Ban flights from all Ebola-stricken nations?

should we ban all flights from nations that have Ebola?

 

Even if there were flights banning them wouldn't help...people with the cash to fly will just cross the border by car/bus/train/boat/camel to another country and fly from there or fly to a country that does have connecting flights...you'd have ban flights ftom every country in the world...

 

We should ban the entry of anybody with a passport from an Ebola stricken country. If their US passport says they have been in a stricken country, they get a 21 day quarantine before entry.

We are seeing the Ebola response being screwed up all over my local news. My youngest son was born at that Dallas hospital and my SIL used to work there in a diabetic wound care clinic. I work there in their IT department 3-4 times/year. The staff were not prepared or trained to wear PPE properly. I would imagine the best prepared for this would be those who are prior military. We practiced suiting up and undressing to prevent exposure to poisons and nerve agents. The same principles apply in many cases to germs and bodily fluids. When they discovered that staff were infected, they didn't quarantine them or even restrict their travel. One infected nurse flew to Ohio to plan her wedding. I hope she didn't sleep with her fiancé. The CDC allowed her to fly home from Ohio. They didn't quarantine Duncan's ambulance or notify the ambulance crew that they were exposed to Ebola until 2 days after he was transported to the hospital. Everybody is dropping the ball on this one and the best answer is to not let people come here from infected nations until the WHO or whomever is in charge gets a handle on this outbreak.

 

UK should ban all flights from USA because USA has Ebola.

 

I don't know if there are any direct flights, but screening the passengers for symptoms before boarding should suffice.

 

What is so hard about you people understanding that you ban PASSPORT HOLDERS FROM AFFECTED NATIONS ?

Not travel itineraries.

And other passports will show affected nations' stamps of entry.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait . ......What?

So, a non- symptomatic person , infected a day earlier, crosses without fever etc, and a week into his visit commences puking and (*)(*)(*)(*)ting all over the place.

Think.

 

I'm not saying there's no remaining risk involved, but it's better than puking and (*)(*)(*)(*)ting all over 200 + plane passengers.

 

Anyone, even American citizens, who have been in any country with an Ebola outbreak must be quarantined for 21 days -- AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE -- before being allowed to come in among the general population of the United States. FAT ****ing chance that will ever happen under a ding-a-ling "president" like Obama....

 

What's so hard for you to understand not only nationals from those affected countries travel from those countries. If you ban travel from those countries international healthcare workers can not get out, if they can't get out no one will go in. Without international health aid the epidemic will get comepletely out of control and spread from one country to another and we'll end up with a pandemic. Millions could die.

THINK!

 

People from Spain will give the UK ebola way before the US

 

Good grief. Given your insulting ( and telling) signature line I should have expected such a reply. No one proposes banning HEALTH CARE WORKERS. You ban travel and reduce the number of folks to screen and detect. Of course some will get through. We can;t keep heroin out of ourr maximum security prisons.

But i have ZERO confidence that TSA folks and other inept government agencies can protect us. We need to SHRINK the pool of likely carriers and that is done via a travel ban.

OBVIOUSLY health care workers can be allowed in under special documentation and monitoring regiments, etc. Even under special chartered flights. The UN has SOME use here , no ? Specially equipped airplanes for healthcare workers also adds to the threat containment. I especially liked it when Dr. Frieden cited his arguments for NOT imposing a ban including , " we don't build fences around wildfires to fight them". Which , of course, is precisely what we do .

- - - Updated - - -

No its not. At least that way you have a contained 200+ group of people . Once off the plane and off to a cruise or Disney Land? . . . .

 

If you ban all of the flights, you would not bring the disease here. So, no, do not ban them.

For if you banned them, chances are some elite somewhere will suffer, and his greed cannot be satiated. And that is what drives policy, almost every policy.

Of course, if we were concerned about the little American, yeah, we would have banned them at the first sign of this new outbreak. But who is concerned about the common man? Who? Just ourselves.

Facts are not always complicated, but in many cases deceptively simple.

 

By that time they've already been in close contact with other people standing in the lines as well as other passengers from non-Ebola countries. And let's not forget all of the passport and customs agents they've come into contact with who simply walk the disease home.

 

If you have issues with my signature take it up with John Stuart Mill, that you assume it's directed at you is telling...

I have absolute confidence that you know nothing about containing an epidemic and preventing it from turning into a pandemic...

 

LOL. I am unsurprised at your unwarranted certitude. It is totally consistent with the arrogance of your insulting signature line. It's common sense, Not expertise. Simple common sense.


Oh, I have no doubt that Mills, having been a legislator as well as a philosopher, carried forth with partisan animus towards the" conservatives" of his day. It means nothing in today's context , of course, as we all know and understand that the various demographic studies confirm libruls as corning the ignorance market.

Anyway, I am sure that as a liberal , you will also appreciate my point about anachronistic quotes, by considering this one concerning progressive taxation, from your liberal Mr. Mills:


"To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbours".

 

So no one from Texas would be allowed in the rest of the US?

 

All this talk about banning people from entering the country is diverting attention from the real solution, which is delivering the resources necessary to deal with the crisis in Africa.

If we don't do that, it will spread around the world, and eventually it will arrive in the US.

 

You laugh but Boston and New York have been having more stirrings of Ebola troubles lately. So things are starting to get interesting under the misrule of President Ebola Barry.

 

Talking about Ebola inside the United States is somehow preventing all those military personnel that Obama is forcing to go to Ebola-infested nations from doing their jobs with all the attendant U.S. equipment that any medical beachhead could ever want? Really? So how exactly does that work then that talking about Ebola is such a powerful thing?

 

We can wait. While we do let's do the right thing. Let's prevent people who have been in Ebila country recently from coming to the US. And let's keep American troops out of Ebila country.

 

It's too late for New York City. A doctor that was working in Africa flew back and now has Ebola.

 

And so people will forge documents and whatnot to get around that, or just do as has been suggested and go elsewhere, perhaps eventually making it to us by other means anyway.

Imagine having sufferers sneaking in across our borders, eventually coming into contact with border patrol agents and/or other people here before being caught and, hopefully, diagnosed and contained.

In the end, no lockdown like this is going to be effective, but it will manage to make people miserable and very possibly contribute to mass panic and hysteria.

- - - Updated - - -

I heard the jerk rode on the subway, too.

 

So your answer is to not try to prevent it. Why don't you invite them into your house?

 

Works for me. Include New York on your ban list while you are at it.

 

No, I'd just recommend a more effective method of preventing it, like reactivating Ellis Island

Also, one additional problem with a grand lockdown is that people would feel a false sense of security and let their guard down, perhaps even in places of authority where it's needed most, mistakenly believing that the virtual wall that's been erected will keep every infected person out. Better safe than sorry, and in this case that means targeted, effective control measures rather than a great big, DUMB barrier.