Thursday, October 30, 2014


News Clips For The Day


THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dd3bdb6-5f95-11e4-8c27-00144feabdc0.html

Nato fighter jets intercept Russian military aircraft
Sam Jones, Defence and Security Editor
October 29, 2014

More than two dozen Russian military aircraft, including six nuclear bombers, have conducted “significant military manoeuvres” on the edges of Nato and European airspace in the past 24 hours, causing jets to be scrambled from eight countries as well as Nato’s own Baltic air policing force.

The incidents – three of which occurred on Wednesday and one on Tuesday – followed last week’s violation of Nato airspace by a Russian spy plane, the first since the end of the cold war. Taken together they constitute the most serious air provocation mounted by the Kremlin against the alliance this year, if not in more than a decade, according to Nato officials.

“These sizeable Russian flights represent an unusual level of air activity over European airspace,” Nato said in a detailed statement issued from its headquarters in Belgium.

Military officials at Nato point to a threefold increase this year in the number of times they have had to scramble fighters to fend off Russian aircraft. Finland and Sweden have separately reported big incidents.

On Wednesday the air forces of alliance members Denmark, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Turkey and the UK, as well as those of Finland and Sweden, remained on high alert.

The most significant intercept on Wednesday occurred in the North Sea. A force of eight Russian aircraft, including four Tu-95 long-range strategic nuclear bombers and four refuelling aircraft, were detected flying in formation at about 3 am central European time flying from mainland Russia over the Norwegian Sea.

Six aircraft turned back, but two bombers continued southwards, close to the Norwegian coast and followed by F16s sent to intercept them by the Royal Norwegian air force. When the Russian aircraft then turned over the North Sea, RAF Typhoons were scrambled to intercept as they approached UK airspace. Portuguese fighters were later deployed as they came near the Iberian peninsula.

The aircraft did not file flight plans, had turned off their transponders and did not respond to any radio calls from civilian or military controllers.

Simultaneously, jets from the Nato Baltic Air Policing mission based at Šiauliai in Lithuania had to be scrambled to intercept a force of seven Russian fighters, including two MiG-31 Foxhounds, two Su-34 Fullbacks, one Su-27 Flanker and two Su-24 Fencers.

Turkish jets were also sent up to monitor two Russian strategic bombers escorted by two Russian fighter jets approaching their airspace from across the Black Sea.

On Tuesday, German, Danish, Finnish and Swedish jets had to be scrambled to deal with another big incident in the Baltic, instigated by a force of seven Russian jets identical to that a day later. Though the Russian jets had filed a flight plan, and were using transponders, they kept radio silence with air traffic controllers despite attempts to contact them, according to Nato.

The increased number of Russian air provocations is causing significant concern at the alliance. While Nato has quadrupled the number of jets it has stationed in the Baltic states in the past year – from four to 16 – and has spent more than €150m upgrading airbases there, Russia has remained undeterred in its adventurism in the skies.

In a sign of the jumpiness the Russian provocations have caused among Nato members, RAF jets were also scrambled to guide a civilian Antonov cargo plane into landing in Stansted airport near London on Wednesday evening. The event caused a supersonic boom – triggering calls to police from concerned local residents – as they rushed to intercept the plane. The plane had been flying over London when it stopped responding to radio calls from civilian air traffic controllers.



http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-08-09/obama-3/

Obama: Putin ‘Bored Kid’ Slouching in Back of Classroom
By Mark Silva
August 9, 2013

Since the return of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he said, “we have seen more rhetoric that is anti-American… I have encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward, rather than backwards… with mixed success.”

The president insisted that there is plenty of room for cooperation between the two nations: “My hope is that over time Mr. Putin and Russia recognize that… if the two countries are working together we can probably advance both peoples.”

Asked how he can conduct business with Russia without a good relationship with Putin, Obama went on to say: “I don’t have a bad personal relation with Putin. When we have conversations, they’re candid. They’re blunt. Oftentimes, they’re constructive. I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is is that when we’re in conversations together, oftentimes it’s very productive.”



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-nordics-russia-idUSKBN0IH1A120141028

Nordic, Baltic states face 'new normal' of Russian military threat
BY ALISTER DOYLE AND SIMON JOHNSON
OSLO/STOCKHOLM  Tue Oct 28, 2014

(Reuters) - Fears of Russia re-asserting its Cold War dominance in the Baltic Sea are forcing countries there to re-think their defenses, prioritizing military spending at home and reducing participation in far-flung U.N. or U.S.-led missions.

