Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The volunteer argument you and Obama are making is simply without merit. As I said, rules can be fashioned to let anyone go to Liberia to help. No one has proposed keeping people from GOING there anyway. But I question the harm in restricting those LEAVING the area. I have yet to hear a good argument against a travel ban into the US other than an economically based one. Even that is based on harm to the affected countries and not the world at large.
BUT your proposal IF they go there is that then they can't leave. Funnily enough, even if I were going on vacation to Fiji, at some point I've got to get back to my life, my job, my family, my obligations at home. And if I knew beforehand that I would be prevented from leaving Fiji, then I wouldn't go. The same thing for volunteers. They go to help, but they have a timetable for how long they can be gone from their jobs, their families, their personal obligations. If you extend that time away, it's a burden, a burden some volunteers are unable to undertake. Therefore, the more burdensome you make volunteering, the less volunteers you will have. These three countries have lost many of their medical workers. They desperately NEED volunteers to stop this outbreak. Your proposal discourages volunteers. Meaning that the three countries will have a harder time stopping the outbreak. The longer the outbreak goes, the bigger it gets, the more likely that it will go global. The BEST use of resources is to send those resources, including volunteers, to the affected countries, to contain this virus NOW. It's a BAD use of resources to discourage volunteers, and it's a bad use of resources to damage these countries' economies. Moreover, it's a BAD use of resources to try to ban travelers when all it gives is a FALSE sense of security. We KNOW from SARS and other contagions that travel bans DON'T WORK.
When you ban flights, people drive. When they drive they -may- get sick somewhere else and no one will notice/spread infection.
these are people with money. They can drive, and fly out of another port. .if they want to leave.
If you ban flights your only going to make it a pain for these people, you won't change the demand.
Plus your limiting the in-flow of doctors/etc that can help
2) no evidence that a flight is a problem. there is evidence that the Hospital in Texas sucks, but even Duncan shouldn't of been an issue. . as we have treated multiple people with Ebola without causing infections
They can't come in without a visa regardless of whether they drove their cars across the Atlantic. Still waiting for why restricting visas and entry is a bad idea.....
Considering the way Ebola has been mis-handled so far, it's possible. Volunteers could certainly be brought in/out on charter flights.
And of course, none of the volunteers could possibly get infected? They are going there to help with an Ebola outbreak. Are you going to quarantine them before they get on a charter flight? For how long? It's not like Americans have a special genetic trait that tells the Ebola virus they can't get infected, can't spread it to others.
And travel bans don't work. It's been tried, over and over, they don't work.
To me, the truth of the matter is that the people arguing for a travel ban actually want a quarantine of the affected countries. And some of those people are willing to let Ebola run its course in the quarantined countries. If it wipes out 50% of those countries' populations, they don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them. I can support greater scrutiny of visa applicants, and restrictions for unnecessary travel. But I can't a blanket travel ban, when 99% of the people aren't infected with Ebola, and when travel bans have been shown, historically, over and over and over, to not stop the spread of contagions.
We need to do the right thing, the humane thing, which is help these affected countries to deal with this crisis. By providing resources, including human resources, to handle the outbreak, to treat the sick, to dispose of the dead, and to find an effective treatment or cure.
The problem never was and never will be health care workers going and coming. Controlling entry and exit is not going to affect the health care response whatsoever. It is casual tourists and business people who are exposed to Ebola without knowing (or with knowledge who come to seek treatment in the US). I am still waiting for a cogent argument why cancelling all visas from the affected nations is a bad policy. I am not saying it is a good policy; I remained unconvinced however that it is a bad one.
You're going to have to actually offer up facts to support this conclusion.
How many casual tourists and business people have spread Ebola internationally?
How many people are showing up in the United States with knowledge of their infection, seeking treatment?
You've been given several cogent arguments against the proposed travel bans. It's BAD policy.
And of course, none of the volunteers could possibly get infected? They are going there to help with an Ebola outbreak. Are you going to quarantine them before they get on a charter flight? For how long? It's not like Americans have a special genetic trait that tells the Ebola virus they can't get infected, can't spread it to others.
And travel bans don't work. It's been tried, over and over, they don't work.
