Why the fuck aren't we stopping all passengers from IBOLA infected regions?

[ChrisL]

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

Meh, I'm not buying it. Just like I said, it's not different from your home. You wouldn't take the chance of having them over for dinner, sitting next to your children.

Non-sequitur. But then, you knew that.

Not at all. I don't buy it. End of story. I'm sure you know that it's just common sense to not invite people into your country who are diseased, but you're a dumb arse, and would probably just die. We call that "culling the herd." Perhaps you should go hug an Ebola victim today. Then you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you're doing something grand.

Just because you are a coward doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be that way. Good grief.

There is a difference between coward and stupid, with people like you falling under the latter category.

 

[ChrisL]

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!

Right. So a guy got exposed, and cannot travel to the states. So what? He travels to Belgium or some country that doesn't impose the travel ban, and then catches a connecting flight to the states. His problem is solved. A travel ban is ridiculous, and will NEVER work. But hey, maybe if you wrapped yourself with cellophane, you won't catch any disease, and will save the rest of us a lot of money.

So what? It still cuts down on possible infection to restrict travel from HOT spots.

And your proof of this would be?

If you need proof, then you are even MORE stupid than I thought. You are a government lackey and nothing more, unable to think for yourself and trust or use your own common sense. Perhaps what we call an Obamabot. Yes, dear leader. Lol! Hilarious yet sad.

 

[orogenicman]

It isn't a pipe dream at all. Small pox was eradicated. The measles is all but a thing of the past. Vaccines are in the pipeline for Ebola. Fighting this disease at the source is the ONLY answer. But let's look at this idea of restricting travel. To who does it apply? France had a case. Let's stop all travel from France. Germany had a case. Shut them down. UK? Not yet. Stay tuned. Nigeria had it, but they've stopped it in its tracks. Never the less, they present a risk in your view, so they can't come either. That, of course, fucks up Chevron's American employees who work there and travel back and forth all the time (as well as many others). The simple fact is that it will never work, will never prevent someone with the disease from getting through, will not prevent someone with the disease from traveling to a country without such restriction and then traveling on to the U.S.: But it WILL kill business for Africans, for Americans, and for many others.

As of yet, there is no vaccine. And small pox was eradicated through vaccination. Also, small pox is still active in other countries who do not practice routine vaccination. And NO, it is not our responsibility to vaccinate the entire world. These countries' governments need to do it.

The only way we could mandate certain health codes in other countries would be to take over the government, so yes, your premise is quite ridiculous at best.

Erm, what? There hasn't been a smallpox infection anywhere on the planet in decades, dude. As for an Ebola vaccine:

Questions and Answers on Experimental Treatments and Vaccines for Ebola Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever CDC

As for your suggestion that we leave others to fend for themselves while we wall ourselves off to the rest of the world, well, dude, the Chinese tried that thousands of years ago. And while it makes for a great tourist attraction, it didn't actually solve anything. But hey, these silly GOP rants make me laugh out loud so by all mean let's have some more.

Well, dude, there could always be another outbreak of any disease. That is stupid, and shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Besides, there is currently NO vaccine for Ebola, and even if there was, it's not our responsibility, and we cannot afford the burden of your silly suggestions.

Diseases once thought eradicated reappear in the U.S. PBS NewsHour

The ONLY way smallpox is going to reappear is if someone gets hold of the two stocks known anywhere in the world and deliberately releases it. In the wild, it is extinct.

Absolutely not true. That is why the government still keeps a stock pile of the virus, so that if need be they can make enough of the vaccine.

Smallpox - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The last cases of smallpox in the world occurred in an outbreak of two cases (one of which was fatal) in Birmingham, UK in 1978. A medical photographer, Janet Parker, contracted the disease at the University of Birmingham Medical School and died on September 11, 1978,[78] after which Professor Henry Bedson, the scientist responsible for smallpox research at the university committed suicide.[4][79] In light of this incident, all known stocks of smallpox were destroyed or transferred to one of two WHO reference laboratories which had BSL-4 facilities; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States and the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR in Koltsovo, Russia.[80]

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

Meh, I'm not buying it. Just like I said, it's not different from your home. You wouldn't take the chance of having them over for dinner, sitting next to your children.

Non-sequitur. But then, you knew that.

Not at all. I don't buy it. End of story. I'm sure you know that it's just common sense to not invite people into your country who are diseased, but you're a dumb arse, and would probably just die. We call that "culling the herd." Perhaps you should go hug an Ebola victim today. Then you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you're doing something grand.

Just because you are a coward doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be that way. Good grief.

There is a difference between coward and stupid, with people like you falling under the latter category.

The first patient, the doctor who was treated at Emory, recovered and is going back to Africa to continue to treat the afflicted. He is decidedly NOT a coward. You want to put a plastic bag over your head and pretend the world doesn't exist. Hence, you are a coward, the very definition, actually.

 

[PredFan]

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

 

[PredFan]

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

Nothing prevents us from working to stop the disease at its source if we ban travel to the US from these countries. It is possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Importing Ebola carriers into this country is not a minor issue. For one thing, it costs $500,000 to treat each one. If Ebola became widespread it would devastate our economy. It's already having severe economic effects.

Every single nurse, doctor, or other healthcare worker who gets the disease from treating an Ebola infected patient tha Obama brought over is on him, and they should sue him and the federal government for millions and millions.

That's it? A meme? So basically you have nothing to say.

The picture says it all.

It says nothing, just like you.

 

[orogenicman]

Okay, here is how your travel ban works. We send workers there to treat Ebola patients. Now our people can't get back. Who is going to agree to go there and not come back? To say nothing of the fact that travel bans are rather easily defeated. You simply buy a plane ticket to a country that doesn't have the travel ban and then buy a ticket in that country to the states. If you think the economic effects are bad now, wait until your travel ban takes effect.

