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.
I just saw in the NY News Channel One, that there are 280 people being held in the Newark, NJ, Airport because one passenger is sick, and had been in Africa recently. They are suspecting the Ebola Virus........this is frightening, especially if there is no cure for Ebola, as yet.
Remember, how Tuberculosis wiped out a generation?
I am petrified.............
We just have to remember that it isn't 'that' easy to spread at the moment, avoid getting sneezed on and then touching any of your mucous membranes, use hand sanitizer...etc.
Is JerseyGirl415 aware that the recent "Ebola patient" flew to the US from Brussels?
There are flights from several Africa countries to...Brussels...Paris...London...and probably a few other European capitals...on a regular basis.
Do you propose shutting down all air traffic from Europe?
What if somebody flies from Africa to Asia?
Do we need to shut down flights from Asia, as well?
Yes, I'm aware. No, I thought I made it clear that I propose shutting down air travel from West Africa to... everywhere.
Its not a difficult concept and it is one you will find across the internet at the moment and talking to people in person about the crisis - stop travel from Africa. I'm not sure why people here cannot seem to understand it.
We shut down air travel to and from the US immediately following 9/11. Why can't we do the same in Africa to avoid a deadly disease spreading worldwide?
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 10-05-2014 at 08:55 PM..
Yes, I'm aware. No, I thought I made it clear that I propose shutting down air travel from West Africa to... everywhere.
Its not a difficult concept and it is one you will find across the internet at the moment and talking to people in person about the crisis - stop travel from Africa. I'm not sure why people here cannot seem to understand it.
We shut down air travel to and from the US immediately following 9/11. Why can't we do the same in Africa to avoid a deadly disease spreading worldwide?
For starters, "we" don't control air traffic all over the world. And you're proposing that business and trade for an entire continent gets shut down just because of a disease that relatively few people are likely to catch.
For starters, "we" don't control air traffic all over the world. And you're proposing that business and trade for an entire continent gets shut down just because of a disease that relatively few people are likely to catch.
Exactly!
An attempt to shut down air traffic would be greeted by the business community as an infringement on their ability to conduct business.
The Doctor who is in charge of the increased military presense in Africa to support efforts to control Ebola was on CNN today. He had a good explaination why he would not support banning travel to and from the areas of impact. The jist I got... Doing so would simply isolate those countries and empede the flow of aid to those countries. By doing so, the desease would increasingly spread through other countries making it increasingly difficult to prevent the spread here to the US. Furthermore the logistics of preventing such travel is very difficult; as mentioned here there is no single authority to control world travel. The CNN coorespondant then asked about banning travel in one direction; no return flights. He mentioned that citizens flying to those countries would have every legal right to return home. Secondly, airlines cannot operate in a single direction; they need flights to and from a destination.
His final message was that the US is equipped to better handle Ebola cases than most countries and that his intent is to aim at the source of the Ebola outbreak...
Couldn't find an equivalent link on cnn's website... oh well.
The Doctor who is in charge of the increased military presense in Africa to support efforts to control Ebola was on CNN today. He had a good explaination why he would not support banning travel to and from the areas of impact. The jist I got... Doing so would simply isolate those countries and empede the flow of aid to those countries. By doing so, the desease would increasingly spread through other countries making it increasingly difficult to prevent the spread here to the US. Furthermore the logistics of preventing such travel is very difficult; as mentioned here there is no single authority to control world travel. The CNN coorespondant then asked about banning travel in one direction; no return flights. He mentioned that citizens flying to those countries would have every legal right to return home. Secondly, airlines cannot operate in a single direction; they need flights to and from a destination.
His final message was that the US is equipped to better handle Ebola cases than most countries and that his intent is to aim at the source of the Ebola outbreak...
Couldn't find an equivalent link on cnn's website... oh well.
Lol at the CNN question about one-way travel. How exactly would that work? Where would you park all those one-way planes, for starters?
Lol at the CNN question about one-way travel. How exactly would that work? Where would you park all those one-way planes, for starters?
You can always count on CNN's intrepid reporters to ask the questions that nobody else asks.
Of course, that is because the reporters from the other media outlets are usually too smart to ask the dumb questions that the CNN staffers see fit to verbalize.
For starters, "we" don't control air traffic all over the world. And you're proposing that business and trade for an entire continent gets shut down just because of a disease that relatively few people are likely to catch.
