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 -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I came up from the ground, i came down from the sky, ============================================================ 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
