Support NeoGAF

[Antiochus]

Is there a reason why the U.S. shouldn't impose a traveling ban on all arrivals from the most severely Ebola affected countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea? It does not appear they do much economic transactions with America, the outbreak over there is raging out of control, there are still many uncomfortable unknowns regarding just how the virus is precisely transmitted, and there is very little infrastructural competence on those nations in rigorously inspecting and screening potential Ebola patients. And of course, Mr. Duncan's case in Dallas proves our healthcare system is still very much unprepared if multitudes of Ebola patients were to appear. Wouldn't it make sense to adopt public health common sense 101 and establish a blockade on all incoming flights originating from those nations? This is after all what they teach in graduate school, yet it does not appear the authorities are remotely interested in this targeted approach.


Also note this arrival ban will not outright affect American medical personnel going to and from there, since they will be under a much more severe screening procedure going there and then coming back.

Nor, of course, would it affect departure flights to those affected nations. One is free to go there, One is not free to come back until the outbreak has passed.

 

[Salvadora]

What would stop people from simply getting a connecting flight from Europe/Asia?

 

[Terra]

One more ebola thread just now?

 

[The Omega Man]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

 

[Ol No Bones]

They at least need much stricter screening for people who are from that area. There isnt really any reason to not move in that direction. It is the primary role of governments to protect its citizens including deadly diseases.

 

[dareacher]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rem+en+of+the+world

 

[KHarvey16]

Because the risk of not doing so doesn't justify it.

 

[Semajer]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

This man knows what's up. It's too late for the rest of us, and we're going to miss you, America, but you've got to save yourselves.

 

[Ol No Bones]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

Nobody said this. Ever. There is certainly a way to be smart about preventing most all infected individuals from traveling to the states. Your response does nothing helpful.


Just last night I heard a clip from a CNN correspondent who was shocked with how easy it was to fly to the us from liberia when she and a crew had been there to cover the disease.

 

[linsivvi]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

You still can't stop the Ebola carrying ISIS members from crossing the border from Mexico.

 

[slit]

Nobody said this. Ever. There is certainly a way to be smart about preventing most all infected individuals from traveling to the states. Your response does nothing helpful.


Just last night I heard a clip from a CNN correspondent who was shocked it was to fly to the us from liberia when she and a crew had been there to cover the disease.

Ok, so now that it's in Spain, should we stop them from traveling here? How about Norway? How about Japan if it shows up there? Should we play whac-a-mole with passports and just let people sneak into the country who will then be afraid to seek help if they do become sick?

 

[Stet]

Because the situation isn't that dire?

 

[Guevara]

Arguably a travel ban would hurt more people: It would just hurt a lot of people a little (mostly financially) rather than a few people who might get sick.

 

[wildfire]

#Plagueghazi the thread

 

[Ol No Bones]

Ok, so now that it's in Spain, should we stop them from traveling here? How about Norway? How about Japan if it shows up there? Should we play whac-a-mole with passports and just let people sneak into the country who will then be afraid to seek help if they do become sick?

I'm talking about more effective screening. And yes I do think it is perfectly fine to restrict travel for people who we determine have the disease. There is no way to guarantee that no one will be able to get in who has it but it is perfectly acceptable to to our best in restricting those who do. If people find out they are ill they will seek help regardless of how they entered. That's kind of a stupid point to make.

 

[LordAzrael]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

Absolutely. No one gets in, no gets out. AMERICA 4EVER

 

[Makonero]

I'm seeing a Papers Please situation arising here.

 

[jamesinclair]

Protip:

There are no regularly scheduled flights between the US and anywhere in Africa not called Nigeria

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

USA shouldn't stop there, they should close all borders period and break diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, the time to act is now before it's too late, it's all about survival.

Why does this type of argument come up in every thread on everything ever?

"What, block travel from certain West African nations?!! WHY STOP THERE?!!!! WHY NOT BLOCK ALL BORDERS AND RELATIONS WITH EVERY COUNTRY! Take that Ron Paul!"

Basically just take a viewpoint you don't like, misrepresent it through absurd strawmen, and make the whole thing sarcastic to be extra obnoxious. Add a touch of snark and you've got your typical counter-argument.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Thanos thread? Thanos thread..