Sweden's fruitless search for a submarine -- dubbed by locals "The Hunt for Reds in October" -- and Russian violations of airspace are seen as elements of what one defense minister called a 'hybrid warfare', where fear and propaganda are deployed to keep countries on their toes.

"It is a new normal," Anna Wieslander, deputy director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, said of Russia's greater military activity. "The readiness to respond to suspected territorial violations needs to be increased."

Most countries on Russia's northwestern flank are planning higher military spending, reversing sharp falls of recent years, after the crisis in Ukraine revived Cold War tensions and exposed aging equipment.

The Baltic states, for instance, have just one working tank -- a 1955 Soviet-era T-55 in Riga. Sweden's week-long search for a submarine was hampered by the sale or retirement of anti-submarine helicopters in 2008.

In the Cold War, Nordic nations were on a front line facing the Soviet Union across the Baltic. But the "peace dividend" reaped since then has meant less military spending. Sweden's defense budget, for example, shrank from 3 percent of gross domestic product in 1980 to 1.2 percent last year.

"Russia sees that ... this is a Monty Python type of defense," said Jonathan Eyal, international director of the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London.

Estonia has reported six breaches of airspace by Russian aircraft this year, up from two in all of 2013. Latvia says it has sighted more than 40 Russian military vessels near its waters this year, usually a rarity.

"Defensive tasks closer to home must take a higher priority if Russian adventurism is to be deterred," said Keir Giles, a military expert at the Chatham House think-tank in Britain.

TURNING INWARDS

Shoring up domestic defenses is leaving fewer resources for foreign missions.

Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said Oslo would not match Denmark in sending F-16 fighter planes to help the United States fight Islamic State militants in Iraq.

"My impression is that all our NATO friends believe our key role now is actually to ensure good surveillance in the north," Solberg told Norway's TV2 this month.

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said her new center-left government would be less enthusiastic about working with NATO. Sweden and Finland are outside NATO while Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are members.

"I think we have to do both," Wallstrom told reporters on Friday of local and foreign priorities.

"I am interested in using Sweden's good name in contributing to U.N. troops and U.N. missions" such as in Mal, she said, but stressed: "Of course we don't have unlimited resources."

In 2010, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite rejected higher military spending, arguing that pensions and wages were a priority. She changed her tune after Russia's annexation of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine in March and Russian exercises off the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.

"Life always gives many corrections, including to political decisions," she said.

PUTIN TESTS NATO

Russian President Vladimir Putin may see the small Nordic and Baltic nations as a testing ground for the unity of the U.S.-led NATO alliance - NATO members are obliged to treat an attack on any member as an attack on all.

The Baltic states, which regained independence from Moscow in 1991, are acutely aware of vulnerability. Like Ukraine, they rely on Russian energy and have sizeable Russian minorities.

Lithuania hopes to meet an informal NATO goal of 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2017, up from 0.9 percent in 2014. Latvia aims to met the goal by 2020, also up from 0.9 pct in 2014.

Estonia, the only Nordic or Baltic nation to meet the NATO goal, plans to raise spending fractionally to 2.05 percent of GDP in 2015.

Finland is considering raising defense spending, projected at 1.3 percent of GDP in 2015.

"We have squeezed every possible thing out and in the long term, that will not be enough to sustain a credible defense," Finnish Defense Minister Carl Haglund said at the weekend.

Some say the Russian threat should not be exaggerated.

"I cannot imagine that Russia would dare to disturb the Baltic countries or Poland or any NATO member," Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lindegaard told Reuters, saying Moscow was waging a 'hybrid warfare'.

"You have massive propaganda, provocations, stimulation of groups inside other countries, which is not warfare but which is something very hostile and close to warfare," he said.

Sverre Diesen, head of Norway's armed forces from 2005-09, said the region had to forget hopes of a benign, democratic neighbor and accept that Russia "will remain a great power but with an autocratic regime of one kind or another".

The Russians, he said: "will always try to push their ... area of interest forward as a matter of geopolitical instinct, without necessarily harboring plans for immediate and bare-faced aggression."

(With extra reporting by Alistair Scrutton and Simon Johnson in Stockholm, Aija Krutaine in Riga, David Mardiste in Tallinn, Andrius Sytas in Vilnius, Annabella Nielsen in Copenhagen, Jussi Rosendahl in Helsinki, Adrian Croft in Brussels; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)




I think Putin is trying – constantly – to advance his image as a very dangerous man. I personally think he is clever, sometimes wise, never moral or ethical, and mainly interested in regaining control over the Baltic nations to put his name in the history books, but with bluffs rather than war. He hates NATO, but I don't believe he will gather his army and march into a nation like Poland as the Russians did in the Cold War. The stakes are too high. Within the last several months it was reported that his economy is weak and starting a war is expensive.

