Who needs Congress anyway? David Sanger of the Times reports that Team Obama is strategizing to "suspend" Iranian sanctions rather than end them, therby sidestepping any need for action by Congress. No word on whether this will follow or precede executive action on immigration.
Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress
WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iranthat would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.
Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.
But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote.
The President was eventually able to find legal advice that the military action against Libya did not involve the War Powers Act, so this sanctions question must have seemed easy by comparison.
This part of the strategy seems to involve a bit of fantasy:
White House officials say Congress should not be surprised by this plan. They point to testimony earlier this year when top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off.
“We have been clear that initially there would be suspension of any of the U.S. and international sanctions regime, and that the lifting of sanctions will only come when the I.A.E.A. verifies that Iran has met serious and substantive benchmarks,” Bernadette Meehan, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said Friday, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We must be confident that Iran’s compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time.”
The President can turn the European sanctions back on? Hmm, with their economies fading, I have the idea that once sanctions are suspended our European allies will find billions of reasons to keep them suspended.
Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo has more on the bad deal coming down the tracks.
I'm feeling dizzy and it aint Ebola.
Posted by: Iggy | October 19, 2014 at 10:39 PM
Jennifer Rubin is an expert on bad deals.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 19, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Why did the Hollywood chick want MomJeans to have more power? Appears that he has more than any previous president.
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 19, 2014 at 10:50 PM
The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.
Is there nothing that man can't do? He's a marvel.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Well, since I am tired and having trouble keeping up, I am heading to bed.
Good night, all!
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM
And speaking of bad deals, Sharyl Attkisson has started up a site http://sharylattkisson.com/obamacare-fail-stories to 'balance' http://www.acasuccess.com/. The latter site is suspiciously cagey about its origins and funding. I'm going to guess either Soros or the SEIU.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 19, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Israel intervened in the Iranian nuke plans. And, if it wasn't Mossad? Then a work accident blew out their major nuclear facility. And, ya know what? It wasn't a bomb! Because at the site some buildings were leveled. But others were not. And, "blasts" are uniformly smack down to a spot.
True. Journalism hasn't caught up with this story. But it happened on Yom Kippur. Give or take a day.
What's to "side step?" There's nothing left to blow up.
Obama's White House, however, will do hand stands ... or whatever it takes ... to change the front pages from Ebola to "something else."
Iran's not their best choice. But Obama really has no friends, here. Or abroad.
While congress is held in even lower opinion than Obama's falling numbers.
Posted by: Carol Herman | October 19, 2014 at 10:55 PM
I'm looking forward to November 5th. The election results will be in. And, quite possibly democrats, and their friends, "da journalists" may have to be put on suicide watch.
Posted by: Carol Herman | October 19, 2014 at 10:59 PM
I know you're shocked as I"
http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-244-german-intelligence-claims-russian-backed-militants-downed-mh17/
first opening up Gitmo, then giving the mullahs a free hand , wfh is next
Posted by: narciso | October 19, 2014 at 11:10 PM
ONe can only hope...and pray, Carol.
Posted by: glasater | October 19, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Obama will leave Israel no alternative but to attack.
Only an Israel in flames will satisfy the bloodlust of this President against Jews.
Posted by: upet | October 19, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Hey, upet they voted for a guy named Barakck Hussein Obama, didn't they?
Posted by: clarice | October 19, 2014 at 11:21 PM
A confederacy of crooks and criminals...
Posted by: Frau Schlafmuetze | October 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Kevin Williamson manages to miss every possible point regarding, the problem with Karl.
Posted by: Iggy | October 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM
OT, back to Ebola, but WTF?
Fox online:
Hagel orders military medical team to train, get ready for quick response to more Ebola cases in US.
So instead of the CDC/Medical experts deployed to tackle the problem, we're using the US armed forces? And instead of a medical professional/epidemiologist as "Ebola Czar", we get an attorney who's a political hack?
I loathe these people.
Posted by: Eric in Boise | October 19, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Seven threads in one day.
That's gotta be some kinda record.
And there's still 20+ minutes left in the day.
Posted by: Iggy | October 19, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Cheer up, the Freeshit Army is deserting the Plague Emperor.
The Democrats should never have given up the chains, the whips just aren't enough to keep 'em in line.
