exDemMom,
I like you. I like how you present your scientific case. I like what you have in your profile — though I can’t pretend to understand all of it. I look forward to following the scientific debate on this thread as it progresses.
I am one of those IT types who have experience supporting PhD researchers like yourself (I have since moved on to a more lucrative — and less demanding! role in my organization) and I appreciate your acknowledgement of the important role IT folks play in your research.
It is my experience however, that no matter how brilliant the PhD is in his/her research, odds are that when they opine on other things, they exhibit a striking lack of experience with reality — or shall we say — common sense.
Your continued denial of the possibility of Ebola entering the US through its porous southern border strikes me as an example of this lack of common sense.
There must be hundreds of ways in which this event could become reality, yet you fixate on only one scenario and admit that you can’t think of any other.
In this instance I think you are out of your depth.
I look forward to your continued entries on this thread regarding the state of knowledge regarding Ebola, but I would suggest that you confine your posts to the scientific debate and refrain from opinions about what may or may not happen at the border, about which you have no scientific method, but are only guessing.
Laurie Garrett covered the Ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1995. She talks with NPR's Scott Simon about the U.S. mission to send military and monetary aid to Africa to help control Ebola in the region.
Interview at link:
Ebola could come across our southern border via illegals, but IMO that will be vastly overshadowed by transmission via legal visitors and immigrants. In other words, we'll have a lot worse problems by the time transmission from Ebola-infected illegal immigrants entering from Mexico becomes even noticeable.