I also think Europe and the US will put up a fight if he does try such a move. The Reuters article above shows Poland moving to increase its military might to push back against Russia. The US has already started improving the NATO armaments in the nations nearest Russia, and if the Republicans win in this next week's Senatorial elections, that will bring in more “hawks” who will support limited war. I am very interested in what is going on, but I'm not exactly afraid, partly because I think Putin is too smart to move Russian tanks into another nation, even Ukraine.





http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/colorado-man-who-disappeared-from-broncos-game-walked-and-hitchhiked-100-miles-home-174658949.html

Colorado man who disappeared from Broncos game walked and hitchhiked 100 miles home
By Frank Schwab
October 29, 2014

The story of how Paul Kitterman disappeared at halftime of last Thursday's Denver Broncos-San Diego Chargers game was strange, but at least he's safe. But the story behind what happened after his disappearance is even stranger than the disappearance itself.

Kitterman was found safe on Tuesday night in the parking lot of a Salvation Army in Pueblo, which is 112 miles south of Sports Authority Field, where Kitterman was last seen by his family at the Broncos' game. His disappearance made national news, but he didn't know because he said he hadn't watched television in several days and wasn't aware people were looking for him, the Associated Press reported. Kitterman said he didn't want to watch any more football so he walked and hitchhiked his way home.

Yep, the 53-year-old man walked and hitchhiked 112 miles because he had "his fill of football." It's great that he's safe, but that's unusual.

"He said he had his fill of football and that he likes to walk and wander, and he was looking for a warmer place," Pueblo police Sgt. Franklyn Ortega said, according to the AP. 

Temperature at kickoff of the Broncos-Chargers game was 68 degrees.

After he was found Kitterman was tired and had trouble walking but an exam showed he was unharmed, the AP report said. A friend's ex-wife saw him at the Salvation Army, picked him up and dropped him off at a hotel.

His stepson, who Kitterman went to the game with, said Kitterman had only four or five beers in a four-hour span, and that his stepfather didn't have any known health or personal problems. Now that Kitterman is safe, the police have no plans to file charges. He didn't do anything wrong, after all. 

"He's a grown man. If that's what he wants to do, he can do it," Ortega said. 



This article doesn't give Kitterman's age. One of the things that causes people to walk away from home like that is Alzheimer's. I hope he is okay, physically, and that his family will look into his mental health. He does remember his reason for leaving the game, though – he just “had 'his fill of football.' It's great that he's safe, but that's unusual.” Personally I have to agree with him on football. I can't watch more than five minutes of it. Basketball or tennis I enjoy. I can see lots of movement and action in those games.





With Marines Gone, Can The Afghan Army Hold Off The Taliban? – NPR
by SEAN CARBERRY
October 27, 2014

U.S. Marines board a C-130 transport plane as they withdraw from Camp Leatherneck, their huge base in southern Afghanistan. This marked the biggest handover yet to the Afghan army, which is facing a tough fight with the Taliban in Helmand province and other parts of southern Afghanistan.

The desert sun beat down on the U.S., British and Afghan troops gathered at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. The Marines rolled up their flag as it came down, along with the NATO and British banners.

With the ceremony on Sunday, the Afghan army is now in command of Camp Leatherneck and neighboring Camp Bastion, the former British base.

As the U.S. military presence winds down in Afghanistan, this was by far the biggest transfer yet, and it marked the end of a Marine mission here that began in 2009. At the time, British forces were in charge of Helmand province, but they weren't able to subdue the Taliban. So the U.S. sent in the Marines, and at the peak, 20,000 of them were battling the Taliban in this part of the country.

The Taliban haven't been defeated in Helmand, and the departure of the Marines raises questions about whether the Afghan army will be able to fend off the Taliban.

"This transfer is a sign of progress," said Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo, the last commander of Regional Command Southwest, which is now effectively dissolved. Closing out this mission is a personal bookend for him. He was a Marine lieutenant colonel in the force that stormed into southern Afghanistan in 2001.

Between then and now, more than 350 Marines died in Helmand province. In addition, more than 450 British troops were killed fighting here.

"And they will always be in our thoughts and hearts," said Yoo.

The U.S. still has around some 20,000 military personnel in Afghanistan, including a small Army base in Helmand province that is expected to remain for a few more months.

