic.

Ebola in Texas, but not worried yet

I wasn't worried about the two Americans being transferred to Atlanta for treatment for Ebola. Am I worried yet with this case in Texas?

No, not yet. But this is of greater concern. The Liberian man exposed a bunch of people before he was quarantined. Now those people may come down with Ebola too, and they could spread it to others. That's what has happened in West Africa.

Handling it right over here

It could happen here, but it won't. We have strong medical systems, not only to treat those with the illness, but to monitor those who may have been exposed. Some are in quarantine to prevent more exposures, and to limit the number of people who have to be monitored.

The personnel directly caring for the Ebola patient are probably limiting their contacts too. They shouldn't be going home to their families and attending church, ball games, and going to shopping malls. It's a big sacrifice to limit contacts, but it's not for a long time, so I think the medical personnel would be willing to make it.

A big problem in West Africa is that the sick weren't separated from the well, and they infected a fair number of people. By the time it was clear that isolation was needed, there were already too many infected people, and the medical system was overwhelmed.

That's unlikely to be repeated here in the US. We have a lot of medical resources to dedicate, and just one case so far. Any contacts who start showing symptoms will go into complete quarantine immediately, not after they've exposed bunches of people. That didn't happen with this first case, but the lesson has been learned. The medical system is on alert and will quarantine, and we will avoid the multiplication effect that occurred in Africa.

The warning sign to watch for is when people are getting sick at home and staying there, denying that they have Ebola. That denial is dangerous because it allows the sick person to infect others. That's when it can snowball. A different warning sign would be medical personnel dying or fleeing hospitals, hospitals refusing to take more patients, or hospitals being attacked. This has happened in West Africa, but there's little chance we'll see it here.

The importance of honesty (again)

This is a lesson in taking the right precautions and being truthful. The man from Liberia lied to get on a flight out of Liberia, lied again by not telling hospital workers that he'd been closely exposed in Libya, and probably lied at other times too. It's important for people not to lie anymore about it. Some people are asking whether we can trust our health officials. From what I've seen, yes, they are telling the truth, and they are taking all the right measures.

In one more month, we won't have a concern about Ebola in Texas. We'll have an all-clear, just like we eventually got in Atlanta. Till then, we have to take the right precautions, and keep this small. That's what we're doing, so it's going to be alright.

Partial view of a well-managed Ebola clinic in Guinea

Image: dailymail.co.uk

Extra. CDC directions on handling the dead. That's more good precautions. 

Don't worry about Ebola in Atlanta

Two American missionaries who were treating the Ebola outbreak in Africa have contracted the disease. One has already been transported back to the US, and the plan is to transport the other also. They will be treated in a special isolation unit at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta.

How dangerous is it to bring these patients into the US? That's a good question. However, there are some very bad answers to this good question, like these:

"Martial law is what we risk if an epidemic of something like Ebola were to break out here. Far better to prevent its entry to begin with. Not understanding that is moronic."

"This should not and cannot be allowed; that plane should be shot out of the sky; that hospital, burned to the ground; the unelected bureaucrats and plutocrats behind this decision publicly executed as traitors and tyrants; along with and including our President, who could have stopped this and did not due to this personal hatred of the citizens and dedication to the destruction of the United States." --comments here

So, doom predictions from the peanut gallery aside, how worried should we be? Let's think about it.

Ebola hasn't spread worldwide, unlike various forms of flu. Why? Because it doesn't spread as easily as flu. The disease is spreading on the ground in West Africa, but it hasn't gotten into a major city, even with the traveling that people tend to do. Supposedly, people can't pass it on until they're showing symptoms, so you can't pick it up easily or randomly. It doesn't spread via the air. That's very good, and is probably why it hasn't spread throughout the world.

The usual method of infection is from handling the fluids from a person with symptoms, so the visitors and caregivers are the ones who are being infected. Again, it's not random people down the street.

With this limited mode of infection, it won't be hard for a well-prepared hospital to contain the contagion. They will limit the people who have contact. The air from the isolation unit won't be circulated elsewhere. Caregivers will be gowned appropriately and will disinfect appropriately. The staff will be monitored closely, and any sign of illness will be scrutinized, not ignored. Finally, two patients will not overwhelm the resources of the hospital or the special isolation unit.

Am I worried? No. These people are experts in dealing with communicable diseases. This is their expertise, and they practice it a lot. It's the first time they've had an Ebola patient, but hardly the first time they used these procedures. So if you're worried, calm the heck down.

The Ebola patient arrives. No zombies. No martial law.

Image: cnn.com

Extra. Idiot-in-Chief Donald Trump weighed in on the idiot side, of course.