Nope! just don't issue Visa's to anyone from West Africa. Problem solved.
The experts disagree. Your "solution" would make matters much worse.
The 'experts' seek to preserve trade and commerce and goodwill between the United States and these hot zones.
IMHO, the safety of Americans - the closure of every possible avenue by which new 'carriers' could enter the country - should trump such non-safety concerns.
The fewer carriers and potentials entering the country, the fewer possibilities for our own folks to become infected.
It's not an iron-clad solution, but blocking 90-95% of potential carriers from entering sure as hell beats not doing so.
It's a sensible solution, and to the devil with the so-called experts.
Hell, Belize and Mexico prevented a Carnival Cruise ship from docking today, because it carried one of the healthcare workers exposed to the dead Liberian.
I don't blame 'em one little bit.
If only we had the common sense and courage of those Central American decision-makers in this context, and shut down travel between the US and those African hot zones.
So no matter how many times times the experts tell you that blocking flights not only don't work but will help Ebola spread...
The 'experts' tell us that banning travel would prevent medical supplies and personnel from reaching the hot zones.
Fine.
Ban all COMMERCIAL traffic between the US and the African hot zones.
Allow government-chartered and military aircraft and shipping to carry medical supplies and personnel TO the African hot zones.
Not using regularly-scheduled flights and sailings will add a layer of cost and logistical complexity to those outbound shipments but the safety of the Nation and our People is well worth that. If we can spend hundreds of billions on War A or B, we sure-as-hell can afford to spend a few extra millions on outbound disaster-relief shipments, for the duration of the crisis.
In such a scenario, any plane or ship that lands or docks in one of those African hot zones must undergo rigorous decontamination someplace offshore (Gitmo? one of our Caribbean islands?) before they're allowed to land or dock again in the Continental US.
All crews manning those planes and ships - but not ashore long and not involved in direct hot-zone contact or medical treatment - are thoroughly tested and screened before release.
All passengers on these returning planes and ship with any appreciable boots-on-the-ground time or direct hot-zone contact or medical treatment must go into quarantine isolation for X days in the same offshore place(s) before being allowed to proceed to our shores.
Or some-such variation on the theme.
This is all practicable,, and sustainable, for the duration of the crisis, without sinking the national debt into the project.
It's simply a matter of will.
Unimaginative and myopic types see this as an all-or-nothing black-and-white solution.
We can see - in a scenario such as that described above, or some similar solution - that there is a lot of grey-area - a lot of wiggle room - to accomplish what we need to accomplish while negating the emergency-relief and disease-spreading objections that have been articulated in the media to date.
And, if this travel ban causes people to lie about where they came from, well, there are ways around that, as well, aren't there?
Like banning anyone with a hot-zone-country passport and/or citizenship and/or dual citizenship from entering the US for the duration of the crisis, including those who might have taken two or three hops, from their home countries to Europe or Asia, and then jumping a flight or boat to the US.
Anyone we catch at entry-points, who meets those criteria, gets turned around, or, if (a) they won't go or (b) they're already manifesting symptoms, we work-out ways to handle them as well - some sort of similar quarantine/isolation - it doesn't require much imagination or brain-power to conjure-up a viable scheme for such activity and outcomes.
It's simply a matter of will.
And common sense.
Such schemes are not fool-proof... but catching 90-95% of potential carriers is a damned-sight better than sitting on our asses and catching 0% of potential carriers.
Sure seems like a 'duh - we should be doing that' kind of moment to me, but, that's just little ol' non-medical amateur me.
Perhaps I'm still missing some point or another here, and I'll be happy to 'fess-up if it comes to that, but I'm just not seeing further barriers to such a plan, at present.
...Why do you want to spread the Ebola virus?
I don't.
That's why I spent a little brain-power to conjure a better way - a middle ground - than some of these so-called 'experts' are portraying - rather than playing Sheeple, and letting somebody else do all my thinking for me.
S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) do, indeed, have a place at the table - a prominent place - but they are (a) not infallible, (b) oftentimes locked into a 'canned' or pre-arranged response pattern based on nothing more than academic theory and (c) lacking in flexibility to conjure middle-ground solutions that address the concerns of others as well as themselves.
If the SME's are worried about medical supplies not getting to the hot zones, then we simply move the goal posts, and accommodate such traffic, while eliminating the main threat vector, which is the range of far-less-well-controlled commercial and private traffic not engaged in disaster relief.
Win-win.
This is common sense - not rocket science - one does not need a medical degree nor logistics certification to figure this one out.
Let's not reject all forms of travel control simply to accommodate disaster-relief logistics concerns.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, eh?
It's simply a matter of will - and modest imagination - and practicality - and common sense.
from the stupid, that guy is nothing but a stooge, his management skills reflect some of the communists best ideas and ideals. 
