Ebola in Our Midsts Part 2 (dollars, school, education, top 10)
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.
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.
You present a reasonable combination of responses.
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.
I think the decisions regarding travel to and from the affected countries is based on the FACT that less than 1% of the populations in the affected countries are infected. So 99%+ are uninfected. That's not PURE politics.
And I never said that we can't put some control measures on who enters our country. We already do. We can give greater scrutiny to visa applications, we can do health screenings, we can impose quarantines. But to issue a travel ban is to pander to the lowest IQ's. The arguments against travel bans are simply too numerous, and a travel ban gives a FALSE sense of security. A policy that is ineffective, and that actively does harm is a bad policy.
I think the decisions regarding travel to and from the affected countries is based on the FACT that less than 1% of the populations in the affected countries are infected. So 99%+ are uninfected. That's not PURE politics.
And I never said that we can't put some control measures on who enters our country. We already do. We can give greater scrutiny to visa applications, we can do health screenings, we can impose quarantines. But to issue a travel ban is to pander to the lowest IQ's. The arguments against travel bans are simply too numerous, and a travel ban gives a FALSE sense of security. A policy that is ineffective, and that actively does harm is a bad policy.
So do you think that Rwanda screening US passengers for ebola is giving them a false sense of security?
This happened yesterday. The inbound were on connecting flights as there are no flights from any of the affected countries to the US.
The multi-port screenings will likely turn up several at risk passengers, because nausea and diarrhea are rather common when traveling, especially international travel.
No telling if these were Liberian nationals, US citizens or others.
I think the decisions regarding travel to and from the affected countries is based on the FACT that less than 1% of the populations in the affected countries are infected. So 99%+ are uninfected. That's not PURE politics.
And I never said that we can't put some control measures on who enters our country. We already do. We can give greater scrutiny to visa applications, we can do health screenings, we can impose quarantines. But to issue a travel ban is to pander to the lowest IQ's. The arguments against travel bans are simply too numerous, and a travel ban gives a FALSE sense of security. A policy that is ineffective, and that actively does harm is a bad policy.
I'm generally a risk adverse person and would prefer our public health stance here in the US to be so as well. While I was a fan of Reagan, I was not a fan of his handling of AIDS, for instance. He waited until it became too difficult to contain to do anything at all with that issue and I would prefer that we not do the same with Ebola. Given the rate of mortality with this virus, I think being prudent in our handling of it is wise and it should include an all of the above response versus minimizing it based on the aforementioned statistics. After all, the rate of infection is, per WHO, going to increase dramatically and we should be proactive now instead of waiting until it does become an issue on our shores.
So do you think that Rwanda screening US passengers for ebola is giving them a false sense of security?
I think it's giving them a sense of tit-for-tat.
And the fact that countries CAN create problems for American travelers if they want to, and that doing so becomes a diplomatic issue, is one of things that policy-makers have to consider when formulating policies.
I'm generally a risk adverse person and would prefer our public health stance here in the US to be so as well. While I was a fan of Reagan, I was not a fan of his handling of AIDS, for instance. He waited until it became too difficult to contain to do anything at all with that issue and I would prefer that we not do the same with Ebola. Given the rate of mortality with this virus, I think being prudent in our handling of it is wise and it should include an all of the above response versus minimizing it based on the aforementioned statistics. After all, the rate of infection is, per WHO, going to increase dramatically and we should be proactive now instead of waiting until it does become an issue on our shores.
Being proactive now would require us and the global community expending resources to deal with Ebola on the ground in the affected nations. WHO is warning that the infection will become more widespread and more difficult to address if we don't provide the affected countries with MORE resources to deal with the problem.
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.
Being proactive now would require us and the global community expending resources to deal with Ebola on the ground in the affected nations. WHO is warning that the infection will become more widespread and more difficult to address if we don't provide the affected countries with MORE resources to deal with the problem.
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 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.
Being proactive now would require us and the global community expending resources to deal with Ebola on the ground in the affected nations. WHO is warning that the infection will become more widespread and more difficult to address if we don't provide the affected countries with MORE resources to deal with the problem.
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 agree. As has been stated before, 10,000 people in western African with Ebola is scary enough. Imagine 14 million such people (the total population for the three principal countries) in that region if it is not contained now.
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.