 

[KHarvey16]

Why does this type of argument come up in every thread on everything ever?

"What, block travel from certain West African nations?!! WHY STOP THERE?!!!! WHY NOT BLOCK ALL BORDERS AND RELATIONS WITH EVERY COUNTRY! Take that Ron Paul!"

Add a touch of snark and you've got your typical counter-argument.

Sometimes it's best to meet farce with farce.

 

[slit]

I'm talking about more effective screening. And yes I do think it is perfectly fine to restrict travel for people who we determine have the disease. There is no way to guarantee that no one will be able to get in who has it but it is perfectly acceptable to to our best in restricting those who do. If people find out they are ill they will seek help regardless of how they entered. That's kind of a stupid point to make.

Ok first you say a blanket travel ban and now you say more effective screening. You're changing goalposts. So what is your idea for more effective screening?

Also to you second point, Uh, they won't neccessiarily seek help if they think they would be in trouble. What? You think they are all educated about the dangers of Ebola? We're talking about people who have very little access to education.

 

[HK-47]

Why does this type of argument come up in every thread on everything ever?

"What, block travel from certain West African nations?!! WHY STOP THERE?!!!! WHY NOT BLOCK ALL BORDERS AND RELATIONS WITH EVERY COUNTRY! Take that Ron Paul!"

Basically just take a viewpoint you don't like, misrepresent it through absurd strawmen, and make the whole thing sarcastic to be extra obnoxious. Add a touch of snark and you've got your typical counter-argument.

The perfect repsonse to idiotic hyper paranoia.

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

Sometimes it's best to meet farce with farce.

Only if you think anything you disagree with is immediately farce. I highly disagree with banning travel from West African nations, but seeing "farce" all the time in every thread just makes for really boring discussion (if you can call it that). I'd like to go into threads and actually read people debating a subject, not just constant snark.

Also this is basically a huge problem with threads on GAF in general, not just in this case. It has less to do with this particular subject and more to do with obnoxious posting.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why does this type of argument come up in every thread on everything ever?

"What, block travel from certain West African nations?!! WHY STOP THERE?!!!! WHY NOT BLOCK ALL BORDERS AND RELATIONS WITH EVERY COUNTRY! Take that Ron Paul!"

Basically just take a viewpoint you don't like, misrepresent it through absurd strawmen, and make the whole thing sarcastic to be extra obnoxious. Add a touch of snark and you've got your typical counter-argument.

Because it's just as stupid a thought.

 

[SliceSabre]

Why don't you just throw all us blacks in Ebola camps?

Ya know. Just to be sure.

 

[Blader]

And of course, Mr. Duncan's case in Dallas proves our healthcare system is still very much unprepared if multitudes of Ebola patients were to appear.

Aren't there other Ebola patients in the US that have been cleared though?

Only if you think anything you disagree with is immediately farce. I highly disagree with banning travel from West African nations, but seeing "farce" all the time in every thread just makes for really boring discussion (if you can call it that). I'd like to go into threads and actually read people debating a subject, not just constant snark.

Also this is basically a huge problem with threads on GAF in general, not just in this case. It has less to do with this particular subject and more to do with obnoxious posting.

But then how will people know how funny I am!!

 

[KHarvey16]

Only if you think anything you disagree with is immediately farce. I highly disagree with banning travel from West African nations, but seeing "farce" all the time in every thread just makes for really boring discussion (if you can call it that). I'd like to go into threads and actually read people debating a subject, not just constant snark.

Also this is basically a huge problem with threads on GAF in general, not just in this case. It has less to do with this particular subject and more to do with obnoxious posting.

It's not the basis for a useful discussion. There are a lot of terrible opinions on GAF but many threads do lead to interesting discussions.

 

[reckless]

Aren't there other Ebola patients in the US that have been cleared though?



But then how will people know how funny I am!!

We knew in advanced that those people had Ebola.

Big difference between that and what happened with the guy from Liberia.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

 

[reckless]

Stopping 855 people from coming here seems like a pretty fair trade off to greatly reduce the chance of Ebola being spread here...

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Remember that "raging out of control" in Liberia (and it is, relative to its other outbreaks) is still less than 1% of Liberia's population.

 

[reckless]

Remember that "raging out of control" in Liberia (and it is, relative to its other outbreaks) is still less than 1% of Liberia's population.

TBF that is official cases there are obviously more cases then reported when every hosipital is completely full.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Stopping 855 people from coming here seems like a pretty fair trade off to greatly reduce the chance of Ebola being spread here...

20 million people in those countries and 7.5k ebola cases (.03 percent. Keep in mind this is everyone that has been infected in a year and not everyone that currently has it) and of those 20 million people about 35k go on planes and only 2.5% of that 35k end up here.

 

[Zhengi]

When kids get sick, we restrict them from going to schools to infect other kids. We do the same in the workplace when people get the flu. For some reason, when it comes to ebola, people feel it's offensive to put restrictions on flights. I really don't understand this mentality.

 

[reckless]

20 million people in those countries and 7.5k ebola cases (.03 percent. Keep in mind this is everyone that has been infected in a year and not everyone that currently has it) and of those 20 million people about 35k go on planes and only 2.5% of that 35k end up here.

Ok... Stopping 800ish people a month from coming to the U.S in exchange for greatly reducing the chance of spreading Ebola to another continent is still a very good trade.

Also that 7500 is undercounting due to the state of healthcare in Liberia right now.

 

[KHarvey16]

When kids get sick, we restrict them from going to schools to infect other kids. We do the same in the workplace when people get the flu. For some reason, when it comes to ebola, people feel it's offensive to put restrictions on flights. I really don't understand this mentality.

No one is against sick people being restricted from getting on an airplane.

 

[Higgins113]

It's "racist".

 

[slit]

When kids get sick, we restrict them from going to schools to infect other kids. We do the same in the workplace when people get the flu. For some reason, when it comes to ebola, people feel it's offensive to put restrictions on flights. I really don't understand this mentality.

You don't understand the difference between trying to keep out people in a land area as large as the U.S. compared to an area the size of a school? It's not offensive, it would be ineffective especially considering how Ebola spreads.

 

[Simply Sarah]

When kids get sick, we restrict them from going to schools to infect other kids. We do the same in the workplace when people get the flu. For some reason, when it comes to ebola, people feel it's offensive to put restrictions on flights. I really don't understand this mentality.

Excluding people from entering the country because of certain kinds of illness is standard operating procedure. You don't need anything special in place for ebola.

 

[Ri'Orius]

When kids get sick, we restrict them from going to schools to infect other kids. We do the same in the workplace when people get the flu. For some reason, when it comes to ebola, people feel it's offensive to put restrictions on flights. I really don't understand this mentality.

Bad analogy. First, there's a big difference between staying at home and not being allowed to go home (for travelers returning to their home in America). Also, you don't keep your kid home because he might have been exposed to something: you keep your kid home when he's sick.

Finally, leaving people stranded in a plague-stricken country with little access to healthcare is pretty cruel to them. A far cry from my sick days spent on the couch watching Netflix and playing video games.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Ok... Stopping 800ish people a month from coming to the U.S in exchange for greatly reducing the chance of spreading Ebola to another continent is still a very good trade.

Also that 7500 is undercounting due to the state of healthcare in Liberia right now.

Im not sure how you can look at those numbers and say you are "greatly reducing" anything. You are reducing the odds by maybe a fraction of a percentage point.

Also there are only around 4k confirmed lab cases. The 7.5k is a guess. I am sure there are a lot of cases not being reported, but there are also a shutoff of false reports. Its probably not far off.

 

[Zhengi]

You don't understand the difference between trying to keep out people in a land area as large as the U.S. compared to an area the size of a school? It's not offensive, it would be ineffective especially considering how Ebola spreads.

Considering that airplanes can't just land anywhere in a land area as large as the US, I'm not certain what you are trying to argue. We can restrict smaller areas of the US at places known as airport, which is what I'm saying.

Excluding people from entering the country because of certain kinds of illness is standard operating procedure. You don't need anything special in place for ebola.

