Anonymous
10/10/2014 14:27
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
FruminousBandersnatch wrote:Anonymous wrote:People saying the American public is uneducated etc etc. No idea if it's true but even if it is, it doesn't matter. We live in a democracy (OK, fine, technically a constitutional republic but for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is not relevant). Unless what the public wants infringes on a constitutional right, what public wants should trump, whether that decision is based on awesome reasoning or blind panic. And as far as I know, the right of individuals who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents to come to the US any time they want is not a constitutional right.
In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.
So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.
Actually, the distinction between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic are very relevant for the purposes of this discussion. The Constitution and our system of governance is set up in many ways precisely because those who wrote the Constitution recognized that the will of the people is not always correct. The checks and balances in our system serve as checks on the various branches of government, but also serve as a check on ill-considered actions by the majority of the population.
People are really bad at evaluating risk. When the media is constantly screaming about EBOLA! it causes people to disproportionately weight the risk of the disease in relation to other risks. Those who want travel bans are thinking one thing - keep people with ebola away. Which a reasonable desire. The question is whether those people are accurately evaluating the costs necessary to implement a travel ban. It sounds like a really easy thing - no one from the three infected countries gets to fly out.
So how do you do it?
Do you completely shut down all outgoing flights from those countries? That would devastate their economies at a time when they need the most help, and it would push people to use simply go to the closest airport in a neighboring country via rail/car or to use smaller, private planes via less regulated airfields. It would be virtually impossible, not to mention prohibitively expensive to attempt to seal the borders of those countries.
Do you quarantine people for the 21 day incubation period before you allow them to fly? How do you keep them isolated for those 21 days? That's a tremendous cost and the facilities don't currently exist for housing and feeding such a population.
Do you test them for ebola? According to this article (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/06/how-do-doctors-test-for-ebola/):
A number of tests can be used to diagnose Ebola within a few days of the onset of symptoms, which can detect the virus's genetic material or the presence of antibodies against the pathogen.
The most accurate of these is likely the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, a technique that looks for genetic material from the virus and creates enough copies of it that it can be detected, Hirsch said. "PCR is a really definitive test," Hirsch said. It can pick up very small amounts of the virus.
However, this test can be negative during the first three days an infected person has symptoms, said Dr. Sandro Cinti, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Michigan Hospital System/Ann Arbor VA Health System.
"Somebody could be in the hospital for three to five days before a diagnosis [of Ebola] is confirmed," Cinti told Live Science. "The important thing is keeping the patient isolated until you can get to a diagnosis." Meanwhile, doctors will be running tests to rule out other diseases, such as malaria, which can be detected more quickly than Ebola, he said.
So the test doesn't help until they have symptoms, and even then it takes 3-5 days.
So, if someone comes to the airport with symptoms, you could isolate them for 3-5 days. But, again, you have the quarantine issue.
None of this helps if the person is asymptomatic when they arrive at the airport. Even if you ask someone if they've been exposed, they could lie, as the Texas victim supposedly did.
On top of that, even if you try to impose a quarantine at the airports in the affected countries, the police/army forces in those countries are not known for their scrupulous observance of legal and ethical rules.
When you put all this together, travel bans are unlikely to be successful.
To paraphrase someone, this is all nonsense on stilts.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 14:26
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Americans have common sense.
Wow. Thank you for the best laugh I've had all morning.
I know, right? Pesky democracy! If only we had a dictatorship . . .
Elites like to think they know what is best for other people. But they are often repulsed by the people themselves.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 14:12
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is an issue for informed medical opinion, not populist nonsense.
Most of you assholes would probably want a ban on nonessential travel to Africa even without Ebola.
Started off strong with "informed medical opinion" and lost everyone with "you assholes."
Profanity is the hallmark of a weak vocabulary and feeble reasoning.
cite?
Anonymous
10/10/2014 13:55
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Checks and balances and the fact that we don't vote on every issue directly like people in ancient Athens are really not relevant here.
Both the president and congress are elected representatives of the people. Supreme Court is not, but they are not supposed to weigh in unless there is a constitutional issue (or two states are suing each other, but that is not relevant) so provided the ban is limited to foreign nationals, they are sitting this one out and, if not, should uphold the ban (in any event, by the time the case gets to SC, we'd all either be dead of ebola or it would have been contained. Nothing speedy about this process).