Posted by: RickB | October 19, 2014 at 11:39 PM
the family that sticks together, rigs IEDs together"
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/10/taliban_claims_captu.php
yes, that was a striking bit of category error,
Posted by: narciso | October 19, 2014 at 11:39 PM
It's almost as if Obama and his Muslim advisors are deliberately provoking Israel to act. They think Israel will be severely crippled if not wiped out.
I no longer think BHO is as lazy and stupid as he acts. He's a diabolical little jerk bent on creating chaos at home and abroad, so he can 'fix all the problems America has caused'. He really does think he's king of the world. And nobody tells him otherwise, within that insular circle of confidantes who flatter and encourage him.
Posted by: BeenThereDoneThat | October 19, 2014 at 11:41 PM
That Kevin Williamson article needs a thorough fisking by Rush or Levin.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 19, 2014 at 11:57 PM
JATFI
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 20, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Another thread? Holy Smokers! TM just pulled a Madeline Kahn from "Young Frankenstein
"Sevens always been my Lucky Number!"
Posted by: daddy | October 20, 2014 at 12:22 AM
With everything that's been going on lately, what do I hear about when I flip on John Batchelor? Show tunes. Over to FNR, a rerun of Friday afternoon's Skeletor, where a racist caller provides them a convenient strawman.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 20, 2014 at 01:04 AM
That Kevin Williamson article needs a thorough fisking by Rush or Levin.
Of the first 50 comments at that NRO story I only spotted 4 that were on the side of Kevin Williamson, and the other 46 were opposed to Williamson's positive view of Karl Rove.
A Rove by any other name would smell.
Posted by: daddy | October 20, 2014 at 01:57 AM
Clarice,
I thought this comment of your's on Color Blindness was interesting:
the Japanese consider it a major handicap and on govt forms ask if you have TB or are color blind and when my son worked there his Japanese friends warned him not to make this known as it is considered somewhat shameful.
That got me googling and I found this illuminating story from an English Teacher in the Japan Times from 2003: Colorblind schoolkids can see clearly now
At some universities, totally blind students could enroll while an applicant with color blindness could not...
I started researching and learned that the administration of that simple (Color Blindness) test set off nearly a hundred years of widespread discrimination in Japan against people with color blindness.
The most famous case involves the Imperial Family. In 1920, Field Marshall Yamagata Aritomo tried to block the engagement of Hirohito, then crown prince, because colorblindness ran in his fiancee’s family. Ultimately, the effort failed, and the couple married in 1924. But the publicity left the general public with the impression that colorblindness is a grave disability, according to Motohiko Murakami, professor emeritus at Keio University School of Medicine and author of a book on color blindness.
“Japanese place strong emphasis on family bloodlines, and any kind of genetic abnormality has been a cause for shame”
I would guess that if I keep looking it goes further back. I do recall that there is something like a doctrine that whoever the potential heir to the Emperor marries must be free from blemish or deficiency of any kind, and since the Imperial family has been and is still somewhat considered the direct lineal descendent of a creator Goddess, I imagine something in Japanese history happened eons ago that caused color blindness to be considered shameful, sort of like left-handedness. I'll try to remember to look it up.
Posted by: daddy | October 20, 2014 at 04:18 AM
FOX News reporting that the fiancé of Nurse Nina Pham has been hospitalized for symptoms, tho' not yet confirmed that he has Ebola.
G'nite.
Posted by: daddy | October 20, 2014 at 05:05 AM
Is the local Darien espresso shop having a sale on caffeine? 7 threads?
Posted by: peter | October 20, 2014 at 05:15 AM
top negotiators argued that the best way to assure that Iran complies with its obligations is a step-by-step suspension of sanctions — with the implicit understanding that the president could turn them back on as fast as he turned them off.
But Congress couldn't turn them back on.
They both turned them on to begin with, but only one of them turned them off, so now he's the only one who could turn them back on?
Seems absurd.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2014 at 06:12 AM
Fraudward HO! Alert the Chicago buses. Early in person voting (we don't need no stinking ID) starts today.
Posted by: henry | October 20, 2014 at 06:14 AM
Good morning, all.
Now that we hear that Nina Pham's fiancee has been hospitalized, am beginning to wonder about the people who were just let out of quarantine.
Why haven't they come down with Ebola?
Are they naturally immune? Is anyone going to do a blood test on them to check? If not, why not?
Are they people who are among the 5% who do not exhibit a fever until they keel over with the disease?
