• "One camp claims all supposed

    "One camp claims all supposed cases of ebola were the result of injections from the Red Cross, and another group has learned people have been paid to taint potable water/wells with formedahyde, which causes ebola like symptoms."

    Close enough for me.

    But, for good measure:


    linked here:


    To avoid confusion with the topic of my post (downplaying or denying risk of an outbreak), we can call the above 'strong denial.'

  • Fine

    but you're changing the discussion from current response to hypothetically ideal situation. Not taking the bait! Already I feel the bite of opening this can of worms. But what can I say, I was bored, and the topic was near to my heart.

    I don't know how many airlines, but there's no reason to assume they would have any motive to restrict outbound flights, anymore than the Mexican government wants to restrict the export of its own criminals and unemployed.

    I'm sure you could craft some way that private market institutions could apply pressure on these Liberian airlines to voluntarily restrict outbound travel (pay them, perhaps?), but if that's not on the table right now, and it doesn't seem to be (I don't see America's top billionaires ponying up to halt all outbound flights from these airlines - maybe waiting for government to do it? We are back to the old question whether a few unaligned mega rich, who are well sheltered anyway, will act in concert with enough foresight and time to prevent the outbreak of large scale dangers to public interest), do we prefer supporting the kind of extremely basic, limited political action that any society, with any size political unit would implement, or do we prefer to hang onto principles and let other people (hopefully) suffer in consequence?

    It doesn't really matter what we think, because those in power aren't influenced by our ideology, they're dithering more for the other reasons I mentioned, political correctness (we'd be meanies to block flights from west Africa) and a more basic and prevalent paralysis of real action in face of threats we aren't accustomed to.

    No one knows if there will be a sizable outbreak here or not, it may be contained, may pass, but it's the unwillingness to prevent it that's noteworthy. We don't know what the risk is this time, but we refuse to do the simple things that would manage the risk, supposing it is larger than we think.

    For our little sandbox here, its one of those interesting side effects of forcing oneself into an ideological straightjacket - you give yourself a very easy answer to nine of ten questions, but have no good answer for the tenth, and the tenth is the most important one.

    Societies that can't protect themselves from threats because of their ideological commitments (like America as a whole today, and also like a would-be libertarian utopia) just don't survive, and so the discussion is just academic.

    Good discussion. Going to try to jump out of the frying pan over the fire and sneak out the back door.

  • irony

    It's a position with a sizable enough constituency on here, for example the comment directly below yours (now below my response). I've read numerous comments on here claiming ebola is a hoax, or this outbreak is a hoax. However, I'm not really concerned with this faction, but with the larger faction that claims there's no real risk, no measures should be taken, and calls anyone who supports reasonable, minimal precautions as engaged in hysteria, alarmism, fear, etc. That's what I've mostly been reading and prompted me to post, the obnoxious name calling and chest pumping, accusing anyone with fully reasonable concerns of being afraid, empowering tyranny, and all that jazz.

  • The argument is that its

    The argument is that its unreasonable to oppose flights restrictions from ebola hot spots. In order to make that position seem reasonable, it's advocates are forced to pretend the risks are not serious, deny the disease exists, claim conspiracy, hoax, anything to avoid supporting minimal government action. When you're married to an ideology, you can't give back an inch or the whole fabric falls apart. So what I proved in discussion a ways back is now playing out in practice. The heroes on here are volunteering up more sacrifices of regular people to keep their ideology intact.

  • The discussion is about

    The discussion is about whether the publicly controlled air traffic from ebola hot spots should be restricted until the outbreak is under control. Your comment makes vague assertions about natural laws and government proclivity for lying. Well that's not news and not material to the topic. The reality is that air travel to the US is controlled by the government airports and regulatory agencies. They are the only ones who can make a decision, whether you like them or not, that's the way it is. The desire to avoid supporting any government action on anything forces you guys to prefer bad outcomes instead of simple precautions and measures that any rational political unit would make. To make this position seem rational, you have to pretend certain kinds of threats don't exist, basically any threat that can't be effectively dealt with by business or individual organized action.

  • Sure, that could happen after

    Sure, that could happen after the problem reaches very bad proportions, but we're talking about shutting flights now when there is not such pressure, so it's two separate topics.

    Besides it's not about our private airlines, it's about our public airports refusing inbound flights from specific risk zones, or from other airlines that do not cooperate in refusing flights from affected zones (like the Brussels airline which transported Thomas Duncan).

    You can talk all day long about how privately owned airports might act, when or whether they'd stop all incoming commercial traffic, what the liability should be for bearing a diseased passenger, etc. But we are talking about what should be done right now.

  • thanks for confounding all

    thanks for confounding all those below who claimed no one is denying the reality of ebola (even though that wasn't my topic).

  • whats the evidence for hoax?

    whats the evidence for hoax?

