Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Unreported by media, 2013 study found estrogen blockers highly effective against Ebola virus

    I'm aware that my blog has become Ebloa-central for the past few weeks. It's a subject of national interest, and each time I research one thing I stumble onto something else.
    I recently found a study published in the June 19, 2013 edition of Science Translational Medicine which strongly suggests that currently approved Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (estrogen blockers, for short) would be effective in inhibiting the Ebola virus. Presumably these drugs would be effective if taken either prophylactically before and during exposure or as a treatment after the onset of symptoms.
    I did a Google search, and I can find no news story containing either the words "ebola" and "clomiphene" or "ebola" and "toremifene. I find this pretty amazing, especially in light of the mouse study, which I describe below.
    The drugs which were tested in vitro and in a mouse study are clomiphene (Clomid) and toremifene, both of which are estrogen blockers. Some other estrogen blockers were also considered, but these two were apparently considered the ones with the most promise. The drugs appear to interfere with the Ebola virus in a method not related to the traditional estrogen pathways. From the study: "Although we initially identified the ER antagonist compounds on the basis of their collective known mechanism of action, our results indicate that these compounds are mediating their antiviral effects through cell-based mechanisms unrelated to the classical estrogen signaling pathway."
Click to enlarge
    I am not smart enough or educated enough to understand much of the scientific language in this study. What I could understand was the chart showing the mortality rates of mice treated with each of these drugs. Mice were intentionally infected with the Ebola virus through injection. A control group received no treatment and had a 100 percent mortality rate.
    Mice treated with toremifene had a 50 percent survival rate. For clomiphene, 90 percent of the treated animals survived. This is nothing short of amazing. The drugs were equally effective in both male and female mice.
    Mice aren't humans, but it would seem to me that a drug designed for humans that inhibits virus reproduction in mice would do the same in humans. In light of this study, I know that if I were to be exposed or infected with the Ebola virus I would definitely want to be placed on clomiphene. (Sadly, clomiphene requires the CYP2d6 enzyme to be fully effective, so I'm probably out of luck, as is about five percent of the population).
    Some people say we should never take a drug without endless double-blind studies. I say that I don't want to be the mouse that's left in the "control" group with a 100 percent fatality rate. If any of you want to be the dead mouse, feel free to volunteer.
    We don't know whether these drugs are being used for recent Ebola patients or not. In fact, we've only been given sketchy details about what treatments various Ebola patients have received, some of which have been "experimental." Surely these doctors are just as good at surfing the Internet as I am.
    On the downside, widespread prophylactic use of estrogen blockers is likely to result in a viral mutation that will manage to overcome the interference caused by the drugs. This is the story of all antivirals or antibiotics -- the public health footrace we can never win but hope not to lose.
    But whatever treatments are being used, no media outlets have reported the fact that these estrogen blocking drugs have demonstrated a high degree of effectiveness in stopping reproduction of the Ebola virus. So tell your friends, ColRebSez had it first.

    ADDENDUM, 10/29, 8:57 P.M.: Given that the mortality rate of Ebola infections is as much as 80 percent in West Africa, I'm surprised that massive quantities of clomiphene or other estrogen blockers haven't been shipped over. No, it's not tried and true, but how much worse can the outcomes be? There is really nothing to lose.
    As I mentioned, even if effective there may be a limited window in which these drugs will be effective before the Ebola virus mutates and develops resistance to it. Amantadine, for example, used to be effective against the flu; all flu strains are now resistant. Tamiflu remains mostly effective against the flu, although resistant strains have appeared.
    In any event, it would seem to me to be helpful to try to use any weapons we might have against the virus. Better to stop it now and worry about antiviral resistance later.

