The Numbers - Ebola

Primary countries where Ebola is active.  The table indicates population, reported cases and the percent of population the reported cases represent.

Country	Population	Cases	% of Population
Guinea	11,750,000	1519	0.01%
Liberia	4,300,000	4249	0.10%
Sierra Leone	6,000,000	3410	0.06%

·       I’m just trying to evaluate magnitude here.  Other metrics might be used – i.e. deaths, active cases, etc.  I also recognize that a time metric is not included.

Now… consider the US with a population of 310,000,000 (310 million).  Apply the average percent of population for the three countries noted above of 0.06% and you get –

186,000 cases

That is one hundred eighty six thousand cases.  The US would have to have this many cases to be comparable on a percentage of the population to the cases in the outbreak countries.

Note – that is zero point zero six percent (0.06%).  It is not six percent (6%).  

I’ll let you apply that 0.06% percent to a few other populations:

India: 1.25 billion

China: 1.357 billion

Russia: 143 million

Indonesia: 240 million

Travel to the US:

The annual number of visitors from other countries to the US.  

Visitors to US – top 15 countries.  (2013 statistics - http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2013-I-001/index.html)

CANADA	23,387,275
MEXICO	14,342,722
UNITED KINGDOM	3,835,308
JAPAN	3,730,287
BRAZIL	2,060,291
GERMANY	1,916,471
CHINA (EXCL HK)	1,806,553
FRANCE	1,504,654
KOREA, SOUTH	1,359,924
AUSTRALIA	1,205,060
INDIA	859,156
ITALY	838,883
VENEZUELA	788,069
COLOMBIA	748,116
ARGENTINA	686,098

Note:  A large number of Canada and Mexico visitors enter the country by land.  Most of the other countries a large percentage of the visitors travel by air.

What is the threshold for cutting off travel from a particular country?  I honestly don’t know.

The Big Picture - Ebola (this is a DRAFT)

The big picture.  Connecting the dots.  Looking behind the curtain.

I’ve been stewing over what to say if anything about the Ebola situation.  Fair warning – the following is poorly written, probably incoherent and disjointed.  My poor writing skills lead me to use a lot of rhetorical questions.  Assumptions are made.  While I’ve attempted to stick to the facts as I understand them, I have let some commentary slip into the document.  Apologies.  Read at your own risk.  (October 25, 2014)

As I read this over and over, I’m afraid it comes across as fear mongering regarding the possibility of contracting Ebola – like the craziness we are seeing on the "news".  That is not my intention.  Actually my intention was/is the opposite.  I don’t think I’ve achieved it.

First, the Ebola outbreak is an awful, dreadful epidemic in parts of Africa.  The people in these countries deserve our compassion as well as our resources to help them fight and eliminate the killer among them.  They deserve this because they are fellow human beings and we have the capability and capacity in this country to help.  I understand and believe this at my core (I’m an atheist by the way).  I would hope that those of you who proclaim some religious affiliation understand this as a core component of your belief system.  And, yes, you’re right, other countries should be helping two.

Secondly, there is also a non-altruistic component to our need to battle this disease where it is.  Stopping the epidemic in Africa means it will not spread to other regions and turn into a large worldwide problem.  If you require this type of rhetoric to get fired up about alleviating human suffering – “this is a national security issue that can actually be stopped overseas”.  The enemy just happens to be a virus, not a human terrorist we can shoot or bomb.  In this case the actions we need to take to fight this battle are not with guns and ammo, but with healthcare facilities, healthcare providers, healthcare facilitators, supplies, logistics management, transportation, medicines and technology.  We can do these things – we have the best health care system in the world (right?), we have the best technology in the world (right?), America is the most exceptional nation to currently exist or ever exist (right?).

We seem to have no compunction against sending our service members to fight and die because of “national security” threats that turn out to be dubious at best and in political/ethinic/religious environments so convoluted there is no way we can ever solve the root problems.  We have little restraint in sending them to face bullets and IEDs.  Remember 6,836 US service members have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014.  (www.icasualties.org/)  However, we balk when we can use our resources and send service members to preform truly humanitarian service AND resolve an obvious national security issue at the same time.  We question the logic in sending them to fight a battle where their safety is based on layers of plastic, following procedures and disinfectant.

