Posted on 10/14/2014 7:54:51 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Even before Thomas Eric Duncan, who was being treated in Dallas for Ebola, died on Wednesday and a nurse who was treating him contracted this terrible disease, Republicans were vying with each other to shame the Obama administration into implementing a travel ban against Ebola-affected countries. That wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion if it could stop the spread of the disease. But the fact of the matter is that it will do the opposite.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
(BTW, there's some absurd argument, "How do we know where they flew here from?" PASSPORTS anyone? Aren't those required to travel? Yes.)
2. Would block aid. Flights going to the hot zone nations wouldn't be stopped. Those providing aid and returning can do what we do here with monkeys, birds, and every other animal entering the U.S. from these nations as per the CDC guidelines: Be quarantined until it can be determined they are disease free.
Stop people from travelling to America with Ebola.
Now.
We need to start working with the Belgians to put a stop to easy travel from any and all affected countries.
“But the fact of the matter is that it will do the opposite.”
That is beyond stupid. Say it cuts back 80% of the people who will get into this country from Africa that is a whole lot better than 100% getting in. Just a ridiculous argument from this clown.
Exactly. Reason, indeed!
Look at 1:54 into this forum for an informed discussion on the global spread:
http://www.jhsph.edu/events/2014/ebola-forum/webcast.html
The title of the article tells the intent of the piece. All Republican ideas are dumb, only Obama is correct. What baloney. Stopping flights from the infected areas and setting up centralized treatment centers THERE is the only reasonable answer.
People have to provide identification to board. When they present a passport from a country that is banned, they are simply denied access to the aircraft.
How hard is that?
...... Apparently .... the obvious, logical, and most sensible answer is the latter ....
.... Oh ... and by the way ..... It's all your fault.
.... The End.
..... Oh ... and after you return from the links please send out some other operatives to manufacture the next serious crisis ...... Because there is a lot of blaming for the Democrats to do before the next few elections.
“But even if it were possible to impose a blanket travel ban, it wouldn’t be advisable, because it would undermine the world’s ability to fight the spread of the disease in the source countries, ultimately leaving everyone far more vulnerable.” this sentence make no sense. when you quarantine the countries you control who goes in and out and you help solve the problem you only ban commercial flights and i think in the true libertarian structure each airline should be able to cancel it’s flights and let the free market decide. what a drivel propagandist leftist rag that magazine has become.
i subscribed to reason mag for years and have been quoted in the mag about electricity deregulation. i think the name has been replace to just another pot head libertarian junk mag. i hope virginia postrel is no longer the editor.
Send all African visa holders to liberal cities. Let’s see just how long they are “tolerant”.
The Reason??????? Look at the comments....unbelievable, I can not even imagine the lack of brain cells it takes to defend not quarantining a level 4 pathogen but actively pursuing a propaganda line that is putting the world at risk.
Obama can't admit that borders serve any purpose. If he does, we'll be on the slippery slope to closing our southern border, and then there goes the Senate.
That's the game.
They want Americans to ‘feel the pain’ so that the DOD budget can go to nation build in Africa rather than fight ISIS.
There are no direct flights from the 3 countries in question to the USA.
If you stop the flights people will travel by ground to another country but if they are infected they are probably going to die before they can get to the USA.
Flying out of those countries should be stopped because slowing the spread at all is worthwhile. The countries may have to be quarantined eventually.
None of this has to stop medical flights from coming in, that argument is a red herring. Protocols can be set up so that there is no contact between an incoming/leaving flight’s personnel and those on the ground.
By the way, the good news is...Ebola isn’t airborne. The bad news is, neither is the flu or the common cold, yet a lot of people catch those every year.
The only way to beat Ebola is CONTAINMENT, containment means nobody leaves the hot zone(s). There is no vaccine and there is no cure. As soon as Ebola gets to the slums of Mexico City it is all over for the USA.
Only an idiot or someone determined to do serious harm would not want to conatian a deadly disease in the smallest geographic area possible.
contain
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.