If residents of Ebola-infected areas are allowed to leave with only a fever check, the virus will spread

A woman traveling from Guinea into Mali has her temperature
checked at the border in an effort to screen for Ebola.
    I read with some concern recently about the young girl who was carried into Mali while infected with the Ebola virus. One hundred eleven Malians who had exposure to the girl are now being tracked by the World Health Organization.
    As a practical matter the actual number of people actually at risk from developing Ebola from contact with the girl is probably fewer than 30 and perhaps only a dozen. But that's still a lot of people.
    The two-year-old girl apparently never had her temperature checked when entering Mali as she was being carried in a sling on her grandmother's back. She was already ill with Ebola symptoms at the time, and a screening would have detected it.
    What concerns me is that Mali is letting in streams of people from Guinea with only a temperature check to screen for Ebola. The virus has a typical incubation period of 4-21 days (and up to 45 days), so a temperature check is of little use in keeping out those infected with the disease but still asymptomatic.
    My guess is that Mali may already have an Ebola outbreak, authorities just don't know it yet. The nature of Ebola is that there is one death from an unexplained cause, often thought to be malaria or some other malady; three weeks later two or three additional people die; in three more weeks that total might jump to six. It can take two or three months for authorities to even become aware of an outbreak.
    Even when villages might suspect Ebola they might be afraid to alert authorities for fear of being quarantined with no food or having their loved ones carted away. So an initial, isolated outbreak often goes undetected by authorities until a village is completely decimated, perhaps even abandoned.
    Most people have all been indoctrinated with the notion that people should have the right to go wherever they want whenever they want. But no one should be allowed to leave an area with an uncontrolled Ebola outbreak without a mandatory quarantine. Nobody has a right to infect the world.
    The world needs to create a cordon sanitaire around those areas with uncontrolled Ebola outbreaks; nobody leaves without a quarantine. If it requires massive numbers of troops standing shoulder-to-shoulder to enforce, then troops we should send. If the only way to stop people from leaving is to shoot them, then shoot.
    Make no mistake, the developed world should send far more aid to areas affected by the Ebola outbreak. We should send medical help. We should immediately step up and start paying all of the health care workers a risk bonus. We should do far more than we are doing. But we should not allow any potentially infected person to leave the area without a quarantine, period.
    Sadly, the world isn't willing to commit the resources or make the hard choices necessary to control contagion, so Ebola will, in all likelihood, continue to slowly spread. At some point it is likely to spread into rebel-controlled areas of Mali or Nigeria where even Doctors Without Borders has been able to operate with only the greatest of difficulty. Eventually Ebola is likely transform from an epidemic to a pandemic affecting all of the undeveloped world.
    I should note, as I always do, that my views are perhaps overly gloomy. There is evidence that new cases are dropping in Liberia, although some say they are merely going into hiding to avoid cremation. As I have pointed out many times, viruses often burn out of their own accord. Many Africans have developed antibodies to Ebola despite never having been infected, perhaps through exposure to bat saliva on gathered fruit. And the virus tends to spread so slowly that there may still be time to implement a mass-vaccination program.
    I have high hopes for both vaccination and medicines that will be effective against Ebola. As for containment, I fear the battle is either already lost or being lost. Should Ebola become a true worldwide scourge, it won't be from a lack of resources, but rather a lack of will.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death -- Ebola's story is that of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse


--Revelation 6:1-8
    As the Ebola crisis continues to unfold in West Africa we would do well to remember the prophecy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. And no, I'm not foretelling the end of the world; these horsemen have appeared many times throughout history.
    The meaning of the white horse has been debated, but in recent years it has commonly been called Pestilence, or disease. The red horse is clearly war.
    The black horse is said to symbolize famine and want; but the instruction to spare the oil and wine is a suggestion that the famine's hardship will fall primarily on the poor.
    The pale horse is Death, always a traveling companion to Pestilence, War, and Famine.
    War and Death had already destroyed the infrastructure of West Africa. The reason there are so few doctors and health care workers in Liberia is because they all left or were killed during that country's brutal civil war. And so following in the footsteps of War has been Pestilence -- the Ebola virus. Ebola is also preventing almost all other diseases from being treated, so the death rate is magnified.
    Soon we will have Famine. In Sierra Leone, as many as 40 percent of farmers have abandoned their fields. Presumably a large number have done likewise throughout the region. Trade has come to a standstill and food is already in short supply. These supplies will get shorter still as untended farms produce no crops.
    I've made it clear that I'm more than irritated with the fact that our government has repeatedly given the public false information that the Ebola virus poses virtually no risk to any American and is incredibly hard to catch. This isn't true. But with that said I believe the chances of a major Ebola outbreak in the United States are quite low. It may sound like a quibble, but I object to the government claiming "absolutely no risk" in cases when there is "an overwhelming likelihood that there is no risk." There is a difference.
    But the real Ebola story is in Africa. Unfortunately, I've concluded that based on current efforts the Ebola virus will not be contained; it eventually will spread throughout the undeveloped world. I don't know what the eventual death toll will be, but unless a vaccine is developed I can't imagine that it will be less than 10 million people and could easily top 100 million or more.
    That's a lot of dead people, and even if not a single American dies it will have some major effects on our lives. A recent blog post by Jody Lanard and Peter M. Sandman entitled Ebola: Failure of Imagination sums up my view of the situation quite well. Essentially the authors say that the worst-case scenarios for the Ebola virus are so awful that we are refusing to even contemplate them, and yet by our very refusal to do so are failing to make rational choices that might stave of potential disaster.
    The United States has sent 4,000 troops and various countries are expected to send $1 billion in aid to the region. Certainly this is noble, but it's not going to be enough to stop this epidemic. Perhaps 40,000 troops and medics and $20 billion might do the trick, but there is no national or international will to do this.
    And so Pestilence will very, very slowly continue its march around the globe, often following the Horseman of War. Soon after will come Famine for the poor amid plenty for the rich. And always with them Death.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Government liberals lie repeatedly about Ebola; their actions show they don't believe what they say

