• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

2014 Global Ebola Outbreak

I just don't understand, why a travel ban won't work? it would stop them from coming to our country, and stop us from going to theirs.… right?
 
Last edited:
I just don't understand, why a travel ban won't work? it would stop them from coming to our country, and stop us from going to theirs.… right?
On paper it sounds great, but logistically, there's a lot of other things going on:

Banning flights from Ebola-stricken countries sounds like a logical step to contain the spread of an outbreak that’s been spiraling out of control in West Africa for months. But the policies that give people a sense of security aren’t always the ones that get the best results from a global health perspective. Experts say there are a couple significant reasons why travel bans are actually the wrong approach:

1. It will prevent health officials from being able to effectively track people with symptoms.

The CDC’s Frieden has been firmly opposed to a travel ban from the start, and has repeatedly explained that such restrictions will undermine one of the best tools we have to contain the epidemic: The ability to track people’s movements. “Even when governments restrict travel and trade, people in affected countries still find a way to move and it is even harder to track them systematically,” he wrote in an op-ed earlier this month.

Right now, government officials can coordinate with airport security to figure out where Ebola-infected people may have traveled before and after they started displaying symptoms. That’s something the U.S. infrastructure is well-equipped to do. If travel becomes less systematic, however, airports won’t serve as the same kind of resource. Considering the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) has said that the failure to effectively track patients has been one of the biggest reasons that Liberia hasn’t been able to contain Ebola, this is not a direction we want to go in.

2. It will only delay the inevitable spread of Ebola while the outbreak continues in West African countries.

Travel bans are a temporary solution. We can’t suspend air travel from West Africa forever, and even if we do, it would certainly be possible to fly to another country first before landing in the U.S. (The Liberian man who was diagnosed with Ebola in Dallas, for instance, flew from Belgium.) The policy would simply be delaying the inevitable in order to make Americans feel safer for a few weeks.

According to Alex Vespignani, a physicist at Northeastern University who developed a computer model to predict how air traffic can influence the spread of Ebola, an 80 percent reduction in air traffic only delays the risk of an Ebola-infected passenger coming to the U.S. for about four weeks. A 90 percent reduction would delay it for another month or so. “We’re a little safer for a finite amount of time, but then you are not really solving the problem,” Vespignani explained to Forbes.

3. It will become a logistical nightmare.

Health experts have maintained that sealing off the countries affected by the Ebola outbreak would actually make it more difficult to address the virus at its source. Travel restrictions could hamper efforts to get critical medical supplies into Western African countries, as well as restrict the movements of medical personnel who are needed on the ground in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

Even if the U.S. implemented a more nuanced policy that exempted doctors and aid workers from the travel ban, it would still be too difficult to coordinate in practice. Who would decide who gets approved to travel? How long would the application process take? As Vox recently reported, responding to humanitarian crises is complicated and messy, and we can’t afford to slow down the process by putting obstacles in front of a Doctors Without Borders volunteer who’s trying to get to and from Liberia.

In fact, workers with Doctors Without Borders say that the current scarcity of flights is already impeding their work as they coordinate with 240 international staff members currently in West Africa. “We need the flights to operate. That’s the bottom line,” Tim Shenk, the press officer for the group, told the Detroit Free Press.

4. It could destabilize the countries at the heart of the outbreak.

Limiting travel can lead to lasting economic consequences for the countries that are cut off from the rest of the world. For instance, in 2006, the World Bank estimated that a potential international flu pandemic could lead to a $1.5 trillion reduction in global gross domestic product — and two thirds of that number represents the cost of people restricting their movements and avoiding traveling to infected countries. The World Health Organization may put that figure even higher. According to WHO’s estimates, recently cited by director general Dr. Margaret Chan, about 90 percent of the economic costs of outbreaks “come from irrational and disorganized efforts of the public to avoid infection.”

Plus, the researchers who have examined the effects of the 2003 SARS outbreak say quarantining people within an infected country is often an overly broad approach that can end up facilitating social and political unrest. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are not incredibly stable countries to begin with, that could actually allow the virus to spread even further in the impoverished region.

