• 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

azgreg said:
I was just trying to get a clarification on your stance. Stopping flights from Ebola originating countries would be counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Decreasing chances of spread of the disease is not counterproductive. Most of the lives saved in infectious disease are from prevention and proper isolation-not political correctness.
 
azgreg said:
As it stands now we know who is coming from Ebola infested countries and can take action for it. If we stop flights from those countries then people in those countries who want to come here will just use a different route. Then we won't know who is coming from those countries. The only way to stop people from coming here from those countries is stop all inbound flights.
Click to expand...

By this flawed logic we should allow isis flights and keep our front doors open-you know-so we can "know who is coming". :roll:
 
US Conservative said:
Seems like africa understands that closing borders contains the disease, why doesn't Obama and the CDC?
Click to expand...

Given what's going on with ebola in Africa, it seems that their strategy isn't working
 
azgreg said:
That's not what is being discussed in Washington. Many people are asking for flights from Ebola infested countries to be stopped. It's my thinking that if you want to go this route it would only be effective if you block all flights no matter what the origin. If you want to go the "flag passports" route I guess you could do that, but I'm not sure that all airports are equipped with the technology to do that.
Click to expand...

Again, the solution need not be perfect-its merely needs to be good enough. Open flights from places where people merely report fevers, especially with our demonstrably failed "screening" up to this point would merely be a portal of entry for this disease, purposefully, or more likely on accident. You dont tempt fate when you dont have to.
 
shrubnose said:
You're one the people who takes Herman Wouk's quote: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." seriously, eh?
Click to expand...

This implies Im apprehensive or evasive, or simply disingenuous. Not at all true. I work with infectious patients daily, and this is essentially like opening the doors of an isolation ward and expecting everything to turn up roses.

When it comes to the health and welfare of millions, thats just not good enough.
 
Helix said:
i see no upside to letting non-quarantined travelers from West Africa into the US on commercial flights.
Click to expand...

We'd make a giant mess in terms of holding them. Either we'd deny them access into the US or deny them access at the European/Asian/Middle Eastern hub. That's going to cause nightmares for the airlines. Furthermore, it doesn't do a thing to stop the spread of disease elsewhere to groups we aren't barring. Like I said, what's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected? This doesn't solve anything other than making some people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.

we wouldn't hold them. they would be quarantined before getting on a plane in West Africa in the first place.
Click to expand...

And how are you going to get the West African governments to do that?
 
obvious Child said:
We'd make a giant mess in terms of holding them. Either we'd deny them access into the US or deny them access at the European/Asian/Middle Eastern hub. That's going to cause nightmares for the airlines. Furthermore, it doesn't do a thing to stop the spread of disease elsewhere to groups we aren't barring. Like I said, what's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected? This doesn't solve anything other than making some people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.



And how are you going to get the West African governments to do that?
Click to expand...
You appear more concerned with the poor airlines than you do about the ebola outbreak.
 
US Conservative said:
You appear more concerned with the poor airlines than you do about the ebola outbreak.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't see how causing economic damage for no medical changes is intelligent.

I do not believe that placating the ignorant and giving politicians things to say that are economically damaging is intelligent when the actual medical benefit doesn't exist.

Maybe you can answer the question Helix is avoiding?

What's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected?

Don't think badly of me if I think you can't do it.

It's obvious to me that you are working under the truly asinine assumption that there are direct flights between West Africa and the US daily in large numbers. And that we could somehow block them from getting on planes in West Africa. When in reality, few are flying at all and even fewer are flying direct. Most of them are flying into regional European, Asian or Middle Eastern hubs who are we are not proposing to block. Which renders the whole thing insane as if we were honest about an actual disease embargo, we'd stop that ENTIRE plane's passenger list from entering the US. Anywhere someone who's from West Africa has to be on the embargo list or otherwise, it's just pointless.

Infected person flies from Liberia to Marseille. Infects a French woman sharing a cab. She then goes home and shares a meal with her sister who's scheduled to fly to the US catches a plane to Paris and then to the US.

How has blocking West African flights to the US stopped the disease? I suspect you won't even ATTEMPT to answer that. The logistical problems are why people who understand this issue and international travel realize it's pointless. You do not hence why you are a big proponent of something you do not understand.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
No, I just don't see how causing economic damage for no medical changes is intelligent.

I do not believe that placating the ignorant and giving politicians things to say that are economically damaging is intelligent when the actual medical benefit doesn't exist.

Maybe you can answer the question Helix is avoiding?

What's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected?

Don't think badly of me if I think you can't do it.

It's obvious to me that you are working under the truly asinine assumption that there are direct flights between West Africa and the US daily in large numbers. And that we could somehow block them from getting on planes in West Africa. When in reality, few are flying at all and even fewer are flying direct. Most of them are flying into regional European, Asian or Middle Eastern hubs who are we are not proposing to block. Which renders the whole thing insane as if we were honest about an actual disease embargo, we'd stop that ENTIRE plane's passenger list from entering the US. Anywhere someone who's from West Africa has to be on the embargo list or otherwise, it's just pointless.

