• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

58% of Americans want to ban flights from West Africa[W:106]

So you're saying a flight from west Africa couldn't connect elsewhere and fly to LGA?

If they wanted to go to NYC, they would fly into JFK or EWR. You wouldn't fly to Chicago or Miami then backtrack to LGA.

The only US carrier that flies to W Africa is Delta, they go to Accra, it used to continue on to Monrovia, but was dropped back in July, no money to be made there.

There is only one carrier that flies into Monrovia now, Brussels Airlines (former Sabena). They fly to Freetown as well as a small regional carrier.
 
Yes ground every flight. Better safe than sorry.
The cdc doesn't even know if it's airborne or not.
Let's leave politics out of this.

Ground every flight? OK, tell that to the few hundred thousand of airline employees that lose their jobs, oh, and the billions of dollars a day the economy will suffer from not having air cargo and passenger service.

You don't have any idea what you are saying. Ebola is not airborne, never was, they have known that for decades.
 
Even today, very few of the people likely to get ebola can get airborne either. They can't afford the airfare. Of the select few who could scrape together enough cash, there are many places nearer than the USA that are less financially challenging...
 
Yes ground every flight. Better safe than sorry.
The cdc doesn't even know if it's airborne or not.
Let's leave politics out of this.

Yes they do. It's not.
 
That would be racisssss to ban Ebola infected people from flying in from West Africa and infecting U.S. citizens....... Better to let them in and use up our medical resources and not be considered racisssssss.......most White Americans would rather see their mother did than to have someone call them racisssssss......and blacks have figured that game out and play it to the hilt every day
 
Grounding every flight isn't a valid option. However, a temporary ban of people from the hot spot countries traveling into the US may be prudent. The taking of temperatures on flights is a total fail. Duncan, the Liberian man who died in Dallas didn't have symptoms until days after he traveled. Taking the temperature of people isn't going to do a thing unless the person traveling is already sick and showing symptoms. Keeping out people who may be carriers of Ebola from entering the US is the way to go. Government workers, military, aid workers who are sanctioned to travel to and from hot spot countries should be quarantined and tested before letting them back into society.

The red herring of the "flu" that's been the top argument topic against travel bans is ludicrous. The flu doesn't have a 70% mortality rate. The flu has a vaccination that is available each and every year and is very effective. Comparing the two isn't even valid.
 
Too bad most people are stupid then. The only way to stop ebola is to stop flights from EVERYWHERE. People can easily travel from Africa to Europe to the U.S., or Africa to Asia to the U.S., or through a variety of other routes. It isn't just direct traffic from Africa that is potentially dangerous, virtually anyone who has been on a plane with anyone from Africa could be infected. You'd have to stop any and all international traffic to have even a chance of stopping ebola.

It isn't going to happen and people need to get a grip.
 
That would be racisssss to ban Ebola infected people from flying in from West Africa and infecting U.S. citizens....... Better to let them in and use up our medical resources and not be considered racisssssss.......most White Americans would rather see their mother did than to have someone call them racisssssss......and blacks have figured that game out and play it to the hilt every day

Thank you for your racist thoughts. Prior to this post, there was no mention of racism herein other than the OP trying to make a stupid point to the effect that Obama is more loyal to Africans than Americans. That notwithstanding, most of the rest of the adults on this thread have been able to discuss what America should do to defend itself from ebola.

BTW... "racisssss" is an interesting spelling. I don't know if your particular spelling of that word means anything other than that you are very bad at spelling.
 
Thank you for your racist thoughts. Prior to this post, there was no mention of racism herein other than the OP trying to make a stupid point to the effect that Obama is more loyal to Africans than Americans. That notwithstanding, most of the rest of the adults on this thread have been able to discuss what America should do to defend itself from ebola.

BTW... "racisssss" is an interesting spelling. I don't know if your particular spelling of that word means anything other than that you are very bad at spelling.

Not wanting your children to die of Ebola is now 'racist'........thanks for proving my point
 
Not wanting your children to die of Ebola is now 'racist'........thanks for proving my point

What is racist is your post. Until you posted your racist rant, the entire discussion was on the merits of blocking passengers from West Africa from entering the US without any discussion of race.

Not wanting your children to die is rational. Worrying them dying from Ebola is irrational (see all previous cites on my earlier post). They are far more likely to die in a school shooting than die of ebola. Moreover, as previously pointed, stopping direct flights into the US will do almost nothing to change the threat level.

