OFO Asst Director Admits more than 150 People A Day Come to America from Ebola Stricken Countries

[aaronleland]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

 

[Rotagilla]

So, if each of those people interact with just two other people each day, why don't we have 500 million cases of ebola?

Because not all of them have Ebola.

But you want to treat them all like they do.

You can't know for sure until you quarantine them.

I have no problem with quarantining people with deadly diseases, but I'm not sure what you mean by not knowing for sure.

Its pretty straight forward logic and math. The risk is low, and the world is not going to end next Thursday...or even on a Thursday 15 years from now....at least, not from Ebola......

I'm just getting tired of the chicken little's running around with pieces of sky in their hair.

"not knowing for sure" means having an open border with no way to screen people for diseases, sanity, literacy, criminal background, no way to know who are terrorists or smugglers...just let people wander across our border however they please...

Do you have any thoughts on the "benefits" of not enforcing our border?

 

[Rotagilla]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

 

[aaronleland]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

Did I say anything about traveling with no restrictions?

 

[Rotagilla]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

Did I say anything about traveling with no restrictions?

Yes. Your very first sentence.

 

[aaronleland]

Isolating the country denies aid workers and supplies access to Ebola infected countries. Allow it to spread in West Africa, and it will make it to our borders regardless.

 

[aaronleland]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

Did I say anything about traveling with no restrictions?

Yes. Your very first sentence.

We are already screening for Ebola in select airports. Denying complete access to a country, and screening those entering a country are two different things.

 

[Rotagilla]

Isolating the country denies aid workers and supplies access to Ebola infected countries. Allow it to spread in West Africa, and it will make it to our borders regardless.

Who said doctors would be denied access? Where did you get that idea?

 

[Rotagilla]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

Did I say anything about traveling with no restrictions?

Yes. Your very first sentence.

We are already screening for Ebola in select airports. Denying complete access to a country, and screening those entering a country are two different things.

LMAO..screening at "select airports"..but the border is wide open...


Explain why having an open border and no way to screen or quarantine illegals for disease, literacy, sanity, criminal background is a good plan?
Try not to deflect or change the subject....if you possibly can...just answer that one question.

 

[aaronleland]

Isolating the country denies aid workers and supplies access to Ebola infected countries. Allow it to spread in West Africa, and it will make it to our borders regardless.

Who said doctors would be denied access? Where did you get that idea?

The only person to carry Ebola from West Africa to the US was a doctor. Do you think we provide them special flights to and from those countries? They fly the same way we do.

 

[aaronleland]

Restricting flights to and from Ebola infected countries would do more harm than good in the long run. A few people in countries like the US and Spain are likely to be infected, but fighting the disease at it's source is our best bet, and restricting travel to those countries guarantees the disease will spread.

Makes perfect sense.. ......the only way to prevent the spread of disease is to let people travel with no restrictions...Brilliant...

Did I say anything about traveling with no restrictions?

Yes. Your very first sentence.

We are already screening for Ebola in select airports. Denying complete access to a country, and screening those entering a country are two different things.

LMAO..screening at "select airports"..but the border is wide open...


Explain why having an open border and no way to screen or quarantine illegals for disease, literacy, sanity, criminal background is a good plan?
Try not to deflect or change the subject....if you possibly can...just answer that one question.

You have already changed the subject. No "illegal" has caused a problem in regards to Ebola. Nobody from our Southern or Northern borders has spread the disease. It has spread due to air travel, and those coming from West Africa are now being screened for the disease when they enter our country.

I know you feel a need to blame Obama for everything wrong in the world, but Ebola is a global problem.

 

[Kondor3]

Time to shut down non-government travel between the US and those African hot-zones, for the duration of the crisis.

That goes for banning entry by folks carrying hot-zone country passports and those taking two- and three-hop flight and shipping transits to get here, as well.

Engage charters and military transport for outbound medical and disaster-relief supplies and personnel.

Devise protocols and offshore facilities for screening those charters and military transports on the return-leg of their journeys.

Preventing 90-95% of potential carriers from entry into the US is a damned sight better than 0% - doing nothing.

To the devil with trade and commerce for the duration of the crisis - the safety of the Nation and its People are far more important.

Any economic impact or added logistical or preventative costs would be far less than we routinely spend on our ongoing large-scale military interventions.

And worth it a twice the price - or a hundred times the price.

Or so it seems, to this amateur observer.

 

[Kondor3]

...I'm just getting tired of the chicken little's running around with pieces of sky in their hair.

Conversely, those holding differing opinions are getting tired of Analysis Paralysis and us, collectively, sitting on our asses, comparatively speaking, not using our common sense, and pretending that we should meekly accept the lackluster Federal response and direction that we've seen unfolding to date, without subjecting it to a closer scrutiny and critique.