The Ebola Threat

[Walsingham]

Well, we got the first transmission in the US. Thanks Obola, you degenerate cretin.

 

I had to look up 'obola'.

 

What fantasy land are you living in where the President can close off the USA from all travellers? Is it the same one where the US doesn't intervene of get involved in other countries.

 

*ding ding ding*

 

Hello in there. This is the World.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Not all travelers right now, just the ones from affected countries. That guy wanting to see his girlfriend and overstay his visa isn't a good enough reason to expose the entire country to a deadly disease.

[Bryy]

If anyone else gets it, our government will be guilty of attempted murder or actual murder. 

And here's the "it's Obama's fault".

[Walsingham]

Blocking travelers really isn't even remotely the solution. All it will do is give the illusion of safety. Ebola has to be tackled in Africa.

 

If you get a major transmission of the disease there then not only will you have ignored people dying in a horrendous fashion, but you will also have established a truly huge reservoir for infection.

 

If that reservoir gets established, then we're going to see outbreaks all the damn time.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Straw man. I'm not saying don't fight it there or don't send aid, but stop non-essential travel to outside. Banning travel would've stopped the current two incidents, any idiot should be able to see that.

 

Edit: You'll notice how it's OK for other African countries to restrict travel, including South Africa which Bruce never answered me about, but we have to be the martyrs to the world, because we're evil or something. https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&language_id=ENG

Edited October 12, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

Restricting travel from nations with Ebola outbreaks is the no-brainer thing to do. Arguing otherwise is retarded, because as WoD points out: had it been done we wouldn't have any cases in the U.S. yet.

 

Travel bans in the U.S. to and from other nations isn't anything new, and it's done for all sorts of lesser reasons (ie: infamously Cuba). It remains to be seen just how big a catastrophe or not it's going to be that we're not doing to obvious in this case.

[Valsuelm]

 

Well, we got the first transmission in the US. Thanks Obola, you degenerate cretin.

 

I had to look up 'obola'.

 

What fantasy land are you living in where the President can close off the USA from all travellers? Is it the same one where the US doesn't intervene of get involved in other countries.

 

*ding ding ding*

 

Hello in there. This is the World.

 

 

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Just two examples:

 

http://www.eturbonews.com/48315/us-travel-ban-israel-extended

http://aids.about.com/od/healthytraveling/qt/travel_ban.htm

 

Try doing a little research before you type/speak. You might post a lot less as a result, but you might actually become smarter in the process.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Walsingham]

LOL.

 

"Something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done."

 

In the grown up world you assess the value of a policy before enacting it. Have you considered the cost and disruption of applying meaningful checks on the volumes of traffic the US and UK experience?

 

You anti-government types seem to have some very odd ideas about how governments work. They can't do anything right unless they're doing the things you want them to do. Then they become all powerful.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There are about 150 people coming from the affected countries to the US per day. What cost and disruption? Just don't give them visas. Do you have any idea of the damage, probably hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to the US economy if Ebola panic spreads? Have you noticed what's been happening to the stock market lately?

[BruceVC]

Straw man. I'm not saying don't fight it there or don't send aid, but stop non-essential travel to outside. Banning travel would've stopped the current two incidents, any idiot should be able to see that.

 

Edit: You'll notice how it's OK for other African countries to restrict travel, including South Africa which Bruce never answered me about, but we have to be the martyrs to the world, because we're evil or something. https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&language_id=ENG

 

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official  but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will  be denied entry

 

But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very  different? The required steps  from the USA doing it would create much more logistical  issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Straw man. I'm not saying don't fight it there or don't send aid, but stop non-essential travel to outside. Banning travel would've stopped the current two incidents, any idiot should be able to see that.

 

Edit: You'll notice how it's OK for other African countries to restrict travel, including South Africa which Bruce never answered me about, but we have to be the martyrs to the world, because we're evil or something. https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&language_id=ENG

 

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official  but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will  be denied entry

 

But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very  different? The required steps  from the USA doing it would create much more logistical  issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments

 

So it's OK for you guys to be safe, but we don't need to be? So what if a few people get infected and die, that's assuming that an outbreak can even be contained. So far all I see is incredible hubris, and no actual logical analysis. The only way the rest of Africa is going to avoid an epidemic is to restrict travel, yet the WHO is opposed to even that.

 

Edit: Here's an analysis of how air travel increases chances of an outbreak: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/13/6959103/ebola-spread-international-epidemic-china-india-europe

 

Thankfully China and India seem safe for now, the West deserves our higher chances because we're evil.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

 

Straw man. I'm not saying don't fight it there or don't send aid, but stop non-essential travel to outside. Banning travel would've stopped the current two incidents, any idiot should be able to see that.