This outbreak started in December 2013 and got truly “hot” in April 2014.  (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/ebola-timeline-worst-outbreak-in-history/5831876)  With the exceptions of NGOs like Doctors Without Borders, we (and practically the rest of the world) have done nothing to stop the spread of this epidemic in African countries.  It was not until a single case came to US “homeland” did “we” get fired up about this “terrible” disease.

I’ll offer a little commentary about shutting down flights.  Bear with me, but I think we have to consider several issues to see the big picture.  Disclaimer – I’m not an economist, political expert, international business expert, or financial expert.  Take what you like, do some research on your own, and leave the rest. 

Why is this photo op important:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/obama-to-meet-with-ebola-_n_6042734.html

Here’s some issues to consider:

The world economy is a vast interconnected web.  This was demonstrated clearly in the most recent financial crisis.  Countries and financial markets no longer stand alone.  What happens in one part of the world can have direct and unpleasant impacts in other parts of the world.  Like it or not, the US is tied to the economies of the world.  If Europe or Asia is in big trouble, we’re in trouble.  If we’re in trouble, they’re in trouble.  Since 2008 governments have been attempting to hold the world together and keep it from financial collapse.  We are balanced on a tight rope and one major crisis could send us falling.  And, the safety nets may not actually be there.

European economies are not in good shape (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/58508129-79/germany-economy-europe-growth.html.csp, many other references available, please do some reading if you were not aware of this).

China is not doing well either (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/58508129-79/germany-economy-europe-growth.html.csp, China injects $81 billion into banks to support economy.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-markets-china-repos-idUSKBN0HC0BU20140917  Many other references available, please do some reading if you were not aware of the economic conditions in China).

Growth in the US is lackluster.  Wage and salary growth has been stagnant for years.  While the stock market has been going up in the last couple of years, much of these gains are the result of financial engineering on the part of corporations, not real growth. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/18/us-markets-stocks-usa-weekahead-idUSKCN0I62F620141018, same notes as other references)

Industries are interconnected around the globe.  An example - If the Saudis don’t cut back on oil production, the supply of oil goes up significantly and oil prices drop substantially.  The drop in oil prices significantly impacts the economies of Russia and other oil producers.  If the price of oil drops enough, the cost to extract some oil becomes too high to justify continued production.  Think fracking.  Think North Dakota.  Think oil boom becomes a bust.  This is going on right now.  Are those lower gas prices really good for you?  

Financial markets, investments and instruments are tied together in a complex web of derivatives, insurance policies and other financial contracts/obligations that I can’t even begin to understand or describe.  When things start falling apart, everything is connected in a big house of cards, so it all falls down.  This is what started in the financial crisis and was eventually brought under control (with much pain and suffering, and government support).  Note – I do try to post articles on the Facebook page that describe some of this interconnectedness (I think that is a word).  Here's a quote:  

• "Andy Haldane, director of stability at the Bank of England (great job title: perhaps each and every one of us should have a personal director of stability), made a study of modern derivative transactions and found that some of them involve up to a billion lines of computer code. That is beyond comprehension, not in a metaphorical way, but as a plain fact: no human can understand and parse a financial instrument of that complexity."  (From:  http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/how_we_beat_the_1_percent_this_is_how_the_moneyed_classes_get_dethroned/ )

If internationally connected industries begin to experience significant downturns, it is possible if not likely the financial contagion will significantly impact other industries, then financial markets.  As a result recession or depression ensues.  That means masses of people out of work, potentially leading to regional and worldwide financial crisis and more importantly human crisis.

Now, rethink again what is going on daily behind the curtain.  What must be happening within and between governments to avoid mass panic and hysteria in all types of regional and global situations that could bring international commerce to a halt?  This activity does not fit into little Facebook memes, political ads, headlines, talking points, or the rants of some nut case trying to sell advertising time.  Fear, panic and hysteria are huge drivers of the markets and worldwide economy.  If fear and panic rule, the would could crash.  Really pause and think about it.  (http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/10/4014995/alan-greenspan-fear-drives-the-markets )

So, what the heck does all of this have to do with cutting off a few flights from some small, far away countries in Africa?

