Drone strikes aren’t contagious either. (Come to think of it, is the original quote actually true? One U.S. citizen notably died of Ebola in the U.S. How have those working with Ebola victims in Africa fared?)
The point being, that the original quote and this one are nonsensical comparisons. The only way for people in the U.S. (whether they are citizens or not) to be safe from Ebola is for people with Ebola to be prevented from entering; if found to have entered, to be isolated; if found to have been contagious before isolation, for their contacts to be found. I gather from the news that this is, more or less, being done, in spite of people protesting, in effect, “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”.
But when the people are safe, they do not see the use of the things that keep them safe.
They kinda are :-D First by physical proximity at the moment of the strike (you get to be called “collateral damage”), and second, via the “association with suspicious persons” method.
The only way for people in the U.S. (whether they are citizens or not) to be safe from Ebola is for people with Ebola to be prevented from entering
Are you, by any chance, looking for absolute safety? It tends to be very expensive to achieve and even then fails often enough.
If we are talking about “driving the risks from Ebola to the general background risk level”, well, at the moment it’s well below that level.
If we are talking about “driving the risks from Ebola to the general background risk level”, well, at the moment it’s well below that level.
Are you saying that because precautions are in place, the risk is being kept below that level, or that because the risk is below that level, precautions need not be taken? The first is fine, the second is not.
driving the risks … to the general background risk level
IAWYC, but in general the right thing to do is to reduce the risk until the marginal cost of reducing it more exceeds the disutility of what one is risking: for example, if I can spend one cent to reduce the probability I’ll die tomorrow by 1e-7 (e.g. by not being as much of a jackass while driving) I should do so, even though the general background risk level (according to actuarial tables for my gender, age and province) is more than an order of magnitude larger.
IAWYC, but in general the right thing to do is to reduce the risk until the marginal cost of reducing it more exceeds the disutility of what one is risking:
Not necessarily. The reduction may have positive value in absolute terms, but carry the opportunity cost of preventing you from devoting those resources to more valuable risk reductions.
I don’t think you’ve just disagreed. When I say something has a marginal cost of $2.50, that doesn’t mean I’m considering the sadness inherent in having fewer shiny metal discs and green pieces of paper, it means there’s some opportunity cost which that money could have afforded which I would instead have to forgo.
Are you, by any chance, looking for absolute safety? It tends to be very expensive to achieve and even then fails often enough.
I hope not. Because Richard’s proposal doesn’t provide that. Especially when ‘drone strikes’ have already been brought up in conversation. Sure, most of the remaining risks would sound about as realistic as a plot from a season of 24 but as you say this is a threat well below general background risk level so implausibility is expected.
(Sorry, coming to this thread rather late.) Is, or was, anyone actually saying anything that amounted to “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”? What I’ve heard people saying is more like “we are safe enough with our current level of precautions, therefore such-and-such an extra precaution is unnecessary”. Or ”… therefore there is no need for us to panic about the danger we face from Ebola”.
Is, or was, anyone actually saying anything that amounted to “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”?
Not that I can point to. I may just be pattern-matching.
What I’ve heard people saying is more like “we are safe enough with our current level of precautions, therefore such-and-such an extra precaution is unnecessary”.
Which pattern-matches to raise the question, do people saying that know what the current precautions are?
If there’s good enough evidence that we’re safe enough as we are, I think it’s possible to say it without knowing what the current precautions are. (Just as someone can say “my computer is fast enough for what I use it for” even if they have no idea of its clock speed, memory latency, instruction set architecture, etc.)
I know what I would expect to observe if my computer weren’t fast enough (even in the absence of looking at technical specs), but I don’t know what I would expect to notice if I were safe in the absence of actually looking at the precautions that are being taken.
The closest thing I can come to that is observing that nothing disastrous has happened yet, but that’s not especially well-correlated with actual safety.
So… what kind of evidence are you envisioning here?
I’m envisioning observing that nothing even very bad has happened yet, which I think is in fact pretty well correlated with actual safety.
It’s not the same thing, for sure. But it’s probably all we have, on any side of the debate, and it seems to me to support the “no need for panic” side better than the “lock down all the borders and quarantine everyone arriving from Africa” side.
There usual context for this example is a conversation about relying on historical data and not paying too much attention to “external” (or “meta” or “structural” or… etc.) factors.
Is, or was, anyone actually saying anything that amounted to “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”? What I’ve heard people saying is more like “we are safe enough with our current level of precautions, therefore such-and-such an extra precaution is unnecessary”.
This has the Chesterton’s post problem. What do you mean by “our current level of precautions”? Do they include the existing provisions for quarantine in case of emergencies?
They include whatever is being done now. Which appears to be something like: don’t try to block or delay entry from affected countries wholesale; get people arriving from places affected by Ebola to monitor themselves for a while after travelling and take appropriate action if they suspect infection; etc.
This all seems to be working OK.
Of course the situation could change in ways that justified large-scale quarantining, but I’m not aware of any reason to expect that it will.
Come to think of it, is the original quote actually true? One U.S. citizen notably died of Ebola in the U.S. How have those working with Ebola victims in Africa fared?