It would be a temporary travel ban from hot spots. Not permanent. Good grief!!!

Right. So a guy got exposed, and cannot travel to the states. So what? He travels to Belgium or some country that doesn't impose the travel ban, and then catches a connecting flight to the states. His problem is solved. A travel ban is ridiculous, and will NEVER work. But hey, maybe if you wrapped yourself with cellophane, you won't catch any disease, and will save the rest of us a lot of money.

So what? It still cuts down on possible infection to restrict travel from HOT spots.

And your proof of this would be?

If you need proof, then you are even MORE stupid than I thought. You are a government lackey and nothing more, unable to think for yourself and trust or use your own common sense. Perhaps what we call an Obamabot. Yes, dear leader. Lol! Hilarious yet sad.

So in other words, you don't have any proof. I knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Really? How is it wrong?

 

[Vigilante]

Government blowing money on zombie musicals rabbit massages watching grass grow TheBlaze.com

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Then I'm sure you can post a link to an actual "expert" that agrees with you, right?

Because so far, no one has.

I don't trust the "common sense" of paniced morons on the internet anymore than I trust my plumber to do brain surgery.

 

[PredFan]

If you want to prevent deadly diseases from arriving here, there is only one solution: Stop it at the source. This minor issue here has taken attention from the real issue - fighting the disease where it can actually do good, in Africa.

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

That entire article bases it's claim on two obviously bogus points:

1. That bans didn't work before
2. That bans would cause much needed supplies and aid to the countries to stop.

1. They claim that bans on HIV patient's travel did not stop it from spreading, never mind that it had spread to almost every country in the world before anyone knew what it was.

2. NO ONE is saying don't allow supplies and aid to go in. We are only asking to stop commercial flights.

It's politics, not common sense that prevents a travel ban.

 

[PredFan]

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Then I'm sure you can post a link to an actual "expert" that agrees with you, right?

Because so far, no one has.

I don't trust the "common sense" of paniced morons on the internet anymore than I trust my plumber to do brain surgery.

I AM the expert. I'm an expert because I'm trained in healthcare, microbiology, and Isolation procedure, and I have common sense.

 

[PredFan]

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Really? How is it wrong?

see the other response to the same post.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you know that's a pipe dream. The next best thing is to restrict travel. Besides, I'm quite sure that a lot of our money already goes to Africa for various causes, not to mention the money people donate through various charities. I don't things in Africa could ever be like they are here in America not matter how much money we throw at them.

Democrats think that money is the answer to everything. If they throw money at a problem, and it doesn't fix it, it must be because they didn't throw enough money at it and they need to throw more.

Correction, not just any money, someone else's money.

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

That entire article bases it's claim on two obviously bogus points:

1. That bans didn't work before
2. That bans would cause much needed supplies and aid to the countries to stop.

1. They claim that bans on HIV patient's travel did not stop it from spreading, never mind that it had spread to almost every country in the world before anyone knew what it was.

2. NO ONE is saying don't allow supplies and aid to go in. We are only asking to stop commercial flights.

It's politics, not common sense that prevents a travel ban.

1) Name one instance in modern times (or at any other time, for that matter) when a travel ban led to the eradication of a disease vector.

2) It does worse than that. It disrupts commerce and destabilizes entire regions affected by the ban.

1 (3) Erm, what ban on HIV, where?

2 (4) Not going to happen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Then I'm sure you can post a link to an actual "expert" that agrees with you, right?

Because so far, no one has.

I don't trust the "common sense" of paniced morons on the internet anymore than I trust my plumber to do brain surgery.

I AM the expert. I'm an expert because I'm trained in healthcare, microbiology, and Isolation procedure, and I have common sense.

Really?

So where did you get your PhD in epidemiology? Have you published?

Let's hear you CV, "expert".

 

[orogenicman]

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Then I'm sure you can post a link to an actual "expert" that agrees with you, right?

Because so far, no one has.

I don't trust the "common sense" of paniced morons on the internet anymore than I trust my plumber to do brain surgery.

I AM the expert. I'm an expert because I'm trained in healthcare, microbiology, and Isolation procedure, and I have common sense.

Okay, Mr. Expert. Can you cite any of the scientific findings you have published that supports your argument?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh really? How much do you think it would cost to restrict travel as opposed to vaccinating people in the countries of origin?

It quite obviously would cost much more to vaccinate people in the countries of origin. It would cost next to nothing to prevent travel to the US from those countries. We don't yet have a vaccine, you know that right?

Actually, there are several vaccines being fast tracked, and several, medications that work on the virus that are being used. But hey, as far as restricting travel goes, don't just take my word for it:

Why closing borders won t stop Ebola s rampage - health - 21 October 2014 - New Scientist

...experts are unanimous that a ban on outward air travel would be disastrous. Privately, UN officials warn that such a move could lead to a panicked rush of people across land borders, where unlike air passengers their movements cannot be traced. It could also cause further economic damage to the countries, threatening the civil order essential to fighting the disease.

I said "yet", did you miss that?

I've read that article and it is wrong, blatantly so. It's the politics and politicians that are writing it, not anyone who knows wtf they are talking about.

Then I'm sure you can post a link to an actual "expert" that agrees with you, right?

Because so far, no one has.

I don't trust the "common sense" of paniced morons on the internet anymore than I trust my plumber to do brain surgery.

I AM the expert. I'm an expert because I'm trained in healthcare, microbiology, and Isolation procedure, and I have common sense.

"Common sense" is fucking meaningless in this context, as are your college bio classes.

Find me a single published epidemiologist who agrees with you, or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[HenryBHough]

Using gun-banner logic all we need is an Executive Order requiring people register before contracting Ebola. Because Ebola kills.

 

[Vigilante]