• 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!

Africa stems ebola via border closings, luck

I'm not overly partisan about most issues, I'm split down the middle on many, but playing political games with something about the protection of our country from a devastating threat is ridiculous.

I'm not screaming hysteria or panic, because I'll personally try to avoid if it comes here and not live in fear, but the Administration is being way to unrealistic and nonchalant.

Our forums lefties-who are overtly partisan think you are a hysterical fear monger right now. For a perfectly logical and rational belief.
 
Our forums lefties-who are overtly partisan think you are a hysterical fear monger right now. For a perfectly logical and rational belief.

I've been hearing that and they're being blinded by arrogance. I've worked around the health field long enough to know how deadly and proliferate microbes are. Their whole purpose is to consume a host and spread. There's a reason nations don't seriously consider or research germ warfare anymore, because it's uncontrollable.
 
I've been hearing that and they're being blinded by arrogance. I've worked around the health field long enough to know how deadly and proliferate microbes are. Their whole purpose is to consume a host and spread. There's a reason nations don't seriously consider or research germ warfare anymore, because it's uncontrollable.

Thats exactly it. When it comes to medicine in general and ID in particular-if you see a cocky person making definitive statements you already know they are full of it.

Many on the left dont understand how big govt could let them down. Yet again they have been mugged by reality-but expect no insight. They never go there.
 
Its markable that when it comes to open borders and ebola that you are suddenly pro-capitalism.

Oh look. You won't even bother to try to answer my question.

Since when was I ever anti-capitalist? It's embarrassing just how weak you are as a debater. It's even worse when I point out how you can't argue and then you go ahead and prove me right.

Nobody cares about the economies of those nations-not if it means worldwide spread of the disease. We can't play with fire here-your hubris wont do.

Look kid, I already pointed out how we don't have direct flights and how other areas in the world are hubs. You simply do not understand the topic. I already pointed out how how such a ban on entry to those people is pointless because they are flying in through high density hubs. I pointed out the obvious point that preventing entry to a 6 day infected West African but letting in a 3 day infected French men is stupid. But that's what would happen under your asinine model. Block those from West Africa directly (somehow, which you cannot actually detail) but let everyone else they've come in contact with? How intelligent is that?

You simply have no understanding of this topic at all.
 
These are many of the realities of a true committment to keeping Ebola from (re-)entering the country again. Very unpleasant.

But IMO, may be necessary.

The only way to stop Ebola from coming it from planes is to bar international flights. The interconnectedness of global travel has made a specific regional ban suitable only for placating ignorant people and giving politicians something to say. It does nothing to stop the actual transfer of disease.
 
Oh look. You won't even bother to try to answer my question.

Since when was I ever anti-capitalist? It's embarrassing just how weak you are as a debater. It's even worse when I point out how you can't argue and then you go ahead and prove me right.



Look kid, I already pointed out how we don't have direct flights and how other areas in the world are hubs. You simply do not understand the topic. I already pointed out how how such a ban on entry to those people is pointless because they are flying in through high density hubs. I pointed out the obvious point that preventing entry to a 6 day infected West African but letting in a 3 day infected French men is stupid. But that's what would happen under your asinine model. Block those from West Africa directly (somehow, which you cannot actually detail) but let everyone else they've come in contact with? How intelligent is that?

You simply have no understanding of this topic at all.

As already stated, the solution need not be perfect, merely better than what we have. Hope thats not too hard for you to comprehend. This isn't about guarantees-there are no guarantees in medicine.
 
and as i said, it won't completely solve the problem. there's still no good reason to have non-quarantined passengers from a nation where Ebola is endemic traveling on commercial airlines while the disease is spreading. sick patients can be brought in under controlled conditions on military flights for treatment, and the rest can be quarantined before getting on a plane going anywhere.

That's true, but we don't have the capacity to force the global airline industry to simply bar all flights from West Africa to everywhere else. Furthermore, how does this stop people from traveling to other parts of Africa to get on a flight? You see where I'm going here right? The whole notion of travel embargos works back in the day when travel was slow. It doesn't work in a world of massive transit hubs and the ability to get almost anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

we don't let anyone from an infected region who hasn't completed a 21 day quarantine into the country on a commercial airline. if the airlines won't play ball and choose to let non-quarantined passengers fly, they pay for the passengers to be quarantined for 21 days upon landing. the problem will solve itself quite quickly under a policy like that.

How are we going to get the global airlines to do this from West Africa to the various hubs globally? Most of the airliners serving West Africa aren't US based. Most of them are African regionals to which we have zero control over. And given that so many people from West Africa have flown into hubs globally, it's already too late.
 
