Official Ebola update thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/breaking-news-ebola-scare-closses-pentagon-entrance-restricts-parking-108188.html

Woman is at Inova VA Hospital Center now. The parking at Pentagon has been closed off (see above).

Looks like the 'hysterical' ones with the medical backgrounds have been right about the situation/threat all along.

She's pregnant.

This is a 2fer, send her back before anchor baby comes out

Lol! +1

Ha!

Anchor baby - the next rampant disease soon to hit pediatric wards.

Working at the pentagon? Probably there working to contain the outbreak, you idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

It may not stop every person who has been exposed from coming here. But it would certainly reduce the risk.

[Anonymous]

Why the hell is a THIRD NURSE from Dallas on an effing CRUISE?

The CDC doesn't need any more medical experts, but they sure as shit need some PR experts. And before you go crazy thinking I'm talking about spin, I'm not. I'm talking about real advisors who can say, hey, you know, I realize the medical knowledge states these people aren't a risk, but on the off chance that one of them comes down with the virus you really ought to take precautions to make sure they aren't traveling, aren't coming into contact with the public at large, etc because people will go utterly and completely apeshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

We already agree on focusing our resources on W.A. But I do think that a flight ban from those countries where the epidemic is not controlled (with quarantine for those who need/want to fly anyway) is still worthwhile. I find the "some people will get in anyway" argument specious. Of course some will. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. yes, there will still be costly "scares", but there will be far fewer.
If there are real reasons to think that the flight bans will do more harm than good, I haven't heard them. I have only heard arguments for why they can't be 100% effective and why they might be costly. Big deal. Neither can PPE -- should we give up on that too? Vaccines aren't 100% effective, should we give up on them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

It may not stop every person who has been exposed from coming here. But it would certainly reduce the risk.

And focusing our efforts and our resources overseas reduces that risk even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

It may not stop every person who has been exposed from coming here. But it would certainly reduce the risk.

And focusing our efforts and our resources overseas reduces that risk even more.

It's not one or the other. BOTH need to happen. Non-essential flight bans out of West Africa will reduce new cases by 75%--temp checks alone only 10%. That buys us time. Time to contain and isolate each new positively tested person and stamping out mini outbreaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

It may not stop every person who has been exposed from coming here. But it would certainly reduce the risk.

And focusing our efforts and our resources overseas reduces that risk even more.

It's not one or the other. BOTH need to happen. Non-essential flight bans out of West Africa will reduce new cases by 75%--temp checks alone only 10%. That buys us time. Time to contain and isolate each new positively tested person and stamping out mini outbreaks.

Also gives us time to contain this in wpWest Africa and stamp it out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

We already agree on focusing our resources on W.A. But I do think that a flight ban from those countries where the epidemic is not controlled (with quarantine for those who need/want to fly anyway) is still worthwhile. I find the "some people will get in anyway" argument specious. Of course some will. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. yes, there will still be costly "scares", but there will be far fewer.
If there are real reasons to think that the flight bans will do more harm than good, I haven't heard them. I have only heard arguments for why they can't be 100% effective and why they might be costly. Big deal. Neither can PPE -- should we give up on that too? Vaccines aren't 100% effective, should we give up on them?

Why would we take resources away from the most effective strategy to invest them in a strategy that is less effective? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

It may not stop every person who has been exposed from coming here. But it would certainly reduce the risk.

And focusing our efforts and our resources overseas reduces that risk even more.

No reason we can't do both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem is that the "few isolated cases" here are very costly as well, which is also a diversion of resources. And that's assuming that they stay few and isolated.
Second -- if you think that spending resources on dealing with problems here that are less severe than in other parts of the world is unethical, then basically every spending decision we make is unethical. We should just give our entire GDP as foreign aid, by that logic. Yes, we prioritize ourselves. Yes, I will feed my kids before other kids. That may be unethical, or it may just be the nature of humans.
I totally agree we need to address it in W.A. We should have long ago. But we didn't. Now it's here, and we should be both addressing it there and preventing further importation of it. The arguments as to why we can't do that seem very unconvincing to me. Because we'd damage the airline industry? Sorry, but I already know people who've changed their travel plans to avoid flying right now. That's damaging the airline industry. Because we can't manage to charter flights for aid purposes? Why not? Because we can't set up quarantine centers near airports? Sure we can.
All of it costs money. We should stop saying "we can't" and start being honest and saying "we don't want to spend the money".

Do you really think that implementing a flight ban will prevent every false alarm? We're already hearing ridiculous theories about Ebola patients sneaking across our border from Mexico. We're going to be forced to continue expending resources on these kinds of situations regardless because as long as the situation continues unabated in West Africa, people will continue to be fearful. And that assumes a flight ban is actually successful in preventing further importation of new cases. It's not at all clear that that would be so.

By focusing our resources on West Africa we are prioritizing both ourselves (by implementing the most effective strategy for preventing spread of the virus overseas) AND West Africans. A win-win.

We already agree on focusing our resources on W.A. But I do think that a flight ban from those countries where the epidemic is not controlled (with quarantine for those who need/want to fly anyway) is still worthwhile. I find the "some people will get in anyway" argument specious. Of course some will. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. yes, there will still be costly "scares", but there will be far fewer.
If there are real reasons to think that the flight bans will do more harm than good, I haven't heard them. I have only heard arguments for why they can't be 100% effective and why they might be costly. Big deal. Neither can PPE -- should we give up on that too? Vaccines aren't 100% effective, should we give up on them?

Why would we take resources away from the most effective strategy to invest them in a strategy that is less effective? That makes no sense.

Who says there is already a finite pie has to be divided between WA and a travel ban?

[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.

We do not know that it "has" been contained yet. And they just UPPED the maximum incubation period from 21 days after exposure to 40 days after exposure until 1st symptons appear.

2 nurses contracted it. Thomas Duncan was treated by approximately 70 nurses/attendants - while he was contagious. Those nurses also treated other patients. They are being tracked by the CDC.

On top of that, Nurse Amber potentially exposed 2 plane loads of people plus several airports (that was only after the CDC gave her the OK; She seems to have been very very careful to her credit & I wish her the best).

40 days is a long time. In this case, time will tell if it is contained at all in the US. But its too soon to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. If we don't get it under control there, we are going to have Ebola cases popping up all over the world for the foreseeable future.

Isn't part of controlling it there isolating it there? This article details the freedom of movement within JFK airport for passengers prior to the thermometer test and questionnaire. http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/alarm-after-vomiting-passenger-dies-on-flight-from-nigeria-to-jfk/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We do not know that it "has" been contained yet. And they just UPPED the maximum incubation period from 21 days after exposure to 40 days after exposure until 1st symptons appear.

2 nurses contracted it. Thomas Duncan was treated by approximately 70 nurses/attendants - while he was contagious. Those nurses also treated other patients. They are being tracked by the CDC.

On top of that, Nurse Amber potentially exposed 2 plane loads of people plus several airports (that was only after the CDC gave her the OK; She seems to have been very very careful to her credit & I wish her the best).

40 days is a long time. In this case, time will tell if it is contained at all in the US. But its too soon to say.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Pentagon situation with woman who was in Africa

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/17/243760/ebola-scare-limits-access-to-pentagon.html

She has been taken to Inova Fairfax as a precautionary move.