Ebola in The USA

Here's the best reason I've heard for NOT instituting a travel ban. Take it or leave it...

from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/20/the-ebola-travel-ban-is-really-popular-heres-why-its-not-happening/


In other words, a ban could do the opposite of what we want by making it harder to screen and track people entering the country from West Africa. I like that as a reason.

I found most of the article's other reasons pretty unconvincing, but I also liked this one:



We need to be encouraging people to volunteer in West Africa. If we don't, the outbreak in West Africa is more likely to evolve and become more infectious. It needs to be stamped out ASAP in West Africa, IMO.

A ban wouldn't work perfectly, but then what measure does? He's right though that a flight ban would not be of a whole lot of value which is why a lot of people who originally called for the flight ban are now calling for a ban on US visas being issued in the affected countries. This won't work perfectly either. Nothing does. That, in and of itself, is not a reason not to do it.

I'm a pretty callous person, and if all I were worried about was 5,000 deaths a week I might agree with your sentiment. (After all, life in many African countries is pretty desperate. Just think about the scale of the AIDS epidemic for a start.) But I envision ebola wiping out half the population in these countries. Morally that's unacceptable. To stand by and do nothing isn't quite genocide, I guess, but it feels a bit like it.

Also, from a purely selfish perspective, it's unwise to let the disease fester and evolve.

I see you still cannot come up with a detailed reason other than the experts say that a air travel ban may be counter-productive, as I am quite sure that if you could, you would be sticking it up my nose in your post.

I agree with the scientists that Ebola is probably not highly infectious in a modern Western Society, that it is not easily transmitted and that there is not a significant risk of an Ebola epidemic in the United States.

Of course that doesn't mean that I have to believe that there is no need to prevent uncontrolled travel (through one way or the other) between the US and the affected nations or that such means may be counter-productive.

If there had been a way to keep Mr. Duncan from coming to the US, two American nurses would not now have the disease. Yes, two people out of 350 million is an infintesmal number but the impact those two people's illness has had on the country is far greater than the thousands of highway deaths that occurred on the days their infection was announced.
Logic tells us this shouldn't be the case but it obviously is. The disease has had enough of an impact to be used by candidates of both parties in election campaigns.

The level of public anxiety deserves to be part of the consideration of a travel ban. If the downside is that it will not work perfectly in terms of what it is intended to do, that makes no impression on me at all. If it is that airlines will lose some revenue, that makes more of an impression, but not a great one. If it made containment of the virus more difficult that would make a considerable impression on me which is why I have consistently asked for details from the experts on why this would be so. That I still don't have them convinces me that they don't exist. If the downside is that it won't look good for the US to be telling West Africans that they can't come to America until we are as prepared as the experts told us we were, that also make no impression on me.

You, apparently, expect me to believe everything the "experts" say because I believe much of what they say. I don't think that's reasonable, particularly when some of what they have told me has proven to be wrong.

Not sure what to take from all the hub bub. The virus was discovered in the 70s as I'm lead to believe. I have faith we will beat this outbreak and be more prepared for the inevitable next.

We do NOT need an epidemic in order for Ebola to impact severely and negatively on the United States.

Five more cases in the next few weeks will lead to massive anxiety...ten more will lead to what approximates chaos...fifty cases will be worse than an invasion from outer space.

One other thing that ought be remembered is that there are people in this world willing to strap on a vest loaded with explosives and detonate it in order to kill perceived enemies. How much better it would be to infect one's self with a deadly virus that takes 21 days to show signs of infection...and then enter and mingle into our society?

And no matter how well it is explained to the public...the result of even a small outbreak will be almost the same.

There truly is no reason to panic...but some of the "oh, stop!" stuff I am seeing here is sticking one's head in the sand.

Martin Amis' Einstein's Monsters was about the impact of living with the threat of nuclear destruction. No bombs have to go off to actually affect anyone, just their existence, and threat is enough.

It's the same with Ebola.

Ten definitely would lead to a chaos: the USA only has space for nine Ebola patients at specialized hospitals.

On Ebola Response, Congressional Republicans Put New Focus on Visa Suspensions

By JONATHAN WEISMANOCT. 20, 2014



WASHINGTON — Republican leaders, conceding the futility of a flight ban from Ebola-afflicted West Africa, are refining their response to the outbreak, pressing to suspend visas for travelers and create “no boarding” lists.

But a supercharged political atmosphere is making legislative nuance difficult two weeks before midterm elections and days before a hearing on Friday on the Ebola response called by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a panel riven by partisan division. Republicans on the campaign trail continue to goad Democrats to embrace a broad travel ban, although no direct flights to the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea exist.

Democrats are slamming Republicans for slashing the budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies charged with stopping the spread of Ebola, even after the White House circulated talking points to House Democrats in advance of a hearing last week that said funding had been adequate.

“Even within a constrained environment, the administration has prioritized C.D.C. funding over the years with significant increases for control of infectious diseases,” the memo said. “The administration has also included significant increases for C.D.C. within the Prevention and Public Health Fund and other sources.”

Days of news media fixation, mounting public concern and political pot-stirring have created an odd dichotomy in which leadership aides on Capitol Hill are urging caution while candidates on the campaign trail are pressing hot buttons. House Republican leadership aides have repeatedly said lawmakers are not calling for an actual ban of airline flights, even as the likes of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, have done just that.

Because there are no direct flights from the countries afflicted with Ebola, a flight ban would have to ground connecting flights from Brussels, Amsterdam and other European cities.

The Republican leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, clarified that they would like a temporary suspension of visas to travelers from the Ebola-affected nations “while simultaneously permitting a robust effort by the U.S. government and global health agencies to combat this vicious disease in West Africa.”

Mr. McConnell, said a spokesman, Don Stewart, was “using shorthand” last week when he said, “It would be a good idea to discontinue flights into the United States from that part of the world.” He, too, supports a temporary suspension of visas, a position put into legislative language on Monday by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who vowed to press visa-suspension legislation when Congress returned in November.

In reality, Republicans are not planning a legislative response, at least for now, Republican leadership aides said Monday. They merely want their voices heard.



Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“The president has the authority to put a travel ban into effect right now,” said Kevin Smith, spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio. “The speaker has not ruled out bringing the House back to address the Ebola crisis if our oversight efforts demonstrate a need for legislation to help combat the spread of the disease.”

Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who signed the Homeland Security Committee letter, said he would like a “hard stop” to travel from the afflicted countries but added, “That’s not going to happen.”

Democratic leaders have kept largely quiet. Democratic leadership aides said Monday that they hoped the all-clear given on Sunday to Dallas residents who had been exposed to the one Ebola patient to die in the United States could defuse the latest political tempest, just as fears over the militant Islamic State and Mexican border breaches dissipated.

Most Democrats continue to adhere to the Obama administration’s position on travel restrictions, which were laid out last week in the talking points. That document emphasized that travelers from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea were already screened on departure, and again on arrival.

“Imposing a ban would give travelers an incentive to evade detection, conceal their travel history and, therefore, make it much harder for us to ensure they are screened before they enter the U.S.,” the document stated. “In addition, the only way we can eliminate the risk of Ebola to the American public is to stop the outbreak at the source. That means we need to surge resources to West Africa, and imposing a travel ban would only make it harder to move critically needed personnel and supplies to these countries.”

Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, took up the cause on Monday. “At the end of the day,” he said, “election-year posturing about a travel ban wastes precious time that should be spent mobilizing to attack this disease at its source — in Africa — so it does not continue to end up on our shores.”

On Nov. 6, two days after the midterm elections, the Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing on the government’s response. Aides released data on Monday showing the C.D.C.’s budget, at $6.8 billion for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, was just shy of its 2009 peak of $6.9 billion and well above the $6.3 billion the agency received in the 2013 fiscal year, when across-the-board cuts pinched almost every government function.

But Democrats maintain that if the 2004 C.D.C. budget were adjusted for inflation, it would be above $7.5 billion. Republicans counter that funding for Ebola would be sufficient if the issue was prioritized, a position not far from that of the White House.

Finn,

There are two points here. You are missing both of them.

1. You are greatly overreacting and greatly overestimating the threat of Ebola to the American population.

Even without the drastic measures you are pushing, next year more people will die of texting while driving. More people will die of the flu. And probably more people will die of champagne cork accidents than will die of Ebola.

The main reason that banning air travel is ridiculous is that it is completely unnecessary.

You would literally save more lives banning cell phones then you would save lives (from ebola) by banning air travel.

So why aren't you yelling about banning cell phones? It is really illogical. Scientists understand that there will be a couple of dozen cases of Ebola in the US whether or not there is a travel ban.

And scientists know (as I and they have said so many times) that there is no significant risk of an ebola epidemic in the US.

2. This article explains the scientific reason that a travel ban would be counter-productive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2014/10/13/ebola-travel/

The irony is that if anyone should be banning from flying, it's Finn. He lives in Texas.

Some good news.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29654002

maybe our CDC can learn from Nigeria.

CDC??

They are specialised in killing people, so those idiots are on the right track!

I certainly hope so. The Nigerians didn't panic. That would be lesson number one.

Like this.

How would you go about implementing a travel ban and/or screening for the occupants and crew of private jets? They are just as likely to travel to or back to the U.S. before showing symptoms after having traveled to African countries, or transfer cities such as Brussels, for vacations, business, politics, etc.

Many already bypass TSA screenings and ignore other bans to various countries.