    We have another Ebola case in the United States, intentionally imported by Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. A New York doctor who knew he might have been exposed in Guinea to the virus has taken ill after spending a night on the town, where he may have infected numerous people.
    I say intentionally imported because Obama and the Democrats have refused to put into place reasonable travel restrictions to prevent a slow trickle of infected Ebola victims from entering the country and spreading it around. While I don't support a total travel ban, a ban on tourist travel combined with a mandatory quarantine period would eliminate virtually all Ebola cases in this country. Instead we are stuck with the possibility -- hopefully a small one -- of an Ebola outbreak in New York City.
    In response to a public outcry for travel restrictions the Obama administration recently adopted a policy of requiring people from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea who are infected with the Ebola virus to enter the country in one of five airports. I'm not sure how this is helpful in any way. Reducing it to one won't help either. As long as Obama and the Democrats continue to allow people who are infected but not showing symptoms into the country the entire nation is at risk.
    With the federal government failing to take action the states are stepping in. New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have all announced quarantine policies. New York is going to allow citizens to serve their quarantines in their homes and compensate them for lost wages, which makes good sense. New Jersey has just forced a nurse returning from Sierra Leone into a quarantine tent with no shower. Not cool! This woman is a hero for her efforts, and while I believe she should be placed in quarantine, she should be given every comfort. Personally, I don't believe a full 21-day quarantine period is necessary; I think 10-12 days of quarantine followed by 15 days of self-monitoring and avoiding crowds and public areas would be highly effective.
    For some reason our national response to  the Ebola virus has become a liberal versus conservative issue. Liberals take the view that we really shouldn't worry at all about the Ebola virus, and besides, if things get out of hand our government will take care of and protect us. Conservatives take the view that worries over Ebola may indeed by overblown, but that it does pose a real risk; our government has proven itself to be truly inept in dealing with it, and in a true global catastrophe no government is big enough or strong enough to take care of us or protect us.
    In other words, we ought to be careful. We ought to protect ourselves. Liberals are so worried about some family from Sierra Leone not getting to see DisneyWorld that they aren't even willing to suspend tourist travel from countries with out-of-control Ebola epidemics. They would rather be politically correct, even if it means hundreds or even thousands of Americans might needlessly die.
    If Obama and the Democrats were ever to admit that infected but asymptomatic people ought not be allowed to enter the country through our airports, then it would also have to admit that infected people ought not be allowed to enter through our border with Mexico as well. For them this would be too much. Obama and the Democrats simply cannot accept the fact that our nation should protects its borders and put the interests of our own citizens ahead of those of foreigners.
    To accomplish its goals Obama and the Democrats have turned the CDC into a left-wing mouthpiece and miss no chance to ridicule Republicans who express fears that come directly from guidelines written by the CDC. CDC spokesmen often deny risks that are stated in their own written policies.
    The CDC and other liberal shills tells us things that are obviously false. Examples:
    ❑ CDC Director Tom Friedan claims the disease is incredibly hard to catch. Yet health care professionals who take every precaution are contracting the disease. It's probably not very contagious in its early stages. But it's worth noting that the government isn't sure of that, because it is carefully tracking and even quarantining people exposed to Ebola patients with early symptoms or even no symptoms. I'm glad the government is being careful; I just wish it would be truthful. Ebola is highly contagious, and we don't know at what point it becomes highly contagious.
    ❑ The government tells us that it is impossible to catch Ebola from riding a bus, but that anyone who might have been exposed to the Ebola virus should not take the bus. Huh? When a woman vomited on a bus and then lied about having just come from West Africa, everyone on the bus was placed under quarantine. Why? According to the government they couldn't have possibly have caught it!
    ❑ Shepard Smith made a big production of telling the world that there is absolutely nothing to fear from Ebola. In that newscast he claimed that nurse Amber Joy Vinson had absolutely no symptoms when she flew from Cleveland to Dallas. This was just false. In fact, she said she had felt draggy for a couple of days and was running a fever of 99.5; the CDC told her to fly anyway. These are symptoms. And the CDC is tracking passengers on both her flight to Cleveland, when she was completely asymptomatic, and her flight home. I'm glad, but clearly the government doesn't believe there is zero risk or it wouldn't be tracking these people.
    ❑ The most recent Ebola victim, Dr. Craig Spencer of New York, returned from Guinea about 10 days ago, where he had been treating Ebola patients as a Doctors Without Borders volunteer. He apparently reported feeling "sluggish" starting Tuesday of this week. For whatever reason he spent the night on the town Wednesday, taking subways and going to a bowling alley. On Thursday morning he developed a fever and diarrhea and reported it to health authorities. The government insists that he was not infectious prior to developing a fever on Thursday, but his fiancee has been quarantined and two friends who were in contact with him on Wednesday have been placed under mandatory quarantine.  Why? The government says the doctor was not infectious on Wednesday. Why do these friends need to be quarantined? And wouldn't it have been easier on all concerned to just have had a national policy that would have quarantined or placed mandatory restrictions on the doctor on his return from West Africa?
    ❑ Rand Paul recently stated that the Ebola virus could be transmitted through the air through a cough or sneeze. He was immediately ridiculed by the left. Dr. Paul was merely stating facts that were on the CDC website. Note, by the way, that a virus that can travel a short distance through the air by way of aerosol created with a cough or sneeze is not airborne. An airborne virus is one that can attach itself to a dust mote and travel a relatively long distance.
    ❑ Far-left mag Mother Jones takes Dr. Paul to task for stating that Ebola is more contagious than AIDS. These leftists just find that notion hilarious. The average Ebola victim currently infects two more victims while the average AIDS patient supposedly infects four, although that number has varied greatly over the years. Therefore, according to liberals, AIDS is more contagious. Have these people not stopped to think that an AIDS victim might take 10 years to infect four people while an Ebola victim does it in three weeks? That you can't catch AIDS from merely touching someone? Ebola is far more contagious than AIDS. Why do liberals want to hide this fact?
    ❑ I frequently see posts where people claim that Ebola isn't very contagious; after all, measles is far more contagious. Indeed it is -- nine times more contagious, to be exact, and perhaps more. But measles has a fairly low mortality rate. Ebola in Africa has a mortality rate of about 700 cases out of 1,000. Why muddy the waters with talk of measles or other diseases? What matters is that the number of Ebola cases in West Africa continues to double every three weeks to one month, and 70 percent of those who contract the disease will die.
    I don't think we as a nation should panic over a few domestic cases of Ebola; but the threat to the undeveloped world is ominous, and if the disaster is large enough if will affect us all. But it's not an act of "panic" or "hysteria" to take reasonable, prudent precautions to prevent Ebola cases from being introduced into the domestic population.
    For some reason Obama and the Democrats aren't willing to take any precautions against an unwanted Ebola outbreak. Rather than admit to any uncertainty, Obama and the Democrats just lie and ignore the dangers. It's almost recreational for them.
    But it's not a game for the rest of us. It's dangerous and it puts our nation and our world at risk. As a general rule things will always turn out just fine, but in every instance we should always think about and plan for a worst-case scenario.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

When five supposedly good kids said to sodomize, injure a schoolmate, what lessons can we learn?



