Do you favor or oppose travel restrictions to and from West Africa?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Favor
	16 (67%)
	Oppose
	8 (33%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NYC_SKP]

1. "Restrictions"? Yes, I do. Greater scrutiny is a restriction. Checking for symptoms is, as well.

I wouldn't go so far as to black out flights, but doing nothing would be negligent and ignorant, IMHO.

[2banon]

12. Agree, completely.

[stevenleser]

2. I would support travel restrictions to/from anywhere in the midst of a dangerous epidemic like this.

That's one of the ways you prevent an epidemic from spreading as fast as it otherwise might.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Thanks for posting this

There are severe costs involved in dealing with this epidemic, and when you think of the resources devoted to one man's vacation jaunt, and potentially multiply it by dozens more cases, then it becomes significant. I'd rather that the same resources be devoted to treating the disease where it already is.

[kestrel91316]

34. One of the few things you've ever said that I agree with. Excellent points.

[customerserviceguy]

44. Well, you know what they say

Even a broken clock is right twice a day! Thanks for posting that.

I find I learn more from the people I disagree with than from the ones I agree with.

[kestrel91316]

45. hahahaha!!

[PAProgressive28]

4. I said oppose

Reason being, I fear people who want to go there will find a way to go there. We're better off allowing it and tracking those people. Same thing with banning flights from Africa. We're safer knowing a flight like that is coming in then someone finding their way to Europe and flying in from there under the radar.

[MineralMan]

5. Pass. The question is too broad.

What kind of travel restrictions?
West Africa is not all part of this Ebola outbreak. Your question is too broad and covers countries where there is no Ebola.
That's why I voted to Pass.

[wandy]

6. It would depend on how detectable ebola is in early stages..........

If it can be detected then additional screening wouldn't be a restriction, it would be common sense.
If it can not be detected then additional screening becomes one more for profit, fear mongering police state insanity.

[ZombieHorde]

7. I can imagine restrictions that I would support,

but any restrictions placed would probably be dehumanizing and terrible.

[customerserviceguy]

10. "...dehumanizing and terrible..."

You mean, like having Ebola?

[ZombieHorde]

11. I have never considered being sick as dehumanizing,

but I can see how it could be for many people.

I understand what you're saying, but I would rather risk disease of my body than guarantee disease of my mind.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Well, the Repukes

sure hope that the President says something like that.

Bleeding from every orifice in your body, yeah, that makes me feel alive! I'd want someone to put me out of my misery, that's for sure.

[SoCalDem]

16. People in that state , would not be likely to travel much

and would be rather easy to spot (smell?)

The dangerous issue is that many of these people travel just before their symptoms show up, and they end up with family/friends elsewhere who will end up tending to them as the disease progresses, and may become infected themselves.

It's a terrible dilemma.. stay in Africa & die or try to reunite with loved ones in a place where you might have a chance to live

[customerserviceguy]

18. That's why

we need to get resources to Africa. I'd bet even the Repukes see that now.

What's their favorite saying? "Better to fight it over there than to fight it over here." Or are they just talking about war? Well, deadly plagues are like war, that should satisfy their criteria for spending money to deal with this situation.

[SoCalDem]

19. But only if it does not cost any of their precious money

[customerserviceguy]

21. Oh, when it comes to war

The checkbook is wide open. All we have to do is convince them that this is like war, and that West Africans will welcome us as liberators if we build clinics in their cities.

[uppityperson]

25. ++++++++++++++++

[uppityperson]

24. You. Do. Not. Bleed. From. Every. Orifice. In. Your. Body.

Neither do your organs liquify.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025624507

[branford]

32. How is that relevant.

The fact of the matter is that Ebola is a terrible disease that is usually terminal. Dead is dead.

The fact that you may die in a slightly less horrible fashion that is generally believed, does not counsel for or against increased travel restrictions.

[uppityperson]

38. If "dead is dead", then according to you being killed in a car wreck is the same.

Because claiming symptoms like that which do not happen perpetuates fears and falsehoods.

And it is terminal in (this outbreak) 1/2, not "nearly always". Too often for sure, but half the time people survive.

[branford]

41. You missed my point.

I certainly have no objection to the dissemination of accurate information about the disease, but you are missing the forest for the trees.