Please, go find some research that shows us we should be concerned. All the research to date is contrary to that, making your position on this matter nothing less than irrational.

You will need to have a point to be able to prove it.
 
What is racist is your post. Until you posted your racist rant, the entire discussion was on the merits of blocking passengers from West Africa from entering the US without any discussion of race.

Not wanting your children to die is rational. Worrying them dying from Ebola is irrational (see all previous cites on my earlier post). They are far more likely to die in a school shooting than die of ebola. Moreover, as previously pointed, stopping direct flights into the US will do almost nothing to change the threat level.

Please, go find some research that shows us we should be concerned. All the research to date is contrary to that, making your position on this matter nothing less than irrational.

You will need to have a point to be able to prove it.

People from West Africa are overwhelming black........but we can pretend that is not true if we would appear to be less racist I guess........
 
Duncan, the Liberian man who died in Dallas didn't have symptoms until days after he traveled.

The red herring of the "flu" that's been the top argument topic against travel bans is ludicrous. The flu doesn't have a 70% mortality rate. The flu has a vaccination that is available each and every year and is very effective. Comparing the two isn't even valid.


And he wasn't infectious UNTIL he showed symptoms. that's how Ebola works.

Now flu - you can spread it before you know you have it. And it kills thousands a year. And many do NOT get the vaccine. And the vaccine doesn't help once you have it.

If you want to forbid anyone from flying unless they have the flu vaccine, then ok, you might be consistent.
 
I see nothing wrong with banning passengers whose trip originated from one of the African countries in question unless they are willing to go into quarantine for 21 days beforehand (at their expense).
If people don't like it...tough.

This virus can be transmitted even by sweat and the mortality rate is extremely high.

I hate to say it, but when in doubt, a government should (IMO) air on the side of public safety of it's citizens rather then political correctness.
 
Ignorance run a muck. Let's start with the fact that LaGuardia is a domestic airport. They aren't likely to deal with anything more contagious than a tick on a plant in the baggage of a flight from Colorado carrying Lyme disease.

Banning flights from Africa is also complete silliness. We inbound 150 persons per day from Africa

http://www.newsweek.com/state-depar...e-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs -228898

..many of them, including Mr. Duncan, do not enter the country on flights from Africa but connect in Europe.

People are starting to lose rationality. They are far more likely to be gunned down by a gunman in a movie theater or mall or die in a carjacking than die of ebola.

So, what is the cost of truth?

About the flight that connected in Europe then came to America, it's still a "flight from Liberia." That is the origination country. So it wouldn't be allowed to connect with a flight coming to America.

150 people a day is a lot of people. It makes sense to me to ban them for a while, since we have had Ebola just imported from there. Just like we might ban flights of fruit from China, if China had sent a shipment of deadly fruit. At least until we could be assured of better screening practices in Liberia.
 
I see nothing wrong with banning passengers whose trip originated from one of the African countries in question unless they are willing to go into quarantine for 21 days beforehand (at their expense).
If people don't like it...tough.

This virus can be transmitted even by sweat and the mortality rate is extremely high.

I hate to say it, but when in doubt, a government should (IMO) air on the side of public safety of it's citizens rather then political correctness.

Which means nothing because people can travel to any number of places in those 21 days, you can never control all of the people, nor can you control who they have had contact with. Banning passengers from Africa does nothing whatsoever to stop the spread of ebola.
 
Which means nothing because people can travel to any number of places in those 21 days, you can never control all of the people, nor can you control who they have had contact with. Banning passengers from Africa does nothing whatsoever to stop the spread of ebola.

I agree. What WOULD help is continuing to pour money into medical services and supplies for those countries. I've read how some hospitals ran out of plastic gloves and other supplies, and they had just a couple doctors for a hundred people. We should have done more at the beginning, and it wouldn't be as bad now; but we need to step up and do it now. Unless we DO want ebola spreading around the world. We need to stop it at its source.
 
mbig #11 said:
Forget Laguardia, it makes sense for Every USA/EU airport.

What's the downside?
There is virtually ZERO significant loss of Tourism or other Economic/Business interest.

The need for the nationals of those tiny/crap-hole countries
(Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea) to get here is ZERO compared to the risk.

Only Aid workers should be able to transit on chartered flights with Special precautions.
I see there were NO Takers for my post #11. Zero.
Just some PC CLOWNS Dishonestly trying to field the easier ones.

It's going to cost the West BILLION$, TEN'S of Billions MORE, for airport screening/Hospital-procedure/etc instead barring flights/passengers originating in those countries.

