URGENT: Obama Admin Will Issue Travel Bans… But It’s Not What You Think

[Dakine10 5,452]

Won't they be constructing hospitals and living accommodations for ebola patients? That's what I read. Sounds to me like their exposure will be limited, not nonexistent.

I for one will be surprised if no service member contracts ebola. For sure the risk is much higher in Africa than Afghanistan.

While they're building I don't think they let people in. That's how they do it here. There not going to bring in beds and build a hospital around them.

The first step would be to build a fence. I'm sure they've thought of that.

Assuming down the road that some of them will be in closer contact, don't you think they will get the appropriate protective equipment?

[JohnR! 5,495]

That is pretty much what the motley crew is advocating. They subscribe to the notion that if you hide under your bed with your head up your derriere, this whole Ebola thing will go away as if by magic.

So to summarize:

- travel restrictions can be readily circumvented, encourage deception and make it difficult to track infected people and their contacts.

- travel restrictions will make it harder to fight and contain the virus in West Africa, which will ultimately make it harder to stop spreading elsewhere, including here.

[Karee 4,190]

That is pretty much what the motley crew is advocating. They subscribe to the notion that if you hide under your bed with your head up your derriere, this whole Ebola thing will go away as if by magic.

I don't recall anyone saying anything close to that in this thread.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

While they're building I don't think they let people in. That's how they do it here. There not going to bring in beds and build a hospital around them.

The first step would be to build a fence. I'm sure they've thought of that.

Assuming down the road that some of them will be in closer contact, don't you think they will get the appropriate protective equipment?

Call me pessimistic, but no, I don't think they will ever get appropriate pro gear. I remember having friends in a war zone who could not get proper, serviceable body armor. Family members were mailing it to them. And I suspect the same level of importance will probably be prevalent in this endeavor.

At first, contact will be unlikely. But as construction nears completion, I am sure they will be bringing in patients while there are still soldiers around. And no, I have nothing except my own opinion to go on here. Only time will tell. I'd love it if not one single soldier got infected, but I think that is asking too much of Murphy.

I have several friends deploying there this month. I hope all goes well with each and every soldier who is asked to serve and risk their lives.

I don't recall anyone saying anything close to that in this thread.

They did not, of course. Typical over-reaction/exaggeration, happens on VJ all the time. I can type BLUE in three different threads, yet someone will claim I said PINK.

Edited October 20, 2014 by DavenRoxy

[unsmiley 111]

So to summarize:

- travel restrictions can be readily circumvented, encourage deception and make it difficult to track infected people and their contacts.

- travel restrictions will make it harder to fight and contain the virus in West Africa, which will ultimately make it harder to stop spreading elsewhere, including here.

No, travel restrictions cannot be readily circumvented if: (1) The US stops issuance of visas for citizens of selected countries; (2) US institutes simple border control procedures (like LIB mentions) such as examining passports for certain visa stamps to catch people making intermediate stops; (3) totally banning entry to people with certain passports.

Your second point is also faulty. I do not believe it has ever been argued (before Ebola) that the way to end an epidemic or pandemic is to allow more access to the infected. Actually, it should be exactly the opposite -- that is exactly when a quarantine is called for.

[UncleBeer 244]

I don't recall anyone saying anything close to that in this thread.

Hyperbole; it's all they've got.

Your second point is also faulty. I do not believe it has ever been argued (before Ebola) that the way to end an epidemic or pandemic is to allow more access to the infected. Actually, it should be exactly the opposite -- that is exactly when a quarantine is called for.

Yep. Pure nonsense and on some level they're fully aware of it.

[Dakine10 5,452]

No, travel restrictions cannot be readily circumvented if: (1) The US stops issuance of visas for citizens of selected countries; (2) US institutes simple border control procedures (like LIB mentions) such as examining passports for certain visa stamps to catch people making intermediate stops; (3) totally banning entry to people with certain passports.

Your second point is also faulty. I do not believe it has ever been argued (before Ebola) that the way to end an epidemic or pandemic is to allow more access to the infected. Actually, it should be exactly the opposite -- that is exactly when a quarantine is called for.

They're not my points. They are actual experts in the field. I'm sure they have considered everything the average keyboard jockey might think of. Why everyone thinks they know more than the experts is beyond me. I will comment as best I can though.

To your points, 1st - the US can stop issuing visa's to certain areas. That will be very effective in stopping isolated incidents for the next few months. Nobody disputes that. That's all it will stop - isolated incidents.