That's fine. I'd argue that they should reevaluate their procedures in this matter because we've already had a case that a person coming back to the states with ebola.

Bad analogy. First, there's a big difference between staying at home and not being allowed to go home (for travelers returning to their home in America). Also, you don't keep your kid home because he might have been exposed to something: you keep your kid home when he's sick.

Ok, so there's a difference between staying at home and being kept away at home. The similarity in both cases is that you keep them away from people who are healthy and to stop them from spreading diseases. That's the point of the analogy.

Well, if your kid possibly had ebola, then you would keep them at home just in case. Otherwise, why would they quarantine all those people who were exposed to the Dallas man? For shits and giggle? Different diseases, different approaches.

Finally, leaving people stranded in a plague-stricken country with little access to healthcare is pretty cruel to them. A far cry from my sick days spent on the couch watching Netflix and playing video games.

Yeah, that is definitely cruel to them. Another cruel situation is to unnecessarily expose people to a deadly disease unnecessarily if there is a way to control it. You might not agree with it, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[grumble]

Ok... Stopping 800ish people a month from coming to the U.S in exchange for greatly reducing the chance of spreading Ebola to another continent is still a very good trade.

Also that 7500 is undercounting due to the state of healthcare in Liberia right now.

Uh because one Ebola is highly containable as it kills so quickly and incubates quickly as well; two the risk of someone on that plane having Ebola is crazy low, and three airports are implementing screening. You shut down travel when there is a real risk here. There isn't one. It's hysteria. Ebola should not be a worry of yours.

 

[KHarvey16]

Considering that airplanes can't just land anywhere in a land area as large as the US, I'm not certain what you are trying to argue. We can restrict smaller areas of the US at places known as airport, which is what I'm saying.



That's fine. I'd argue that they should reevaluate their procedures in this matter because we've already had a case that a person coming back to the states with ebola.



Ok, so there's a difference between staying at home and being kept away at home. The similarity in both cases is that you keep them away from people who are healthy and to stop them from spreading diseases. That's the point of the analogy.

Well, if your kid possibly had ebola, then you would keep them at home just in case. Otherwise, why would they quarantine all those people who were exposed to the Dallas man? For shits and giggle? Different diseases, different approaches.



Yeah, that is definitely cruel to them. Another cruel situation is to unnecessarily expose people to a deadly disease unnecessarily if there is a way to control it. You might not agree with it, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You compared restricting the movement of someone who is confirmed to be sick with restricting the movements of people from a place where a small percentage of the population has been sick. There is no useful comparison there.

 

[reckless]

Im not sure how you can look at those numbers and say you are "greatly reducing" anything. You are reducing the odds by maybe a fraction of a percentage point.

Also there are only around 4k confirmed lab cases. The 7.5k is a guess. I am sure there are a lot of cases not being reported, but there are also a shutoff of false reports. Its probably not far off.

Well its already gotten here and this would have stopped it already, and it will get here again.

Doing this would make the chance change from something to nothing.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Ask Barack Hussein Ebola

 

[Zhengi]

You compared restricting the movement of someone who is confirmed to be sick with restricting the movements of people from a place where a small percentage of the population has been sick. There is no useful comparison there.

Well, possibly, but I'm asking, why even risk it? It's already been confirmed that a person can come in from those countries and interact with other people. The assumption was that the person was healthy and later confirmed that he had ebola. Why even take this risk and introduce such a disease into the country?

If there is a compromise, the TSA should review their standard operating procedure and ask people at the airport if they've been at any of those countries and monitor these travelers to be sure. Otherwise, I see no problem in a ban in travel to and from those countries.

 

[Paskil]

 

[reckless]

Uh because one Ebola is highly containable as it kills so quickly and incubates quickly as well; two the risk of someone on that plane having Ebola is crazy low, and three airports are implementing screening. You shut down travel when there is a real risk here. There isn't one. It's hysteria. Ebola should not be a worry of yours.

Yeah it kills quickly, but it would still have the chance to kill several people before its contained. And as shown by what happened to Duncan we ain't that great at containing it.

Its still greater risk then none. And that risk outweighs the benefits of some people traveling

Screening only helps if they are already showing symptoms.