If the US cuts off flights, we set a standard that the rest of the world will consider following.

What will that standard be?  What is the threshold for cutting off flights?  1,000 people infected in the country?  500?  100?  1?  Or do you count deaths instead of infected?  Those are rhetorical questions.

We saw just in the last few weeks that two countries (Belize and Mexico) refused to let two passengers disembark from a cruise ship to simply transit through their country to board a plane to be taken away.  The travelers were showing no symptoms and later tested negative for Ebola.  These were Americans to boot.

Is the threshold based on a percentage of the population?

Lets consider a little math (I know, it hurts):

Here’s each primary country where Ebola is active.  The table indicates population, reported cases and the percent of population the reported cases represent.

Country	Population	Cases	% of Population
Guinea	11,750,000	1519	0.01%
Liberia	4,300,000	4249	0.10%
Sierra Leone	6,000,000	3410	0.06%

·       I’m just trying to evaluate magnitude here.  Other metrics might be used – i.e. deaths, active cases, etc.  I also recognize that a time metric is not included.

Now… consider the US with a population of 310,000,000 (310 million).  Apply the average percent of population for the three countries noted above of 0.06% and you get –

186,000 cases

That is one hundred eighty six thousand cases.  The US would have to have this many cases to be comparable on a percentage of the population to the cases in the outbreak countries.

Note – that is zero point zero six percent (0.06%).  It is not six percent (6%). 

Based on our reaction to 4 cases, my totally unscientific guess is, the US would be totally freaked out if there were 100 cases here.

So, lets say that the threshold is based on percent of population and the cut off percent is 0.06%.  Would we expect other countries to not cut off travel from the US until we reached 186,000 cases?

The population of Germany is 80,000,000 (80 million).  There is a lot of travel and business that goes on between Germany and the US.  Germany is the prime economic driver of the European Union.  Apply the 0.06% threshold and you get 48,000 cases.  Would the US wait until Germany has 48,000 cases before cutting off air travel from Germany to the US?

I’ll let you apply that 0.06% percent to a few other country populations:

India: 1.25 billion

China: 1.357 billion

Russia: 143 million

Indonesia: 240 million

Do you think we would wait till their populations reach the 0.06% level?

Lets take a look at the annual number of visitors from other countries to the US. 
Visitors to US – top 15 countries.  (2013 statistics - http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2013-I-001/index.html)

CANADA	23,387,275
MEXICO	14,342,722
UNITED KINGDOM	3,835,308
JAPAN	3,730,287
BRAZIL	2,060,291
GERMANY	1,916,471
CHINA (EXCL HK)	1,806,553
FRANCE	1,504,654
KOREA, SOUTH	1,359,924
AUSTRALIA	1,205,060
INDIA	859,156
ITALY	838,883
VENEZUELA	788,069
COLOMBIA	748,116
ARGENTINA	686,098

Note:  A large number of Canada and Mexico visitors enter the country by land.  Most of the other countries a large percentage of the visitors travel by air.

What is the threshold for cutting off travel from a particular country?  I honestly don’t know.

Here’s what I think…

If we start cutting off travel from specific countries, other countries are going to do the same.  Some countries are going to pick very low threshold numbers for cut off.  Remember Mexico and Belize reaction to two people on a cruise ship.  Based on a percentage basis alone and with some bad luck it is conceivable that a large European country, one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) or some other large 2^nd or 3^rd world country could have a runaway outbreak that leads to several hundred people infected and 1,000s being monitored.  (Look at the population of the outbreak countries above again.  The populations in the current outbreak countries are very small.)

Here’s one nightmare scenario and what I think is being managed behind the curtain.  Yeah – this is all speculation, and a concocted scenario.  My goal here is to present a story of interconnectedness.

