Some thoughts for those calling for a travel ban to control Ebola coming to the US...
 

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/1...for-a-travel-b


The Dumb Republican Calls for a Travel Ban to Fight Ebola
If anything, it will make matters worse

Shikha Dalmia | October 14, 2014


Even before Thomas Eric Duncan, who was being treated in Dallas for Ebola, died on Wednesday and a nurse who was treating him contracted this terrible disease, Republicans were vying with each other to shame the Obama administration into implementing a travel ban against Ebola-affected countries. That wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion if it could stop the spread of the disease. But the fact of the matter is that it will do the opposite.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who is clearly positioning himself for a possible 2016 presidential run, issued a press release noting that the ban would "seem to be an obvious step to protect public health in the United States." Donald Trump, who is threatening the country with another presidential run, tweeted that the president was being either "arrogant or stupid" in resisting it.

And then there is the master of understatement, Rush Limbaugh, who alleged that the main reason why the administration was rebuffing the ban was "political correctness" ? as if America would have slammed its doors shut more speedily if the concerned country were, say, Great Britain or Belgium or Hong Kong. (The lone voice of sanity questioning this burgeoning conservative narrative is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, which in itself speaks volumes about the state of the GOP.)

The main argument of ban proponents is that without it, infected Africans will flood the United States looking for treatment. But the U.S. embassy isn't exactly handing out visas like Halloween candy in affected countries. And if it were, the solution, beyond implementing more rigorous screening of passengers (which is already happening), would be stricter medical controls for visas ? not an official travel ban.

That's because such a ban would be both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Unnecessary because there is already a de facto private ban in place, given that U.S.-based airlines stopped flying to Ebola-afflicted countries two months ago (to protect their crew and passengers from exposure ? and themselves from lawsuits). And counterproductive for a whole host of reasons.

For starters, the most reliable study modeling the effect of the ban concluded that even if the world managed to scale back air traffic flows by 80 percent, it would delay the international spread of the disease by only a few weeks. But the 80 percent goal is itself completely unrealistic. Why? Because it would require a far wider ban than one against Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, the three countries at the epicenter of the outbreak. It would require, for example, America to ban flights from countries that themselves have not banned travel to the affected countries. Otherwise, potentially infected people could simply fly to some country where they could get a connecting flight to their final destination, just like Duncan did, flying from Monrovia to Brussels before boarding a flight to the U.S.

But even if it were possible to impose a blanket travel ban, it wouldn't be advisable, because it would undermine the world's ability to fight the spread of the disease in the source countries, ultimately leaving everyone far more vulnerable.

The vast majority of the aid and relief efforts are being organized not by government agencies with access to government planes but private volunteer organizations such as Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders that rely on commercial travel. These entities are providing crucial protective gear and expertise to handle and treat Ebola patients safely without spreading the disease. If they are not able to respond expeditiously, thanks to a travel ban, we'll be basically consigning a whole lot of people to a death sentence.

This would only heighten their sense of desperation, increasing their desire to leave, and thus producing political instability, especially if their governments try and stop them due to pressure from the international community. Many African countries have already announced their own travel bans. But it is unlikely that they'll be able to enforce them without very draconian measures in the face of a mass exodus of people, making the spread of the disease across the African continent that much harder to contain.

French novelist Jean Raspail, in his dystopian The Camp of Saints, presented liberal France with an imagined dilemma like this: When confronted with a flotilla of leperous Indians seeking to enter its shore, should the French abandon their lofty principles and shoot the infected ? or stick to their ideals and court self-annihilation by allowing them in?

Fortunately, in our civilized world, humanity's survival depends not on killing fellow human beings as Raspail's fevered imagination suggested, but maintaining the delicate balance between altruistic impulses for humanitarian work and selfish desire for protection. In fact, government action that prevents people from acting on the first might also undermine the second.

Republicans would do themselves and everyone else a big favor by suspending their calls for a travel ban and sticking to their alleged opposition to heavy-handed government intervention. Contra Raspail, calling in the Leviathan to suppress the natural urge to help might undermine humanity's best coping mechanisms against the Ebola crisis.








.:2 cents:



Thoughts?



.

Do not let any AFricans people over here or any people coming from africa until they get it under control.

Ebola is a new industry worth serious money, if they had ever wanted to stop it they would have used quarantine right from the start, same way that Small Pox was eradicated :2 cents:

It makes sense....but don't expect retarded people like Tucker Carlson and everyone else at Foxnews to understand this. Their business is fear, and business has been good lately with Ebola and ISIS going at the same time. They're having a perpetual fear-monger orgasm over there 24/7.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...o-fight-ebola/

I assume that you are trolling, since small pox was all over the globe, and was gradually eradicated by vaccinations which started in the late 1880s.... But then again, you have posted some amazingly dumb stuff this week, so....




