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.
if you have done any reading on this then im surprised you are doubting that statistic. most people dont really care if some people from a few african countries cant enter america. it seems kind of strange that the admin really cares so much about the ability of africans to visit america.
given the level of ignorance and misinformation on the topic, i'm not surpised by the stat. i just wanted to know where it was coming from. i would have expected it to be over 50%, but not as high as 77%. that's just depressing.
i know people don't care if people from african countries can't enter america. and i also know that it's not that simple. it's about procedures to help contain the outbreak to where it is currently. and a travel ban will spur people moving without being as easily trackable. that doesn't even necessarily mean they'll be coming to USA, but maybe they shift their travels to Asia and Europe. then what do we do? ban travel from China?
a travel ban is a short term 'solution' that just pushes the spread of the disease a couple of weeks into the future. it doesn't help contain the disease.
that's what the infectious disease experts are advising, and i don't see a reason to not trust them. it also sounds completely logical.
The DJ on Q104.3 yesterday was recommending a game...put on the news, and every time you hear the word, "EBOLA", you do a shot. You'll be wasted by the end of the news program!
given the level of ignorance and misinformation on the topic, i'm not surpised by the stat. i just wanted to know where it was coming from. i would have expected it to be over 50%, but not as high as 77%. that's just depressing.
i know people don't care if people from african countries can't enter america. and i also know that it's not that simple. it's about procedures to help contain the outbreak to where it is currently. and a travel ban will spur people moving without being as easily trackable. that doesn't even necessarily mean they'll be coming to USA, but maybe they shift their travels to Asia and Europe. then what do we do? ban travel from China?
a travel ban is a short term 'solution' that just pushes the spread of the disease a couple of weeks into the future. it doesn't help contain the disease.
that's what the infectious disease experts are advising, and i don't see a reason to not trust them. it also sounds completely logical.
How would banning travel out of West Africa (besides humanitarian efforts, people who should be quarantined prior to or at arrival back home), which is what the presidents of these 3 nations should have done - closed their country off to casual travel, NOT help contain the disease? Seriously, how would stopping travel BRING the disease to other countries? How would not accepting any West African passports at American airports, at or prior to getting on the plane to come here, be detrimental?
Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea should have closed themselves off back in the summer when they saw cases rising at a scary rate. They should only allow humanitarian efforts to bring people to their country, no one else, and no one but those same aid workers should be allowed to leave. Once they leave, or prior to leaving, they should be quarantined for 21 days. This is how you contain. You don't contain by doing absolutely nothing and hoping for the best. You don't contain by waiting for it to inevitably come here and dealing with it on a case by case level. Come on. If it's such a bad idea, why did Australia and (unfortunately I have to say this but they're right) North Korea do it? South Africa?
Look at Venice and plague during the Renaissance to know how to properly attempt to quarantine and contain. In 1400 they had the idea to stop foreigners and quarantine them, then quarantine all inside an infected house for up to 40 days, whether 1 or 10 family members were sick. That is containment, that is quarantine. What is going on now is not quarantine, nor is it containment.
i think quarantines are stupid and that there is no such thing as ebona its all a conspiracy
signed
a man with a hammer knocking ebola workers in the head in liberia
Oh i wouldn't declare mission accomplished yet either. For that, we have to be aggressive in combating the outbreak IN west africa. plenty of people have donated money and resources, the problem is they lack the ability to deploy those resources. if they simply had enough beds and isolation centers (tents), it would drastically cut down on the number of people contracting the disease.
not for nothing, but HIV and hepatitis are often going to be spread via sex or needles. someone who is contagious with ebola isn't gonna have much luck picking up a data at the local bar, cause they aren't gonna look too well. i don't think the comparisons to HIV or Hep are very relevant.
As I said, hepatitis a and e are via fecal route. Not that long ago, we used to have Hep A in the 10s of thousands in the US. It has since declined to roughly 1500 per year, but only due to widespread vaccination, which isn't available for Ebola yet.