So checks and balances leaves only congress and the president which brings me back to point 2 - elected representatives are supposed to so what their electorate wants. Not just because it's just but because if a politician keeps doing what majority of his voters hates, he is likely to be out of the office asap. We obviously don't know how the majority from the poll is split geographically, but assuming the majority of people in the districts of the majority of representatives and senators want bans, bans should be instituted. Nor should the president disagree as majority of his electorate wants that as well (this is obviously assuming poll is representational, accurate blah blah).
Is it going to happen? Seeing that our politicians won't agree water is wet across party lines and are about as effective in general as a wet paper towel, probably not. Should it? Yes.
Once again, whether it will be effective or not is a separate topic entirely (I think you will never 100% proof the place but bans/revocation for any visas for nationals of the SR/Guinea/Liberia countries, combined with making it known that any non-citizen who has a stamp from these countries in his passport in the last 21 days will not be allowed in and turned away at the border, will certainly greatly reduce the chances of an infected person coming in). But I do think our elected representatives actually should listen to what their voters want.
Both the president and congress are elected representatives of the people. Supreme Court is not, but they are not supposed to weigh in unless there is a constitutional issue (or two states are suing each other, but that is not relevant) so provided the ban is limited to foreign nationals, they are sitting this one out and, if not, should uphold the ban (in any event, by the time the case gets to SC, we'd all either be dead of ebola or it would have been contained. Nothing speedy about this process).
So checks and balances leaves only congress and the president which brings me back to point 2 - elected representatives are supposed to so what their electorate wants. Not just because it's just but because if a politician keeps doing what majority of his voters hates, he is likely to be out of the office asap. We obviously don't know how the majority from the poll is split geographically, but assuming the majority of people in the districts of the majority of representatives and senators want bans, bans should be instituted. Nor should the president disagree as majority of his electorate wants that as well (this is obviously assuming poll is representational, accurate blah blah).
Is it going to happen? Seeing that our politicians won't agree water is wet across party lines and are about as effective in general as a wet paper towel, probably not. Should it? Yes.
Once again, whether it will be effective or not is a separate topic entirely (I think you will never 100% proof the place but bans/revocation for any visas for nationals of the SR/Guinea/Liberia countries, combined with making it known that any non-citizen who has a stamp from these countries in his passport in the last 21 days will not be allowed in and turned away at the border, will certainly greatly reduce the chances of an infected person coming in). But I do think our elected representatives actually should listen to what their voters want.
FruminousBandersnatch
10/10/2014 12:53
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:People saying the American public is uneducated etc etc. No idea if it's true but even if it is, it doesn't matter. We live in a democracy (OK, fine, technically a constitutional republic but for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is not relevant). Unless what the public wants infringes on a constitutional right, what public wants should trump, whether that decision is based on awesome reasoning or blind panic. And as far as I know, the right of individuals who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents to come to the US any time they want is not a constitutional right.
In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.
So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.
Actually, the distinction between a pure democracy and a constitutional republic are very relevant for the purposes of this discussion. The Constitution and our system of governance is set up in many ways precisely because those who wrote the Constitution recognized that the will of the people is not always correct. The checks and balances in our system serve as checks on the various branches of government, but also serve as a check on ill-considered actions by the majority of the population.
People are really bad at evaluating risk. When the media is constantly screaming about EBOLA! it causes people to disproportionately weight the risk of the disease in relation to other risks. Those who want travel bans are thinking one thing - keep people with ebola away. Which a reasonable desire. The question is whether those people are accurately evaluating the costs necessary to implement a travel ban. It sounds like a really easy thing - no one from the three infected countries gets to fly out.
So how do you do it?
Do you completely shut down all outgoing flights from those countries? That would devastate their economies at a time when they need the most help, and it would push people to use simply go to the closest airport in a neighboring country via rail/car or to use smaller, private planes via less regulated airfields. It would be virtually impossible, not to mention prohibitively expensive to attempt to seal the borders of those countries.
Do you quarantine people for the 21 day incubation period before you allow them to fly? How do you keep them isolated for those 21 days? That's a tremendous cost and the facilities don't currently exist for housing and feeding such a population.
Do you test them for ebola? According to this article (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/06/how-do-doctors-test-for-ebola/):
A number of tests can be used to diagnose Ebola within a few days of the onset of symptoms, which can detect the virus's genetic material or the presence of antibodies against the pathogen.
The most accurate of these is likely the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, a technique that looks for genetic material from the virus and creates enough copies of it that it can be detected, Hirsch said. "PCR is a really definitive test," Hirsch said. It can pick up very small amounts of the virus.