:Oh crap




.

He's constantly posting amazingly dumb stuff, troll or not it's worthless. He's just recruiting crazies.

The biggest issue is that Ebola started in small villages in Africa where they were consuming food that was covered in infected bat shit and jizz. These people that were unfortunately infected would sit there and more or less succumb to the virus and die. It may spread within their village or even work it's way a bit outside, but it wouldn't go too far hence the low infection rate of years past.

Africans (for the most part) are poor people. They do not have the luxury of being able to just hop on a plane, train or even jump into their SUV and travel - either for business or pleasure. We do.

The fact that the second worker hopped on a plane with 132 other unsuspecting souls is scary. How far can the CDC or government go? Now, not only do they have to monitor that woman and her friends, family, coworkers, etc.... now they have to monitor 132 other people from God knows where, their friends, their families, their coworkers, etc as well as anybody that they have come into contact with.

It's a snowball effect. It's quite scary to think about.

HOLD ON 1 Min here mister. Your talking truth and reason and we just cant have that.

Many stories have been told already about those villages and if the " Doctors " had not gone in, the virus would have vanished again for a time. This has happened many times over the years. But because we now MUST care for those people in those villages, its spreading.

Those villages have been there for hundreds of years and our help has only hurt them in the long run.

As for Travel Bans, I believe it should have been started long ago.

quarantine texas!

The pharmaceuticals regularly try to rewrite history for their own benefit, unfortunately the Small Pox vaccine was incredibly dangerous, regularly starting up autoimmune diseases


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_...ent%22&f=false

So leaving ebola where it started until a cure is found isn't as good an idea as spreading it around the world? I think I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

In that case, the ONLY way stop it would be to blockade and utterly isolate EVERY area where it has shown up, and not allow ANYONE to leave or travel from that area.

Those areas must then include Texas, most of the EU, Florida, etc....





.

That's my point. Look where it's spread to by not restricting travel.

So then conceding your point, what should be done at this point? Do we stop permitting all travel from Africa? If so, how? Since people from those countries can go elsewhere first, do we then shut down all travel from anywhere outside the US?




.

I got a real scare in Paris, France a couple of weeks ago in a hotel shuttle bus to CDG airport. The were a couple of fellow travellers from Africa sitting next to me. As it turned out, they were living in France returning to Ghana to visit their families so there was no exposure to the Ebola virus on their part but it was scary as hell for a few moments.

Cat's out of the bag now but limiting the area of exposure to isolated villages where it started is the obvious best way to handle it until a cure is found. Shutting travel is tough but so is dealing with an outbreak where US hospitals aren't even prepared.

Wait... why did you bring Florida up?You know something I don't?

SSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!! (I don't want to cause a panic!)







.

:disgust:disgust:disgust

I think the main problem is that they don't know everything about this disease. If they did, that nurse in Texas wouldn't have it.

I think working with NATO and other countries, locking down those infected countries from any travel till a cure can be distributed widespread through the countries. Controlling the medical workers that are traveling for aid would be an easy thing. But checking the passengers with a meat thermometer isn't going to cut it.

WHO says, if they are to be believed, that infections could hit 10,000 per WEEK by December at the current rate.

WHO: Ebola cases could hit 10,000 a week - CBS News

I need to call my FA and shift some stocks...:1orglaugh

seriously? you saw some black people and automatically thought they had ebola?

I was just watching the hearing on Ebola on TV just now. The poor guy from CDC is bring grilled like crazy and is holding up very well.

But so far, 3 different republicans have asked about restricting air travel. The CDC director explained very well why it would be a big mistake and would make things worse. Another republican asked the same thing and asked another CDC guy if he agreed, and he said Yes.

Then, a republican from Arizona asked the same question again but extended it to "securing the border" between US and Mexico, and US and Canada (really). Then finally, another republican (from Texas) spent 5 minutes saying how he was going to push for air travel restrictions anyway, completely dismissing what expert scientists just said 8 minutes earlier.

Just incredible.

I wonder if they really and truly know little about this disease.

*Puts on a small tinfoil hat on*

The US and Russia have known about this disease 40+ years.
I'm left to wonder if they have looked at it from a military point of view.
It's not much to consider that from a defense point of few they would have to consider: What if a rouge nation turn Ebola into a weapon,
A studies etc would then follow....

*not much of a leap considering USAMRIID....

This will hit everyone not just one party so stop the political angle. On a smaller scale explain why isolating people with this virus is a bad idea? It isn't.

