Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not speaking specifically about the risk to my life, but in the effect that potential outcomes have on evaluating risk. The flu argument you make is a common example thrown around in this conversation, but it's not an accurate comparison. What is the mortality rate of the flu versus ebola? When I assess risks related to ebola, I tend to favor a more cautious approach, because the mortality rate is so high. This i…
> What is the mortality rate of the flu versus ebola? When I assess risks related to ebola, I tend to favor a more cautious approach, because the mortality rate is so high. I think that raises a several good points. A few considerations: 1) The 'proper' way to evaluate risk, as I understand it, is (likelihood * cost). A 10% chance you'll lose $100 costs you $10 each time you take that risk, over time. 2) I agree that…
What other BSL-4 pathogen are you referencing here? Or are you suggesting BSL-4 is an unappropriate classification? Maybe you think the scientific and biosafety community erred when they created the BSL-4 designation?
There is plenty of research out there that documents the objectibe risk.
There is very little research that documents supports a strategy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
People don't need to panic.
But that's entirely seperate from lack of comprehension of the actual risks involved. After all, you can't solve problems you don't admit to having.
Trying to deal with a BSL-4 pathogen with BSL-2 safety gear is a fools errand. We might not havy any better options, especially in backcountry settings, but lets not pretend its "not risky".
In densely populated urban areas those risks are simply not tolerable. They are not tolerable for two reasons: (1) we can do better; and (2) the technology that allows for (1) makes the risks of not doing (1) more problematic.
Technology allows us to isolate patients; but it also allows non-isolated patients to spread the pathogen further/faster. People with hemoraggic fever don't walk 1000Ks or cross continents on their own power. They only do so by using technology.
It makes sense that the appropriate technology be dedicated to helping contain these bio-hazards and to compassionately care for the afflicted.
But seriously, what do we have to gain by sticking our heads in the sand? It seems this is a cynical strategy by people who don't want to "get their hands dirty"? Mayb we can continue to provide false confidence to 'volunteers' to go to africa and do our dirty work for us?
Why do we need to play this charade? Lets just give these people the tools they need (including time, money , and gear) and properly de-brief them and the public about the risks and what is at stake from either mistakes or inaction.