Marriage to Kim Kardashian is not contagious. The danger of Ebola is not to be measured by how many it has killed, but how many it may kill.
As far as we know! Perhaps it simply has a long incubation period, and transitive polyamory will be legally recognized some time in the 2020s.
Hmm. Will I become a Mormon before or after I am married to Kim Kardashian?
If you prefer another comparison, here is one.
Drone strikes aren’t contagious either. (Come to think of it, is the original quote actually true? One U.S. citizen notably died of Ebola in the U.S. How have those working with Ebola victims in Africa fared?)
The point being, that the original quote and this one are nonsensical comparisons. The only way for people in the U.S. (whether they are citizens or not) to be safe from Ebola is for people with Ebola to be prevented from entering; if found to have entered, to be isolated; if found to have been contagious before isolation, for their contacts to be found. I gather from the news that this is, more or less, being done, in spite of people protesting, in effect, “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”.
But when the people are safe, they do not see the use of the things that keep them safe.
They kinda are :-D First by physical proximity at the moment of the strike (you get to be called “collateral damage”), and second, via the “association with suspicious persons” method.
Are you, by any chance, looking for absolute safety? It tends to be very expensive to achieve and even then fails often enough.
If we are talking about “driving the risks from Ebola to the general background risk level”, well, at the moment it’s well below that level.
Are you saying that because precautions are in place, the risk is being kept below that level, or that because the risk is below that level, precautions need not be taken? The first is fine, the second is not.
It’s a feedback loop: observe the current state and the dynamics, adjust as needed.
IAWYC, but in general the right thing to do is to reduce the risk until the marginal cost of reducing it more exceeds the disutility of what one is risking: for example, if I can spend one cent to reduce the probability I’ll die tomorrow by 1e-7 (e.g. by not being as much of a jackass while driving) I should do so, even though the general background risk level (according to actuarial tables for my gender, age and province) is more than an order of magnitude larger.
Theoretically. In practice you’re unlikely to be able to evaluate the risks with the necessary accuracy.
Not necessarily. The reduction may have positive value in absolute terms, but carry the opportunity cost of preventing you from devoting those resources to more valuable risk reductions.
I don’t think you’ve just disagreed. When I say something has a marginal cost of $2.50, that doesn’t mean I’m considering the sadness inherent in having fewer shiny metal discs and green pieces of paper, it means there’s some opportunity cost which that money could have afforded which I would instead have to forgo.
I hope not. Because Richard’s proposal doesn’t provide that. Especially when ‘drone strikes’ have already been brought up in conversation. Sure, most of the remaining risks would sound about as realistic as a plot from a season of 24 but as you say this is a threat well below general background risk level so implausibility is expected.
(Sorry, coming to this thread rather late.) Is, or was, anyone actually saying anything that amounted to “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”? What I’ve heard people saying is more like “we are safe enough with our current level of precautions, therefore such-and-such an extra precaution is unnecessary”. Or ”… therefore there is no need for us to panic about the danger we face from Ebola”.
Not that I can point to. I may just be pattern-matching.
Which pattern-matches to raise the question, do people saying that know what the current precautions are?
If there’s good enough evidence that we’re safe enough as we are, I think it’s possible to say it without knowing what the current precautions are. (Just as someone can say “my computer is fast enough for what I use it for” even if they have no idea of its clock speed, memory latency, instruction set architecture, etc.)
I know what I would expect to observe if my computer weren’t fast enough (even in the absence of looking at technical specs), but I don’t know what I would expect to notice if I were safe in the absence of actually looking at the precautions that are being taken.
The closest thing I can come to that is observing that nothing disastrous has happened yet, but that’s not especially well-correlated with actual safety.
So… what kind of evidence are you envisioning here?
I’m envisioning observing that nothing even very bad has happened yet, which I think is in fact pretty well correlated with actual safety.
It’s not the same thing, for sure. But it’s probably all we have, on any side of the debate, and it seems to me to support the “no need for panic” side better than the “lock down all the borders and quarantine everyone arriving from Africa” side.
OK. Thanks for clarifying.
The classic counter-example involves a turkey in the middle of November. Nothing very bad has happened to it ever—must be very safe, then...
Sure. As with everything else in the universe, we have to make do with partial information and sometimes it’ll lead us astray.
There is a bit more wisdom here :-)
There usual context for this example is a conversation about relying on historical data and not paying too much attention to “external” (or “meta” or “structural” or… etc.) factors.
This has the Chesterton’s post problem. What do you mean by “our current level of precautions”? Do they include the existing provisions for quarantine in case of emergencies?
They include whatever is being done now. Which appears to be something like: don’t try to block or delay entry from affected countries wholesale; get people arriving from places affected by Ebola to monitor themselves for a while after travelling and take appropriate action if they suspect infection; etc.
This all seems to be working OK.
Of course the situation could change in ways that justified large-scale quarantining, but I’m not aware of any reason to expect that it will.
Patrick Sawyer was a US citizen. Skimming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa doesn’t reveal any others, but we only need one more to tie with Kim.
Edit: actually, it looks like Duncan wasn’t a US citizen.