As already stated, the solution need not be perfect, merely better than what we have.

How does action that will only placate ignorant people and give politicians something to say do anything useful?

You can't even explain why my argument is allegedly wrong.

Hope thats not too hard for you to comprehend. This isn't about guarantees-there are no guarantees in medicine.

I'm embarrassed at your complete lack of any debate skills whatsoever. You can attempt to insult me, but we've demonstrated who actually understands this and it's not you.

You're working under the completely asinine argument that there are lots of direct flights from West Africa to the US. Can you even name a single regional hub?
 
That's true, but we don't have the capacity to force the global airline industry to simply bar all flights from West Africa to everywhere else. Furthermore, how does this stop people from traveling to other parts of Africa to get on a flight? You see where I'm going here right? The whole notion of travel embargos works back in the day when travel was slow. It doesn't work in a world of massive transit hubs and the ability to get almost anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

we can see where ever passenger is coming from, and we can require a 21 day incubation period before they enter the country.

How are we going to get the global airlines to do this from West Africa to the various hubs globally? Most of the airliners serving West Africa aren't US based. Most of them are African regionals to which we have zero control over. And given that so many people from West Africa have flown into hubs globally, it's already too late.

as i said above, we know the travel histories of everyone on an incoming flight. we tell the airlines that no one is allowed in from that region without a 21 day incubation period. if they bring them here anyway, the passenger spends 21 days quarantined at the airline's expense.
 
How does action that will only placate ignorant people and give politicians something to say do anything useful?

You can't even explain why my argument is allegedly wrong.



I'm embarrassed at your complete lack of any debate skills whatsoever. You can attempt to insult me, but we've demonstrated who actually understands this and it's not you.

You're working under the completely asinine argument that there are lots of direct flights from West Africa to the US. Can you even name a single regional hub?

The number of flights from west africa is immaterial, rather its the number of people from west africa who are able to come here during an outbreak of a viral hemorrhagic disease with an up to 90% mortality. Huff and puff away.
 
we can see where ever passenger is coming from, and we can require a 21 day incubation period before they enter the country.

So we're going to require all international passengers to undergo a 21 day incubation period in isolation? West Africans routinely fly into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we have to force a 21 day isolation period for everyone going through those hubs. Disease doesn't care where you came from.

as i said above, we know the travel histories of everyone on an incoming flight. we tell the airlines that no one is allowed in from that region without a 21 day incubation period. if they bring them here anyway, the passenger spends 21 days quarantined at the airline's expense.

But that does nothing to address the actual problem of West Africans flying into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. I don't see any point in blocking West Africans and letting everyone else they came in contact with in. I keep making the point about the West African and Frenchman for a reason.
 
The number of flights from west africa is immaterial, rather its the number of people from west africa who are able to come here during an outbreak of a viral hemorrhagic disease with an up to 90% mortality. Huff and puff away.

Tell me how blocking West Africans who are flying in from Bangkok, Dubai or Paris is somehow going to prevent the spread of disease after they've exposed millions of people in those hubs to Ebola who are then free to travel to the US.

Please, or you could do what I expect you to do: Refuse to actually make an argument and subtly engage in personal attacks.
 
So we're going to require all international passengers to undergo a 21 day incubation period in isolation? West Africans routinely fly into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we have to force a 21 day isolation period for everyone going through those hubs. Disease doesn't care where you came from.

yes. as i said before, we know the travel history of everyone who comes into the country. if they haven't had a 21 day incubation period, then they go through one here at the airline's expense.

But that does nothing to address the actual problem of West Africans flying into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. I don't see any point in blocking West Africans and letting everyone else they came in contact with in. I keep making the point about the West African and Frenchman for a reason.

just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
 
yes. as i said before, we know the travel history of everyone who comes into the country. if they haven't had a 21 day incubation period, then they go through one here at the airline's expense.

But how do you even do a 21 day period outside of isolation before they fly? Are they suppose to fly into hub, get into an isolation chamber for 21 days and then fly out? How are you suppose to measure and enforce this? This whole thing isn't even doable. What's the point in an 21 day period if they're flying out from West Africa as it is? Say someone somehow manages to stay isolated for 21 days, on the bus to the airport, they encounter someone infected coughing up blood. What now? They've got the 21 days but now they're infected. This doesn't work.

just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

But there are so many holes that render this pointless that the only thing it will do is placate ignorant people and give politicians something to say. The disruption alone in Europe will cost millions to billions and the impact upon our own health will be immaterial if that. As far as I'm concerned, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are already infected. Too many people have flown from West Africa to hubs and exposed millions of people. The only way a travel embargo will work is if we stop all international flights.

