The New York Times is out with an editorial calling for greater assistance to countries battling massive Ebola outbreaks:
[T]he risk that the Ebola virus might cause outbreaks in this country remains small. By far the greater danger lies in the very real possibility that the virus will continue to spiral out of control in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone and spread from there to other parts of Africa or other continents, opening a wider range of pathways for infected people to reach the United States.
Many countries and international organizations, led by the United States, have pledged money, equipment and manpower to fight the epidemic in West Africa. But the aid has been slow to reach the front lines, leaving health care workers with too few treatment beds to accommodate the sick. [...] The Army has started deploying thousands of troops to the area to help build new treatment centers, perform laboratory tests and train health care workers in how to treat patients, but most of that help has yet to arrive. It was thus disheartening to hear Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams, the commander of the United States Army Africa, dismiss criticism that American aid had been “too little, too late” with the excuse that the Pentagon was simply filling a “small gap” left by other health organizations.
The United States’ obligation is greater than that; President Obama needs personally to ramp up the urgency of the American response and the level and speed of the resources provided.
Nicole Gaouette at Bloomberg:
“We live in an extraordinarily interconnected world, and that is why it is so essential that we put full energy into stopping this virus in West Africa,” said Nancy Lindborg, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development who’s leading the aid agency’s Ebola response. “It is essential for the entire world to step forward with the kind of help that can stop this epidemic from spreading further.”
[...] In a 2013 analysis of future threats, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that a pandemic that incapacitated 1 percent of the world’s population -- about 70 million people today -- would be “one of the most disruptive events possible.”
“I have never seen a health event threaten the very survival of societies and governments in already very poor countries,” Margaret Chan, director general of the Geneva-based World Health Organization, said in a statement yesterday that called Ebola’s spread “a crisis for international peace and security.”
Meanwhile,
Celine Grounder at Reuters runs through the facts about Ebola to explain why a likelihood of an outbreak in the United States is so slim:
Once again, the specter of airborne Ebola is being raised.
No virus that causes disease in humans has ever been known to mutate to change its mode of transmission. This means it is highly unlikely that Ebola has mutated to become airborne. It is, however, droplet-borne — and the distinction between the two is crucial. [...] As we rule out Ebola being airborne, the droplet-borne risk of Ebola must be addressed. Most important, those on the frontlines—especially nurses and doctors—should be provided with the necessary training and personal protective equipment to ensure that there are no more transmissions within hospitals.
Much more on this and the day's other top stories below the fold.
Rebecca Kaplan at CBS News highlights Republican obstructionism:
One question in particular has been bandied about by Republicans: does the U.S. need an Ebola "czar"? "I would say that we don't know exactly who's in charge. There has to be some kind of czar," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, on CNN Sunday.
It's a surprising request for a senator who once said that the Obama administration has "more czars than the Romanovs." But he's not the first to suggest that's the right approach. [...] Such a high-profile public health crisis also highlights the fact that the nation currently finds itself without the "Nation's Doctor," the popular term for the surgeon general.
Mr. Obama's nominee for the post, Dr. Vivek Murthy, has fallen victim to congressional gridlock (he must be confirmed by the Senate) over a lighting-rod political issue: guns.
Andrew Ross Sorkin at The New York Times looks at the economic fallout of the crisis:
The most authoritative model, at the moment, suggests a potential economic drain of as much as $32.6 billion by the end of 2015 if “the epidemic spreads into neighboring countries” beyond Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, according to a recent study by the World Bank.
That estimate is considered a worst-case scenario, but it does not account for any costs beyond the next 18 months, nor does it assume a global pandemic.
If you share one article today with your friends on social media, share this one by Michael Hiltzik at The Los Angeles Times. He runs through the drastic budget cuts at the CDC:
The NIH and CDC have done an admirable job of trying to keep national alarm about Ebola properly tamped down thus far, though they can't stop political stupidity from spreading faster than the virus. Just this weekend, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tried to show that Ebola funding has suffered because the health agencies have wasted their money on public health and prevention campaigns, which he dismissed as "non-essential priorities."
Jindal unwittingly exposes his political agenda by starting his piece with the words, "yet another American has contracted Ebola." If you're counting, the number of Americans who have contracted Ebola inside these borders is now one.
What Jindal's concealing, however, is that the programs he attacked amount to a tiny fraction of the agencies' budgets, could reduce deaths from preventable conditions by hundreds of thousands of persons a year and could save billions in healthcare costs. The idea that we must choose between preventive health and infectious disease preparedness is wholly Republican, and wholly wrong.
On to other topics making news...
here's your morning laugh:
When Romney and Ernst gathered in a West Des Moines boardroom with about 40 agriculture executives Sunday night, one businessman after another pleaded with Romney to give the White House another shot.
And at a rally for Ernst in Cedar Rapids on Monday, the state legislator who introduced Romney said, “If his address was 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I would sleep a lot better.” After Romney and Ernst finished speaking, some activists chanted, “Run, Mitt, run!”
Eugene Robinson takes a look at our strategy against ISIS and isn't impressed:
It’s not too soon to state the obvious: At this point, the war against the Islamic State can be seen only as failing.
U.S.-led air power has barely been able to keep the jihadist militants from capturing the Syrian town of Kobane, near the Turkish border — and the besieged city may yet fall. Far to the southeast, Islamic State fighters have come within a few miles of Baghdad and threaten to consolidate their control of the vast Anbar Province, the Sunni heartland of Iraq. The self-proclaimed “caliphate” remains intact, and its forces are advancing.
Bryce Covert at The Nation looks at the wage gap in the tech industry:
[A]ll the nice talk about wanting greater diversity may stand little chance against the unconscious (and sometimes very conscious) biases women face in the tech industry. The misconceptions and unfair perceptions of women swirling in men’s heads hold women back. And the reality is, women are underpaid in tech. Women working in science, technology, engineering or math (commonly known as STEM) jobs make $15,900 less than men a year. College-educated women in Silicon Valley make $21,599 less. Even with various factors taken into consideration, female computer scientists make 89 percent of what male ones make. Looking at the data, it’s obvious that politely waiting until bosses offer raises isn’t working.
And we'll close with an excellent piece by
Catherine Rampell on closing the wage gap as well:
Differential willingness to negotiate and ask for raises has real, measurable financial consequences, including the reality that women will get less money than men for the same work. Even if all requests for raises are not successful — and right now, wages don’t seem to be rising for anyone — enough of them will be so that, if one group asks and another one doesn’t, you’ll see a gap in pay between the two.
Why are women so reluctant to negotiate? One common theory is that we fear being seen as selfish or, worse, unlikable. This may not be as shortsighted as it sounds. Babcock’s research has also found that women who ask for raises do get more money but are perceived as less likable than men who do the exact same thing — and women may fear that being disliked will hold back their careers over the long run. This seems to be the “karma” Nadella referred to: Your boss will like you more if you don’t demand more money. Especially if you’re female.