“If we completely isolate them… we know from experience with public health, that marginalizes them,” Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, recently explained on Fox News. “You can have civil unrest, governments can fall. Then you wind up having spread of the virus to other countries in West Africa, which would only compound the problem.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/16/3580494/travel-ban-wont-solve-ebola/

People often react in irrational ways when they feel trapped. And it's better to be able to track them than not.
 
Instead of checking people when they get off the plane... check them before they get on. If they have any symptoms... they stay in Africa. Tough ****.
 
Instead of checking people when they get off the plane... check them before they get on. If they have any symptoms... they stay in Africa. Tough ****.
That involves trusting that the West African countries have the capability of doing that for every passenger, checking for 101F fevers for everyone who gets on a plane. Which we can't.

Having them spend the time and resources doing that does THEM no favors, unless we throw a crapton of money at them to do JUST that, and even then, it doesn't help their Ebola situation directly.

I mean, on paper, it sounds good, sure, but in practice it will be a nightmare for countries whose resources are already depleted. It's easy for us to stand outside and point at things that other countries could do, but it doesn't make it more feasible.
 
WTF! why would someone travel to another country If they know they have Ebola? or any other deadly disease? don't they know how many lives would be at stake?

People go to work sick all the time. Sometimes it's cause they don't know they are that sick i.e. just sniffles.

Ebola isn't like having an easily distinguishable sign like red eyes or yellow skin.
 
It makes sense once you think deeper on why a ban on flights to/from an infected place with Ebola wouldn't work. I still think there should be some precaution but it is realistically impossible to stop or even slow down the spread if it were as contagious as the media and hype made it out to be.

Fortunately it's not that contagious. And it might be biased but most of the fear-mongering quoted below appears to come from Republicans looking to cash in on the immigrants are dangerous angle. And on the completely ****ing idiotic angle we have celebrities of various shades of notablity making ******** claims.

The U.S. experience with Ebola is generating commentary that is both prudent and outrageous.

There have been three cases of Ebola occurring on U.S. soil, one ending fatally and the other two now under treatment.

While health officials provide sober guidance on the deadly disease, several public figures, from high-level politicians to cultural icons, haven't been so even-tempered in their remarks, adding to the public hype that has become associated with the virus.

Here is a sampling of those provocative comments, plus a little myth busting, clarifying and reality checking from Ebola experts from around the world.

"If you bring two doctors who happen to have that specialty (Ebola) into a room, one will say, 'No, it will never become airborne, but it could mutate so it would be harder to discover.' Another doctor will say, 'If it continues to mutate at the rate it's mutating, and we go from 20,000 infected to 100,000, the population might allow it to mutate and become airborne, and then it will be a serious problem.' I don't know who is right." -- Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN.
Ebola isn't transmitted through the air. It is transmitted through direct contact by bodily fluids with an Ebola-infected person showing symptoms of the disease.

A mutation such as the kind Dempsey describes "would be exceedingly rare" in one epidemic, said Edward C. Holmes of Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney.

"It happens over evolutionary time, millions of years," Holmes said. "This idea that it takes one or two of those mutations and 'Wham!' you pick up airborne transmission, that is way too simplistic."

"If someone has Ebola at a cocktail party, they're contagious and you can catch it from them. -- Sen. Rand Paul, a physician and potential 2016 presidential candidate
Again, experts say the contact with an infectious person must be tactile, or direct touching, and involve bodily fluids -- blood, sweat, feces, vomit, semen or spit.

People in West Africa are avoiding hugs and handshakes because the virus can be spread through the sweat on someone's hand.

The uninfected person would have to have a break in the skin of their hand that would allow entry of the virus, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta said. But "we all have minor breaks in our skin. And there is a possibility that some of the virus can be transmitted that way."

Paul also made other remarks regarding direct contact: "They say all it takes is direct contact to get this. If you listen carefully, they say being three feet from someone is direct contact. That's not what most Americans think is direct contact."

Without directly addressing Paul's claims about contact over three feet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Thomas Frieden indicated that's not a possible mode of transmission for the virus.

"Should you be worried you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone?" Frieden said, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. "The answer to that is no."

