If you actually ask them a little bit more, then they will tell you that what they really want to do. They want to prevent people with ebola to travel to the US.
Again, you are using language instead of logic as an argument. If they totally want to prevent any ebola reaching the US, then we already have failed. However, it is an advantage to have 1 case instead of 10.Again, a relevant response to the claims that banning flights will prevent the disease reaching the US. As a general statement of fact, it's relevant to any reasoned consideration and debate over this kind of proposal.
Wrong again, the impact on airlines will be positive. The passengers from ebola stricken countries is tiny compared to the overall number of passengers. However, if Americans and Europeans get scared of flying because they may end up sitting next to someone with ebola then that will lead to huge cost for airlines.I question whether people in the USA who are so scared of Ebola as to significantly reduce their economic impact are going to be placated by such policies being implemented (especially if they don't work as promised). It's undeniable that there would be some economic impact on airlines and the like. This obviously isn't the be-all and end-all but is still a relevant factor in assessing such proposals.
That is what I say all passengers from Liberia/Guinea/etc should go through, shamefully politicians do not want to implement it yet. I am not sure what quarantine procedures there are for health care workers, but there are no quarantine procedures for people coming from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. That is the problem.I'd expect the quarantine procedures to be in place already but if there are no flights how do they get home at all? How do they get out there in the first place? Charities can hardly afford to charter planes.
A lot of people said ebola was not a big deal.Nobody in any way informed has ever said Ebola was "no big deal". If anything, the concept of holing up and hoping it all goes away is a dismissal of the seriousness of the issue.
RELAX, UK – WE'RE NOT ALL GOING TO DIE OF EBOLA
Largest ever Ebola outbreak is not a global threat : Nature News & Comment
And no, "holing up" (meaning we restrict visas and look for liberian passport stamps) is not dismissal of the seriousness of the issue. It a move that needs to be done, because we consider it a serious issue. It is like a wildfire. You sometimes need to chop down some forest to prevent it from spreading, instead of putting all effort on throwing water on the fire.
Problem is, it is the only relevant argument, all the others are excuses because the one argument is not strong enough. To keep Liberians happy is not as important as preventing the spread of ebola.Isn't that a possibility and thus another relevant argument against implementing extreme restrictions?
Last edited by Camlon; 10-07-14 at 07:51 AM.
It doesn't really matter where they are quarantined, but the most safe way would be they are quarantined in the country of destination. If they are on a visa, then they need to pay for the cost themselves. Government can pay if it is their own citizens.I'm not sure how practical that would actually be. Where and how would you implement all this quarantining of people? How would you identify who it would apply to? Note that I'm not dismissing the idea, just asking practical questions that would have to be answered for the proposal to be seriously considered.
Since it needs to applied to everyone leaving those countries, then I don't need to identify who is sick or not. Better to quarantine everyone that to let some people with Ebola loose on the street, essentially murdering several people each time.
Both links are totally ignoring the fact that millions are likely to die from Ebola in just Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea alone. If nothing is done and if there are no travel restrictions, then as they are leaving the country there will be small outbreaks everywhere. In all likelihood, without travel restrictions there will be a pandemic that will spread to countries like India and Nigeria and will kill hundred of million people. In western countries we are probably able to contain it, but it won't be cheap.Neither of your links said it's no big deal. One said "We're not all going to die" and the other "It's not a global threat". Both recognized and acknowledged the problem and risks related to the current Ebola outbreak, they just tempered some of the more extreme rhetoric being thrown around.
If that is not a global threat, then what isn't. These people completely missed the target when they predicted Ebola. Now they claim we should not have travel restrictions. They were wrong before, they are wrong again.
Also, I am quite confident that in a few months we will have "closed the borders". Hopefully it hasn't spread to another developing country by then.
If Ebola can survive outside the body on inanimate objects for a extended period of time.
Doesn't that mean that it can be transmitted through the air from Coughing or Sneezing ?
And wouldn't that mean that its transmissible by air ?
However, yes you can get sick from them sneezing on you. But the most likely way to get sick is by touching an object with Ebola and then touch your face. An average person touch their face 500 - 2000 times a day. You need to wash your hands extremely often to not have any risk if you are close to someone with Ebola.
It's not exactly touching your face. Skin is an excellent viral barrier. It's touching the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, or mouth that gives a virus access. A face mask with an eye shield is sufficient protection, coupled with frequent hand-washing.
I love the smell of face-palm in the morning!
"You ain't no Muslim bruv!"