I'm not putting a political "angle" on it. It was republicans who each asked the same questions and heard the same answer. It was also a republican who dismissed it all, and called for border protection anyway. Maybe some Dems are calling for it too I don't really know - All I am sayings is that this is what I saw for the 20 minutes or so that I watched.

Also, you are missing the point. Isolating people with the virus IS a good idea and MUST be done of course. Blocking air travel is not the way to do this. Currently, people can be tracked as far as who their friends are, who they have seen, where they have traveled from etc, making controlling the outbreaks from occurring EASIER. If you block access to the US from Africa, people will travel to other locations and then enter the US that way, making it harder to know where they truly came from, and harder to trace their history to see who they may have interacted with, or which other planeloads of people they may have infected.

Blocking air travel seems counter-productive to me. You need the world economy to keep moving in cases like this. Avoid the fear panic and keep normal life ticking along. That way the right people and resources can be sent to the problem areas, technological and medical research can be rushed on solving the issue, and everyone else goes along fine.

I would much rather have a person who has travelled from an infected area to be able to OPENLY say to a hospital where they've been, how they got there, etc without fear of fine or jail time.

This should also apply to people in a country without universal health care. In a time like this anyone should be able to go to a hospital and express concern or request care, regardless of financial situation. You don't want little Jimmy being sent to school regardless of his vomiting because mom lost her job last week and is between insurers. Or her husband, Miguel, going to work at the farm while sick because he's an illegal immigrant and will lose his job if he doesn't show up on time one day.

It's all very well and good to say "nobody from Africa gets to come in" but in practicality this is not really an option.

your passport shows where you've been much further than the last leg of travel so the reasoning that travelers will slip through customs by indirectly traveling from africa to the usa is moot.

No, they were African, from Ghana, one wearing a traditional tribal hat in Paris, France. This was not in the States. Read it again ...

Everyone who has been to a country with Ebola should be put in quarantine when they enter the US or any country for that matter, for however long they need to be there. Don't like it, don't travel to one of those countries. Pretty simple really. The choice is yours.

That isn't tracked though. For example, if you are from China and you travel to X, Y, Z, and then enter the USA, they are only going to see you came from China, and look at your stamps, if there are any, and possibly ask you where all you have been. There isn't a global database of travelers yet. But it's coming soon, I'm sure.

Even as an American citizen, without the stamps in my passport they have no idea where I've been unless they ask me, or in the case of a criminal, investigate with help of other countries or INTERPOL. But a general traveler, they don't know.

and that's mostly what's happening,. This is a fluid situation that's constantly evolving and really is a first time thing for us to deal with. We'll get a handle on it, but until then cutting off the countries where it is born from and letting it fester is a sure fire way to make the epidemic worse all over the world. If it's worse all over the world, then it'll surely get worse here.

Don't try to explain that to people who are fueled by fear. I'm talking about people afraid of immigrants, afraid of low cost healthcare, afraid of their guns being taken away, afraid of gay people getting married, afraid of women being able to chose what to do with their reproductive health. Every position they take starts with fear of something.

I see, I had thought the scan inputs the data into a db, working with the airlines and airports etc.

When I returned to the USA last week they had a new self-check kiosk at Hartsfield, Atlanta. The US Customs kiosk read my passport bar code and printed a customs form (with my passport picture) showing the flight I had returned on -- this was new from last year at O'Hare.

So, there is a tie with the airlines and the US Customs. It did not show the countries I had travelled in but that might have also been there for customs use?

I'm sure there are some ties, perhaps with the airlines you just flew in on, but there isn't a global db that you get logged into, yet. But like I said before, I'm 100% sure that is just a matter of time.

That said, it's not hard for them to find wherever you are if they want to. They just don't see where all you have been upon your return. They could find out, but it's not automatically entered into their computer as you go through customs.

Even 3rd world countries like Cambodia scan your finger prints now when you enter, so once everyone is on board with that, it will be very easy for the entire world to share data. There is some sharing among some countries, but as far as I know it's only used in the event someone is being tracked because they are a fugitive.

You should have read ALL of my post, all countries should halt any travel from those countries. If they can't travel other countries, how will it spread?

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

I have been hearing these figures, but I have an issue. If it was going to spread that fast... and it's been in Africa for YEARS, (which it has), then everyone in Africa should be dead by now...




.:2 cents:



.

You make an excellent point, however westerners are pretty fucking selfish and stupid when it comes to ebola so they "I do what I want" and eating bats and monkeys still has ways to go before catching on in the mainstream. Otherwise you are right on target. :winkwink: