Claptrap from the CDC director Tom Frieden on travel bans

The New Neo Posted on by

Absolute claptrap from the director of the CDC.

And it’s not even difficult to tell that it’s claptrap. The application of any sort of logic or common sense would reveal it as such.

Luckily, most Americans are not as stupid/illogical/manipulative/ill-informed/PC/mealy-mouthed/mendacious (take your pick, or combine several) as Dr. Tom Frieden; they support a travel ban from West AFrica 3 to 1. But they don’t get a say-so, do they? They just get to be potential sacrifices on the altar of political correctness.

It must take a fair amount of brains, medical knowledge, drive, and a record of impressive achievement to get to where Dr. Frieden is in the world. Why has it all deserted him now—except, perhaps, for the drive? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.)

The university’s not just dead…

The New Neo Posted on by

…it’s been zombified.

I’ve written before about the death of the university from the virus of pressure of special interest groups favored by the left. The phenomenon seems to have really caught on during the late 60s, when university administrations capitulated to, fed the beast, and joined the chorus of leftist voices. But the process has only accelerated and strengthened since then.

The latest manifestation, this time at Fordham, is a neat combination of both Kafkaesque and Orwellian. From Professor Doron Ben-Atar:

During an emotional meeting convened to discuss the appropriate response to the measure, I stated that should Fordham’s program fail to distance itself from the boycott, I will resign from the program and fight against it until it took a firm stand against bigotry. The program’s director, Michelle McGee, in turn filed a complaint against me with the Title IX office, charging that I threatened to destroy the program. (As if I could? And what does this have to do with Title IX?) This spurious complaint (the meeting’s minutes demonstrated that I did not make such a threat) ushered me into a bruising summer that taught me much about my colleagues, the university, and the price I must be willing to pay for taking on the rising tide of anti-Zionism on American campuses…

It was a sobering summer. I have had to defend my reputation against baseless, ever-evolving charges, ranging from sex discrimination to religious discrimination. I went through a Kafkaesque process in which I was never told exactly what I supposedly did wrong, nor was I ever shown anything in writing. Eventually I learned that the charge was religious discrimination born of my opposition to anti-Semitism. The implication is that anti-Semitism needs to be tolerated at Fordham, and that those who dare to fight it run afoul of university rules.

Administrators and colleagues failed to protect my First Amendment rights, and fed the assault on my character. A person utterly unqualified to understand anti-Semitism sat in judgment of a scholar who publishes on and teaches the subject. A report has been issued without letting me even defend myself. My choice to have legal representation has been cited as proof of my guilt. Most painful was realizing that my commitment to fighting anti-Semitism, so central to who I am, has been used against me in a most unethical manner not only by the member of the faculty who filed the baseless charge, but also by the office of the University Counsel.

Fordham remains my intellectual home. Some colleagues, appalled by the charge and proceedings, turned out to be actual loyal friends who supported me through the ordeal. But I also learned about another part of the university where colleagues resort to legal bullying to settle political scores; where heartfelt utterings at faculty brainstorming become evidence for politically motivated character assassinations; where those charged with protecting women against real abuses engage in a politically motivated witch-hunt; where fighting against the oldest hatred””anti-Semitism””makes one a pariah.

The university has long been on the front lines of the war the left has been waging for the hearts and minds of American youth, and has had no small effect on it. Fighting against the left’s influence has always been dangerous, but it has become more so as they’ve grown in power.

[NOTE: More at Legal Insurrection, including some tweets that show the overwhelming hypocrisy of the woman who launched the changes against Professor Ben-Atar, Micki McGee.]

Obama’s a better general than his generals, a better…

The New Neo Posted on by

…oh, a better everything than his everythings.

Does Obama listen to anyone except his political experts? Oh, he pretends to listen. He lets them talk—invites them to talk, even—and tilts his head and furrows his brow, and thanks them. And then they’re dismissed, while the real advisors and Obama confer:

…[I]nside the White House…the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.

The National Security Council staff, which coordinates U.S. defense, diplomatic and intelligence policy from inside the White House, has nearly doubled in size on his watch. It has gone from about 50 under George H.W. Bush to 100 under Bill Clinton, 200 under George W. Bush and about 370 under Obama.

Decisions small as well as large are made at the White House, often with scant influence from the Pentagon and State Department and their much larger teams of analysts and advisers. Senior Cabinet officials spend long hours in meetings debating tactics, not long-term strategy, the officials said.

One could understand this behavior in a president with some sort of previous foreign policy experience. But Obama has none. What he does have is boundless confidence/arrogance, and he likes to be advised by rank and sophomoric amateurs.

Presidents must ultimately take charge and make their own final decisions, of course. But that doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t or don’t listen to experts. Obama not only doesn’t listen to the experts (including those he’s appointed), he keeps his decisions a secret. Nobody knows, outside of a small circle of friends:

One former senior U.S. official said Obama’s 2011 decision to abandon difficult troop negotiations with Baghdad and remove the last U.S. soldiers from Iraq surprised the Pentagon and was known only by the president and a small circle of aides.

No one except those aides approved of it.

And the following much smaller decision was a huge mistake even in terms of politics (IMHO, responsible for even many liberals starting to doubt him—at least among some liberals I know):

While on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard in late August, he was widely criticized for golfing after making a condolence call to the family of murdered American journalist James Foley. Minutes after declaring Foley’s murderer – Islamic State – a “cancer” that had “no place in the 21st century,” Obama teed off with a campaign contributor, an old friend and a former NBA star.

Don’t worry, though, no-drama Obama isn’t going to do any soul-searching. Soul-searching is for the little people. Blaming is for Obama:

Obama later told aides the criticism was inevitable. No matter what I do, he said, my enemies will attack me.

Poor put-upon guy.

Again with the low-grade fever

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written that it seems that ebola can start with a low-grade fever for a while, and that the criteria for diagnosis should note that fact and not exclude people with other symptoms and risk factors because their fevers haven’t quite reached the 101.5 level yet.

Here’s even more evidence for that:

The CDC carried out further blood tests on Sunday that confirmed the [Dallas] healthcare worker’s preliminary positive result. Health officials said she had “mild” Ebola symptoms, including a “low-grade fever”.

Seems pretty clear at this point.

In other US-ebola-related news, the Dallas healthcare worker’s dog will be spared, unlike the Spanish one.

First case of ebola transmission in US is a Dallas health care worker…

The New Neo Posted on by

…who treated Thomas Eric Duncan.

I was wondering when the first US transmission would occur. I was hoping against hope it would not occur, but thinking that transmission was almost inevitable.

It is of interest that the first person to exhibit symptoms from US transmission is a health care worker who treated Duncan rather than a family member or friend who encountered him prior to his admission to the hospital. Of course, that doesn’t mean the latter group is out of the woods, not by a long shot. But it does suggest, if this pattern holds, that caring for an ebola patient in the later stages of the illness, even with protective gear, may be more dangerous than being around such a patient in the earlier stages—even though the delay in Duncan’s diagnosis meant that his family was around him, unprotected, as his symptoms become quite bad.

But the pattern of transmission here matches the pattern of transmission in Spain, which is that it occurred in the hospital under conditions that were supposedly in accord with recommended ebola-treatment protocol. And in each case, authorities have assumed there was a breach, and that this is what accounts for the transmission.

You may recall that the Spanish nurse’s assistant who got the disease had treated the Spanish priest (who’d been transferred to the hospital in the later stages of the illness, with authorities knowing full well what he had and employing the supposedly proper techniques to prevent transmission) very briefly, towards the end of his life, and then helped clean up his room after death. She is supposed to have breached protocol in the removal of her gloves, by touching her face. In the case of the Dallas transmission, it is also being blamed on a breach, this time an assumed one:

…[Dr. Daniel Varga,] a top federal health official said the health care worker’s Ebola diagnosis shows there was a clear breach of safety protocol and all those who treated Thomas Eric Duncan are now considered to be potentially exposed.

In addition [emphasis mine]:

…Dr. Tom Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on Sunday raised concerns about a possible breach of safety protocol and told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that among the things CDC will investigate is how the workers took off that gear ”” because removing it incorrectly can lead to a contamination.

“I think the fact that we don’t know of a breach in protocol is concerning, because clearly there was a breach in protocol,” Frieden said. “We have the ability to prevent the spread of Ebola by caring safely for patients … We’ll conduct a full investigation of what happens before health workers go in, what happens when they’re there, and what happens in the taking out, taking off their protective equipment because infections only occur when there’s a breach in protocol.”

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Maybe we just like to think that “infections only occur when there’s a breach in protocol,” because it’s even more frightening to consider that the current protocol may be inadequate. But one of the hallmarks of this particular outbreak has been that transmission to health care workers has been more frequent than in previous ones, and that sometimes the people who have been infected in this manner swear they’ve followed the rules. Officials have assumed the workers have breached protocol without realizing it, especially in Africa where conditions include heat and overwork, and sometimes poorly-trained personnel. But some of those who were infected there have been the top doctors working on the disease.

The fact that there have been two transmissions in the west, and both have involved health care workers who supposedly were in proper gear, is extremely troubling. But this entire thing is extremely troubling; we are in a heap of trouble. It is also very troubling (at least to me, although not very surprising) that officials don’t seem to take into consideration the fact that they may have to go back to the drawing board on protective gear.

And yet, what are the odds of seeing a West Africa travel ban here? I think they are very very low, unfortunately.

[NOTE: The article I linked to above is a model of how I believe reporters should be writing about Duncan and what he knew about his own exposure:

Duncan arrived in Dallas in late September, realizing a long-held ambition to join relatives. He came to attend the high-school graduation of his son, who was born in a refugee camp in Ivory Coast and was brought to the U.S. as a toddler when the boy’s mother successfully applied for resettlement.

The trip was the culmination of decades of effort, friends and family members said. But when Duncan arrived in Dallas, though he showed no symptoms, he had already been exposed to Ebola. His neighbors in Liberia believe Duncan become infected when he helped a pregnant neighbor who later died from it. It was unclear if he knew about her diagnosis before traveling.

Which of course doesn’t stop some people in the comments section there from blaming him.]