    In the Disturbing Beyond Belief department, five Hopkinsville, Ky., young adults and teens have been arrested and charged with sodomy and other crimes in relation to an attack on a passed-out 15-year-old boy at a party. The boy may or may not have been drugged.
    The boy was seriously injured. His intestines were punctured and he nearly died; he currently has a colostomy bag; I don't know if this is permanent. The sexual attack, committed with various objects -- one kicked into the boy's rectum -- was filmed and perhaps placed on social media.
    An attack of this kind is troubling in every case, but this boy was a family friend to two of his alleged attackers and a cousin to one. These kids knew each other well. They were supposedly friends, or at least associated with the same friends.
    And by the way, before you start thinking about Kentucky jokes, Hopkinsville is in Western Kentucky, between Nashville and Paducah. Demographically it's a bit like Tate County with slightly lower income and more college degrees.
    The five who were arrested weren't rough thugs -- just the opposite. They were mostly middle-class, college-track kids. One of the oldest, Dayton Ross Jones, was on the Arkansas State University golf team. Another has a Facebook page that says he attends or attended the University of Kentucky.
    The Facebook page for one of the juveniles, a high school senior, displays photos of a tall, athletic teen posing with lots of attractive girls and other attractive high school kids. In fact all of the kids had Facebook pages that made them appear to be well-liked, successful, decent guys. It's sad to look at these photos: a first deer, first turkey, first car, first prom date, and then realize the next photo in the series needs to be the first felony mug shot.
    These five guys didn't intend to seriously injure this boy; they wanted to humiliate him. What started off as fairly mild humiliation escalated as the attackers tried to outdo the others in viciousness. Oddly enough, many people apparently don't believe that it is a sexual assault if one's purpose is merely to humiliate someone they know.
    Whenever I read a story like this I bring it to the attention of my children, because there are so many life lessons to be learned from the mistakes and tragedies of others. Among them:
    ❑ Good people sometimes do terrible things. Try not to be one of them. Learn from the mistakes of others.
    ❑ If you get drunk or otherwise pass out there are people who will take advantage of you or try to humiliate you, often for no reason. Sometimes they will harm you. Sometimes these people will be those who are supposed to be your friends. Avoid drinking to the point of passing out. Be aware that there are those who get their jollies out of drugging drinks.
    ❑ When a group of guys get drunk enough they will do inexplicably stupid things, often urged on by a single instigator. Guys will often attempt to outdo each other in viciousness. Avoid associating with instigators; avoid associating with those who often do stupid things; avoid associating with those who act in a vicious manner; avoid drinking to the point of seriously impaired judgment.
    ❑ Recognize that it's not always easy to do what's right. If just one of these five boys had somehow found the courage to stand up to his friends he would have saved an entire community a world of sorrow. Doing the right thing often seems impossibly difficult at the moment, but if kids could just imagine themselves 24 hours in the future looking backward it would be easy.
    Under the right circumstances every child or young adult has the potential to be a victim or a victimizer. As a parent I hope I can educate my children to these dangers without sounding like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons.
 