However, the American combat mission throughout Afghanistan is set to conclude by the year's end after more than 13 years of war. The U.S. and Afghanistan recently signed a security agreement that calls for the U.S. to keep nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan over the next two years to help the Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism operations.

After Sunday's ceremony, some of the Marines headed straight to the airfield, others went to finish packing, and a few manned the guard towers for their last watch.

Lance Cpl. Javonte James, with 3rd Platoon of Alpha Company of the 1-2 Marines out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., said it was a great honor to be part of the last Marine unit in Helmand.

"We're worn out. But at the same time, the war is over, it's time to go home," he said.

He said he had faith in the Afghan army, which is facing a tough fight in Helmand. The Taliban have inflicted heavy casualties this year on Afghan forces, who have lost nearly as many troops in 2014 as NATO has lost in the province since 2001.

Looking out the tower, James says he's shocked how quickly the base was torn down.

"One minute you see a building, and the next it's gone," he said.

This base once housed more than 40,000 personnel. It was a small city. The last time I was here in 2013 the base was still bustling with thousands of troops and contractors.

Now, it looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic zombie movie. There is an eerie stillness. The only sounds are generators humming in the distance and the sound of fighter jets circling overhead. They are providing security, now that the base's surveillance hardware has been dismantled.

As far as you can see, there are empty buildings and razor wire fences surrounding vast expanses of nothingness.

As the Marines prepared to depart, a convoy pulled out of the adjoining Afghan base. The Afghans followed Alpha Company along the base perimeter. At each tower, two Afghans got out and replaced the Marines on duty.

They quickly shook hands, the Marines wished their replacements well, and then they headed to the flight line.

Over the next few hours, Marines squeezed themselves into a variety of helicopters and C-130 cargo planes.

There are no seats in the planes. The troops sat on their backpacks in the cargo bay for the flight to Kandahar. One looming question: What would come next for the Marines?
Capt. Joseph Wiese served in Iraq in 2009 and helped the Marines transition from that war to Afghanistan.

"What the heck's going on in Syria?" he asks. "What's going on in the rest of the world? Before, we were [preparing] to go to Afghanistan, and now the world's not any safer, so job security looks good."




“This marked the biggest handover yet to the Afghan army, which is facing a tough fight with the Taliban in Helmand province and other parts of southern Afghanistan. … With the ceremony on Sunday, the Afghan army is now in command of Camp Leatherneck and neighboring Camp Bastion, the former British base.... The U.S. still has around some 20,000 military personnel in Afghanistan, including a small Army base in Helmand province that is expected to remain for a few more months. However, the American combat mission throughout Afghanistan is set to conclude by the year's end after more than 13 years of war. The U.S. and Afghanistan recently signed a security agreement that calls for the U.S. to keep nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan over the next two years to help the Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism operations.... He said he had faith in the Afghan army, which is facing a tough fight in Helmand. The Taliban have inflicted heavy casualties this year on Afghan forces, who have lost nearly as many troops in 2014 as NATO has lost in the province since 2001.... As the Marines prepared to depart, a convoy pulled out of the adjoining Afghan base. The Afghans followed Alpha Company along the base perimeter. At each tower, two Afghans got out and replaced the Marines on duty. They quickly shook hands, the Marines wished their replacements well, and then they headed to the flight line. Over the next few hours, Marines squeezed themselves into a variety of helicopters and C-130 cargo planes.”

The military base which housed 40,000 fighters now is empty except for those Afghan troops who have taken over. “Now, it looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic zombie movie. There is an eerie stillness. The only sounds are generators humming in the distance and the sound of fighter jets circling overhead. They are providing security, now that the base's surveillance hardware has been dismantled.”

I do hope the Afghan army is strong enough and determined enough to subdue the Taliban. The social domination that the Taliban and their friends al-Qaeda have enforced over the Afghan and Pakistani people is an abomination to me, especially their abuse of women. Also their idea of education is to teach the boys only, and then only teach rote memorization of the Koran. A country like that can't take a competitive place in the world, and they don't make good allies to a democratic society. All they're good for is sending suicide bombers to places where peaceful civilians gather. I don't feel very hopeful about this turnover to the Afghan army. If the new leadership under Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai will be socially and religiously enlightened, and if they avail themselves of Western aid, maybe they will remain on a path to greater freedom, strength and prosperity.