"We" as in those who are controlling the situation. UN, WHO, CDC. And "we" the US actually do have a lot of control in situations like these. I actually saw an article pretty recently BLAMING the US for not doing more and saying it is almost completely our fault that ebola has gotten this bad. I thought it was ridiculous, we are not Africa's nanny or at least we shouldn't be, but I guess the writer disagreed. And no, not the entire continent. As far as economic reasons for NOT shutting down air travel, the economy (what little economy they had to begin with in these poor countries that have been affected) has already come to a standstill because of ebola. Children in affected regions also are no longer going to school. It's not as if suddenly if no can can fly to and from West Africa, except aid workers and supplies from countries donating aid, the economy will stop. It's already been severely affected. If they wanted to shut air travel, it could be done. They just don't feel they need to. They would rather allow infected people to bring the disease elsewhere, causing all to have to start dealing with it unnecessarily. This disease should be contained to West Africa, it should have been months ago, but because of certain actions those in charge have taken, one person so far has now removed it from Africa via air travel. So far. And thanks to the long incubation period and the rather loose control Liberia, for one, has over allowing people to leave the country, we very well could see more. There have already been multiple scares even before Thomas Duncan stupidly brought it here like an idiot, knowing he'd been exposed and lying on his form. He knew that he was in a win-win situation: if he didn't get ebola, he'd get to be in the US on his visa. Don't need to explain that one much further, except to point out that if he didn't get ebola and was in the US, he certainly would not be exposed to it on a daily basis like back home. If he did get ebola in the US, he knew he'd get state of the art treatment. Either way, he wins. We lose. Others could easily think like him.
On another note, Marburg has been reported in Uganda. They've quarantined 80 people. The sort of good thing about this region is that they are used to ebola and Marburg outbreaks, unlike West Africa, so they are pretty good at getting it under control over there, but then again that's what they were saying about ebola and look what happened.
Imagine if they didn't find that homeless man in Dallas who was taken in the same ambulance as Duncan right after he was transported. Imagine if he actually started showing symptoms and they could not track him, and the CDC didn't know because how would they? Imagine how many people a homeless wanderer could potentially infect.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 10-06-2014 at 10:48 AM..
"We" as in those who are controlling the situation. UN, WHO, CDC. And "we" the US actually do have a lot of control in situations like these. I actually saw an article pretty recently BLAMING the US for not doing more and saying it is almost completely our fault that ebola has gotten this bad. I thought it was ridiculous, we are not Africa's nanny or at least we shouldn't be, but I guess the writer disagreed. And no, not the entire continent. As far as economic reasons for NOT shutting down air travel, the economy (what little economy they had to begin with in these poor countries that have been affected) has already come to a standstill because of ebola. Children in affected regions also are no longer going to school. It's not as if suddenly if no can can fly to and from West Africa, except aid workers and supplies from countries donating aid, the economy will stop. It's already been severely affected. If they wanted to shut air travel, it could be done. They just don't feel they need to. They would rather allow infected people to bring the disease elsewhere, causing all to have to start dealing with it unnecessarily. This disease should be contained to West Africa, it should have been months ago, but because of certain actions those in charge have taken, one person so far has now removed it from Africa via air travel. So far. And thanks to the long incubation period and the rather loose control Liberia, for one, has over allowing people to leave the country, we very well could see more. There have already been multiple scares even before Thomas Duncan stupidly brought it here like an idiot, knowing he'd been exposed and lying on his form. He knew that he was in a win-win situation: if he didn't get ebola, he'd get to be in the US on his visa. Don't need to explain that one much further, except to point out that if he didn't get ebola and was in the US, he certainly would not be exposed to it on a daily basis like back home. If he did get ebola in the US, he knew he'd get state of the art treatment. Either way, he wins. We lose. Others could easily think like him.
On another note, Marburg has been reported in Uganda. They've quarantined 80 people. The sort of good thing about this region is that they are used to ebola and Marburg outbreaks, unlike West Africa, so they are pretty good at getting it under control over there, but then again that's what they were saying about ebola and look what happened.
Imagine if they didn't find that homeless man in Dallas who was taken in the same ambulance as Duncan right after he was transported. Imagine if he actually started showing symptoms and they could not track him, and the CDC didn't know because how would they? Imagine how many people a homeless wanderer could potentially infect.
I'm all for nature and Darwinism controlling our population. Medical advances has already stopped our evolutionary process because we are saving the weak genes and allow them to reproduce and mix in developed gene pools.
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.
