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.
Hmm. So the question is was the travel advisory necessary or not? And the other poster was saying that historically travel bans have not worked. I can't make a determination one way or another from this one example. However, I am starting to suspect that there is not actual historical evidence on the efficacy of travel bans as claimed by another poster.
Thanks for the information!
I think you are rephrasing the question.
And it's really not our job to provide you with examples. YOU have the capability to do research on your own.
NO excuse not to use it in airports if they let those from ebola infected countries in.
Well TSA get their silivas instead of grabbing people's privates.
you can at least do that
also why are the TSA not handling the EMT positions anyway are they too scared?
but grabbing private parts is fine and well right?...
I'm not rephrasing anything. You claimed that any 'travel bans' have been shown to be ineffective historically. I asked you to prove it. And generally the person making the claim must back it up. That's the way we generally work here on the interwebs.
ETA: LOL - from your source "During the 2003 pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome, the use of quarantine, border controls, contact tracing, and surveillance proved effective in containing the global threat in just over 3 months."
I'm not rephrasing anything. You claimed that any 'travel bans' have been shown to be ineffective historically. I asked you to prove it. And generally the person making the claim must back it up. That's the way we generally work here on the interwebs.
ETA: LOL - from your source "During the 2003 pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome, the use of quarantine, border controls, contact tracing, and surveillance proved effective in containing the global threat in just over 3 months."
Yes, quarantines can be effective. When you quarantine infected people. When you try to quarantine entire populations, or ban them from travel, infected and uninfected alike, it's NOT effective. Because people will then secretly travel. And since they are doing so, SECRETLY, then surveillance and contact tracing are not applicable strategies.
And LOL, they tried to ban travel as early as the 1400's, to contain Bubonic Plague. HINT: It did NOT work. Communicable diseases spread. Also, FYI, the United States is not the boss of the world. We cannot ban people from the affected countries from traveling to other countries. We do not have the power to quarantine Liberia. And if we do not act to help these countries control this outbreak, the outbreak WILL spread around the world. To developed nations, like ours, that have the ability to effectively treat victims, but also to countries that lack the ability. Ebola is a GLOBAL issue. It is not just Africa's problem.
Yes, quarantines can be effective. When you quarantine infected people. When you try to quarantine entire populations, or ban them from travel, infected and uninfected alike, it's NOT effective. Because people will then secretly travel. And since they are doing so, SECRETLY, then surveillance and contact tracing are not applicable strategies.
And LOL, they tried to ban travel as early as the 1400's, to contain Bubonic Plague. HINT: It did NOT work. Communicable diseases spread. Also, FYI, the United States is not the boss of the world. We cannot ban people from the affected countries from traveling to other countries. We do not have the power to quarantine Liberia. And if we do not act to help these countries control this outbreak, the outbreak WILL spread around the world. To developed nations, like ours, that have the ability to effectively treat victims, but also to countries that lack the ability. Ebola is a GLOBAL issue. It is not just Africa's problem.
Well, I'm half and half on it (prefer not giving out visas to non-essential travel) but I also know that containment is an effective strategy and it was curious as to why our public health officials were suddenly trying to act as though it wasn't (seeing as their own literature you quoted here contradicted that stance). The decision to do nothing - initially - about non-essential travel to and from those affected regions was based on pure politics. Interestingly, they seemed to have somewhat reversed that decision now.
I think you're being a bit disingenuous to say that we can't put some control measures on who enters our borders. Can we do so for all people from Liberia? Of course not. But we can try and limit the number of non-essential travelers from that region. Seems prudent at a minimum. No, this should not be a one sized fit all solution. We should be limiting visas, continue screening, AND doing what we can to eradicate and control the outbreak there in Africa. It's in our best interest to do so. As to the 'secret' travelers. Hmm, a bit tougher coming from Africa but the problem exists even now if someone cannot get a visa, etc. Still do not see that as a reason to do nothing.
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.