President of Afghanistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghanistan has only been a republic between 1973 and 1992 and from 2001 onwards. Before 1973, it was a monarchy that was governed by a variety of kings, emirs or shahs. From 1992 to 2001, during the civil war, the country was recognized as the Islamic State of Afghanistan and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The Constitution of Afghanistan grants the president wide powers over military and legislative affairs, with a relatively weak national bicameral national assembly, the Wolesi Jirga (House of the People) andMeshrano Jirga (House of Elders). The Presidents can only serve up to two five-year terms. Hamid Karzai started his first five-year term in 2004.[1] After his second term ended in 2014, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzaiwas chosen as the next president.






EBOLA – TWO ARTICLES


Why It's OK To Worry About Ebola, And What's Truly Scary – NPR
By Nancy Shute
October 30, 2014

Public-health types are getting increasingly annoyed with people freaking out about Ebola in the United States, from governors to the general public. It's easy to see why; when I heard a swim coach was getting questions from parents worried that their children might get Ebola from the pool water, it's hard not to cue the eye roll.

On the other hand, I suspect I'm not the only person whose husband asked her to buy chlorine bleach and gloves the next time I went to the store.

Fear of the new, unknown and deadly is normal; it's what prompts us to act to protect ourselves. The question is how do we get from misplaced fears, like Ebola in the swimming pool, to the right kind of worry.

To find out, I called up Peter Sandman, a crisis communication consultant who's been working on how people and government officials respond to disease outbreaks for decades, including SARS and H1N1 flu.

So are we idiots for being worried about Ebola in the pool? 

It's certainly true in my judgment that the long-term risk to Americans isn't in the high school swimming pool. It isn't in New York City and it isn't in Dallas and it isn't the debate about whether we quarantine or isolate or self-monitor or actively monitor returning volunteers. It's not any of that.

It's in whether we can get some control over what's going on in West Africa, whether we can get the epidemic under control. And it's in whether, if we can't get it under control or until we get it under control, a lot of sparks fly and ignite epidemics in other parts of the world.

There are lots of reasons to think that the United States can put out those sparks. But putting out the spark in Dallas was harder than we thought. It's not easy, it's not cheap, it's not pain-free, but if we have 10 Ebola cases a month we can do it.

But if India has 10 a month, Nigeria has 10 a month, very few people feel they can do it. If the epidemic in West Africa continues, it's hard to imagine that it isn't going to spread. And many of the places it would spread to have health-care systems that won't be able to cope.

It's one thing to argue that we should close the border to travelers from West Africa. But imagine trying to stop people coming in from India. Or worse, yet imagine trying to stop stuff coming in from India. Imagine India in chaos and what that would do to the United States. Now imagine Mexico in chaos. That's what people should be worried about.

(Sandman gets more deeply into pandemic Ebola risks in this column.) See the website to read further.

If that's the true risk, why so much commotion over Ebola at home?

When people are coming to terms with a new worry, it's very normal to worry about the wrong things for a while. You personalize it; you localize it; you imagine it's happening here rather than there and now rather than later and to you directly.

I'd like to see Americans shifting their focus from the risk that's small to the risk that's huge, but thinking the small risk is huge isn't a stupid place to start.

The people who are trying to say stop worrying about Ebola in New York, stop worrying about Ebola at Newark airport, what they're trying to do is lose the teachable moment. If they succeed in getting people to stop worrying, they will regret it, because there's a lot to worry about it.

Calming us down shouldn't be a goal. It would be different if people were panicking in the street.

But the evidence doesn't say that say people are unreasonably, dangerously upset. They're sometimes worried about the right things more than the experts are. I think it's reasonable that when people read that the CDC and WHO say Ebola is characterized by a sudden onset of symptoms to think, doesn't that mean you could be fine at 10 o'clock and vomiting in the subway at noon? Then I think you should stay home. What's irrational about that?

So what you've got are people who are climbing the learning curve, and in some cases learning more quickly than officials — learning that you probably can't get it from someone who doesn't have symptoms, but also leaning that the people who told you that have made some mistakes.

The governors have gotten a lot of heat from the White House and CDC for trying to impose quarantines on returning health care workers. Why is this so controversial?

The public health people are getting it wrong and framing it disingenuously.

There's certainly a case to be made that quarantine is excessive, that active monitoring would be good enough. But it seems to me to be a pretty open debate on whether quarantine is excessive or appropriate, and it depends on how cautious you want to be. Saying that the science proves incontrovertibly that quarantine is wrong – it's bad communication and it's bad science.

The CDC is desperately trying to recruit people to go to West Africa. Nobody asks the obvious question – if you're worried that quarantine is going to hurt recruitment, aren't you biased when you say quarantine isn't necessary?