Infected person flies from Liberia to Marseille. Infects a French woman sharing a cab. She then goes home and shares a meal with her sister who's scheduled to fly to the US catches a plane to Paris and then to the US.

How has blocking West African flights to the US stopped the disease? I suspect you won't even ATTEMPT to answer that. The logistical problems are why people who understand this issue and international travel realize it's pointless. You do not hence why you are a big proponent of something you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Its markable that when it comes to open borders and ebola that you are suddenly pro-capitalism.

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.
 
obvious Child said:
We'd make a giant mess in terms of holding them. Either we'd deny them access into the US or deny them access at the European/Asian/Middle Eastern hub. That's going to cause nightmares for the airlines. Furthermore, it doesn't do a thing to stop the spread of disease elsewhere to groups we aren't barring. Like I said, what's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected? This doesn't solve anything other than making some people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.

And how are you going to get the West African governments to do that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
obvious Child said:
We'd make a giant mess in terms of holding them. Either we'd deny them access into the US or deny them access at the European/Asian/Middle Eastern hub. That's going to cause nightmares for the airlines. Furthermore, it doesn't do a thing to stop the spread of disease elsewhere to groups we aren't barring. Like I said, what's the difference between blocking entry to a 6 days infected from West Africa but letting in a Frenchmen who's 3 days infected? This doesn't solve anything other than making some people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.
Click to expand...

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.

obvious Child said:
And how are you going to get the West African governments to do that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
US Conservative said:
This implies Im apprehensive or evasive, or simply disingenuous. Not at all true. I work with infectious patients daily, and this is essentially like opening the doors of an isolation ward and expecting everything to turn up roses.

When it comes to the health and welfare of millions, thats just not good enough.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Anyone who thinks that massive, hysterical, over-reaction is the solution to this or any other problem is a mighty poor manager.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who thinks that massive, hysterical, over-reaction is the solution to this or any other problem is a mighty poor manager.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can overreact to something as potentially devastating as a killer epidemic, at least in preparation and containment. Once it's full blown, then panicking does no good.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone who thinks that massive, hysterical, over-reaction is the solution to this or any other problem is a mighty poor manager.
Click to expand...

Look at the mentality in Liberia. Note the date of this documentary. Note where the vast majority of deaths have been. Note that its been estimated only a small fraction of cases have been reported. Note that the nations in who have prevented outbreak did it in large part by closing the borders.

This is where we act, you can opine from europe, pal.

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
555px-2014_ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.svg.png

436px-Diseased_Ebola_2014.png
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I don't think you can overreact to something as potentially devastating as a killer epidemic, at least in preparation and containment. Once it's full blown, then panicking does no good.
Click to expand...

It's not even a 'full blown' epidemic in those West African countries. It's not in the cities.

If you avoid those villages and, outside those areas, touching and intimate contact with strangers, you are very unlikely to get it.
 
Lursa said:
It's not even a 'full blown' epidemic in those West African countries. It's not in the cities.

If you avoid those villages and, outside those areas, touching and intimate contact with strangers, you are very unlikely to get it.
Click to expand...


West Africa could face up to 10,000 new Ebola cases a week within two months, the World Health Organization warned Tuesday, adding that the death rate in the current outbreak has risen to 70 percent.

WHO assistant director-general Dr. Bruce Aylward gave the grim figures during a news conference in Geneva. Previously, the agency had estimated the Ebola mortality rate at around 50 percent overall. In contrast, in events such as flu pandemics, the death rate is typically under 2 percent.

Acknowledging that Ebola was "a high mortality disease," Aylward said the U.N. health agency was still focused on trying to get sick people isolated and provide treatment as early as possible.

He told reporters if the world's response to the Ebola crisis isn't stepped up within 60 days, "a lot more people will die" and health workers will be stretched even further. Experts say the epidemic is doubling in size about every three weeks.
WHO: 10,000 New Ebola Cases Per Week Could Be Seen - ABC News
Click to expand...


How bad do you want it to be, before it's gets full blown containment efforts?
 
Lursa said:
It's not even a 'full blown' epidemic in those West African countries. It's not in the cities.

If you avoid those villages and, outside those areas, touching and intimate contact with strangers, you are very unlikely to get it.
Click to expand...

Look at how fast the cases are rising-its exponential.
1200px-West_Africa_Ebola_2014_cum_case_by_country_lin.png

436px-Diseased_Ebola_2014.png

The latest mortality rate I read today was 71%, and its estimated only 1/4 of cases have been reported.

Look at the number of isolation beds in these countries...
Current bed capacity in countries with active cases as at 12 Oct 2014.[157]
Countries Existing beds Planned beds Percentage of existing/Planned beds
Guinea 160 260 50%
Liberia 620 2,930 21%
Sierra Leone 346 1,198 29%
Total 1,126 4,418 25%
Click to expand...

