Ebola, ISIS, and the Great Moment of Doubt
ABC News and the Washington Post took the public's temperature on Ebola (if you'll forgive the expression) and the polling results were dismal. If anything, ABC's report on the poll undersells the astonishing loss of public confidence:
Nearly two-thirds of Americans are concerned about a widespread epidemic of the Ebola virus in the United States, and about as many in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the federal government is not doing enough to prevent it.
Indeed, more than four in 10 – 43 percent – are worried that they or an immediate family member might catch the disease. That's similar to the level of concern about other viral outbreaks in some previous ABC/Post polls – but more consequential, given Ebola's high mortality rate.Despite these concerns, more than six in 10 are at least somewhat confident in the ability of both the federal government, and their local hospitals and health agencies, to respond effectively to an outbreak. Future views remain to be seen; most interviews in this poll were done before the news Sunday morning that a nurse who treated an Ebola patient in Dallas had herself become infected. (Results of interviews conducted Sunday were essentially the same as on previous nights.)
In terms of preventive actions, the poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds near-unanimous support (91 percent) for stricter screening of incoming passengers from Ebola-affected countries in Africa. Two-thirds support restricting entry of such individuals into the United States."More than six in 10" are "at least somewhat confident" in the ability of the government and local health care agencies to respond to an Ebola outbreak? That's not a contradiction of the poll's other findings of public anxiety, it's a confirmation. "If there's an outbreak, I figure there's a 60 percent chance Uncle Sam can handle it" is not a heartwarming show of support from Ma and Pa America.
Also, note the overwhelming public support for measures the Administration is arrogantly insisting, for purely ideological reasons, it will not implement. When people hear a government official say they won't ban travel from the hot zone because it would be offensive to Africans or damage their economies, or because an action that isn't guaranteed to be 100 percent effective against the spread of a deadly disease isn't worth taking, it's not persuasive or reassuring, it's terrifying.Also read:
Hillary Heckled by Guy with Bullhorn
New Emails: Latest Episode in Clinton War on Women
No comments:
Post a Comment