A large number of medical and travel experts are against this and have simply accepted that Ebola is going to travel around the world regardless of what we do in terms of transit restrictions.
 
So we're going to require all international passengers to undergo a 21 day incubation period in isolation? West Africans routinely fly into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we have to force a 21 day isolation period for everyone going through those hubs. Disease doesn't care where you came from.



But that does nothing to address the actual problem of West Africans flying into European, Asian and Middle Eastern hubs. I don't see any point in blocking West Africans and letting everyone else they came in contact with in. I keep making the point about the West African and Frenchman for a reason.

There exists a little book called a passport (socialists would like to see that done away with-workers unite!) and in that book we can see where people are from, and where they have been. If its an outbreak nation, they dont get to come to the US.

This is quite basic, guy.
 
There exists a little book called a passport (socialists would like to see that done away with-workers unite!) and in that book we can see where people are from, and where they have been. If its an outbreak nation, they dont get to come to the US.

Again you keep failing to address the hub problem. You are once again operating under the asinine notion that there are lots of direct flights from West Africa to the US (last I checked, there are a grand total of zero). Look, your condescending attitude when you have demonstrated sheer, unending ignorance doesn't help you. It just makes me look at you in an even worse light.

You've cowardly run multiple times from explaining how your system stops people are infected in a hub not from West Africa from entering the Us. Furthermore, you're proposing a complete embargo on travel including people who aren't infected purely because their passport is from a country suffering from the disease. Pray tell, why should we ban someone from the Congo who's been working in South Africa who flew to Dubai and is on a connecting flight to LA from entering the country? Furthermore, your proposal allows everyone who's been in contact with an infected person who doesn't have a passport from that area or stamp to fly into the US. Can you even explain how a regional flight hub works?

This is quite basic, guy.

Only if you have zero understanding of the world's global travel system. Which you apparently do.

You cannot discuss a SINGLE actual detail here. Why is that?
 
Again you keep failing to address the hub problem. You are once again operating under the asinine notion that there are lots of direct flights from West Africa to the US (last I checked, there are a grand total of zero). Look, your condescending attitude when you have demonstrated sheer, unending ignorance doesn't help you. It just makes me look at you in an even worse light.

You've cowardly run multiple times from explaining how your system stops people are infected in a hub not from West Africa from entering the Us. Furthermore, you're proposing a complete embargo on travel including people who aren't infected purely because their passport is from a country suffering from the disease. Pray tell, why should we ban someone from the Congo who's been working in South Africa who flew to Dubai and is on a connecting flight to LA from entering the country? Furthermore, your proposal allows everyone who's been in contact with an infected person who doesn't have a passport from that area or stamp to fly into the US. Can you even explain how a regional flight hub works?



Only if you have zero understanding of the world's global travel system. Which you apparently do.

You cannot discuss a SINGLE actual detail here. Why is that?

I dont know how this could be made any more clear. The number of hubs does not matter. The number of SICK or EXPOSED who can get here does. We KNOW where people coming here are coming from (save the illegal border hoppers) and if its from anywhere recently experiencing an outbreak they dont get to come in.

This is not complicated, stop saying hub. :doh
 
But how do you even do a 21 day period outside of isolation before they fly? Are they suppose to fly into hub, get into an isolation chamber for 21 days and then fly out? How are you suppose to measure and enforce this? This whole thing isn't even doable. What's the point in an 21 day period if they're flying out from West Africa as it is? Say someone somehow manages to stay isolated for 21 days, on the bus to the airport, they encounter someone infected coughing up blood. What now? They've got the 21 days but now they're infected. This doesn't work.

But there are so many holes that render this pointless that the only thing it will do is placate ignorant people and give politicians something to say. The disruption alone in Europe will cost millions to billions and the impact upon our own health will be immaterial if that. As far as I'm concerned, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are already infected. Too many people have flown from West Africa to hubs and exposed millions of people. The only way a travel embargo will work is if we stop all international flights.

1. has the commercial airline passenger been in areas of West Africa where Ebola is prevalent?

2. can the passenger demonstrate that he or she has undergone a 21 day quarantine?

if yes / yes, the passenger enters the country

if yes / no, the passenger is quarantined at the airline's expense.

A large number of medical and travel experts are against this and have simply accepted that Ebola is going to travel around the world regardless of what we do in terms of transit restrictions.

ok. what is the advantage of doing nothing?
 
1. has the commercial airline passenger been in areas of West Africa where Ebola is prevalent?

2. can the passenger demonstrate that he or she has undergone a 21 day quarantine?

if yes / yes, the passenger enters the country

if yes / no, the passenger is quarantined at the airline's expense.