Monday, October 20, 2014

Reasonable West Africa travel restrictions not the same things as a travel ban

    In the debate over travel bans to West Africa, one fact seems to be missing. Travel restrictions are not travel bans.
    It is highly desirable that aid workers, health care workers, government officials, and business people be able to travel back and forth between West Africa and the rest of the world. That doesn't mean additional steps can't be taken to prevent the importation of the disease into the United States.
    For starters, we don't need to allow people with West African passports into the United States on tourist visas if there is any chance their travel has originated from West Africa. No American needs to travel to West Africa merely to see the sights. They can wait to see Disneyworld and we can wait to tour Monroevia.
    Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian who brought Ebola to the United States, arrived on a tourist visa. He had told his friends that his intention was to illegally overstay his visa and work in the U.S. He was willing to take this chance because Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress refuse to protect our nation's borders or enforce our immigration laws. A restriction on tourist travel or a reputation for enforcement of immigration laws would have kept Duncan -- and Ebola -- out of the country.
    Most Ebola cases will manifest themselves within 21 days of exposure, although the World Health Organization and other researchers say the virus can have a longer incubation period. Obviously a quarantine period either before or after a flight greatly reduces the risk of exposing the general public to Ebola.
    For example, if Thomas Duncan had been required to undergo a five-day quarantine in Liberia prior to boarding his flight to the United States he wouldn't have been allowed to do so, as by the fifth day he would have been showing symptoms of the virus. Any quarantine period is better than none at all.
    West Africans could be quarantined in their home countries prior to boarding their flights; their governments are very cooperative. Americans could be allowed to return home and serve their quarantine in the United States. The quarantine period should be based on the likelihood of exposure, with everyone having a minimum quarantine period of four or five days; those with likely exposure would have a full 21-day quarantine.
    A few days in a hotel sipping Mai Tais by a hotel swimming pool doesn't seem too much of a burden on those wishing to travel from West Africa to the United States. It won't hamper relief efforts.
    Travel restrictions and travel bans will not eliminate the risk of ebola cases arising in the heartland. If the contagion continues to grow at its current pace we will have cases which crop up here at home. Obama and the Democrats in Congress take the view that since travel restrictions won't stop all cases of Ebola we should just throw open the borders and take no precautions whatsoever. This is insanity! The fewer domestic cases we have to deal with, the better.
    Reasonable travel restrictions harm no one. A ban on tourist travel is a ban on those up to no good in the first place. A reasonable quarantine policy won't eliminate risk, but it will greatly reduce it, and that should be our goal.
    We don't need to ban West Africa travel. We do need to restrict and regulate it.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Shepard Smith says we have nothing to fear from Ebola virus, and that scares me a lot