If the US sets the precedence of halting air travel from particular countries, other countries are going to follow suit.  (Actually this has already started.)

An outbreak occurs in a large country numbering in the 100s.  Based on percentages this is highly possible, but also highly manageable.  Let say – India (or take China if you like.)

Other large countries move to cut off air travel from India.  Remember the US set the president.

Millions of travelers are taken out of the global travel market.  Airlines take financial hits.  Hotel companies take financial hits.  But they’re manageable.  (Except for India based airlines and hotels.)

Small out breaks (i.e. 1 – 20 people) happen in a couple of 1^st or 2^nd world large countries – lets say China and Germany. 

Because of the perceived threat of a spreading contagion some large countries start to ban travel to and from China and Germany.  Remember – the US set the president.  Now – we have 10s of millions of travelers taken out of the global travel market. 

Travelers in other, non-impacted regions stop traveling because of fear.  Booked air tickets drop significantly.  Hotel occupancy drops significantly.  Now, large international airlines start to fail.  Hotel chains start to fail.  Thousands of employees are laid off.

Planes are not owned by the airlines, they are leased through leasing companies that are part of the largest banks in the world.  Airlines stop making lease payments on planes.  Banks start attempting to collect on financial protection for loss of lease payments that were bought from other financial institutions.  The lease insurers can’t keep up with the rate of lease failures and payments due.  They begin to fail.  Banks can’t recover losses on plane leases.  Airlines begin to default on other massive loan payments that are due.  Hotel companies do the same.  Financial institutions begin to fail.  Small businesses dependent on travelers begin to fail.  Worldwide travel spending continues to shrink.  Local economies and small businesses are hit with large reductions in revenue.  And… I think you see the potential picture.

I’m not attempting to predict the exact sequence of events.  Nor have I included all of the interrelated business and counterparties (I may have gotten some wrong).  But, I do think our leaders are thinking about and talking about these types of scenarios behind closed doors.  I hope they’re talking to and listening to people much smarter than me.

One day we may encounter a virus or bacteria so virulent that we must take the steps to close borders quickly, on a massive scale and suffer the economic and social consequences.  The current strain of Ebola is not it.

Just to be complete – the travel bans have started:

http://news.yahoo.com/travel-bans-issued-reaction-ebola-221058647.html

Out of the countries listed in the article these appear to have the most significant populations:

Colombia 48 million

Kenya 44 million

Ivory Coast 20 million

Facebook Follow-Up: Hobby Lobby Decision

I was involved in a thread with a friend on Facebook about the attached meme I posted regarding the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.

I had requested some source information and data related to some statements made.  Here's the response I got.

• Pretty well documented that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) have lost their complete coverage from companies like IBM, Home Depot and UPS, etc. Not to mention the ridiculous increase I have seen in my insurance and just about everybody else that I know, I would be surprised if you have not seen the same. There have been many examples of people losing their options to use their doctors published in all types of media sources. I am not sure how these things are less important than one company making a stand to not have to pay for a small group (4) of contraceptives that they feel go against their beliefs. No matter if you are pro life or prochoice, I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic. For what it's worth, I am fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues. My distrust of the government comes from years of studying history, that is what I got a degree in and what I have spent much of my free time studying for many years. The fact that anybody thinks that the government should be involved with this baffles my mind.

I decided to take the conversation into private messages instead of in the comments to the original public post.  This was my poorly structured response:
----------------

Question 1 – Do you think that as a society we should attempt to provide at least basic healthcare to all of our citizens (like almost every other industrialized country)? If you don’t think we should provide this as a society, we can end the discussion here. Stop reading now! We'll never find common ground. If you do, while not perfect, the ACA is a first attempt at doing this. I believe it is worth giving it a chance.