OK, so we're worried with good reason. What do we do with that fear?

That's a fair question. If a friend said, I buy your argument about sparks, and I'd like to make a contribution, here's what I'd tell them.

Help put pressure on the government to push harder on vaccine research. They're pushing much harder than they were, but it's way smaller than the Manhattan Project. Get them going on virus time rather than project time.

A second thing I would be urging my friend to is think about is whether you can make a personal contribution or urge a government contribution in the direction of spark suppression.

If the thing that endangers the us most is a dozen epidemics in countries around the developing world, then if you want to volunteer, volunteer to make that less likely. If you want to contribute money, find an organization that wants to do that. Tell the CDC that you don't want 20 CDC experts in New York, you want 20 CDC experts in Nigeria to help get ready to put out the next spark and the one after that and the one after that.

You have reason to worry that your daily life a year or two from now could be significantly worse if Ebola is all over the world. But what you can do in your daily life to protect yourself against Ebola now is absolutely nothing.




“On the other hand, I suspect I'm not the only person whose husband asked her to buy chlorine bleach and gloves the next time I went to the store. Fear of the new, unknown and deadly is normal; it's what prompts us to act to protect ourselves. The question is how do we get from misplaced fears, like Ebola in the swimming pool, to the right kind of worry.... It's in whether we can get some control over what's going on in West Africa, whether we can get the epidemic under control. And it's in whether, if we can't get it under control or until we get it under control, a lot of sparks fly and ignite epidemics in other parts of the world. If the epidemic in West Africa continues, it's hard to imagine that it isn't going to spread. And many of the places it would spread to have health-care systems that won't be able to cope. It's one thing to argue that we should close the border to travelers from West Africa. But imagine trying to stop people coming in from India. Or worse, yet imagine trying to stop stuff coming in from India. Imagine India in chaos and what that would do to the United States. Now imagine Mexico in chaos. That's what people should be worried about.... There's certainly a case to be made that quarantine is excessive, that active monitoring would be good enough. But it seems to me to be a pretty open debate on whether quarantine is excessive or appropriate, and it depends on how cautious you want to be. Saying that the science proves incontrovertibly that quarantine is wrong – it's bad communication and it's bad science.... Help put pressure on the government to push harder on vaccine research. They're pushing much harder than they were, but it's way smaller than the Manhattan Project. Get them going on virus time rather than project time. A second thing I would be urging my friend to is think about is whether you can make a personal contribution or urge a government contribution in the direction of spark suppression.”

“Tell the CDC that you don't want 20 CDC experts in New York, you want 20 CDC experts in Nigeria to help get ready to put out the next spark and the one after that and the one after that.” This article would have us, as US citizens, think globally on this issue, because the epidemic is a truly global threat. It isn't just keeping Africans out of the US, or closing the swimming pools. It's the huge need for an effective vaccine and the kind of push we need in all developed nations to create those vaccines. This is definitely not a time for the federal government to wait for the “invisible hand” of the marketplace to produce a supply of vaccine. That's why we have no vaccines after decades of dealing with Ebola right now – it wasn't deemed profitable.

A month or so when I was reading about vaccine prototypes it was mentioned that full scientific testing takes years, and it is so clear to me that we don't have years. The last news report I saw was that January of 2015 should produce at least one vaccine. Other articles around that time said that preliminary testing on more than one vaccine or broad scope antiviral drug had already showed the drugs to be effective to some degree, though not necessarily guaranteed safe. Some processes, including blood transfusions from those who have survived it, have shown themselves to cure people who have developed Ebola symptoms. One thing we could do right now, and should do, is to stockpile blood from those who have developed antibodies and recovered to be used in field hospitals across Africa. An organization like the Red Cross has spent decades stockpiling blood supplies, so they should be doing that now. Records in the US and in Africa probably indicate who is a survivor and may be of help in that way.

“Putting out the spark in Dallas was harder than we thought.” Ebola viruses are active agents for a pretty long period before the patient shows symptoms. I have not been able to feel completely sure that patients are not contagious at all during that incubation period, and especially before they spike a fever, which is the criterion that is commonly being used. The CDC specifically says “before they show symptoms,” and to me the “feeling of weakness” that the second US doctor to come down with Ebola showed on the day before he spiked a fever was clearly a symptom. Following the rule of thumb of a fever being the crucial symptom, he went out on the town that day and paid no attention to how he felt. We need very close monitoring, not a loose kind of highly voluntary supervision, for at least the first couple of weeks to discover the very first symptom.