[ADDENDUM: One more thing—anyone who is involved in the treatment of this new case had better be extra careful. And each and every one of them deserves a medal, and combat pay. If you’re the praying sort, you might want to pray for them.

And for all of us.]

The wheels of justice…

The New Neo Posted on by

…grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Another story of a person falsely convicted of murder on flimsy evidence (in this case, testimony about a confession) that should never have been considered credible.

What an awful story.

Here are some more details on how it was that Susan Mellen was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole, and the efforts it took to free her.

One observation of mine: if a person is convicted, especially of a serious crime like murder, on the story of someone who says that person had confessed to them, and on almost nothing else, then that witness’s credibility is of the utmost importance. And yet in Mellen’s case, prosecutors appeared to have ignored the fact that the informant was a well-known serial liar.

We know that Republicans are the stupid party…

The New Neo Posted on by

But apparently they’ve gotten a tad better at countering the “war on women” this election cycle. Good.

My personal observation is that in 2012 the “war on women” caught Republicans flat-footed (what doesn’t?), and it really mattered. Quite a few of my friends/acquaintances seemed to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

Of course, they were always going to vote Democratic anyway.

The decline of political rhetorical style

The New Neo Posted on by

The folks here decided to do an analysis of presidential speeches over time:

Using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test””the most well-known reading comprehension algorithm””Vocativ analyzed over 600 presidential speeches, going back to George Washington. We measured syllables along with word and sentence counts, and gave each speech a numerical grade. For instance, a grade of four means the content is accessible to a fourth-grader, while a grade of 12 corresponds to that of a high school graduate, a 15 to that of a college graduate and a 21 or higher to that of a PhD.

They found that speeches have grown less sophisticated over time, and that “despite President George W. Bush’s reputation as a poor speaker, Obama’s speeches are only slightly more sophisticated.”

I think that, although the language of Obama’s speeches may (accent on the “may”) be a bit more sophisticated and—er—nuanced—than that of Bush’s, the thoughts expressed in Obama’s speeches are less sophisticated, really remarkably so.

The study didn’t mention frequency of lies, either. We’re talking style here.

I found this comment very interesting:

It’s tempting to read this [trend over time] as a dumbing down of the bully pulpit,” Shesol explains. “But it’s actually a sign of democratization. In the early Republic, presidents could assume that they were speaking to audiences made up mostly of men like themselves: educated, civic-minded landowners. These, of course, were the only Americans with the right to vote. But over time, the franchise expanded and presidential appeals had to reach a broader audience.”

Maybe. But if that’s true, it’s definitely not just due to that. I’ve noticed that the level of discourse in general—not just of educated, civic-minded landowner men—used to be much higher. Look at letters, including letters from women, from the past. Look at plays, such as the plays of Shakespeare, which were meant to be understood and enjoyed not just by the educated but by the groundlings. Nowadays, most people can’t follow them, even with the CliffsNotes.

On the matter of Duncan’s temperature on his initial ER visit

The New Neo Posted on by

It was reported by the Dallas hospital that treated Thomas Eric Duncan that his temperature was only 100.1 degrees on his first visit to the ER, and this was part of the reason they didn’t red-flag him at that point. It was also reported that the nurse’s assistant in Spain called medical authorities for the first time at a point when her temperature was in that same range, and they dismissed her. For those reasons it seemed to me that the ebola protocols saying a temperature had to be 101.5 and above were incorrect and should be lowered when a patient had been exposed to the virus (as was the Spanish nurse) or was an arrival from an ebola country (as was Duncan).

I still think so, based on the evidence about the nurse.

But as far as Duncan goes—well, the hospital seems to have misinformed us again, if this report turns out to be correct:

Thomas Eric Duncan’s temperature spiked to 103 degrees during the hours of his initial visit to an emergency room – a fever that was flagged with an exclamation point in the hospital’s record-keeping system, his medical records show.

Despite telling a nurse that he had recently been in Africa and displaying other symptoms that could indicate Ebola, the man who would become the only person to die from the disease in the U.S. underwent a battery of tests and was eventually sent home.

Duncan’s family provided his medical records to The Associated Press – more than 1,400 pages in all. They encompass his time in the ER, his urgent return to the hospital two days later and his steep decline as his organs began to fail.

In a statement issued Friday, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital said it had made procedural changes and continues to “review and evaluate” the decisions surrounding Duncan’s care.

It goes without saying that, if true, this would constitute a very good argument for negligence on the part of the hospital. Something—many things—seem to have gone extraordinarily wrong here.

No wonder the hospital is reviewing and evaluating.

Josephus Weeks, Duncan’s nephew, said the care his uncle received was “either incompetence or negligence.”

If the report is correct, I don’t see how anyone can argue with Josephus Weeks on that score. This is a much bigger error than any that have been alleged before on the part of the hospital in this case, particularly if the fever was flagged with that exclamation point. And (again with the caveat “if this is correct”), why did Dallas Presbyterian previously tell us Duncan’s temperature on that first visit was 100.1, if it was easily demonstrable that it was untrue? Did they expect to get away with that, or did they not even know how to access their own records?

This is truly awful.