Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Can you explain to me how a flight ban might work when there are no direct flights to the US from the countries in question? All these people are having to go through Europe first. It just seems like it would be very, very difficult to track every single person when there are tons of different connections/routes people could use to get here.

Look at the passports.

Duh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Can you explain to me how a flight ban might work when there are no direct flights to the US from the countries in question? All these people are having to go through Europe first. It just seems like it would be very, very difficult to track every single person when there are tons of different connections/routes people could use to get here.

Look at the passports.

Most countries don't even bother with passport stamps anymore. How exactly would that prevent us from admitting recent travelers to West Africa?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

25% is not very low. why not say 'the study showed a 25% chance of it arriving on outpr shores by end of Sept". That's the truth, is. It not? How do you think people would have reacted to such news?

The President's CDC appt has lied multiple times, and has been caught in them.

I'm glad you have such faith. You are in the minority

You are being deliberately obtuse. The chances of a single case are not that low but the chances of a US epidemic are extremely low. The latter is what the president was speaking to. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I do understand it. I also understand that instead of simply releasing the findings of the study to the American public, and acting to reduce the immediate risk of a patient 0, he his it and chose to take the path he did. Ask yourself why.

I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

It's already here! We must shut the border with Texas now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

I hope so. Nigeria declared a national emergency and shut schools. We will contain it, but we may need to really toughen up with restricting our mobility.

There should be a global effort to close up Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Maybe bordering countries.

AND also provide medical/logistical/security support for those countries through recovery.

It's not just a US problem. It's a world problem. And until the outbreak is controlled at the origin there we all will be at risk.

I think Obama should work with UN/WHO (??) to address at a global level, while also increasing CDC's effectiveness at home. And replace CDC leadership ASAP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

25% is not very low. why not say 'the study showed a 25% chance of it arriving on outpr shores by end of Sept". That's the truth, is. It not? How do you think people would have reacted to such news?

The President's CDC appt has lied multiple times, and has been caught in them.

I'm glad you have such faith. You are in the minority

You are being deliberately obtuse. The chances of a single case are not that low but the chances of a US epidemic are extremely low. The latter is what the president was speaking to. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

NP. You're saying the vulnerability is acceptable, but I'm saying that it could--and should--be less. It could be less by refusing entry from the region, to prevent a second outbreak cluster, while fighting it at the source at the same time. I agree that we are controlling this disease, likely monitoring it very closely, but we aren't preventing it very well are we? I did not like watching the ambulance take Pham to NIH.... I used to commute just that route for a couple of years. I certainly wish it Ebola had been contained prior to arriving inside the beltway.

My concern is that we won't end up closing the borders until after Ebola takes a toehold in someplace like India and a couple other underprepared nations. It is a shame. USA will likely do fine except for a few vulnerabilities, statistical matters you might say.

Thank you for posting NP. Very good points

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

25% is not very low. why not say 'the study showed a 25% chance of it arriving on outpr shores by end of Sept". That's the truth, is. It not? How do you think people would have reacted to such news?

The President's CDC appt has lied multiple times, and has been caught in them.

I'm glad you have such faith. You are in the minority

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Can you explain to me how a flight ban might work when there are no direct flights to the US from the countries in question? All these people are having to go through Europe first. It just seems like it would be very, very difficult to track every single person when there are tons of different connections/routes people could use to get here.

Look at the passports.

Anonymous wrote:I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Can you explain to me how a flight ban might work when there are no direct flights to the US from the countries in question? All these people are having to go through Europe first. It just seems like it would be very, very difficult to track every single person when there are tons of different connections/routes people could use to get here.

Anonymous wrote:I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Well that sounds appropriately reassuring, thanks.

Anyone else who wants to talk action, call your representative and voice your concerns so we can speed this up before more clusters are imported.

I think a flight ban is coming in upcoming weeks. The administration seems to be softening its position a bit -- it came up on the Hill today and later in the day Obama said he wasn't philosophically opposed but was looking to the experts.

I don't get the argument of -- closing the borders makes people sneak in. So what -- they are walking in right now and not being particularly honest, so there is still that element of "surprise" they turn up at a US hospital. Sure the gov't knows where they're coming from but they aren't keeping track of them if they don't show a fever at the airport which someone won't if they were just exposed and happened to dose up on Advil before deplaning so they could make it out of customs and home to their relatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama lied to you. He knew the risk was not extremely low:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-found-nearly-25-percent-chance-ebola-184611722.html

Oh, please.

The study found there was a twenty-five percent chance that we would see a case here. Despite this, the president said our overall Ebola vulnerability remains very low, which is true. Importing a single case does not equal a U.S. epidemic, as evidenced by the fact that we have seen only two additional cases since Duncan and none outside the hospital setting. The president was right. We will contain it, just as Nigeria did.

NP. You're saying the vulnerability is acceptable, but I'm saying that it could--and should--be less. It could be less by refusing entry from the region, to prevent a second outbreak cluster, while fighting it at the source at the same time. I agree that we are controlling this disease, likely monitoring it very closely, but we aren't preventing it very well are we? I did not like watching the ambulance take Pham to NIH.... I used to commute just that route for a couple of years. I certainly wish it Ebola had been contained prior to arriving inside the beltway.

My concern is that we won't end up closing the borders until after Ebola takes a toehold in someplace like India and a couple other underprepared nations. It is a shame. USA will likely do fine except for a few vulnerabilities, statistical matters you might say.

I don't believe the conspiracy theorists and do think this is relatively difficult -- though not impossible -- to catch. Obviously people in the medical community are much more at risk, but a nurse who has just decided to get on a plane after treating a patient when she's feeling a bit achy herself could have potentially infected others -- say if she puked, the people directly next to her would have risk.

Given that that didn't happen -- she was "only" tired and achy on the first flight and had a low grade fever on the flight home but apparently no body fluid issues during the entire trip, why the rush to track down all passengers? Is this just CYA by CDC? I could see reaching out to those within a certain radius of her but if she was in row 20, what interaction would she have had with those in row 1? And why exactly were schools closed in certain Ohio and Tx communities? If there were students on her flight who are deemed low/no risk, wouldn't their classmates be low-low-low risk? What exactly were they cleaning in the schools -- anything those kids touched on Tuesday, when they clearly are manifesting zero symptoms?

I guess I'm not getting it -- if it is relatively hard to catch, why the overkill with reaching out to practically any person that may have seen her while she was out and about and why quarantine people in Tx and Ohio just bc they were on the same flight? Or is it that they don't actually know if it's easier to catch than initially thought?

I mean the people who have caught it were VERY directly exposed to a VERY sick person; all of the casual contact people -- i.e. all the people Duncan saw all over the community before he was admitted -- seem fine [knock on wood].