"The most comforting thing that I heard from (Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Health) was that water kills the Ebola virus. I've never heard that before. I thought it was something that was so contagious there wasn't much you could do to prevent it or anything else, so her advice was 'wash your hands.' " -- Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal told the Marietta Daily Journal.
In fact, water alone does not kill Ebola. Soap and water does. So does chlorine and bleach, experts added.

"As with other infectious diseases, one of the most important preventive measures is frequent hand-washing. Use soap and water, or use alcohol-based hand rubs containing at least 60% alcohol when soap and water aren't available," the Mayo Clinic said about the prevention and spread of Ebola infection.
"The U.S. must immediately stop all flights from EBOLA infected countries or the plague will start and spread inside our 'borders.' Act fast!" -- Real estate mogul Donald Trump said on Twitter.
Most public health experts oppose such a ban.

"Many nations have banned flights from other countries in recent years in hopes of blocking the entry of viruses, including SARS and H1N1 'swine flu,' " wrote Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. "None of the bans were effective, and the viruses gained entry to populations regardless of what radical measures governments took to keep them out."

No ban will completely stop people moving about the world, experts said.

"It gives us the false assurance that we can ignore the problems that are happening in Africa," Wendy Parmet, director of the Program on Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University School of Law, told National Geographic. "At the end of the day, we can't. And our own safety depends on our getting it right there, not on building the walls."

President Obama this week said he opposes a travel ban.

"Reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning." -- Georgia Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey, a medical doctor, wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Gingrey and other Republicans have claimed that Latino immigrants are carriers for Ebola, particularly via the U.S.-Mexico border.

"One of the reasons why I've been so adamant about closing our border, because if people are coming through normal channels -- can you imagine what they can do through our porous borders?" former Massachusetts senator and now New Hampshire Senate candidate Scott Brown said in a radio interview.

Marine Gen. John Kelly, chief of the U.S. Southern Command said, "If Ebola breaks out, in Haiti or in Central America. I think it is literally, 'Katie bar the door,' in terms of the mass migration of Central Americans into the United States."

Health experts said those fears are grossly exaggerated.

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden dismissed the possibility of Ebola reaching the United States via the southern border. "That is not happening," he said.

"I don't know ... But I think this Ebola epidemic is a form of population control. S*** is getting crazy bruh," R&B star Chris Brown tweeted.
Brown and a number of other public figures, including radio show hosts Rick Wiles and Michael Savage have advanced perhaps the most provocative statements.

Let's take this one by one.

The numbers don't support Brown's comment.

There are more than 7 billion people living on Earth. Worldwide, there have been a total of 8,997 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola in seven affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain and the United States), according to the latest World Health Organization figures.

There have been 4,493 deaths, the WHO says.

Then there's Christian radio broadcaster Wiles, who said Ebola "may be the great attitude adjustment that I believe is coming," according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Ebola "could solve America's problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion," Wiles said on his Trunews program, according to the Colorado Independent.

A prominent Christian evangelical group, Focus on the Family, denounced those remarks.

"Our first response as Christians to tragedies such as Ebola ought to be one of concern and compassion," Ron Reno, the group's vice president of orthodoxy, said, according to the Independent. "[P]ublicly speculating on God's motives in allowing specific outbreaks of disease is both unwise and unhelpful."

Finally, talk radio host Michael Savage said President Barack Obama wants to infect America with Ebola.

"There is not a sane reason to take three- or four-thousand troops and send them into a hot Ebola zone without expecting at least one of them to come back with Ebola, unless you want to infect the nation with Ebola," Savage said.

Obama sent those U.S. troops to West African nations with Ebola as part of an international effort to help eradicate -- not spread -- the disease.

"The most important thing in addition to treating and monitoring anybody who even has a hint of potential exposure here in this country, the most important thing that I can do for keeping the American people safe, is for us to be able to deal with Ebola at the source, where you have a huge outbreak in West Africa," Obama said Thursday.
CNN
 
Donald Trump is the last person anyone should get advice in security and well-being.
 
