Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Can you please explain what you learned from your research? I don't understand why we can't have the military fly in these supplies, or have the govt pay for the commercial flights to do this but NOT take tourists and business people.

Read this article, for example: http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-ebola-air-travel-20141016-story.html#page=1

This article does NOT adequately address why military planes and/or commercial flights dedicated solely to supplies, aid, and aid workers would be an inadequate substitute for the current situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Um, how about dedicating a few for this purpose?

Why can't the military fly those supplies in?

+ 1000

+ another 1000. Commercial airplanes are never the only way to fly. They might be the most economical way to do it but I don't think we should be most worried about finances right now. I'd hate to see organizations like MSF and Samaritan's Purse take a hit right now because of having to use private aircraft, but it's been than the death toll exploding because people are vomiting all over commercial airplanes.

Hell, the military can drop supplies from altitude.

Please provide even one example of a person with Ebola vomiting all over a commercial airplane.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Can you please explain what you learned from your research? I don't understand why we can't have the military fly in these supplies, or have the govt pay for the commercial flights to do this but NOT take tourists and business people.

I'm not the poster you are asking but I've done some work in West Africa and have some experience with what sort of goods are on commercial planes (I once returned with 40 kilos of cashews). Large companies can afford charter planes or shipping containers, but small businesses often rely on using commercial airliners for transport. Without passengers, the commercial flight wouldn't be going. If the US military began running such flights, it would be entering the commercial shipping market or, potentially, providing free air freight for those businesses. The same is true if the US government paid for the commercial flights. That's just one aspect and there are many more ramifications of flight restrictions.

I understand that it would be difficult, complicated, and have painful ramifications in people's lives and in the economy.

However, the situation in Dallas has also had painful ramifications and has negatively affected people's lives and the economy. Look at what has happened in Wall Street, in the travel industry, and to dozens if not more workers and travelers who now have to self monitor, be quarantined, or fear passing on this illness to their families.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Can you please explain what you learned from your research? I don't understand why we can't have the military fly in these supplies, or have the govt pay for the commercial flights to do this but NOT take tourists and business people.

I'm not the poster you are asking but I've done some work in West Africa and have some experience with what sort of goods are on commercial planes (I once returned with 40 kilos of cashews). Large companies can afford charter planes or shipping containers, but small businesses often rely on using commercial airliners for transport. Without passengers, the commercial flight wouldn't be going. If the US military began running such flights, it would be entering the commercial shipping market or, potentially, providing free air freight for those businesses. The same is true if the US government paid for the commercial flights. That's just one aspect and there are many more ramifications of flight restrictions.

I understand that it would be difficult, complicated, and have painful ramifications in people's lives and in the economy.

However, the situation in Dallas has also had painful ramifications and has negatively affected people's lives and the economy. Look at what has happened in Wall Street, in the travel industry, and to dozens if not more workers and travelers who now have to self monitor, be quarantined, or fear passing on this illness to their families.

Yes, the situation in Dallas was mishandled. But, based on current information, it has still be contained. Hopefully, we've learned from that experience and we won't need lots of drastic and damaging measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Um, how about dedicating a few for this purpose?

Why can't the military fly those supplies in?

+ 1000

+ another 1000. Commercial airplanes are never the only way to fly. They might be the most economical way to do it but I don't think we should be most worried about finances right now. I'd hate to see organizations like MSF and Samaritan's Purse take a hit right now because of having to use private aircraft, but it's been than the death toll exploding because people are vomiting all over commercial airplanes.

Hell, the military can drop supplies from altitude.

Please provide even one example of a person with Ebola vomiting all over a commercial airplane.

It's called a theoretical possibility. Cutting off commercial flights, taking a financial hit from using private planes is still better than someone spreading it on a commercial flight. But by all means, keep dealing with this in a reactive manner.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was all-for travel restrictions until I actually looked into it. Commercial airliners are the only real way to get equipment, supplies and medical personnel into the affected countries to stop this thing. Until it's stopped at the source, we are going to keep having incidents here.

Can you please explain what you learned from your research? I don't understand why we can't have the military fly in these supplies, or have the govt pay for the commercial flights to do this but NOT take tourists and business people.

I'm not the poster you are asking but I've done some work in West Africa and have some experience with what sort of goods are on commercial planes (I once returned with 40 kilos of cashews). Large companies can afford charter planes or shipping containers, but small businesses often rely on using commercial airliners for transport. Without passengers, the commercial flight wouldn't be going. If the US military began running such flights, it would be entering the commercial shipping market or, potentially, providing free air freight for those businesses. The same is true if the US government paid for the commercial flights. That's just one aspect and there are many more ramifications of flight restrictions.

I understand that it would be difficult, complicated, and have painful ramifications in people's lives and in the economy.

However, the situation in Dallas has also had painful ramifications and has negatively affected people's lives and the economy. Look at what has happened in Wall Street, in the travel industry, and to dozens if not more workers and travelers who now have to self monitor, be quarantined, or fear passing on this illness to their families.

Yes, the situation in Dallas was mishandled. But, based on current information, it has still be contained. Hopefully, we've learned from that experience and we won't need lots of drastic and damaging measures.

I understand. But "hopefully" is not a good enough answer for me, and apparently, most Americans (even dems like myself).

[Anonymous]

Maybe the CDC, hospitals, fire dept and rescue stations can learn something from the military people who has to do a lot of control damage with infections when they are in the field when all you get is a non-fancy facility. You see how fast they reacted to the Pentagon incident today.

[Anonymous]

Here's an article on the impact on some of the TX health care workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ebola-cruise-ship-dallas.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Keeping exposed people off of flights is not the same as having no flights

[Anonymous]

Hey, now it may be at Fairfax Inova! Wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keeping exposed people off of flights is not the same as having no flights

Agreed. Country of origin and recent travel history should be the factors considered. Aren't passports stamped to show where you've gone in and out of, and on what dates? I can't believe this is impossible, as officials state when interviewed.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is that the kind of solutions being discussed here are not as simple as people would like to believe. They have real ramifications in terms of time, energy and monetary resources that could be devoted to addressing the situation at it's root--in West Africa. We're talking about diverting resources away from a place where hundreds are dying every week to (theoretically) prevent the the possibility of a few isolated cases here in the US and to partially alleviate the worry/inconvenience that goes along with that possibility.

Seems borderline unethical to me.

[Anonymous]

Screw West Africa. Sorry. Obama's allegiance is to us (of should be). No more entry when West Africa is on the passport pages recently. And no more entry for passport holders who are West African. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keeping exposed people off of flights is not the same as having no flights

Agreed. Country of origin and recent travel history should be the factors considered. Aren't passports stamped to show where you've gone in and out of, and on what dates? I can't believe this is impossible, as officials state when interviewed.

Not consistently or by all countries. I recently traveled to Mexico and have no passport stamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Screw West Africa. Sorry. Obama's allegiance is to us (of should be). No more entry when West Africa is on the passport pages recently. And no more entry for passport holders who are West African. End of story.

Controlling the epidemic in West Africa is far and away the best approach to controlling it here. It not just about ethics, it's also about practicality and the best use of limited resources.