Ok… so I looked at your first two examples of coverage loss:

Question 2 – Who at IBM lost their complete coverage? Recent source? It is my understanding that IBM transitioned their retirees to a healthcare exchange. The retirees receive a payment to offset the cost of purchasing insurance. I can’t find a source that states current employees lost complete coverage. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/ibm-moving-some-retirees-_n_3886749.html

Question 3 – Who at Home Depot lost complete coverage? Recent source? Based on looking at their website, health insurance is offered to both full-time and part-time employees. I see that last year there was reporting that Home Depot would transition part-time employees to the exchanges. Here’s info from their website:

https://secure.livethehealthyorangelife.com/files/orientation_guide_usparttime_us.pdf

That’s enough research for me. I don’t see anyone loosing “complete coverage” in either of these examples.  

Are any of the “examples of people losing their options to use their doctors” that are substantially different from when a company changes their insurance provider and a new network of doctors is provided? Sources please. “Substantially different.” In my experience this is a rather common experience for those of us who have had employer provided health insurance. (But hey, I'm only a sample of 1.) 
I agree, my insurance cost did go up this year. About 6% more than the increase in previous years. So the effective increase was actually more. I’m ok with that if it means that millions of women, children and men in the country will have access to affordable, quality healthcare. (If Georgia would approve medicare expansion, it would mean that I would not have had to pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Now you might ask why would I pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Because I can't let my daughter's mother go without health insurance. Long sad story.) I would of course prefer that our government have the balls to tax the mega-rich and mega-corporations to pay for healthcare for all, but we’ve got to vote better and get off our butts and actually protest before that is going to happen.
Regarding the statement: “I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic.” My understanding is the employer is not paying for it. The employer is paying for medical insurance coverage which is part of the compensation package the employer agreed to provide the employee. The employee worked for it and earned it. The government is attempting to ensure women have access to healthcare that is defined by the woman and her doctor, not the misguided religious and misguided scientific beliefs of the employer. Their objection to these specific 4 treatments is flawed. See links:
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591
The bigger issue is where does this end with a corporation claiming religious exemption from laws? (rhetorical) Again, I say read the dissent. (Read the majority position as well.) The dissent starts around page 60:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Look through my shares for the last year, you’ll find many posts related to my position on healthcare and corporate control.
I think maybe I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. In very brief, my position is the government is us. We are the “them”. Or we should be. If government is bad, it is because we let it get that way. I believe our country and government has been taken over by mega-corporations whose only motivation is profit (for shareholders and executives). And, these same mega-corporations have successfully convinced us that “government” is the problem. That seems to imply that WE are the problem in the eyes of the corporations. Hey, they have religious beliefs, so they must have eyes too. Don’t buy into this lie. Government can be a force for good and progress. It has been in past. It could be again. (Yeah - lots of if, ands, buts, exceptions, clarifications and qualifications needed for this brief statement.)
Question 4,5 – Based on your study of history - Do you trust corporations more than government? Do you trust religion more than government? If your response to either or both of these questions is “yes”, your study and information set is significantly different from mine. (And that’s cans of worms I’m not up for opening.)
That question is rhetorical. I don’t need a response. Actually I don’t need responses to any of the questions or requests for sources. The questions were just foils to structure this poorly written response. I’m content with my understanding of the issues related to the questions. I appreciate you have a different point of view and I’m not going to change it. Please accept that I too have a different point of view on this topic from you. I’m not yielding, but I do recognize when there is a windmill in front of me. I’ll continue to side with many who decried this decision. I’m done. Cheers!
(Its late, please excuse any editing errors.)

----------------------

Commentary - 

As I have found often to be the case when you dig into the details of the broad claims and unsubstantiated like those made above you find that they just don't hold water.

Is it possible to be "fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues". I used to define myself this way, but I don't think it is possible. If I have to pick a label, and I don't like to do that, I'd pick Progressive.