It is a simple fact that Ebola is a terrible and deadly disease that has killed many thousands with many more at risk, and without swift, appropriate and well-coordinated actions by our government, could evolve into a serious public health risk here in the USA. Accordingly, the authorities should take all necessary precautions to protect the public, based upon proven science, not irrational fear.

In fact, needlessly arguing over the exact scientific terminology and grim details concerning one's method of death or crippling injuries from Ebola probably increases the fear factor even more among the population.

Lastly, if I died in a car wreck, I would most definitely be just as dead as if from Ebola, a gunshot, cancer or any other terminal malady. More importantly, I would expect the government to enact all reasonable regulations to diminish and mitigate my chances of unnecessarily dying in a car wreck. As you know, there currently exists multitudes of laws concerning safe and reliable car manufacture, operation and maintenance to protect the public from harm. I would expect nothing less from the government concerning a dire communicable disease.

[uppityperson]

46. Thank you. And you missed mine, that accurate information is necessary

I agree with what you write here. My point was accurate information, same as with reasons for injuries and deaths. The appropriate reaction depends on accurate information.

And I disagree. If you will look at my thread, knowledge has decreased fears. Knowing you won't, inaccurately, "bleed from every orifice while your organs liquify" but instead being in a not totally alert and aware, "obtunded’, dull, quiet, very tired" can help decrease the fear associated with ebola. Yes, it is still a scary virus, but having accurate information will help us all deal with it and make it less scary.

[kestrel91316]

35. Oh, if you live long enough (highly unlikely), that DIC will have bloody virus-laden fluid oozing

from every pore in your body.

Just sayin'.

[uppityperson]

36. I have taken care of people with DIC and that is wrong. From every pore in your body?

[kestrel91316]

40. When the capillaries fall apart it does happen. Maybe human skin is different enough from dog skin.

This dog looked like it had one giant snakebite all over its body at the end.

[customerserviceguy]

47. My quick search of Ebola symptoms turned up the following

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ebola-virus/basics/symptoms/con-20031241

Most pointedly, they finish up with:
"Bleeding, usually from the eyes, and bruising (people near death may bleed from other orifices, such as ears, nose and rectum)"

OK, I guess that leaves the genitals. Still sound like an ordinary cold or flu to you? And I never made that "organs liquify" claim, which I recognize as some sort of exaggeration. My original point is that if you've got Ebola, travel restrictions are the least dehumanizing or terrible problem you've got right now.

[uppityperson]

48. I never made the claim ebola is like "ordinary cold or flu".

According to sources who have dealt directly caring for people with ebola, and who write the info that mayoclinic and others pull together in a readable "this is your disease" format for patient education, there is bruising, internal bleeding, red eyes due to bleeding, sometimes bleeding other places. But "bleeding from every orifice"? I am sure it could and has happened, but atypically.

Over time, symptoms become increasingly severe and may include:

Nausea and vomiting
Diarrhea (may be bloody)
Red eyes
Raised rash
Chest pain and cough
Stomach pain
Severe weight loss
Bleeding, usually from the eyes, and bruising (people near death may bleed from other orifices, such as ears, nose and rectum)
Internal bleeding

Did you read what I posted at that link? What typically kills is shock and organ failure, not "bleeding from every orifice".

I agree that if you are sick with this, having a travel restriction will be the least of your worries.

[customerserviceguy]

49. Shock and organ failure do indeed kill

Bleeding from places you're not accustomed to is what I find dehumanizing. I'm rather used to the idea that my skin keeps all my vital fluids inside my body, and if that were not to be the case, I sure wouldn't feel normal. Having a bureaucratic travel restriction would be the least of my problems. Glad we agree on that point.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Does seem like most people are fear based.

Bleeding from every orifice in your body, yeah, that makes me feel alive! I'd want someone to put me out of my misery, that's for sure.

I don't see this as dehumanizing. I have helped many people die, and though it is sometimes very painful, the process seems very human to me.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

53. I see absolutely nothing "dehumanizing" about

restrictions because of a disease with a 70%+ mortality rate. They do not have a "right" to come here, so why is it dehumanizing to deny their visit?

[ZombieHorde]

54. Like I said, I can imagine restrictions I would be OK with.

Restrictions based on science, and executed with dignity, would be ideal, in my opinion.

Restrictions based on fear, and executed with fear, would probably be dehumanizing, in my opinion.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

55. Yes, like 30 day waits for visas

That would stop patients who know they have had contact with an ebola victim from making plans to come here for treatment and creating the havoc we are now seeing in Dallas.

Other appropriate measures should be taken, as well, based on what the CDC believes is appropriate.

[ZombieHorde]

56. If I were a legislator,

CDC recommendations would be very important to me.

[rocktivity]

8. I favor sensible "restrictions" over an outright regional "ban"

For instance, I could support a temporary ban of the Ebola-affected countries for three weeks. Or, if the virus is detectible during the incubation period, Ebola-affected countries could require blood tests and a 21-day waiting period for people for people who want to travel.


rocktivity

[SoCalDem]

20. Like the "back in 10 minutes" signs on store door?

do we lock people in special chambers for those 21 days?

21 days from when?

what if someone is infected on day 19, and is of course asymptomatic when they check in for their flight? Their symptoms will still occur ...after they get where they are going, (like Mr Duncan's)

[rocktivity]

37. Anyone who wants to buy a ticket gets the first test

Last edited Mon Oct 20, 2014, 11:36 PM - Edit history (5)

and gets it if they pass a second test on their day of departure at least 21 days later. Not 100% foolproof, but it would have fooled Thomas Duncan. And if they turn up infected, it's better that they get the help they need at home rather than abroad.


rocktivity

[FLPanhandle]

9. None at all.

Never seen so many people whipped up by the media over a virus that is so hard to contract.

Might as well ban travel to any place with mosquito borne illnesses, AIDS, or dozens of other tropical diseases that kill more people every single year than Ebola will kill ever.

It's like when AIDS first appeared and people were saying all gay people should be quarantined because "better safe than sorry", or what if someone with AIDS sneezes on a plane, or if they eat at a public restaurant.

[former9thward]

23. So hard to contract?

CDC is estimating 1.4 million by January. That number means it is not "hard to contract".

Without additional interventions or changes in community behavior, CDC estimates that by January 20, 2015, there will be a total of approximately 550,000 Ebola cases in Liberia and Sierra Leone or 1.4 million if corrections for underreporting are made.


http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa-mmwr-estimating-future-cases.html

[uppityperson]

26. "Without additional interventions or changes in community behavior" is the point

If you hug, kiss, pat the highly contagious dead person, if you hold your child or parent as they vomit, if there are no health care providers or facilities, if there are no gloves or clean water, yes, it will continue.

But none of that means it is easy to catch unless you engage in risky behaviours which are common right now.

[former9thward]

28. Tell that to all the doctors and health care people who have died.

Oh that's right, you can't.

[uppityperson]

30. wtf? The vast majority of people who have caught it were caregivers for others already sick.

And they wash by hand, pat and kiss their dead who, if you didn't know, very contagious.

"Without additional interventions or changes in community behavior".

More people, equipment, resources, people to guard those trying to educate the populace that their historical cultural norms are killing them, all are needed. Those are the additional interventions and changes that are needed.

"Without additional interventions or changes in community behavior" yes, it will continue to spread rapidly because of the community behavior and lack of health care.

[uppityperson]

13. The question is too broad, needs to be more specific as "restrictions" has a wide range

[geek tragedy]

15. Panic is not a strategy. nt

[PADemD]

51. Prevention is not panic.

Quarantine works.

[Avalux]

17. It depends. Can't answer your poll.

Restrictions that match the risk, yes. I wholeheartedly support screening passengers arriving FROM hot zones when they land, and obtaining their contact information.

I don't support stopping travel altogether.

[branford]

22. It really depends.

"Restrictions" is far too broad a term.

I would definitely support, to the extent reasonably possible, increased screening.

However, I would need to hear and evaluate more opinions from objective medical and public health specialists before supporting more draconian policies, but would not eliminate the possibility of travel ban if it was really required.

However, I admit that I was very troubled the other day when listening to a guest on CNN (I unfortunately didn't catch his name, but the chyron indicated he was a doctor) who stated that we shouldn't institute any travel restrictions from Liberia because of the "legacy of slavery" and how it would hurt Liberia economically. I was dumbfounded.

I want public health decisions to be made on the basis of scientific fact and believe that our government has an obligation and duty to protect us from actual threats. I no more want "liberal" social and cultural considerations to interfere with possible scientifically based measures necessary to protect lives, than I want similar "conservative" considerations to derail solutions to climate change.

[cwydro]

27. Oppose

It would never work anyway, and we need to continue to help them.