However, this test can be negative during the first three days an infected person has symptoms, said Dr. Sandro Cinti, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Michigan Hospital System/Ann Arbor VA Health System.
"Somebody could be in the hospital for three to five days before a diagnosis [of Ebola] is confirmed," Cinti told Live Science. "The important thing is keeping the patient isolated until you can get to a diagnosis." Meanwhile, doctors will be running tests to rule out other diseases, such as malaria, which can be detected more quickly than Ebola, he said.
So the test doesn't help until they have symptoms, and even then it takes 3-5 days.
So, if someone comes to the airport with symptoms, you could isolate them for 3-5 days. But, again, you have the quarantine issue.
None of this helps if the person is asymptomatic when they arrive at the airport. Even if you ask someone if they've been exposed, they could lie, as the Texas victim supposedly did.
On top of that, even if you try to impose a quarantine at the airports in the affected countries, the police/army forces in those countries are not known for their scrupulous observance of legal and ethical rules.
When you put all this together, travel bans are unlikely to be successful.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 11:41
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Americans have common sense.
Wow. Thank you for the best laugh I've had all morning.
I know, right? Pesky democracy! If only we had a dictatorship . . .
Anonymous
10/10/2014 11:05
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
One cannot be a man of the people without understanding the people.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 10:35
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
People saying the American public is uneducated etc etc. No idea if it's true but even if it is, it doesn't matter. We live in a democracy (OK, fine, technically a constitutional republic but for the purposes of this discussion, the difference is not relevant). Unless what the public wants infringes on a constitutional right, what public wants should trump, whether that decision is based on awesome reasoning or blind panic. And as far as I know, the right of individuals who are neither American citizens nor permanent residents to come to the US any time they want is not a constitutional right.
In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.
So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.
In fact, unlike members of the EU countries, they have to get a visa to come here - there is no automatic entry right and visa can be denied for whatever reason and good luck appealing.
So if the majority of Americans really do want travel bans (if the poll is accurate), guess what - I think travel bans should be put in place, provided there are special provisions to deal with US citizens and permanent residents who obviously have a different degree of constitutional protection than a Liberian national who wants to come here on a tourist visa.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 10:35
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Americans have common sense.
Wow. Thank you for the best laugh I've had all morning.
I don't understand.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 10:04
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Americans have common sense.
Wow. Thank you for the best laugh I've had all morning.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 09:36
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Travel bans are not the answer. The answer is to attack the problem at the source. Send resources to Africa to fight the epidemic and end it soon. There will be no need for travel bans when the epidemic is over. And travel bans will be worthless if the epidemic continues to grow.
Why not do both?
Exactly.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 09:26
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Travel bans are not the answer. The answer is to attack the problem at the source. Send resources to Africa to fight the epidemic and end it soon. There will be no need for travel bans when the epidemic is over. And travel bans will be worthless if the epidemic continues to grow.
Why not do both?
Anonymous
10/10/2014 09:25
Subject: Re:Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Americans have common sense.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 09:24
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:This is an issue for informed medical opinion, not populist nonsense.
Most of you assholes would probably want a ban on nonessential travel to Africa even without Ebola.
Started off strong with "informed medical opinion" and lost everyone with "you assholes."
Profanity is the hallmark of a weak vocabulary and feeble reasoning.
Anonymous
10/10/2014 09:03
Subject: Americans want travel bans - NBC Poll
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Travel bans are not the answer. The answer is to attack the problem at the source. Send resources to Africa to fight the epidemic and end it soon. There will be no need for travel bans when the epidemic is over. And travel bans will be worthless if the epidemic continues to grow.
Do you know how much aid and resources poor into African countries on a yearly basis? Enough that everyone at the top can skim off enough to be millionaires, and then the people below can skim off enough to live a basic middle class life, and then the people below them can skim off some to live a low income life style, and the people below them skim off enough to escape grinding poverty and after it's made it's way through all that, whatever money is left over goes to improvements, the truly poor, etc. Seriously lending and direct aid to the African continent is a black hole. A better answer? Stop all aid tomorrow to the entire continent and block all flights off the continent.
Anyone willing to volunteer? I assume all who want more resources could be trained as a basic aids-suiting up, cleaning up, etc. Australia has been criticized for offering financial aid but not people. Since "Liberian" Austalians are protesting why don't they volunteer? http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/30/liberian-australians-urge-more-action-ebola
Attacks and murders of aid workers: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/09/19/brutal-murders-8-ebola-aid-workers-has-chilling-effect-on-humanitarian-efforts/