    I grew up with Shepard Smith, although he's a few years younger than me. His father grew up with my father and is a good friend. I don't think I've seen Shepard since we were at Ole Miss together, but I've enjoyed the chance to observe his great success at Fox News over the years.
    Shepard was somewhat far to the left during his Ole Miss days and he's liberal today, which is fine. Without liberals we can't have conservatives, can we? So it doesn't surprise me that Shepard decided to serve as a shill for the Obama administration with a rant against media "hysteria" over Ebola.
    Feel free to listen to Shepard's rant. He's got some blatant factual errors, which I picked up right away. For example, he said the nurse did not show symptoms when she few from Cleveland to Dallas. This is just simply false. She had a fever of 99.5 and was instructed to fly on a commercial airliner by the CDC anyway. She almost certainly was not highly contagious at this point, but she was potentially contagious -- or at least the general consensus is that she was. So Shepard is just passing out false information, and I'm not sure why, since it is so clearly wrong.
    I suspect that Ebola probably isn't very contagious until the victim reaches the vomiting, diarrhea, and heavy sweating stage, at which point it becomes contagious beyond belief. With that said, I see no need for the government to encourage unnecessary risks, which it is currently doing. Ebola is considered contagious at the onset of symptoms.
    Here is the one fact I know for certain about the Ebola virus: Nothing is certain. And should we get to know anything for certain we won't know it for long, because the virus is constantly mutating. For that reason an abundance of caution is in order.
    I would argue that a certain amount of hysteria is both warranted and good. I think a fair definition of "hysteria" is an exaggerated fear or excitement. When it comes to Ebola, I think it is better that our society be too afraid than not afraid enough.
    Shepard says we have nothing to fear from Ebola. Nothing. This scares me almost much as Ebola does.
    Shepard says it's all politics. You know, when somebody like me, who is about as right-wing and conservative as one can get, starts screaming about the need to send massive amounts of medical aid to Africa, perhaps people ought to take notice. It's not politics. One recent article points out that liberals seem to be refusing to adopt sensible policies to fight Ebola simply because conservatives support them. Now that's politics.
    I'm not afraid that somehow I will catch Ebola because some nurse took a Frontier airline flight when she shouldn't have, even though the very long incubation period of this virus makes it especially dangerous. That's not the fear, and Shepard is right to say we shouldn't worry about this particular issue.
    The CDC has shown an extreme level of incompetence in battling the Ebola virus here in the United States. It failed to send a team of experts to Dallas for several days after Thomas Duncan was admitted. Apparently 78 health care workers were potentially exposed to the Ebola virus and two have now contracted the disease. The CDC told one of these nurses with Ebola to fly on a commercial jet after developing a fever. This level of incompetence is cause for some level of hysteria.
    Democrats dedicated to open borders insist on allowing people from countries with massive, uncontrolled Ebola outbreaks into the country without proper screening. The virus has up to a 21-day incubation period, but any infected person from West Africa who doesn't have a fever is permitted to enter the country, where they may then develop symptoms and infect others, as Thomas Duncan did. When the Obama administration essentially invites people infected with the Ebola virus to come spread it amongst the general population it is cause for some level of hysteria.
    Americans seem unwilling to establish or obey any safety guidelines concerning the Ebola virus. The second Dallas nurse violated CDC protocol by flying to Cleveland within 21 days of possible exposure to the Ebola virus. She wasn't supposed to fly; she did it anyway. NBC's chief medical correspondent Nancy Snyderman agreed to a voluntary 21-day quarantine after a member of her camera crew contracted Ebola. She broke the curfew in order to buy fast food. When Americans who are most knowledgeable about the need to follow safety precautions refuse to do so, how can we expect ordinary citizens to use good judgment. Yes, I'm afraid.
    There are two bits of good news concerning the Ebola virus in West Africa. First, a mathematical model which has been highly accurate in predicting the number of Ebola cases suggests the virus will begin to burn itself out in December. Of course, plenty will die before then, and I confess I have more hope than faith in the model. Second, the West has finally realized that the crisis in West Africa potentially threatens the entire world, and has been committing resources to stopping it (it doesn't help for Shepard to claim we have nothing to fear).
    Shepard says we have absolute nothing to fear from Ebola. Let me ask a question. We know that one of the 78 health care workers exposed to Ebola decided to breach protocol and take a plane to Cleveland -- and then was told by the CDC to fly back with a fever. There are 76 more exposed people. Is it not reasonable to fear some of the others may have breached protocol in a similar fashion?
    The CDC is considering placing the remaining 76 health care workers on the TSA no-fly list. These people are free to travel by car, but not by bus or plane. I presume that all of these 76 people are on paid leave.
    Does anyone consider it possible -- just possible -- that one of these 76 people might have family down in Mexico or even Central America that they've already decided drive down and see? After all, they've got a paid vacation, why not visit the family? Are poverty-stricken areas of Mexico and Central America well equipped to deal with an Ebola outbreak? Is this possibility not a cause for at least some fear?
    Most potential disasters will not happen. We can ignore or pay minimal attention to the Ebola virus and the chances are that it will burn itself out. When Herculean efforts are used to avert a crisis, no one knows if they are effective or not; if nothing bad happens perhaps the disaster never would have happened anyway. And so people like me are viewed as fear-mongerers or crackpots.
    I only offer my view as an alternative to Shepard's. He says Americans should have no fear of Ebola. I say we should all be very afraid. He says we shouldn't be hysterical. I say until the government demonstrates some level of competence in battling the disease, and adopts of policies to prevent new foreign cases from being introduced into the general population a certain amount of hysteria is in order.
    Do not remain calm. All is not well.

    UPDATE, 10/17/2014: One of the remaining 76 exposed workers did indeed go to Central America,  ON A CRUISE SHIP! She is reportedly asymptomatic and has voluntarily quarantined herself in her stateroom, but the insanity of her being on a cruise ship in the first place in mind-boggling. The nation of Belize would not allow her to come ashore to be flown back to the United States.
    I am very confident that my children, who are in ninth and tenth grade, could do a far better job of managing the Ebola crisis than is currently being done by the Obama administration.