@Kolyo,
1) A decrease in travel has already damaged fragile economies in West Africa.
I would be stunned if any of the currently operating flights are taking tourists to these countries. That damage has already been done, and assuming that there is a benefit to the US in banning the travel, that trumps these nations economic woes.
2) It would make it difficult for aid organizations to access these countries in a timely fashion.
3) Not really. None of these flights are direct and so any organization that wants its staff to travel to theses countries will be sending them first to a mid-way city in Europe. Flights to these cities will continue whether or not there is a ban. Now if the European nations impose a ban, access will be limited, but that will be the case whether or not the US imposes a ban. In addition, charter flights can be organized for the express purpose of flying people who wish to aide in the battle against the disease to and from these nations. Flights do not have to operate every day of the week for this purpose.
4) A ban could scare volunteers away from traveling to West Africa to fight Ebola if they know they won't be able to return to the United States or Europe after a trip.
Average Joes and Janes are not and should not be volunteering to independently travel to West Africa to fight Ebola. I cannot believe that any health organization would not tell such willing individuals to connect with any one of the many organizations providing aid so that they are properly trained and sent where they can do the most good. Again, special chartered flights can handle this travel in a far more controlled way than commercial flights, and, providing the government should be involved in arranging them (and it should be) return flights to the US would be guaranteed. It may indeed be more costly than commercial flight but the US is sending a lot of money to these countries to assist in the fight, and some of it can be spent on these chartered flight.
5) The flu will likely kill more people in the United States this year than Ebola.
This is irrelevant. Auto accidents will kill far more people than Ebola and so will criminals. Far more people will take there own lives than will be killed by Ebola. This is not a reason not to impose a ban.
6) If the world doesn't stop the outbreak in Africa, it is more likely that the disease will spread, ban or not.
This is true, but the ban would not be intended to stop the outbreak in Africa nor would it be intended or expected to eliminate all risk to America. This is a specious argument. Because it, alone, cannot solve the problem, doesn't mean it should not be employed. Screening at US airports will not, alone, solve the problem but no one is arguing that it should be discontinued for this reason.
7) There are only two airlines that service this region at the moment -- nine airlines have paused flights to the region -- and a ban could cause these remaining flights to disappear.
Well, that's the idea behind the ban isn't it? But it's interesting to learn this as JPB just recently posted that the airlines could implement their own bans if they wanted and they weren't. I thought she was right. Apparently we were both wrong. Again, that a ban would have the effect that it intended is obviously not a reason not to implement it.
8) The United States has already instituted temperature checks at U.S. airports where nearly all of the West Africa flights come through, decreasing the likelihood of a infected traveler entering the country while contagious.
"Nearly all" is not all, and I have already addressed the fact that temperature checks will not identify all infected travelers entering the country. Even if the screening is 100% effective, which it will not be, it will only identify those infected travelers who are symptomatic. This is certainly a good thing and is a very beneficial component of the plan to protect the US from outbreaks, but, again, it cannot alone solve the problem. If an infected traveler remains in the US for a sufficient period of time, he or she will eventually become symptomatic and contagious...after passing the temperature check.
9) The State Department issued a travel advisory for West Africa this summer, saying that Americans should limit nonessential travel there.
Another good step to take and, if travel to the region for the purpose of assisting the fight against the virus is limited to controlled charter flights, there won't be a great need for the banned flight.
10) On top of all that, there are no direct flights between the countries currently dealing with an Ebola outbreak and the United States.
I'm not sure how the author believes this to be cogent. It actually undermines his argument that the continue flights are necessary to assist in the fight against Ebola, but it does point out why such a ban is probably the wrong place to focus. Instead there should be a temporary ban on issuing US visas to people who live in the affected countries. A ban on there entering the US, rather than attempting to ban the means by which they arrive here. It is a lot easier to check passports than it is to screen for disease.
I can imagine that it might be necessary for certain health professionals to travel the the US in connection with the effort to stop Ebola, but that travel can be accomodated by the proposed charter flight.
11) Travel bans in the name of disease prevention don't have a good track
Not a reason not to try them again this time.
All in all the author has simply provided a weak list of reasons that are either irrelevant or easily refuted. The only one that carries any weight is #4 ("scaring" volunteers away from assisting in the fight), but this can be easily remedied by the proposed charter flights.
It's clear (at least to me) that he has struggled to develop a lengthy list of reasons to support a position that he has either accepted at face value without giving it much thought (because it's the Obama Administration's position) or which he understands is merely a facade to cover the real reason which has it's origins in political correctness.
Earnest's statement is filled with holes. We know there are no direct flights, so according to Earnest the US is relying on Liberian travelers to all book contiguous travel to this country via two or three separate legs but which will keep them all on the same final flight so that TSA agents can meeting it's arrival with screening. That makes sense, but there is obviously no guarantee that this is the way all of the people from Liberia and Sierra Leone will book their travel. And now that the world knows that we are screening the passengers on the flights for the disease when they they arrive at most of our airports wouldn't that provide them with an incentive to travel "underground," or to attempt to make travel arrangements that have them landing in one of the airports where there is not Ebola screening?
There is no reason a US passenger would lie about where he came from or what he was doing in one of these countries, unless he knew he had the disease and wanted to cause an outbreak. I suppose that's possible, but in a situation involving rare occurrences, that would have to be the rarest.
A citizen from one of these countries would, on the other hand, have a reason to lie, just as Patient Zero, Mr. Duncan did, and if he had a reason to lie, he would have a reason to try and avoid the screening. With or without a ban we are going to see citizens from these nations travelling "underground" to get into the US whether because they have family here, as was the case of Mr. Duncan, or because they prefer their chances with the US healthcare system, as may have been the case with Mr. Duncan.
But it does point out why the preferred approach should be to ban citizens from these countries from travelling to the US, as a few Democrats have, in addition to Republicans, proposed. If the suggestion of a flight ban raises the hackles of some, a proposal to ban entry into the US will be received far less favorably by the same people.
It appears to me that the idea of any kind of ban is being resisted for two primary reasons:
1) A sincere belief that such bans are unnecessary and will not have the desired effects coupled with an extreme annoyance that people are not simply taking there word for it. They are the experts and they have said it's not necessary. The rest of us should just shut up about it.
2) A sincere belief that there is something morally wrong with not allowing these people entry into this country, whether they are sick or not. I'm quite sure that for many, these feeling has to do with their perception that Africa has suffered from colonialism and that Western nations, whether they colonized the continent or not, own it some special consideration, beyond sending money, healthcare workers, and now soldiers to these countries to assist them in their fight against Ebola. It just doesn't sit well with them that the White West might tell Black Africa that their people cannot come within their borders.
At this point, I think the greatest value of any ban is in lowering the anxiety level of the US populace, anxiety that the CDC has, ironically, raised despite it's constant assurances that anxiety is not only unwarranted but stupid. I'm actually ambivalent about the effectiveness of the ban(s), but have to admit that the feeble and forced reasoning behind its rejection has so angered me that I'm happy to support the calls for it.