Untold Angst and perhaps cut the whole World airline Industry's traffic, so a FEW passengers from the Crap-hole Infected countries can visit their relatives in Newark, NJ.
WTF!
(how did you LIAR'S vote in the PC Poll?)

Flu season is starting and it's going to be Madness with Airport Screeners and Hospital staff's worried/HAVING to worry that every fever might about Ebola too.
 
Last edited:
Are you also going to ban people from flying if they don't have proof of flu shots? measles vaccinations? TDAP boosters? Those are more likely to kill you than ebola.

Quit spewing hyperbole.
 
And he wasn't infectious UNTIL he showed symptoms. that's how Ebola works.

Now flu - you can spread it before you know you have it. And it kills thousands a year. And many do NOT get the vaccine. And the vaccine doesn't help once you have it.

If you want to forbid anyone from flying unless they have the flu vaccine, then ok, you might be consistent.

The flu doesn't have a 70% mortality rate. The temperature taking at airports is a joke as with Duncan, he had symptoms days after he flew here. I'm very consistent in saying Ebola isn't the flu, it doesn't act like the flu and it doesn't kill like the flu. While the hot spots are small and manageable, we should stop people flying into the US from those countries temporarily - until the hot spots are under control. As I already said, the flu comparison is a red herring....
 
...until you think (which too many are not) about the differences between the healthcare infrastructure of Western Africa vis a vis that of the US. People are losing rationality about this...

You're forgetting that the first time Duncan went to the Hospital in Dallas, he was ignored by the medical staff and left.
 
And he wasn't infectious UNTIL he showed symptoms. that's how Ebola works.

Now flu - you can spread it before you know you have it. And it kills thousands a year. And many do NOT get the vaccine. And the vaccine doesn't help once you have it.

If you want to forbid anyone from flying unless they have the flu vaccine, then ok, you might be consistent.

The Flu and Ebola are 2 different animals.

There are remedies, vaccines and other treatments for the Flu. A large chance of survival.
Zero of any of those for Ebola.
 
That does not surprise me. Again, just goes to show how uneducated our populace is.
 
The Flu and Ebola are 2 different animals.

There are remedies, vaccines and other treatments for the Flu. A large chance of survival.
Zero of any of those for Ebola.

Check the death rates for flu. For whooping cough. For measles. While an individual case might not be as deadly, they kill a LOT more people than ebola ever has in this country (one, so far, for ebola)

Yes, take reasonable precautions. But no, don't panic.

And again, I'm all for financing a massive health intervention in places that have ebola cases right now. Absolutely.

But grounding all planes won't resolve the situation.

Oh, and by the way - people DO survive ebola; it doesn't kill 100% of the victims
 
Check the death rates for flu. For whooping cough. For measles. While an individual case might not be as deadly, they kill a LOT more people than ebola ever has in this country (one, so far, for ebola)

Yes, take reasonable precautions. But no, don't panic.

And again, I'm all for financing a massive health intervention in places that have ebola cases right now. Absolutely.

But grounding all planes won't resolve the situation.

Oh, and by the way - people DO survive ebola; it doesn't kill 100% of the victims

Yeah, it kills 90% and if you're "lucky" enough to survive, you're debilitated the rest of your life. I get this approach to comparing deaths from flu to ebola but it frankly disingenuous. Most have had the flu and survived with no complications except for being uncomfortable for a couple weeks, deaths from flu are generally reserved for the young, old and immune deficient. A perfectly healthy person infected with ebola will likely die. So again, a virus with a .008% mortality rate is incomparable to one with a 90% rate. Just apples and oranges.

Its becoming painfully clear that our system is not ready for this. The fact that first individual with Ebola in the US has infected a person assigned to treat them is proof positive. This should have never have happened and frankly, I hold the CDC responsible for this. They should have had their teams treating this guy, not normal hospital staff who had a brief on CDC guidelines.

And a travel ban does not mean all planes are grounded. In concerted effort, particularly with Europe, a system can be devised preventing all non-essential passenger traffic from the affected regions. This should have been implemented months ago. The longer we wait, the more difficult and ineffective it will be.
 
Wait, the existence of disease is to be blamed on progressives?


Who is currently in favor of not restricting travel from west Africa? Progressives. If travel from west Africa had been banned 3 months by progressive President Barack Obola, then there would be no cases of Ebola in the US. Now we have a nurse in Dallas who has the disease. More great progress from progressives!
 
Back
Top Bottom