i am not that worried about ebola at this point, but i do find a lot of the online unflappability to ring a bit false.
it's always so numerical. and numbers, while seemingly the most objective thing to which one can possibly link one's opinions, do need some context sometimes.
what if a tribe of sasquatches moved down from the mountaintops, proved themselves real and began snatching people from the woods throughout british columbia? what if this continued for a year, and 2,000 people died and vancouver island residents could barely look towards their windows at night for fear of nearly-human faces grinning awful grins?
would this be frightening? or would people on the internet say "well strokes
kill 13,283 canadians each year and i don't see you freaking out about that... maybe get a grip."
if people on the internet did say this, would they have a point? or is there room to consider novelty and shock as elements of a rational opinion?
are the only rational opinions the ones that are expressed coolly and dispassionately?
sasquatches are frightening, or would be if they were real.
so are the hemorrhagic fevers, i think.