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 have said I'm an advocate for doing this as I think our inaction would have detrimental effects for our own citizens. Thus, I am not against putting resources towards eradicating this outbreak in those affected regions. I simply think it would be prudent to also limit visas as we work to both contain and manage the outbreak. A multi-faceted approach of both containment and treatment.
As am I.
I've simply tried to explain the many arguments against a TRAVEL BAN. So why were you arguing with me?
Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea are NOT able to effectively address this outbreak. They cannot deal with it without help. That's what WHO is warning us about, over and over and over again. It is myopic to approach this with a NIMBY attitude. It IS already a problem for the entire world.
I'm surprised you haven't voiced concerned for these other deadly diseases in Africa. They are much more easily transmittable than something like Ebola that we are told is hard to transmit. I'm guessing we should step in to solve all of these other health issues for them also with our money? Many of these disease are killing 100's of thousands alone, in the millions together, and much more easily transmitted than Ebola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It IS already a problem for the entire world.
Using your logic, since we are using the we are all global/attached at the hip in all of this, then our problems in our own country are also the entire worlds problems. When can we expect the gravy train/money to start flowing in from other countries to address our debt, alcoholism, inner city violence, cancer, homeless, education, etc.? Since these problems still exist in our country and aren't going away, it's obvious we can't handle these problems ourselves and need outside $ to fix them for us.
I'm surprised you haven't voiced concerned for these other deadly diseases in Africa. They are much more easily transmittable than something like Ebola that we are told is hard to transmit. I'm guessing we should step in to solve all of these other health issues for them also with our money? Many of these disease are killing 100's of thousands alone, in the millions together, and much more easily transmitted than Ebola.
Using your logic, since we are using the we are all global/attached at the hip in all of this, then our problems in our own country are also the entire worlds problems. When can we expect the gravy train/money to start flowing in from other countries to address our debt, alcoholism, inner city violence, cancer, homeless, education, etc.? Since these problems still exist in our country and aren't going away, it's obvious we can't handle these problems ourselves and need outside $ to fix them for us.
As far as I know, this thread is about EBOLA.
As for "using my logic", I don't think you are following MY logic at all. Instead you are trying to attack my argument. Poorly.
I've simply tried to explain the many arguments against a TRAVEL BAN.
Your "arguments" make no sense against a travel ban. Nothing is 100% but it's a major step in containing the outbreak/spreading it to other countries. And the argument of "it will cut off aid/help" makes no sense/is a red herring. If people want to go over there and bring private donations and help, charter planes are the answer. The use of charter planes have been used for sometime now.
Let me ask you......if you had a kid in school where a flu was rampant and the school was shut down to prevent the spread(it has happened many times before), which by the way is used to slow down/stop the spread of a virus to others, you would be against this and send your kid/argue that it doesn't make sense?
Same logic for ebola. You lower the odds of getting Ebola in another country(the US) if you don't have people flying in from another country where the virus is rampant and having these people around other people. Duncan is a prime example.
As for "using my logic", I don't think you are following MY logic at all. Instead you are trying to attack my argument. Poorly.
My question is in regards to Ebola and how you propose to solve it.
You sidestepped the issue of you going on and on about Ebola being a global issue/we all should pitch in tax dollars towards it. I'll ask you more direct/simply.....since Ebola is the worlds problem in your mind to fix, do you believe other countries should "fix"(send us $) for our own problems also that I listed in my previous post?
Your "arguments" make no sense against a travel ban. Nothing is 100% but it's a major step in containing the outbreak/spreading it to other countries. And the argument of "it will cut off aid/help" makes no sense/is a red herring. If people want to go over there and bring private donations and help, charter planes are the answer. The use of charter planes have been used for sometime now.
Let me ask you......if you had a kid in school where a flu was rampant and the school was shut down to prevent the spread(it has happened many times before), which by the way is used to slow down/stop the spread of a virus to others, you would be against this and send your kid/argue that it doesn't make sense?
Same logic for ebola. You lower the odds of getting Ebola in another country(the US) if you don't have people flying in from another country where the virus is rampant and having these people around other people. Duncan is a prime example.
So you are proposing charter flights in and out of Liberia without quarantines. Because that makes a lot of logical sense. Not.
My ARGUMENTS make perfect sense. Which is why you are unable to rebut them.
What is "rampant" to you? 300 kids at the school, one has flu, is that rampant?? To me, if one kid has flu, and 299 of the other 300 students don't have the flu, then shutting down the school would be gross overreaction.
Liberia has roughly four and a half million people. 99% of those people are not infected. More than NINETY-NINE PERCENT out of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT are not infected.
Somewhat funny because I was tempted to say the same. I think it stemmed from previous posting(s) wording choice perhaps.
This isn't the first time we've been at odds and then discovered we were on the exact same page. But it's a good thing, because we both get to hone our arguments and share them with other posters.
My question is in regards to Ebola and how you propose to solve it.
You sidestepped the issue of you going on and on about Ebola being a global issue/we all should pitch in tax dollars towards it. I'll ask you more direct/simply.....since Ebola is the worlds problem in your mind to fix, do you believe other countries should "fix"(send us $) for our own problems also that I listed in my previous post?
YOUR comment was about challenging me to go off-topic and discuss the host of other infectious diseases that affect Africa.
Ebola is a global issue because if we don't address it NOW, in the affected countries, it will affect the entire globe. I don't think cancer in America is quite the same thing. So your analogy fails, as well as your logic.
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.
Many of these disease are killing 100's of thousands alone, in the millions together, and much more easily transmitted than Ebola.