Thankfully - I've had no response. :)

Facebook Follow-Up: Feeding the 5,000

• I like the sentiment "celebrate what unites us instead of what divides us", and am happy to do so and will try to do so. However - On social media, I find I am offended almost daily with posts of hatred and intolerance based on political, social and religious views. I will not refrain from speaking out. The post that prompted the satirical comment regarding Jesus feeding the 5,000 was related to taking food away from people (including children) who need help because they have a problem with drugs. In my book that is not how you help hungry people. Besides this scheme only has one benefit, it puts public money in the pockets of shareholders and executives of companies that provide the testing services.
• If you don't like what I share, please feel free to un-follow me, or un-friend me. I participate twice a week in a group that offers the following advice - "Take what you like and leave the rest." I kind of like that. I try hard to keep people in my news feed who hold different religious and political views from me so that I can be informed of other perspectives. However, I un-follow people regularly once they cross any one the following personal boundaries: (1) a statement of pure bigotry (race, gender, religious, sexual preference based) (2) a demonstration of intolerance (I don't count being intolerant of intolerance as being intolerant.) (3) an unwillingness to do enough research to understand some ridiculous memes they are parroting. (Like the call to drug test welfare recipients. The only people who benefit from these types of programs are the shareholders and executives of companies who preform the testing for the state. Quoting someone out of context. It usually only takes a little research to determine if a quote is accurate and if it is within the context it is being used or ridiculed.) (4) bemoaning the persecution of christians (5) support of anti-vaccination (6) a belief that any religious text is the source of all truth (and/or a science text) (Actually, I usually give people a pass once or twice. But if they continue on a regular basis to cross one of these personal boundaries, I restrict them from my news feed.) Note - I would do the same for a muslim, mormon, hindu or any other religious zealot (or non-religious zealot) who preaches intolerance and a belief that they have the only path to a god or afterlife. I'm unlucky in that I don't get to interact much with people of other belief systems. Across many social media channels, I regularly see: bible quotes, right wing memes, left wing memes, request for prayers, repetitions of Fox stories, Rush quotes, statements in support of republican far right wackos, and statements in support of far left wackos. Generally I don't complain, but when the posts cross one of the lines above, I reserve the right to comment. As noted above, if you have boundaries like me and I've crossed one, please feel free to unfriend or unfollow me. I'll keep speaking out against the zealots, bigots, hypocrites, intolerant and misogynist - and sharing post about LEGOs, bourbon, food and some science. Take what you like. Leave the Rest. If you need to call me something, the following works:
  

  Jerk Asshole Asshat Liberal Progressive Atheist (I've been called much worse. Feel free to add to this list.) Friend Just don't call me a democrat. I prefer "anti-republican".

  
  

  Cheers!
• 
  
• 
  

Internal Job Interview Questions

A friend recently asked me for some advice regarding questions I've used in the past when interviewing someone for an internal job posting.  Here's a running list I've maintained over the years.  

1. What intrigues you about this new role and why do you want to leave your current job?
2. Does your manager know you have applied for this job?
3. Would your manager recommend you for this position?
4. If you had to give a new employee a couple of insights to working at <this company>, what would they be?
5. If the people who work with you are asked why you should be hired, what would they say?
6. What do you like best about your current position at the company?
7. What don't you like about the job you're in now?
8. What other positions have you held with the company?
9. What was your biggest success story in your current position?
10. Can you tell me what you know about the position you are being considered for?
11. What do you know about our department?
12. Why do you want the new position?
13. How has your current position prepared you for this position?
14. Tell us about some of your experiences outside of <this company> that relate to this position.
15. What have you learned from your current position that transfers well to this new position?
16. What existing relationships in the company do you have that will be beneficial in the new role?  Why?
17. How will the new position change things for you? 
18. Tell us about your experience in the travel technology industry?
19. What is a project you are particularly proud of?
20. Based on your experience here at <this company>, when you are given a project to create <user documentation for a new software feature>, how would you proceed with this project?  What steps would you take?
21. Why should we consider you for this position?
22. What in your background makes you an excellent candidate for this position? Why?
23. While I don’t expect you know everything and we know there is a lot of training required for this role, what do you think are the most important training topics will you need to be successful in this position?
24. What recommendations would you make for a successful transition from your current job to the new job?
25. How will you handle it if you don't get the job?

Standard Interview Questions:

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/interviewquestionsanswers/a/interviewquest.htm

A toast.

Here's to a long life and a merry one.
A quick death and an easy one.
A pretty girl and an honest one.
A cold pint-- and another one!