One age group much more likely to die from Ebola – CBS
AP October 30, 2014, 10:02 AM

Who survives Ebola and why? Health workers treating patients in Sierra Leone, including some who died doing that work, have published the most detailed report yet on medical aspects of the epidemic. The research suggests young people are less likely to perish, fever is the most common symptom when victims first seek care, and early help is crucial.

The report, published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine, is from 47 doctors, nurses and others who cared for 106 patients at Kenema Government Hospital in Sierra Leone, one of the West African countries hardest hit by the Ebola epidemic.

Their work adds new knowledge about the disease, which has killed more than 5,000 since early this year, the largest outbreak ever of Ebola, said one study leader, Dr. John Schieffelin, an infectious diseases specialist from Tulane University School of Medicine.

In particular, it shows the advantage of youth - the fatality rate was 57 percent for patients under 21, but a whopping 94 percent for those over 45.

"They're more resilient and younger and tougher," Schieffelin said.

"This is definitely the most detailed analysis" of symptoms and factors related to survival, he added.

One striking factor was how devastating the severe diarrhea is from the disease.

"It requires a lot of intensive fluid therapy," and replacement of body salts called electrolytes, to help people survive, he said.

Key findings:

-It can be hard even in an outbreak setting to tell who has Ebola. Of the 213 people initially tested for signs of a hemorrhagic fever, about half, or 106, turned out to have Ebola.

-The estimated incubation period was 6 to 12 days, similar to what has been seen elsewhere in this outbreak.

-Fever was the most common symptom - 89 percent had it when diagnosed. Other symptoms were headache (80 percent), weakness (66 percent), dizziness (60 percent), diarrhea (51 percent), abdominal pain (40 percent), and vomiting (34 percent). Only one patient had bleeding, one of the most gruesome symptoms, but researchers say other cases may have been missed through incomplete record-keeping. Patients with weakness, dizziness and diarrhea were more likely to die.

-Those with more virus in their blood when they sought medical care, indicating more advanced infections, were more likely to die than those who got help when their illness was less far along.

Seven of the 47 study authors died - six of them from Ebola and one from a stroke. They included Dr. Sheik Humarr Khan, a doctor who led Sierra Leone's battle against Ebola until his death in July.




"Who survives Ebola and why? Health workers treating patients in Sierra Leone, including some who died doing that work, have published the most detailed report yet on medical aspects of the epidemic. The research suggests young people are less likely to perish, fever is the most common symptom when victims first seek care, and early help is crucial.... In particular, it shows the advantage of youth - the fatality rate was 57 percent for patients under 21, but a whopping 94 percent for those over 45....One striking factor was how devastating the severe diarrhea is from the disease. 'It requires a lot of intensive fluid therapy,' and replacement of body salts called electrolytes, to help people survive, he said.... -Fever was the most common symptom - 89 percent had it when diagnosed. Other symptoms were headache (80 percent), weakness (66 percent), dizziness (60 percent), diarrhea (51 percent), abdominal pain (40 percent), and vomiting (34 percent). Only one patient had bleeding.... Patients with weakness, dizziness and diarrhea were more likely to die. -Those with more virus in their blood when they sought medical care, indicating more advanced infections, were more likely to die than those who got help when their illness was less far along.”

The difference of 57% and 94% between those under 21 and over 45 is striking, and perhaps should change how the CDC deals with the two groups. Perhaps those over 45 should go immediately into a medically supervised environment when they come from the airport and are recognized as being in danger. Early treatment is very important in their ability to survive Ebola. They should also be given blood plasma from Ebola survivors if their blood type can be matched, as that seems to save more people than just fluid therapy. The Red Cross would be a good group to set up a blood bank from Ebola survivors to be used as needed. I realize I said that on the article above so I'm repeating myself, but so far I haven't seen that mentioned in any of these news articles as something that should be done.

I have little sympathy with the nurse who is refusing to stay at home during the incubation period of the disease. I think she is acting like a narcissist – seeking personal attention and behaving irrationally. This news article does give 6 to 12 days as the incubation period rather than standard 21 days, but I wouldn't personally trust that. In her favor is the fact that the CDC does approve monitoring of potential patients rather than enforced isolation, as NJ and NY have mandated. Yet, one of the two doctors who became ill recently did have one of the primary symptoms mentioned by authorities the day before he spiked a fever – weakness. I felt that, being a doctor and therefore knowledgeable on the subject, he should have stayed home because of that, rather than walking around the city and going to a park. The monitoring system failed to stop him from doing that.