The economic effects have already been detrimental...
Economic effects
In addition to the loss of life, the outbreak is having a number of significant economic impacts.

Markets and shops are closing, due to travel restrictions, cordon sanitaire, or fear of human contact, leading to loss of income for producers and traders.[239]
Movement of people away from affected areas has disturbed agricultural activities.[240][241] The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that the outbreak could endanger harvest and food security in West Africa.[242]
Tourism is directly impacted in affected countries.[243] Other countries in Africa which are not directly affected by the virus have also reported adverse effects on tourism.[244]
Many airlines have suspended flights to the area.[245]
Foreign mining companies have withdrawn non-essential personnel, deferred new investment, and cut back operations.[241][246][247]
The outbreak is straining the finances of governments, with Sierra Leone using Treasury bills to fund the fight against the virus.[248]
The IMF is considering expanding assistance to Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia as their national deficits are ballooning and their economies contract sharply.[249]
On 8 October, the World Bank issued a report which estimated overall economic impacts of between $3.8 billion and $32.6 billion, depending on the extent of the outbreak and the speed with which it can be contained. The economic impact would be felt most severely in the 3 affected countries, but with wider impact felt across the broader West African region.[250][251]
Click to expand...

As you can see the economies of these nations is already kaput.
Now, many in these regions STILL believe that Ebola is a myth, and they continue to eat bush mean and literally "massage" the stomach contents and bowels out of the dead, and bathe in the same water. They dont believe its a problem, some there think its a scam to get money because the govt's there have run the countries into the ground with little to show from massive spending from foreign aid.

Worst of all, the estimates say that within 3 months, there could be several million dead from this disease-they can't handle the load now.

Now, knowing this, knowing how the locals think-knowing that we have already seen this disease spread to our nation-KNOWING where this outbreak is heading, how can you be against the SAME successful iso precautions (closing borders to people from outbreak nations) that have been used in Africa being used here? Why would you want to take that chance when you dont have to?

Thats what I'd like to know.

And again-Im not saying we shouldnt help, we should. But we need to protect ourselves as well.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I don't think you can overreact to something as potentially devastating as a killer epidemic, at least in preparation and containment.
Click to expand...
Once it's full blown, then panicking does no good.
Click to expand...



Anyone can over-react to anything. it happens all of the time.

It's not effective and it doesn't get the job done.
 
shrubnose said:
Anyone can over-react to anything. it happens all of the time.

It's not effective and it doesn't get the job done.
Click to expand...


If the powers that be aren't addressing a serious situation with enough effort or detail, we're the ones that are going to pay for it. By pressuring them into responding with appropriate measures, might be the difference between containment and serious outbreak. I'm telling you, once a disease this infectious and deadly gets moving in a country as dense and heavily traveled as ours population wise, it'll be an unstoppable mess. Yes, there's such a thing as overreacting to even a potential pandemic, but I haven't seen it yet, except in Media coverage. Which they do on everything, and usually on non important things.
 
grip said:
How bad do you want it to be, before it's gets full blown containment efforts?
Click to expand...

I didnt say it wasnt serious, I said it wasnt a full-blown epidemic, implying as you had, that it would take over all America (or 75%).

The drama is reaching epic proportions!
 
Lursa said:
I didnt say it wasnt serious, I said it wasnt a full-blown epidemic, implying as you had, that it would take over all America (or 75%).

The drama is reaching epic proportions!
Click to expand...


This is what the head of Red Cross and chief of the U.N.'s Ebola mission said...


"In a globalized world it is an illusion to think that such a disease can be contained locally," he continued. "Every local collapse of a system like we see now in Liberia includes the threat of a global health catastrophe. That’s what we risk.“

His comments echo those of Anthony Banbury, chief of the U.N.'s Ebola mission, who this week warned that if the global community does not step up its efforts to stop Ebola by Dec. 1, the world will "face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we don't have a plan."

“Ebola got a head start on us,” Banbury told the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday. “It is far ahead of us, it is running faster than us, and it is winning the race."

Red Cross president: 'The Ebola crisis will grow'
 
grip said:
This is what the head of Red Cross and chief of the U.N.'s Ebola mission said...


"In a globalized world it is an illusion to think that such a disease can be contained locally," he continued. "Every local collapse of a system like we see now in Liberia includes the threat of a global health catastrophe. That’s what we risk.“

His comments echo those of Anthony Banbury, chief of the U.N.'s Ebola mission, who this week warned that if the global community does not step up its efforts to stop Ebola by Dec. 1, the world will "face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we don't have a plan."

“Ebola got a head start on us,” Banbury told the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday. “It is far ahead of us, it is running faster than us, and it is winning the race."

Red Cross president: 'The Ebola crisis will grow'
Click to expand...

Its interesting that those who know seem quite concerned.
 
US Conservative said:
Its interesting that those who know seem quite concerned.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom