I've seen some pundits make fun of concerns about a possible ebola outbreak, as if that's wild-eyed alarmism. As I've said before, we need to distinguish between a low risk of a grave danger and a high risk of a minor danger. We take special precautions in some cases, not because it's likely to happen, but because, if it does happen, the consequences are catastrophic.
You can get lucky 99 times out of a 100, but whether or not something is worth the risk depends on whether you can afford to lose if your luck runs out. I'm reminded of a TV show about bear-hunters on Kodiak Island. As a rule, hunters with high-powered rifles have the advantage. However, hunting Kodiak bears (which are Grizzly bears on steroids) is hazardous. You have to get lucky every time you go into the woods. The bear only has to get lucky once. If the bear catches you off-guard, if you miss, if your gun freezes, you're a goner.
When some people warn about the danger of an ebola outbreak, and that doesn't materialize, I think other people take that as vindication. "See, I told you so! The danger was hyped."
But that misses the point. I don't expect any particular case of ebola to trigger an epidemic. The issue is taking unnecessary risks with potentially catastrophic consequences.
When we talk about risk, there are two different risk factors to consider:
i) What's the risk that X will happen?
ii) What is the risk if X happens?
We need to counterbalance these two risk factors. (ii) may outweigh (i). As my grandfather used to say, "Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose."
I'm no expert on infectious disease, but to my knowledge, this is the problem: although it may be unlikely for some infectious disease to secure a foothold, if it does secure a foothold, then it can spread exponentially. If 1 infected person infects 5 people, if 5 infected people infect another 5 people each (25), if 25 people infect 5 people each...
Obviously, that's schematic. The real situation could be better or worse. A lot depends on the type of infectious disease, naturally.
It can spiral out of control very rapidly, especially since there's no way of tracking their contacts. You don't know who's infected until it's too late. Their contacts are so random. Kinda like those zombie apocalypse flicks like 28 Weeks Later.
That's why authorities must resort to mass quarantine. And that's radical surgery. It protects everyone outside the perimeter by essentially condemning everyone inside the perimeter to become infected. For quarantine forces the hitherto uninfected populace into contact with the carriers. If you weren't a zombie before, you're bound to be bitten if you're in lockdown with a bunch of zombies, viz. Resident Evil.
Now, authorities may try to set up a quarantine within a quarantine, but I assume their ability to discriminate depends on the scale and rapidity of the outbreak, the location, and their resources on the ground.
Keep in mind, too, that official statements often downplay the real risk to dampen panic.
My point is not confined to ebola. The current regime is very cavalier about exposing the general public to potential contagion:
Agreed. On that note, it's good to know that some hospitals aren't responding as poorly as the one in Austin did (which should hopefully be a lesson to the rest of the country):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/03/d-c-hospital-evaluating-patient-who-has-ebola-like-symptoms/
A hospital in Toronto took similar precautions and testing a suspected patient. But on that note, given the case in Texas where the patient lied to the authorities about his exposure to an Ebola victim, the screening inbound is a must.
If Nigeria has had a good handle on the situation since August, the developed world can do even better.
Steve, I too agree. One thing I noticed was recalling how Whoopie Goldberg had called Donald Trump an idiot for his complaint of bringing back an aid work with Ebola back to the states. Her claim was that it was hard to contract and that the CDC knows what they're doing. However, I wonder, why are doctors, nurses and CAMERAMEN coming down with It? Are these people really being cavalier about it? I tend to think Trump was right. Why bring the sick hen into the hen house? Why not build an Ebola medical center on a ship and take sick Americans there? Why the risk?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/04/Dr-Ben-Carson-Mistake-to-Bring-Ebola-Patients-to-US
Delete