Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxerickson | Hacker News Reader

He tells Colbert that he has a zero percent chance of getting infected (it's as a response to a question). I take your point that he is being somewhat dismissive, but he doesn't actually say that there is zero chance of it spreading. The rest of the discussion is quite a lot more measured:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/03/dr-kent-goe...

View on HN

Colbert: "What are the odds that I'm going to get Ebola?"

Sepkowitz: "Zero. Next question."

---

Thanks for posting the link. I wouldn't interpret what he said as only directed to Colbert. It's normal for an interviewer to place him/herself as the subject where it's understood that the implied subject is [any other person like me in this region/nation]. He's being far more than "somewhat dismissive." Even if he (oddly) were only specifically addressing Colbert by saying zero, that would be presumptuous. But that's my take.

I admit the possibility of a conversational zero. I don't see much point in arguing over it. Given current information, I don't expect to even change my behavior over Ebola (but I'm not in Dallas and I already didn't have plans to travel to west Africa). That meets my hand wavy, just invented definition of a conversational zero.

I posted the link because you said resolute in saying the chance of Ebola spreading in the United States is "zero.". I figured it was fair for people reading that to have an easy shot at interpreting the video themselves.

You're quite right to post it. It confirmed how I remembered it. He was resolute in that sense. To say that an arbitrary person (the implied subject) has a chance of "zero" is to effectively say it's "zero" for a whole. Anyway. Keep it easy. Get in the habit of bowing instead of shaking hands and you'll have already made inroads. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com