Safer is good (and more information via research is good too), but I think what will happen is more use against the public for more trivial reasons, because after all, it's "safe".

Kinda like how pepper spray and tasers were safer than being shot, and LEOs became inclined to use them against the most trivial or even no resistance.

If the choices boil down to "wall them off and let them die" or "spread the epidemic far and wide" -- yeah, I know which one I'd choose.

So far it appears that the more treatment is attempted, the worse it gets, because the caregivers are at such risk, and some will need treatment in turn... rinse and repeat until there are no caregivers left.

Quarantine may not be kind to the victims, but spreading it around so everyone can share isn't kind to anyone.

I suggest sending Air Force One to Liberia, with Obama aboard. Wonder what tune he'd be whistling then...

Even if that worked, high doses of vitamin C can cause bleeding. Hmmm... maybe it was the gun after all.

And if an individual's immune response is slow or poor, there may not BE any antibodies until too late for the test to catch.

The obvious solution is a 4 week quarantine (to make sure every case is discovered -- a few may incubate beyond the usual) everyone who's been in West Africa.

This isn't "denying a citizen entry"; it's delaying it due to sheer common sense.

Better, tho, would be to quarantine the affected parts of West Africa as best we can; let people in, but don't let them back out. Because what we're doing now is pretty much guaranteeing ebola's spread.

You could also quickly and easily negate any sort of protest... including protests against using chemical restraint on the public.

Who are the "bad guys" is generally dependent on what laws you have and who enforces them. YOUR side won't always be in charge.

My first thought was -- what if it hits a kid or small adult? I'd guess their dosage assumes a roughly 150 pound adult, because that way it'll stop the "more dangerous" persons. I guess anyone under the presumed body mass had better not get hit, eh?

I'd noticed that too -- that there's a broader range of physical types among Africans than everyone else combined. And as I once put it, turn everyone the same shade of green, and the African faces will retain the most individuality.

It's the same with other animals. Males beat each other up, settle their differences, then go have a beer together. But females never quit til the target is dead.

While I'd agree that some arguments are more or less valid than others -- how can you know, if you don't get to hear both sides? Maybe both sides are right, or both are bogus!

It shouldn't be up to the news media to decide which side the rest of us get to hear.

In fact that was my first thought -- they didn't discover a temple; they discovered Ugg's Rib Joint.

Or possibly a communal kitchen, which wasn't so uncommon way back when.

See also Digging the Weans, by Robert Nathan.

http://www.joshpachter.com/pag...

This is why I think government's revenue should be limited to export tariffs. That way it's directly dependent on people doing well, and having the wherewithal to generate a surplus. Which is what our own gov't depended on for a century and change, and was thereby kept in check. The income tax and property taxes changed everything, because gross income is always greater than net surplus.

What if the "pointless content" it gets rid of is YOUR content??

Don't assume the people in charge will always be on your side.

It's a different grade of fighting, tho. Males fight until everyone settles out where they are in the social hierarchy, then it stops; this stable endpoint is disrupted when the goal is always promotion. Kinda like always adding a new male to the mix.

But the root difference is that males fight to secure their own status, while females fight to kill anyone they see as competition. Males beat each other up, then go have a beer. But when females see another female as a rival, it never ends til one is dead. Can't quite get away with murder in the office, but the virtual hairpulling just goes on and on.

Depends if the job requires physical strength.

My concern would be more along the lines of what I've observed in all-female offices. The social environment is a lot more likely to get ugly for those of lower status than when there's even one male present.

Incidentally this is nothing unique to humans; in most animals, an all-female group fights a lot, but add even one male and things calm down. All-male groups may fight at first but soon find equilibrium. All-female groups never give it up until all the "targets" are dead.