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.
Do you honestly think that the US is issuing visas willy-nilly to people in the affected areas? They are scrutinizing these proposed travelers. It's not reasonable to ban every resident in Liberia, which has a population of roughly four and a half million people when less than 1% of them have been infected with Ebola. 99% of the people are Ebola-free. And when you issue that ban, and start quarantining non-Liberians who want or need to travel, you are discouraging people who might otherwise volunteer to help. Every burden you place on volunteers discourages others from volunteering. For someone who's volunteered to go to Liberia to help for a month, you are essentially asking them to take 2 months out of their lives. The volunteers have lives, too. That adds to the burden these countries have in dealing with the outbreak. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea are poor countries, with very limited medical resources to begin with. And this outbreak has strained those resources past their limits, and also cost the lives of doctors and medical workers who were the front line of defense against the spread of Ebola. These countries are dependent on volunteer medical workers from outside this region to supplement their dwindling supply of medical workers. As well, any kind of ban on travel will affect the region economically. When business can't do business, economies suffer.
Considering the way Ebola has been mis-handled so far, it's possible. Volunteers could certainly be brought in/out on charter flights.
This is the point. If I say yes by all means you are free to go, but we will have to restrict you from leaving, are you still willing to go?
And as far as those needing visas to leave, that is already a restrictive process and the consulate already has the veto over individuals getting a visa.
I've had to get one to enter the US in the past and it's not a foregone conclusion by any means, no matter where you're from.
Volunteers working on Ebola are easily identified. US citizens who are involved in the effort would simply have to undergo a 21 day quarantine before being readmitted. That is what is being done with them in Texas. Why should it be any different for missionary work in Africa? You still are not making a good case here.
Volunteers working on Ebola are easily identified. US citizens who are involved in the effort would simply have to undergo a 21 day quarantine before being readmitted. That is what is being done with them in Texas. Why should it be any different for missionary work in Africa? You still are not making a good case here.
It's a far cry to be "quarantined" in Texas at home with your loved ones than being stuck wherever they put you for three extra weeks in Liberia.
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.
The extremely poor country of Liberia has something like 35 embassies throughout the world. The purpose of these diplomatic missions is to broker international investment within Liberia.
Go beyond the affected zone and into Nigeria, the so called economic engine of Africa. The largest employers and polluters are multinational oil/ gas interests and other multinationals that support these interests.
If Ebola migrates into Nigeria and Nigeria loses control, it's game over. If ISIS- like interests strengthen in Nigeria.............
There's likely a fine line between humanitarian aid and protecting global investments.
What's the impact on US volunteers who go into the affected zone if they cannot come home? Where would they isolate for 21 days to clear? What about volunteers / military / other travelers that come from outside the U.S.? Will the world prevent their return to their home countries? This seems to be as much of an international logistical and political challenge as it is medical.
It's a far cry to be "quarantined" in Texas at home with your loved ones than being stuck wherever they put you for three extra weeks in Liberia.
Where would you put them, btw?
I find it hard to believe that someone who had been working with ebola patients would just come home and be with their "loved ones" without self-quarantining for three weeks. How irresponsible and uncaring would that be? You are trying to turn this into the absurd. If they won't quarantine/monito voluntarily, they certainly should be forced too. That is the standard of the CDC right now. 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.
CDC has revised and published hospital/ healthcare worker guidelines for Ebola. CDC is not a regulatory agency and has no authority to enforce guidelines. That responsibility lies with state/ county/ municipality public health systems and ultimately 5000+ hospitals.
Some large private healthcare systems throughout the U.S.have been more on top of this than others.
There's emerging blah- blah that it will likely be necessary for federal government to provide state/ county/ municipal and hospitals with financial incentives to better ensure uniform quality control throughout the U.S.
"Interestingly, the skin sites specifically prone to disease showed significant differences in microbial diversity, or the number of different types of microbes present, in immundeficient patients. The skin at the elbow crease, for instance, had fewer types of microbes than found on healthy individuals, while skin behind the ear had more types of microbes. The authors suggest that an imbalance in microbial diversity at a given site may contribute to disease. In addition, "the communities of bacteria and fungi on the skin of primary immunodeficiency patients are more likely to change over time," said co-senior author Julie Segre, of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)."
I find it hard to believe that someone who had been working with ebola patients would just come home and be with their "loved ones" without self-quarantining for three weeks. How irresponsible and uncaring would that be? You are trying to turn this into the absurd. If they won't quarantine/monito voluntarily, they certainly should be forced too. That is the standard of the CDC right now. 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.
Because it's simply not necessary. No one is catching it from casual or even close contact, certainly not on planes or in the local supermarket. Nurses are being trained properly in protocol in case they provide end stage care. The virus seems very hard to contract in other circumstances.
If it's not a good policy and there are indications that it's a bad one - then why do it?
I have no idea whether returning HCWs self quarantine or not. I'd assume most of them don't. They seem to have the protocol on the job down, mostly.
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.
-puts head in sand, I can't year you -
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
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.