The size of the NJ/NY metro areas does make the likelihood of the disease becoming an epidemic there higher, so I sympathize with the mandatory 21 days required by those governors. I basically feel that it is better to take thorough measures rather than merely a sketchy telephone contact with potential victims. If every person on the list of 80 or more contacts mentioned by Duncan had gone to a hospital for 21 days, though, our hospital beds would have been full when the acute cases arrived. The CDC is trying to take adequate measures, but not use up the nation's resources unnecessarily. Personally, I just hope the vaccines that are in the works will very soon be in the hands of health professionals both in the US and in Africa. A preventative vaccine, like the polio vaccine that was mandated in the US in the 1950s, could stop this epidemic from spreading any further.





Do Americans think U.S. ground troops are needed to fight ISIS?
CBS NEWS October 29, 2014, 6:33 PM
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

Two months after U.S. airstrikes were launched against the Islamic State in Iraq, most Americans are still unconvinced that President Obama has a clear plan for dealing with the militant group. Sixty-one percent don't think he has a clear plan. Just 29 percent think he does; that is down seven points from earlier this month.

Seventy-one percent of Americans support U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, but evaluations of how things are going for the U.S. in its fight against the militant group are negative. Fifty-seven percent think it is going somewhat or very badly. About a third say it is going well, including just three percent who say the fight is going very well.

Americans are now split on whether the U.S. should send ground troops into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. The percentage that favors ground troops (47 percent) has been inching up since September.

Most Republicans support using U.S. ground troops, while most Democrats, and half of independents, are opposed. Still, most Americans do think ground forces will ultimately be necessary to remove the threat from ISIS. Sixty-four percent say U.S. ground troops will be needed, while just one in five thinks airstrikes alone will work.

A vast majority of Americans--85 percent--express at least some concern that U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria will lead to a long and costly involvement there, including 48 percent who are very concerned. Most Americans continue to view ISIS as a major threat to the security of the United States, with 58 percent saying it is a major threat, while another 21 percent say ISIS is a minor threat. Just 15 percent say ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. at all.

This poll was conducted by telephone October 23-27, 2014 among 1,269 adults nationwide. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

Oct14f Isis (1) by CBS_News



I am one of those who feels that ISIS will certainly be a threat to the US or other Western powers if they succeed in establishing a territory in the Middle East as they plan. I would rather the US would run the risk of annoying Turkey by sending in heavy weapons to arm the Kurds, though, than sending in 20,000 US combat troops. Whoever fights ISIS has to be both bold and tenacious. Stripping off their uniforms and running from ISIS as the Iraqi army did won't help at all. If it has to be our marines, or better still special forces who are trained in asymmetrical warfare, I wouldn't be against sending them in, but I think the Kurds have a more legitimate claim in the fight – they are protecting their homeland, though they aren't officially a “nation.” Yesterday's Wikipedia article on the Kurds as a people shows them to be one of the most ancient inhabitants of that part of the world, and a group who have maintained a definable culture there for thousands of years. Interestingly, they have been more closely linked by DNA testing to the Jews and some other groups than to the Arabs. They aren't all of the same religion -- some are Muslim, some are Yazidi, some are Christian. The linkage between them is familial. I am impressed with them. Whoever goes in to fight ISIS, they are going to have to fight ISIS close up, not just by air. I think we don't have to do it right this minute, because the Kurds have ISIS engaged right now, but by another six months we may have to. The US did drop weapons to them on the ground last week according to one article, but I think they could use tanks and whatever other heavy weapons are available. I don't think things like that could be dropped from an airplane.

About Obama being undecided or timid, I don't really think that's his problem. I think he is a very deliberative thinker and prefers not to make extreme moves, and he's not the “cowboy” type like George W. Bush, so he doesn't bluster and put on a show. He also has to tread carefully to avoid angering several of the local powers who don't trust the Kurds. I was personally surprised when he sent in the Navy Seals to kill bin Laden. That was the only way to get rid of him, though, as long as Pakistan continued to protect him. Pakistani leaders were angry because Obama decided against warning them ahead of time about the raid, but I thought that was just the only intelligent way to do it. Pakistan is not my idea of a friend to the US, plus if their leaders aren't themselves linked with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, they are at least terrified of angering them, so they aren't helpful as US allies against them. ISIS is another kind of enemy – they're an army on the march rather than a wealthy and highly cerebral band of jihadists. The US will eventually have to fight them in one way or another, and it may be soon.