 

Edit: You'll notice how it's OK for other African countries to restrict travel, including South Africa which Bruce never answered me about, but we have to be the martyrs to the world, because we're evil or something. https://www.internationalsos.com/ebola/index.cfm?content_id=435&language_id=ENG

 

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official  but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will  be denied entry

 

But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very  different? The required steps  from the USA doing it would create much more logistical  issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments

 

So it's OK for you guys to be safe, but we don't need to be? So what if a few people get infected and die, that's assuming that an outbreak can even be contained. So far all I see is incredible hubris, and no actual logical analysis. The only way the rest of Africa is going to avoid an epidemic is to restrict travel, yet the WHO is opposed to even that.

 

Edit: Here's an analysis of how air travel increases chances of an outbreak: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/13/6959103/ebola-spread-international-epidemic-china-india-europe

 

Thankfully China and India seem safe for now, the West deserves our higher chances because we're evil.

 

 

I'll be honest from a South African perspective our health ministry claims that " South Africa is ready to deal with Ebola"

 

IMO this is just not true, we have good intentions but we don't really have processes in place to address this virus. For example every person who flies in from Western Africa has to complete a questionnaire and what is suppose to happen is after landing in the country you are suppose to be contacted and a follow-up around your health is suppose to happen

 

But the follow-up is not happening. And due to the 3 week incubation period I have to ask  "how do we know as South Africans that someone landing from Western Africa doesn't have the virus"

 

The reality is we don't. So our measures to prevent contagion I feel are wholly inadequate, I just hope we don't get a spread of the virus because it will show our measures as lacking

[Wrath of Dagon]

Second transmission here, and our government has been shown once again to be a bunch of lying incompetents at best.

[HoonDing]

[BruceVC]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/17/news/un-ebola-funding/index.html

 

Wow, not a very good first effort from the world. The only country that gets a pass from being ashamed is the USA which is independently committing resources to the crisis

 

I'm sure the donations will start coming in

[Walsingham]

Ebola screening at airports enacted in the UK. Cost 6 million UKP, assuming short duration.

 

Once again, for the cheap seats, you _cannot_ screen all the traffic into a modern nation.

 

But feel free to pretend that you can, and bash your politicians, and not do the actually useful job of spending money upgrading local responses. It's not as if this is a life and death issue that deserves serious thought.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I like this "all". If you can't do 100%, don't do 99% either. Having said that, screening is only marginally effective since symptoms normally take 8-10 days to develop and without symptoms Ebola can't be detected. The only real solution is a travel ban from epidemic countries.

[Namutree]

I like this "all". If you can't do 100%, don't do 99% either. Having said that, screening is only marginally effective since symptoms normally take 8-10 days to develop and without symptoms Ebola can't be detected. The only real solution is a travel ban from epidemic countries.

That's probably a good idea. At least until further notice. I'd rather we mistakenly hurt our economy a bit needlessly than find out we let ebola kill a bunch of our people needlessly. I'm not scared ebola is going to be an epidemic, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. This is assuming you are restricting people from coming to America from these countries; not telling us we can't go there.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You shouldn't be able to go there unless it's something essential, like helping to fight the epidemic, you don't have the right to bring infection back with you. People who do go there on an essential mission should be quarantined for at least 3 weeks when they come back.

[Namutree]

You shouldn't be able to go there unless it's something essential, like helping to fight the epidemic, you don't have the right to bring infection back with you. People who do go there on an essential mission should be quarantined for at least 3 weeks when they come back.

You should be allowed to go there, but it's a one way trip until further notice.

[Barothmuk]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/17/news/un-ebola-funding/index.html

 

Wow, not a very good first effort from the world. The only country that gets a pass from being ashamed is the USA which is independently committing resources to the crisis

Lol. Last I checked Cuba (a 'third world' country) has provided more aid then the U.S.

[Namutree]

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/17/news/un-ebola-funding/index.html

 

Wow, not a very good first effort from the world. The only country that gets a pass from being ashamed is the USA which is independently committing resources to the crisis

Lol. Last I checked Cuba (a 'third world' country) has provided more aid then the U.S.

 

From what I've checked the estimated cost of the aid the US is providing will be about 750,000,000 while the pledged amount of Cuban aid will be about 300,000,000. Keep in mind though that the US is extremely rich, especially when compared to Cuba. So even if the US ends up giving more; I would consider Cuba to be the more generous. 

 

EDIT: While the US is very generous compared to countries like China; Cuba seems to be putting us all to shame.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Namutree

[Lexx]

Gonna be some hysteria this Winter when influenza is back in town. Initial symptoms are the same.

Yeah, I am feeling it already too. Guess Ebola is finally in germany and I am the first!

[HoonDing]

Don't sweat it.

[BruceVC]

Good news, Nigeria has been declared Ebola free. We do loads of work in Nigeria so this is very reassuring

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020