[unblock]

29. what would the poll look like the u.s. were the epicenter of the ebola outbreak?

lets say the same number of cases happened, but all in the u.s. instead of west africa.


would *anyone* here even *think* about shutting down the u.s. borders???

we are nowhere near the levels where this is appropriate. education, tracing, isolation of patients, that's what's needed.

doing something like shutting down borders is an extreme overreaction and would do more harm than good.

[Savannahmann]

39. We might not think about it, but the rest of the world certainly would.

Trivia question, what ended the Black Death? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

It wasn't science, it was a breakdown of travel and interpersonal communication. In other words, people went and hid. They isolated any community that had it, and anyone who went near the community that had it.

This technique of plague isolation continues through to today. While we know what transmitted the plague now, ignorance having lost out to science, the best treatment remains isolation. Not just of the individual, but of the community. Plague Islands outside ports where people suspected of having the plague were to remain was exceedingly common even through the 19th Century. The Black Flag flying over a ship meant plague aboard, STAY AWAY.

The problem is that in these nations we're talking about, isolation of the patients is impossible. It's not happening. Isolation of the communities isn't happening either. It's spreading, and with a lead time of a couple weeks, it's possible to think you aren't sick, until it's too late you're infecting those around you, continuing the spread.

So what if Ebola was running rampant in the US. We might well see this happening. What will the world do? Bet money that many of them start to cancel flights. But we should be doing that anyway already.

Look at the map of the affected areas.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/distribution-map.html

There is a lot of that map in the corner, the one of the world, where there are no outbreaks. Yes, we need to provide assistance for those areas with outbreaks, but we also need to make every effort that the rest of that map remains clear. You don't help anyone by getting the damned thing yourself, or spreading it.

If you are sick with this damned bug, how can you help anyone? If Doctors are working on you, using supplies on you in Dallas, how can those supplies be used in Africa? As we've learned there is a finite amount of this treatment that seems to work. It's apparently rare, and difficult to manufacture. We probably won't have enough of a supply of it before the epidemic burns itself out. But it won't burn itself out if we don't prevent it from spreading. Restrictions of flights may include 21 day waits while people are screened every day for the virus in an isolated environment. The point is, before we can stop it, we have to stop the spread. That isn't cruelty. That is basic public health. Stop the shit from spreading first, then you can keep the victims at a manageable level.

[PADemD]

50. +1000

[kestrel91316]

31. Restrictions, yes: much improved screening, perhaps mandatory followup or at least more

screening and education on arrival. No entry to anyone with possible exposure within a month.

"Closing borders"? Stopping flights?? HELL NO. That's reactionary nonsense.

[treestar]

33. It does not appear there is any reason to do that

People like the guy who came from Liberia are going to be rare. Those who can spread the infection are already sick.

[branford]

43. I basically agree.

Apparently, the biggest problem with the man from Liberia in terms of public health was than the hospital released him prematurely after he was symptomatic and able to spread the disease.

Mistakes like that can have very deadly consequences.

[JoePhilly]

52. Do you shoot down planes leaving West Africa?

How's this work exactly?

[rocktivity]

57. Both the infectious and the contaigous must be kept from traveling from Ebola-affected countries

Last edited Sun Nov 9, 2014, 06:08 PM - Edit history (7)

With tests like these, people could be required to pass them in order to be issued tickets and visas. Also, it would give people more of an incentive to find out if they're infected while Ebola is easier to cure.

YourHHRSnews.com: “Diagnostics certainly plays a central role in stemming the spread of Ebola,” says Anurag Mairal, the global program leader for PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health), a humanitarian organization.

With (the) $20,000 standard qPCR Ebola testing machine…in short supply (reportedly fewer than a dozen in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone combined) and a lag between testing and results, quick, cheap Ebola tests could seriously stanch the disease’s spread…

(T)he qPCR's sleeker, faster rival, the Q16...(made by) PrimerDesign...is comparatively cheap, at $6,000, and weighs less than 5 pounds, which makes diagnosis possible even in remote, rural areas. Results take 90 minutes, but the best part is this: The Q16 can diagnose the virus within five days of infection..

Then there's nanotechnologist Selim Unlu and his team at Boston University. Their invention...draws blood "straight from the vein," dabs it on a silicon chip and shines a single-colored LED through it. The Ebola-specific particles appear as bright dots on the chip, if present...(even) in asymptomatic patients...(H)is machine will take at least six months to hit the market...

rocktivity