How do you prove 21 day quarantine? How do we prove effective quarantine from home to airport? Most of these people are using public transportation. There are simply too many gaps here. Plus, this does nothing to stop the hub problem. And what if you're changing carriers in the hub? People are going to get stranded in the hubs when their carrier to the US blocks them from flying which only makes things worse as you now are exposing huge numbers of otherwise off the radar people to the disease. This is actually worse than what we had before as a potential long term exposure to the disease is now occurring rather than transient exposure.

ok. what is the advantage of doing nothing?

Use the money we'd waste on this to actually fight the disease. Not put people into a sense of false security that a system that won't do anything is effective. Not strand infected people in hubs that millions of people use daily in long term positions causing even greater exposure.
 
I dont know how this could be made any more clear. The number of hubs does not matter. The number of SICK or EXPOSED who can get here does. We KNOW where people coming here are coming from (save the illegal border hoppers) and if its from anywhere recently experiencing an outbreak they dont get to come in.

This is not complicated, stop saying hub. :doh

Jesus. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Hubs are vastly important because we cannot control the flights between them. You are again operating from asinine ignorant positions. No, US carriers do not operate any material amount of flights from West Africa to ME/Asian/European hubs. Therefore we cannot force them stop flying. Therefore, we cannot stop the spread of West Africans from West Africa via plane to regional hubs that serve millions of people. Therefore hubs are exceptionally important. You again do not understand and it's getting absurdly annoying how you keep pretending you have clue about this topic.

You claim that the number of sick and exposed is important at the same time saying hubs don't matter, which 100% proves you are completely ignorant. If you actually understood this topic (which you do not), you'd realize that the method of transit relies on hubs and as long as these hubs are being served by carriers flying people from West Africa everyone who travels through that hub is potentially exposed. That's why hubs matter. Again, you asinine argument is reliant upon the asinine belief that West Africans are flying to America directly.

Say someone does this, flies from West Africa to Bangkok on a one way flight. They've also booked another flight to LA. They get stopped from boarding the LA flight. Now they are stuck in the Bangkok hub which is the the regional hub. Now you've just put a potential long term infected person in an area where huge numbers of people travel daily. Rather than just expose a relative few to transient exposure, you've now put a long term exposure problem in one of the world's busiest airports. Good job, you've now made the problem worse.

This is complicated and you do not understand any of it. It's obvious you don't understand the first thing about global air travel.
 
Last edited:
How do you prove 21 day quarantine? How do we prove effective quarantine from home to airport? Most of these people are using public transportation. There are simply too many gaps here. Plus, this does nothing to stop the hub problem. And what if you're changing carriers in the hub? People are going to get stranded in the hubs when their carrier to the US blocks them from flying which only makes things worse as you now are exposing huge numbers of otherwise off the radar people to the disease. This is actually worse than what we had before as a potential long term exposure to the disease is now occurring rather than transient exposure.

as i've already explained to you (and will not explain again,) we know the full travel history of everyone entering the country. if the airline cannot prove that the passenger has been quarantined, the airline pays for quarantine at the point of entry. once it affects their bottom line, the airlines will find a way. for others coming here seeking treatment, we can utilize military flights.

Use the money we'd waste on this to actually fight the disease. Not put people into a sense of false security that a system that won't do anything is effective. Not strand infected people in hubs that millions of people use daily in long term positions causing even greater exposure.

this is not a good reason to let potentially sick people into the country on commercial flights. every time one of them comes in, we spend tens of thousands of dollars tracking down everyone that they may have come in contact with.
 
as i've already explained to you (and will not explain again,) we know the full travel history of everyone entering the country. if the airline cannot prove that the passenger has been quarantined, the airline pays for quarantine at the point of entry. once it affects their bottom line, the airlines will find a way. for others coming here seeking treatment, we can utilize military flights.

But the quarantine itself is unenforceable for reasons I've stated. That's the whole lynchpin. Furthermore, how are you suppose to enforce penalties on carriers that do not service American cities? An African airliner flying to Paris and has zero US operations is beyond our control. They could easily send an infected person (in fact they have) to a connecting flight serviced by an airliner we can lean on. That airliner then prohibits them from flying...resulting in a long term exposure to Ebola in the Paris International Airport. That's substantially worse of a situation as now you have people who would otherwise be safe now exposed to a long term source. This is why I keep coming back to saying if we were honest, we'd block all international flights. Blocking them just from getting on flights to America because they're from West Africa doesn't solve the problem, it only boosts exposure in areas we trap them in and now we have to start worrying about basically every European, large parts of Asia and the Middle East. Rather than just a small regional part of Africa, we now have serious exposure problems globally and it's because of our no fly policy. I don't see how this is actually better than what we have now which is at most transient exposure to small numbers of people. A short term exposure in a hub is way better than a long term exposure in a hub.

this is not a good reason to let potentially sick people into the country on commercial flights. every time one of them comes in, we spend tens of thousands of dollars tracking down everyone that they may have come in contact with.