To me, the truth of the matter is that the people arguing for a travel ban actually want a quarantine of the affected countries. And some of those people are willing to let Ebola run its course in the quarantined countries. If it wipes out 50% of those countries' populations, they don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them. I can support greater scrutiny of visa applicants, and restrictions for unnecessary travel. But I can't a blanket travel ban, when 99% of the people aren't infected with Ebola, and when travel bans have been shown, historically, over and over and over, to not stop the spread of contagions.
We need to do the right thing, the humane thing, which is help these affected countries to deal with this crisis. By providing resources, including human resources, to handle the outbreak, to treat the sick, to dispose of the dead, and to find an effective treatment or cure.
I can't recall a travel ban to stop a contagion. You said they've been shown, historically, to not work. I would be interested in knowing of such previous bans. I know, like with Spanish Influenza, it traveled with our returning soldiers where we again didn't ban travel. In fact, AIDS also traveled (with no ban) but was really devastating because of the resistance to close the bath houses when it first appeared. Honestly, I can't think of any health related travel bans. Would be interesting to see them.
I can't recall a travel ban to stop a contagion. You said they've been shown, historically, to not work. I would be interested in knowing of such previous bans. I know, like with Spanish Influenza, it traveled with our returning soldiers where we again didn't ban travel.
Originally, it traveled with our departing soldiers.
You're going to have to actually offer up facts to support this conclusion.
How many casual tourists and business people have spread Ebola internationally?
How many people are showing up in the United States with knowledge of their infection, seeking treatment?
You've been given several cogent arguments against the proposed travel bans. It's BAD policy.
Carrying on with the false premise that aid workers would somehow not be able to work in Africa is not a cogent argument. It is easily countered. Neither is your point that it hasn't happened yet since it has. Bad policy? Had this bad policy been in effect, Duncan and all the sequelae would never have happened. I am not saying it is good policy. But why is it bad policy? Still waiting...
The bans you are speaking about have taken differing forms as travel has changed. Public Health authorities have always had a variety of mechanisms to control disease spread. TB patients were isolated physically in sanatoriums throughout the US and held there until they were cured or died. As recently as SARS W.H.O. advised strongly against travel in and out of Canadian cities especially from China. This played out dramatically (as SARS was an airborne illness) and while Canada and W.H.O. disagreed more persons died when Canada thought the contagion was well controlled when it was not and went against the advice of W.H.O. It is much more difficult now with air flights having increased from around the globe. How we long for the good ole days when syphillis was contained by keeping your teenagers home at night.
Ebola while currently a contact disease, has had it's attempts to migrate to airborne. The Reston cases now infamous where hundreds of monkeys were killed when the virus mutated, did not have the capacity to kill humans but nonetheless is cited as a potential issue for our future.
The key to any disease is to contain. It appears that thus far CDC is correct that Ebola can only be transferred in bodily fluids. So containing the patents are the leading edge of treatment.
The current hypothesis is that the source of this outbreak was a single family's handling of uncooked bats ( bush meat). Where the bats contracted Ebola remains open to scientific speculation as it has since the virus was first discovered, in the 70's.
Carrying on with the false premise that aid workers would somehow not be able to work in Africa is not a cogent argument. It is easily countered. Neither is your point that it hasn't happened yet since it has. Bad policy? Had this bad policy been in effect, Duncan and all the sequelae would never have happened. I am not saying it is good policy. But why is it bad policy? Still waiting...
Didn't say that at all.
POINTED out the obvious. That volunteers are leaving their lives to travel to the affected nations. Do you think volunteers don't have lives here in America. Jobs, families, obligations? When you leave your job for vacation, or for personal reasons, do you have a timetable, when your job can expect you back? If you travel, do you have a family expecting you back at a certain time, to attend to family matters? Do you have bills, commitments, and other obligations that you have to meet in your life? And if the answer is yes, do you think the volunteers are different from you? If they can set aside four weeks in their lives, to help in the affected countries, do you really think it's worthwhile to them to help for one week and spend the next three in quarantine? Do you understand that volunteers, if they knew they were going to have to spend three weeks in isolation quarantine in Liberia, or Sierra Leone, or Guinea, where the facilities are going to be sub-par, might hesitate and even cancel their plans to volunteer? Because it's a BURDEN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still waiting for why restricting visas and entry is a bad idea.....