Are they among the people in which the incubation period is longer (up to 42 days according to the WHO report)?
Seems like someone besides me should be wondering about this.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 06:35 AM
Sorry to hear about Nurse Pham's fiance. Do we know if he has been quarantined up to now, or is that classified?
Posted by: Porchlight | October 20, 2014 at 07:13 AM
Porchlight,
I have no idea. I assume he was being monitored, but have no idea past that.
And I also don't know where he is hospitalized, either.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 07:19 AM
MM, on my doc site an infection disease doc said 21 days gives a 95% confidence rate. 42 gives a 99.something assurance of being disease free.
So, the decision was made that a 95% chance of not transmitting a disease for which there is no cure is good enough for the American public.
You know, cost/benefit and all that.
Kind of like letting the nurses' necks be exposed---
or not quarantining the incoming.
Or sending 3000 (or is it 4000?) troops over with lots of handwashing stations and gloves. No direct contact, so they'll be fine.
Like the NBC cameraman.
Oh well...
Posted by: anonamom | October 20, 2014 at 07:30 AM
anonamom,
I find the tendency of the government to blame the victims of this disease an extremely disgusting development.
First they went after the nurse for breaking their stupid protocol, inferring that she wasn't professional or was stupid or something.
Then they denied they had ok'd travel for the second nurse, implying she went rogue.
And, they have dismissed the cameraman's theory that he got it from washing out a Jeep which had been used to transport a victim, hinting that he might have been having "close bodily contact" with a Liberian.
This entire thing is disturbing, but this tendency for blaming the victim is so repulsive that I had to mention it.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 07:36 AM
MM, the only upside of this sad situation is that the incompetence
and offensiveness and blatant disregard for individuals of these advocates of big government is apparent to many beyond the users of this site.
LIVs are far less LI this month than they were last month.
Posted by: anonamom | October 20, 2014 at 07:40 AM
henry:
Fraudward HO! Alert the Chicago buses. Early in person voting (we don't need no stinking ID) starts today.
Man, we don't get to start until Thursday.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 07:41 AM
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/10/20/second-nurse-to-contract-ebola-retains-high-profile-attorney/
Apparently they are upset at people questioning her actions.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 07:43 AM
Good Morning! Goodness,so many threads and comments. If the "experts" are confident about the 21 days,what if someone becomes ill on day 22,or day 27 or day 34? I guess I'm repeating MM's and anonamom's comments,but if we are thinking about this,the "experts" must have everything under control,right?
Posted by: Marlene | October 20, 2014 at 07:46 AM
henry @ 6:14...funny you should mention photo ids. Hillary! is coming to Maine to campaign for Michaud later this week.You must have a photo id to enter the venue. There will be a security check,no large bags allowed. Because there will be one on the stage. :)
Posted by: Marlene | October 20, 2014 at 07:50 AM
Thanks MM. I wish they would tell us. I read He went to work after she was diagnosed.
Nurse Vinson is going to need an attorney.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 20, 2014 at 07:55 AM
Interesting history, daddy. You are more of a let's look it up person than even I am, and I echo the Wolverine who at 7 told me she uses Google "a thousand times a day for my researches."
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2014 at 07:58 AM
At what point can we start talking seriously about impeachment?
When the number of ebola cases hits double figures? Triple figures? When Tehran runs its first successful nuclear test?
Posted by: James D. | October 20, 2014 at 08:07 AM
JamesD.,
I believe they are going to try to hide new victimis and do contact tracing on the sly, so that they can reduce coverage of the disease's spread.
I honestly think that is part of why Klain was hired.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 08:16 AM
James D. when a Republican gets elected.
Posted by: henry | October 20, 2014 at 08:16 AM
Marlene wins best comment of the day @07:50,IMO.
"Because there will be one on the stage"
'
Posted by: Pagar | October 20, 2014 at 08:21 AM
I thought lawyers would be needed initially too Porch, but both Nurse Vinson and the lab tech on the Carnival cruise were complying with what they were told by CDC at the time.
Per NYT this morning, the rules changed after the cruise departed--those under surveillance had not been told to avoid travel or crowds. Frankly, good for her for coming forward and not exposing that whole ship.
So, right Marlene--I am POSITIVE "the authorities" have this all under control.
Guess I should go shopping today, right?
Posted by: anonamom | October 20, 2014 at 08:24 AM
Quarentine? 21, 22 - whatever it takes.
(Can't remember the movie title, but Martin Mull asks Michael Keaton if he's re-wiring the house to 220. He replies '220, 221 - whatever it takes.')
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 08:31 AM
I think they're doing it already, MM, under the guise of keeping the cattle from getting restless.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2014 at 08:32 AM
I second that - brava, Marlene!! :)
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 08:45 AM
Absentee Voting in NC...
15,141 absentee ballots have been returned (and accepted!) so far.
DEM: 5,899 | 39.0%
REP: 5,866 | 38.7%
LIB: 33 | 0.2%
UNA: 3,343 | 22.1%
Reminder: this is party registration only - not the party for whom the vote was cast.
Comparison: 2010 Absentee Voting totals...
DEM: 20,085 | 36.0%
REP: 25,099 | 45.0%
LIB: 79 | 0.1%
UNA: 10,574 | 18.9%
It's early, but the Rep's are under-performing 2010 absentee voting so far.
Notable: the total Absentee Votes by Race in 2010:
Black: 8.9%
White: 87.9%
Total Absentee Votes by Race in 2014 (so far):
Black: 11.6%
White: 83.8%
I can't go deeper at this point to know if it is common that the Black absentee vote comes in earlier, and it is likely that the final split in Absentee votes by race will be closer to 2010 -- or if . . . the Whipping is Working.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 08:48 AM
That didn't take long poll observer banned in Milwaukee. No points for guessing our favorite DA and the GAB officiated this sham. Must clear the path for fraud.
Posted by: henry | October 20, 2014 at 08:50 AM
How do they know the race of the person sending in an absentee ballot? Are they color coded?
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 08:51 AM
Nice sidestep, Prez . . . but can he do it in a hat?

(And can he dance to the music?)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 20, 2014 at 08:53 AM
The ballots, not the people.
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 08:53 AM
One note about comparing 2010 vs 2014: in 2010 Richard Burr was the R incumbent Senator being challenged by Elaine Marshall (then NC Sec of State). Burr's pretty much meh-but-unobjectionable. He won the overall race 54.8% to 43.1% in the Obama-shellacking election.
So, running behind 2010 totals should be expected, because even the best case scenario at this point is probably a 1-2 point race should Tillis win.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 08:54 AM
I heard on the radio this morning that Nigeria is "Ebola Free".
This Scientific America article tells us how they did it. "Boots on the Ground". What they leave out is that Nigeria shut down its borders also.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-nigeria-quash-its-ebola-outbreak-so-quickly/
Posted by: Jim Eagle | October 20, 2014 at 08:58 AM
Beasts:
How do they know the race of the person sending in an absentee ballot? Are they color coded?
The state board of elections verifies that votes are tied to specific persons, and each person is identified by everything from race to gender to age to address.
I can go onto the state board of election site and pull .csv's for races going back many, many years down to the individual voters.
I can and do, actually.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 08:59 AM
There are 48 people who were monitored and are now declared "symptom free" in Dallas.
CDC is apparently announcing strict new guidelines. (How many revisions of the guidelines have they done now?)
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 09:01 AM
Morning errands call.
I will check in when I return.
Posted by: Miss Marple | October 20, 2014 at 09:06 AM
Thanks, hit. Wonder if other states do the same?
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 09:07 AM
Beasts - see http://www.electproject.org/ - GMU prof Michael McDonald tracks every state that publishes election data.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 09:10 AM
"There are 48 people who were monitored and are now declared "symptom free" in Dallas."
If that's based on the 21-day threshold, it means that 2 or 3 of them could be expected to have the virus.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPad | October 20, 2014 at 09:11 AM
Cool link - thanks, hit!
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 09:14 AM
TiME says Nigeria did not close its borders.
http://time.com/3522984/ebola-nigeria-who/
I swear I saw reports that they did. I don't know what to believe on that.
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 09:17 AM
peter-- well the new bread bakery/coffee house in darien has a very nice brewed coffee blend; I have not tried their espresso yet... Mr. Maguire may have.
Clintonista candidates floundering; the Clinton/Prog civil is not going well for the Clintons. They may have $$$, but they may not have voters. Their 90s voters may be voting Repub, leaving the Dem party as a pure Prog Party. Fauxchahontas in '16 for dems!! PS: she'll get HAMMERED.
Posted by: NKreBootDeux | October 20, 2014 at 09:27 AM
Asf august, Nigeria did not have a travel ban from Liberia/Sierra Leone, even though an Ebola case had come from Liberia: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/166579-ebola-nigeria-restates-ban-on-inter-state-transportation-of-corpses.html
Posted by: NKreBootDeux | October 20, 2014 at 09:33 AM
But-- South Africa did ban all non-essential travel from all of West Africa.
Posted by: NKreBootDeux | October 20, 2014 at 09:34 AM
AliceH@9:17: This report says Nigeria initially did ban flights from Ebola countries, then subsequently relaxed the ban once screening procedures were in place.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/africa-stems-ebola-border-closings-luck-26249603
A bunch of other African countries have closed their borders. The efficacy is related to how porous the borders are.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPad | October 20, 2014 at 09:36 AM
OT from Eric Metaxas on FB -
THE CHURCH MUST STAND UP! Pls do this today or tomorrow.
The Houston Mayor's demand to see the sermons of pastors is the most outrageous attack on Religious Liberty we have seen. A red line has been crossed in America and it DEMANDS a strong & immediate response from people of faith.
Pastors, PLEASE send your sermons -- and all other Americans, PLEASE SEND favorite sermons or scripture verses or better yet SEND A BIBLE to:
Mayor Annise Parker, City Hall, 901 Bagby Street, Houston, TX 77002
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2014 at 09:42 AM
Rebrund Bobblehead is going to be in Ferguson for four nights starting Oct. 31st and conveniently ending on Election Day, representing the four hours that St. Thugula laid on the ground after being shot be the evil white racist cop.
Get out the (black) vote!
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 09:43 AM
via Instapundit:
“The White House has argued that the chief management credential that qualifies Klain for the job is his experience in helping to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2009 stimulus package that poured about $800 billion into the troubled U.S. economy by way of tax breaks, investments and entitlements.”
Well, if that's the deal, then why not put Sheriff Joe in charge of the ebola response?
I mean is ebola or is ebola not a big f'n deal?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 09:44 AM
This Powerline post is good too - http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/gay-marriage-vs-religious-freedom-the-latest-installment.php
"The Jewish community faces essentially the same pseudo-civil rights issue all the time. Many rabbis won’t preside over a ceremony that weds a Jew to a non-Jew. How do Jews respond? Not through legal proceedings. They respond the same way my daughter did when she married a non-Jew — by finding a rabbi who will perform the ceremony."
It is & has been the same in lots of Christian churches too.
The lawfare going on is overwhelming. You can bet that the minute the LGBT bathroom law goes into effect there will be trans. in church bathrooms LOOKING for a lawsuit.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2014 at 09:47 AM
Not a big effin deal until someone besides a serf gets sick. One crony starts sneezing & they will get serious about it.
Posted by: henry | October 20, 2014 at 09:48 AM
Thanks, jimmyk@9:36.
It's tweeted that. Forgot to give you the hat tip :(
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 09:54 AM
If that's based on the 21-day threshold, it means that 2 or 3 of them could be expected to have the virus.
I think this would mean that, if all 48 had actual exposure, 2 to 3 would *not* show symptoms after 21 days. In this case, 2-3 could potentially have the virus, but since the other 45 didn't get it, it's unlikely the others will either.
Posted by: danoso | October 20, 2014 at 09:54 AM
Maybe I'll send the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7.
Mayor Parker,
I heard you were subpoenaing sermons. Here is a popular old one.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2014 at 09:55 AM
I have something I'd like to mail to Houston's mayor. I just can't figure out how to get one of my farts into an envelope.
New Thread >>>
Posted by: Beasts of England | October 20, 2014 at 09:56 AM
--Rebrund Bobblehead is going to be in Ferguson for four nights starting Oct. 31st...--
Hope he puts a mask on so he doesn't scare the trick or treaters.

Posted by: Iggy | October 20, 2014 at 10:19 AM
You may be right, danoso. I'd have to see exactly what that 95% confidence interval was based on.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | October 20, 2014 at 10:21 AM
My understanding/assumption was 95% CI pertains to those who contract Ebola... That they will show symptoms in 21 days or less. It's not measuring anything about likelihood of exposure leading to contracting Ebola.
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM
Thinking out loud.... I'm not sure it's a well-posed question. If 95% of those who have Ebola show symptoms within 21 days, that doesn't really help for knowing the likelihood that someone who may have Ebola is in the clear. There's an unknown probability of whether they were exposed. It's not obvious to me what probability to assign to someone who is disease-free 21 days after *possibly* having been exposed. I think danoso's right that the 95% is too low, but I'm not clear on what the right number is.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 20, 2014 at 11:18 AM
It looks like a hard candy Christmas.
Posted by: MarkO | October 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Couldn't find the line graph from WHO showing #days incubation, but it peaked at about 6 - 8 days, dropped sharply after 12-14 days, then had a long tail close to the x-axis through about 40 days.
This bar graph could be same thing except it acts off at 21 days... and it has some detail on methodology. OH: link is for Zaire type Ebola, which is not the strain that made it here.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mb542f10b7.PNG
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 12:19 PM
James D @ 8:07 am ... wants to talk about impeachment.
I'll guess that it won't happen. Because then we get Biden. And, if Biden quits, we'd be stuck with the drunkard, Boehner.
Besides Ebola, and just like Nixon, Obama's doctor is incompetent. (Nixon's doc used to carry around a bag that had pills in it marked "stomach ache," "assorted pains" and "headache medicine."
While the guy gets paranoid as hell.
Even when they put in the Christmas decorations, the White House is in a funk. It is NOT a happy place! And, there's an even worse breakdown on responding to crisis.
Now, IF Impeachment did reach up, somehow? You'd see Hillary aiming to be named veep.
Won't happen.
But the democrats may go on suicide watch on November 5th ... as their losing map spreads out nearly across the whole country!
On Yom Kippur the Israelis acted. We just don't know how. Only that a nuclear site in Iran had "some explosions" ... and windows were blown out seven miles away!
There's something else to notice. Israel fights back! The saud's aren't going to be funding ANYBODY to take them on in battle! Plus, most arabs wouldn't be volunteering to fight Israel.
And, Turkey has her hands full.
Egyptians are at peace with Israel.
Jordan is defensively protected by Americans. And, Assad is hanging on in there. This ties up Russia.
Meanwhile, Obama is falling apart all by himself. Maybe, with enough stress, he can have a heart attack.
While Biden's a joke. And, the Clinton's may see their own chances getting buried?
Posted by: Carol Herman | October 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM
AliceH;
Nigeria does not share a border with the afflicted countries. Saying they did not close their border is semantics.
They did ban flights from the afflicted countries to Nigeria. Which is how the virus got into the country in the first place.
One guy led to the whole outbreak.
Posted by: Bori | October 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Bori:
One guy led to the whole outbreak.
In many ways, this is the story of Obama.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | October 20, 2014 at 01:03 PM
Ah, thanks Bori. That explains why I was confused --
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 01:32 PM
The ABC story I linked earlier said that they banned flights for some time, but then relaxed the ban when they were satisfied they could screen properly.
Incidentally, for anyone still here, I believe the answer to the puzzle at 11:18 is that if you can assign a probability (as of day 1) that the person contracted Ebola, you can apply Bayes' Rule to update the probability on each passing day in which the person as asymptomatic.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 20, 2014 at 01:59 PM
Ah, I may possibly get your question, now, jimmyk.
Another link I lost shows a table that lays probability (or do I mean % risk?)of contracting Ebola per each day of potential exposure. (It was based on healthcare workers in past and current outbreaks. I think). It didn't weight early days less than later ones when a given patient would presumably be more contagious, but it did show different risk rates for diff counties/outbreaks and strains.
If I recall, the range was from .02 to .3 per dsy, with assumed avg exposure to contagious phase of 6 days.
Hope you find something coherent, if not useful, in there.
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 02:37 PM
Also, more related stuff on 21 day incubation here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/manoj-jain-md-mph/ebola-quarantine_b_6009176.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
(Ignore that it is huffpo...It's very good...)
Posted by: AliceH | October 20, 2014 at 03:20 PM
"the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions "
What idiotic wording. The Iranians are willing to graciously accept us suspending the sanctions, well how generous of them to accept that. This is a concession to Iran, not one from them to us. What exactly will Iran be giving us in exchange for us suspending the sanctions.
Posted by: Richard Forty (richard40) | October 21, 2014 at 02:26 PM