As I said, hepatitis a and e are via fecal route. Not that long ago, we used to have Hep A in the 10s of thousands in the US. It has since declined to roughly 1500 per year, but only due to widespread vaccination, which isn't available for Ebola yet.
my mistake. i was thinking of the other heps. that's why you get paid the big bucks doc!
i just think the general public is, not all because of their own fault, very ignorant on these topics.
my sister was PA to I don't even know how many surgeries. i believe she's been stuck 4 or 5 times. now, if we had the same hysteria over the diseases she was at risk of contracting, we'd be quarantining people constantly.
you're an aneshesiaologist (sp?), i'm sure you've witnessed a few sticks in your liftime too.
so, as it related to ebola, some mistakes will be made in treating patients and some healthcare workers will contract ebola. unless they're contagious, what's the benefit of quarantining them for 21 days?
to me, it's no different than the silly 'security' measures we have at airports. it's for appeasement, not for actual risk reduction.
How would banning travel out of West Africa (besides humanitarian efforts, people who should be quarantined prior to or at arrival back home), which is what the presidents of these 3 nations should have done - closed their country off to casual travel, NOT help contain the disease? Seriously, how would stopping travel BRING the disease to other countries? How would not accepting any West African passports at American airports, at or prior to getting on the plane to come here, be detrimental?
Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea should have closed themselves off back in the summer when they saw cases rising at a scary rate. They should only allow humanitarian efforts to bring people to their country, no one else, and no one but those same aid workers should be allowed to leave. Once they leave, or prior to leaving, they should be quarantined for 21 days. This is how you contain. You don't contain by doing absolutely nothing and hoping for the best. You don't contain by waiting for it to inevitably come here and dealing with it on a case by case level. Come on. If it's such a bad idea, why did Australia and (unfortunately I have to say this but they're right) North Korea do it? South Africa?
Look at Venice and plague during the Renaissance to know how to properly attempt to quarantine and contain. In 1400 they had the idea to stop foreigners and quarantine them, then quarantine all inside an infected house for up to 40 days, whether 1 or 10 family members were sick. That is containment, that is quarantine. What is going on now is not quarantine, nor is it containment.
you've stated multiple things here.
1. Banning travel at US airports doesn't close off the targeted countries to travel. it only closes them off to travel to the US, in the sense that we are able to prevent every single person who comes here from there, which is unlikely something we can assure. Some people have multiple passports. Some have fake passports. It's not difficult to obtain a fake passport in all cases. But that's all besides the point, because banning travel TO the US doesn't ban all travel FROM the outbreak countries. Those people will go somewhere. it may start with going to countries they share borders with. and then branch out from there. Again, people more experienced with these things than you or I have conducted models on these things, and all it does is delay the spread of the disease.
2. do you know much about Liberia, SL, and Guinea? How would they "close themselves off"?
How you contain is sending resources and people to the countries and containing the outbreak. that's it. everything else is just fluff that's reactionary and not very useful.
1. Banning travel at US airports doesn't close off the targeted countries to travel. it only closes them off to travel to the US, in the sense that we are able to prevent every single person who comes here from there, which is unlikely something we can assure. Some people have multiple passports. Some have fake passports. It's not difficult to obtain a fake passport in all cases. But that's all besides the point, because banning travel TO the US doesn't ban all travel FROM the outbreak countries. Those people will go somewhere. it may start with going to countries they share borders with. and then branch out from there. Again, people more experienced with these things than you or I have conducted models on these things, and all it does is delay the spread of the disease.
2. do you know much about Liberia, SL, and Guinea? How would they "close themselves off"?
How you contain is sending resources and people to the countries and containing the outbreak. that's it. everything else is just fluff that's reactionary and not very useful.
As for you last bit, containing the outbreak at this point is impossible without travel restrictions on someone's end, whether it's ours or theirs. It's gotten too out of hand already. By contain, you don't really mean contain. What you mean is, if it trickles out, it trickles out.. we can handle it.
That's not containment. Containment is stopping it from leaving its home, village, city, country of origin. The second it left Guinea, which I believe is where the first case was, containment failed. And it continues to fail.
As for you last bit, containing the outbreak at this point is impossible without travel restrictions on someone's end, whether it's ours or theirs. It's gotten too out of hand already. By contain, you don't really mean contain. What you mean is, if it trickles out, it trickles out.. we can handle it.
That's not containment. Containment is stopping it from leaving its home, village, city, country of origin. The second it left Guinea, which I believe is where the first case was, containment failed. And it continues to fail.
i'm sorry, but i'll stick with the infectious disease experts on this one.
i'm sorry, but i'll stick with the infectious disease experts on this one.
I'm simply talking about how to contain - something is quite literally not contained if it has spread and no efforts to stop the spread out of the hotspots have come up. It doesn't take an expert to tell you that.
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.