The second point - looking at the bigger picture - travel restrictions work both ways. If no one can fly out of there, planes aren't going to be flying there. Doctors, relief workers and others will have a harder time getting in.

Down the road, when instead of 4000 infected there is 400,000 - you are not going to stop this from spreading.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I have several friends deploying there this month. I hope all goes well with each and every soldier who is asked to serve and risk their lives.

I hope so too. And I hope you are wrong about them not getting the equipment they need.

[UncleBeer 244]

They're not my points. They are actual experts in the field. I'm sure they have considered everything the average keyboard jockey might think of.

Right. Like the 'experts' at the CDC who told the nurse with the temperature to go ahead and board that flight and fly around the country? Those are the experts to which you refer?

[JohnR! 5,495]

The only way to make the world safe is to eradicate Ebola at the origin.

Travel bans will accomplish nothing but create unnecessary panic. Suppose Ms. Tammy O'Shanter, arriving from LHR, carrying a British passport sporting an exit stamp from Freetown, dated two weeks earlier. What should the CBP do? Refusing entry to Ms. O'Shanter would seem appropriate, but the question really is, what should the CBP do with the other 300 passengers that spent the best of 8 hours inside the plane, in contact with Mr. O'Shanter? Send them back to LHR, of course!

Meanwhile, how about the CBP and all other officers that came in contact with all 300 passengers?

The only way to fight Ebola is to fight it as a war. You go where the enemy is, otherwise it will get to you one way or another. If we don't go after Ebola in Africa it will get to our shores via Europe or Asia. It's just a matter of time.

No, travel restrictions cannot be readily circumvented if: (1) The US stops issuance of visas for citizens of selected countries; (2) US institutes simple border control procedures (like LIB mentions) such as examining passports for certain visa stamps to catch people making intermediate stops; (3) totally banning entry to people with certain passports.

Your second point is also faulty. I do not believe it has ever been argued (before Ebola) that the way to end an epidemic or pandemic is to allow more access to the infected. Actually, it should be exactly the opposite -- that is exactly when a quarantine is called for.

[JohnR! 5,495]

In all fairness, the experts at the CDC and the doctors have nothing on Ebola. If you really want to know how to deal with it you should take the words of complete strangers over cyberspace. That's the ticket!

They're not my points. They are actual experts in the field. I'm sure they have considered everything the average keyboard jockey might think of. Why everyone thinks they know more than the experts is beyond me. I will comment as best I can though.

To your points, 1st - the US can stop issuing visa's to certain areas. That will be very effective in stopping isolated incidents for the next few months. Nobody disputes that. That's all it will stop - isolated incidents.

The second point - looking at the bigger picture - travel restrictions work both ways. If no one can fly out of there, planes aren't going to be flying there. Doctors, relief workers and others will have a harder time getting in.

Down the road, when instead of 4000 infected there is 400,000 - you are not going to stop this from spreading.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

It looks like even more reservists will get called into action...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/16/executive-order-ordering-selected-reserve-and-certain-individual-ready-r

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123440

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I hope so too. And I hope you are wrong about them not getting the equipment they need.

It's not often I am wrong. But I would be very happy indeed to be wrong about this.

[unsmiley 111]

They're not my points. They are actual experts in the field. I'm sure they have considered everything the average keyboard jockey might think of. Why everyone thinks they know more than the experts is beyond me. I will comment as best I can though.

To your points, 1st - the US can stop issuing visa's to certain areas. That will be very effective in stopping isolated incidents for the next few months. Nobody disputes that. That's all it will stop - isolated incidents.

The second point - looking at the bigger picture - travel restrictions work both ways. If no one can fly out of there, planes aren't going to be flying there. Doctors, relief workers and others will have a harder time getting in.

Down the road, when instead of 4000 infected there is 400,000 - you are not going to stop this from spreading.

1) The "experts" are not in agreement on this. It is inaccurate too present them as if they have unified point of view. Also it is unwise to underestimate all of us and our background.

2) But you are quoting or paraphrasing those points, points you obviously agree with.

3) Nothing wrong with stopping isolated incidents, especially when we are still struggling with how to deal with this. It could buy some time to find some type of treatment or make inroads in vaccine development, or figure out the best way to protect the well.

[Dakine10 5,452]

In all fairness, the experts at the CDC and the doctors have nothing on Ebola. If you really want to know how to deal with it you should take the words of complete strangers over cyberspace. That's the ticket!

That's what world renowned Ebola expert Uncle Beer tells me.