True, but imagine the costs when we now have to take care of infected Thais, French, and Saudis who are flying through hubs and get exposed. The sheer costs of exposing millions of people to infected people stuck in hubs is going to make what we pay now look like change in the sofa.
 
Jesus. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Hubs are vastly important because we cannot control the flights between them. You are again operating from asinine ignorant positions. No, US carriers do not operate any material amount of flights from West Africa to ME/Asian/European hubs. Therefore we cannot force them stop flying. Therefore, we cannot stop the spread of West Africans from West Africa via plane to regional hubs that serve millions of people. Therefore hubs are exceptionally important. You again do not understand and it's getting absurdly annoying how you keep pretending you have clue about this topic.

You claim that the number of sick and exposed is important at the same time saying hubs don't matter, which 100% proves you are completely ignorant. If you actually understood this topic (which you do not), you'd realize that the method of transit relies on hubs and as long as these hubs are being served by carriers flying people from West Africa everyone who travels through that hub is potentially exposed. That's why hubs matter. Again, you asinine argument is reliant upon the asinine belief that West Africans are flying to America directly.

Say someone does this, flies from West Africa to Bangkok on a one way flight. They've also booked another flight to LA. They get stopped from boarding the LA flight. Now they are stuck in the Bangkok hub which is the the regional hub. Now you've just put a potential long term infected person in an area where huge numbers of people travel daily. Rather than just expose a relative few to transient exposure, you've now put a long term exposure problem in one of the world's busiest airports. Good job, you've now made the problem worse.

This is complicated and you do not understand any of it. It's obvious you don't understand the first thing about global air travel.

Hubs :)doh) in other nations are beyond our control. We can only impact who comes here, not what they do elsewhere. And if people from outbreak nations want to come here, we get to determine what hoops they have to jump through.

It is reasonable during an outbreak of a viral hemorrhagic disease outbreak to be even more critical of who enters.

We are done here.
 
But the quarantine itself is unenforceable for reasons I've stated. That's the whole lynchpin. Furthermore, how are you suppose to enforce penalties on carriers that do not service American cities? An African airliner flying to Paris and has zero US operations is beyond our control. They could easily send an infected person (in fact they have) to a connecting flight serviced by an airliner we can lean on. That airliner then prohibits them from flying...resulting in a long term exposure to Ebola in the Paris International Airport. That's substantially worse of a situation as now you have people who would otherwise be safe now exposed to a long term source. This is why I keep coming back to saying if we were honest, we'd block all international flights. Blocking them just from getting on flights to America because they're from West Africa doesn't solve the problem, it only boosts exposure in areas we trap them in and now we have to start worrying about basically every European, large parts of Asia and the Middle East. Rather than just a small regional part of Africa, we now have serious exposure problems globally and it's because of our no fly policy. I don't see how this is actually better than what we have now which is at most transient exposure to small numbers of people. A short term exposure in a hub is way better than a long term exposure in a hub.

i've already explained how this would work. refer to my previous post.

True, but imagine the costs when we now have to take care of infected Thais, French, and Saudis who are flying through hubs and get exposed. The sheer costs of exposing millions of people to infected people stuck in hubs is going to make what we pay now look like change in the sofa.

imagine the cost of doing nothing, and then quarantining everyone who came in contact with a sick commercial passenger from West Africa.
 
Hubs :)doh) in other nations are beyond our control.

Uh Duh. Only now you are getting it? At least you are finally understanding that the problem isn't direct flights, which don't actually exist despite your reliance on that argument for many posts.

The fact that the hubs are beyond our control is why it won't work. I've been saying that for a while now.

We can only impact who comes here, not what they do elsewhere. And if people from outbreak nations want to come here, we get to determine what hoops they have to jump through.

It is reasonable during an outbreak of a viral hemorrhagic disease outbreak to be even more critical of who enters.

We are done here.

We were done here a long time ago simply because you refused to learn anything about this topic.

You still don't get how your proposal turns formerly safe European/Asian/Middle Eastern travelers into serious Ebola risks. Your whole plan actually increases the exposure of people flying into the US rather than decreases it. It is reasonable to extend more scrutiny, but the methods you propose only make the problem worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom