Replies

If governments really thought it so terrifying they would issue a temporary ban on air travel...

This is where his analysis goes awry.

He trusts the government to issue a travel ban if the ebola threat was real. He is assuming that since the government is not instituting strict measures, then the crissis isn't real. He supports this conclusion by showing that past "outbreaks" like bird flu were over-hyped. Thus, he is assuming that ebola isn't really as bad as "they" are making it seem, and ascribes the tactics of "scaremongering" to them.

His solution? He suggests more government:

The government should appoint a commission for the assessment of panics. Its job would be to test alarmist announcements against stringent statistical probability. If a budget can be independently audited and crime figures independently scrutinised, why not Downing Street scaremongering?

Perhaps this is tongue-in-cheek... it's hard to tell with those cheeky Brits. But his conclusion that "A democracy must know what it should fear" makes me think he is a least somewhat serious.

I'm not saying ebola is the end of time, or that the sky is falling. I hope ebola burns itself out like it has in the past and becomes just another bird flu.

I also agree with a lot of what he is saying. Health scares are "the classics of the politics of fear." The sane response is, in fact, "scepticism of the motives of those seeking to make us afraid."

But you can't assume the government will protect you when the threat is "real" and you don't have to really worry about something if the government isn't "really" doing something about it. Consider his statement:

I expect the police to guard me from danger without constantly telling me what the danger is.

That is completely illogical and irrational. In the real world, everyone knows that most of the time the police show up well after the danger to bag the evidence and start making a case for trial, assuming they catch the perpetrator.

If there is danger, I want to know what that danger is so that I can evaluate for myself what steps I need to protect me and my family.

So while the author's points on fearmongering are important and worth discussion, his analysis of ebola in particular and government in general is quite flawed, in my humble opinion.

So while the author's points on fearmongering are important and worth discussion, his analysis of ebola in particular and government in general is quite flawed, in my humble opinion.

I agree with your humble opinion.
I hope this Ebola burns out quickly - with minimal damage.
The Government pretty much works against the people and their objective is to increase their power - not govern as public servants. I.e., I'd trust their public pronouncements as far as I could throw them.
And finally - this Media screed from the Guardian is just trying to influence people to remain sheep and to trust their 'masters' (or 'betters', so to speak).