Teresa Romero, the Spanish nurse who cared for the dying missionaries coming back infected from Liberia, became the first person to contract Ebola outside West Africa, has now tested negative for the virus.
...result suggests she is no longer infected - although a second test is required before she can be declared free of Ebola.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Eric Duncan's 48 contacts have been taken out of quarantine. That includes the 4 relatives who were living with him as he fell ill with fever, started throwing up. That includes the fiancee who handled his sweaty bedsheets after receiving no direction from the CDC about what to do with them.

It is NOT that easy to get Ebola, people. You literally have to be touching a dying Ebola patient to get it. His nurses who got sick, they were doing things like intubating him and giving him dialysis. Messy stuff.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/19/ebola-quarantine-ends/17443059/
 
I do wonder what role Duncan's nationality played in the care he received.

That hospital seems incompetent in general though. Like people need to go to jail incompetent.
 
With anything that happens in Texas I tend to question almost everything with a deeper suspicion.
 
I just don't understand, why a travel ban won't work? it would stop them from coming to our country, and stop us from going to theirs.… right?

Because no one crosses borders illegaly.....no one....ever....ever.......
 
Im skeptical that West Africans who have contracted the virus could make it to the US borders and across them illegally before they died. Especially if all of Europe stops allowing flights from West Africa into their country. The infected dont have the time nor the money to illegally make it to our borders and illegally cross our borders. And if by some chance they make it to the border within a week or two of the time they were infected they'd have a rough time jumping the fence while puking and ****ting their guts out. And leaving air traffic open certainly doesnt diminish illegal imigration because for the people coming in that way air travel was likely never an option to begin with.

I think, and feel free to disagree, that the only reason they dont want to stop the air traffic is because they fear that the sick will try to come here illegally and move through multiple countries infecting multiple people along the way unchecked and untracked and then die in a country. They arent worried about the infected reaching the US, because they dont actually have the time to make it here. They are actually worried about all the countries and people they'd infect inbetween West Africa and the US. And that is a legitimate concern.
 
Last edited:
You can go run. The rest of us can go on with life.
 
Doctors can no longer detect the virus in Dallas nurse Amber Vinson's body, she is improving, and is being released from isolation.

Nurse Pham's dog Bentley shows no sign of infection. The dog is being quarantined for 21 days.

A 30-member US military response team (?) is being trained in Texas.

All travelers to the US from Ebola-affected areas will be monitored for 21 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/23/health/ebola-up-to-speed/index.html
 
Doctor in NYC tested positive for Ebola
He was with Doctors Without Borders and had just come back from Guinea, treating Ebola patients. He took the subway and went bowling before developing a fever and went in right away. You can't transmit the virus before you have the fever, at the VERY least. And it's very likely that you won't barely transmit it until you are dying of it.

Everyone he came in casual contact with should be fine. Thomas Eric Duncan's family not coming down with Ebola should prove this.
 
So does anyone want to tell me again how a travel ban would somehow make us less safe? I'm sorry if that seems un-PC or heartless, but it seems like common sense if your main concern is keeping Ebola out of the US. There will be more cases like this.
 
So does anyone want to tell me again how a travel ban would somehow make us less safe? I'm sorry if that seems un-PC or heartless, but it seems like common sense if your main concern is keeping Ebola out of the US. There will be more cases like this.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29924879&postcount=427 Up above. :oldrazz:

A travel ban might keep the US safe, but it isn't all about us, you know. The REAL danger is if Ebola managed to get out of Africa into another place with a poor medical system, like rural India. Then it would make the outbreak far worse and the US travel ban last longer, the longer this outbreak lasts. It might develop into a thing that affects our economy seriously, if it gets to a place like India.

We don't live in a vacuum. Whatever happens out there, affects us here. We do it so well for terrorism, but we get so scared off by a disease that 99.9999999999% of us have no reason to be scared of.

For serious, people. You will not get Ebola unless you are HANDLING a patient dying of Ebola.
 
I work in NYC. I’m so panicked that I’m...

...going to work tomorrow and maybe catching a movie afterwards.
 
I've been to The Gutter a few times and I can honestly say Ebola probably isn't the scariest thing to enter that place.
 
WTF! why would someone travel to another country If they know they have Ebola? or any other deadly disease? don't they know how many lives would be at stake?

Well, think of it this way. Healthcare in America is much better than Liberia.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,427
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"