  • I don't think private persons

    I don't think private persons or organizations can restrict air travel from disease zones in the present environment. Big corporations like airlines see themselves as adjuncts of the federal state, take direction from it. They don't make the kind of decisions you're describing. Some might do so, but that doesn't solve the problem. It's one of those large scale legal decisions that involve forcing others not to do something that endangers third parties and just isn't regulated in the price system (either by its nature, or because of specific circumstances).

  • I disagree. As I argued in

    I disagree. As I argued in the post, I think the downplaying is rooted in ideology, not wanting to support time proven and commonsense measures of containing a disease. The mainstream position (the white house) similar, only the motive being political correctness rather than individualism. The deniers here have a similar condition. Arguing that the risks are hyped is just in service to a non-pragmatic reason for opposing travel controls.

    No one knows what the risk is at this point, so the rational and cautious approach would be to restrict commercial flights from the affected regions. If the threat fizzles out, the deniers will thump their chests about having called the hype. If 20 or 30 cases end up killing dozens or hundreds, they'll look down and be quiet, or claim the government orchestrated it on purpose.

    We don't know what the risk level is at this point. Some media seem to be downplaying, some hyping. But whatever the situation, support for temporary halt to incoming commercial air travel in the outbreak zones is the cautious and responsible approach. Those who oppose it do so ideologically, and grasp about for evidence as an afterthought.

  • I wrote because in mood for

    I wrote because in mood for some prose. But the post was not about people denying the existence of ebola, how did you get that? The title is ebola denial, the topic being those denying or downplaying the danger and basically volunteering others as sacrificial victims to their ideology (opposition to all collective activity like flight restrictions). I know that the loudest faction on the dailypaul are ebola deniers, but I have to assume there are quiet readers of a different turn of mind. I still read the Paul but just out of habit, almost never agree with anything I read here.

    I know my views are not popular, but since they're correct, it's sometimes fun to throw them into the arena and test them against the very clamorous opposition. One of the funny things about the ebola episode is how it goes against the ordinary grain of alarmism and sensation here. Its an interesting twist, normally end of the world stuff finds its home here but because of how this case impinges on the ideology it can't get a foothold

    Don't mind me, just stopping by. I know I am far, far out of place.

    (I suppose the first sentence was poorly crafted - by denying disease what I mean is that ideological adherents to absolute individualism find it impossible to cope with the reality of infectious diseases. They have to deny the risks because to admit them would be untenable when you're unwilling to support collective/forceful measures like travel restriction.)

  • that's not true. if a person

    that's not true. if a person is sick, the whole affected area is isolated. for example, if someone in a house is sick, all the members of the house in contact and likely exposed are isolated, not just the individual. that's the same as restricting flights from outbreak hotspots where there's an obvious incentive for individuals who think they might have been exposed and can afford travel to head somewhere they can get the best care.

    you introduce 'continent' into the discussion to confuse it. your original comment said that restricting travel is bad because it hinders tracing the spread of the disease, because infected people will try to travel neighboring countries. you don't seem to be pushing that argument anymore, but have shifted tact to a bare assertion that you isolate at individual level (false) not at the continental level (no one suggested that).

  • The post doesn't discuss

    The post doesn't discuss people who deny that Ebola is real, although there are plenty of them.

  • Thanks old friend. Hows the

    Thanks old friend. Hows the new coast.

  • the original point in dispute

    the original point in dispute was whether restriction of commercial travel from the geographical area where the disease is prevalent was the wise course.

    ed's argument was that restricting travel would interfere with tracking the spread, since travelers would go through other countries.

    ed seems to be arguing that if america takes all the ebola travelers directly from the source we can track the disease, but if they travel to countries other than usa it will be harder to track.

    perhaps this weak argument is just a fig leaf / make shift of pragmatism to conceal the real ideological motivation?

    taking the argument at face value, good tracking is the goal.

    presumably ed is arguing that more cases will arrive in usa if ebola carriers travel to other countries first, and so wants them all to come here.

    it doesn't occur to him that other countries can also restrict travel. presumably, if ed lived in those countries, he'd give the same counsel of keeping the flow open, lest those countries also miss out on ebola cases and the tracking opportunities - tracking being the goal. he would argue to his fellow monroevians or norwegians or chinese that they might go to the usa instead, stymieing their efforts to track.

    ed's view is that all countries should accept ebola carriers and track them?

    but in that case, the tracking will be just as varied as in restricted travel. so maybe ed thinks other countries should restrict travel, and usa should get all the ebola carriers and do all the tracking?

    only ed knows.

  • so - in order to isolate it

    so - in order to isolate it it you have to track it, but in order to track it, u can't isolate it. k, got it.

  • will u let us kno when we are

    will u let us kno when we are allowed to laugh boss

  • why do you wna control

    why do you wna control everyone?

  • Why is tracking the disease

    Why is tracking the disease more important than isolating geographically?

  • I know.

    I know.