Public supports travel ban to block Ebola; CDC and White House push back

[scarystuffyo]

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/public-supports-travel-ban-to-block-ebola-cdc-pushes-back.html/




WASHINGTON – The experts keep saying no to a travel ban on West Africa. But the public, spooked by the emergence of Ebola in Dallas, isn’t convinced.

Two-thirds of Americans support the idea of barring entry into the country for people coming from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey released today. And 91 percent want tighter screening at U.S. airports.

The World Health Organization reported today that the Ebola outbreak in those three countries “remains out of control” and the death rate is now at 70 percent, up from about 50 percent among everyone infected earlier in the outbreak

[uppityperson]

1. I wonder how many of them support sending troops, supplies, help and spending $$$ on healthcare in

Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea?

I wonder how many of them believe in ghosts, or evolution.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Are you suggesting people who think we should restrict visa entry from the epicenter of a deadly epidemic,

Are somehow Anti-science?

Actually, like it or not, agree with it or not, they're showing a cogent understanding of just exactly how this thing spreads- despite months of doubletalk about how screenings mean "ebola likely won't spread on an airplane" (but clearly, as we see now, it can be spread BY an airplane, which the Nigerians have known for months)... But it won't be spread on the airplane itself! Probably. Yay!

Meanwhile, as we see every day, the "experts" at the CDC clearly and reassuingly know what they're talking about, yes yes.

And it would be an unimaginable hardship to restrict entry to the small nunber of visa holders from those 3 countries, until this is over... Cant be done!

Also this quote from the WH is real reassuring;

“We know based on our previous history of dealing with these kinds of outbreaks over the last four decades or so is that the only way to eliminate the Ebola risk to the American public is to stop the outbreak at its source

"These kinds of outbreaks"... Except, there's never been an ebola outbreak like this. This is uncharted territory, the people who discovered the virus in 1976 have been saying so for months.

Lastly, it's time to put the false dichotomy of "restricting entry into the US" versus "fighting it over there" to bed.. The two things have practically zip to do with each other. Supplies can get in through other means. US Doctors who go over there would be allowed back.

The Liberian national who wants to vacation in Manhattan will need to reschedule the trip. That's all.

Actually what's funny- what the reflexively anti-travel ban people don't get... Is that a travel ban wont mean that the US "stops caring about west africa" or whatever... Rather, a steady stream of ebola importations, and then secondary clusters of infection like we are seeing in Texas, WILL distract the US public's attention. The media will be focused on "ebola at home" while forgetting about the far greater numbers of people affected over there.

The way to "fight it over there" is NOT to inanely allow the virus to spread to new countries.

[boston bean]

24. 100% agree.

The more it spreads to other nations, the LESS attention to the source is given.

For chrissakes, such common sense precautions are just thrown to the wind. We don't need one more imported case here. We now have a potential of 76 persons who were exposed to this and could be come afflicted. Even though, reassurances were given that the CDC and hopsitals know how to stop this and spread was highly unlikely.

The argument against stopping 150 a day from vacationing here is losing steam as every hour passes. Hopefully, common sense will prevail soon.

[atreides1]

31. It seems to be getting a lot of attention now!

It's funny...now that the Ebola virus has entered the US, all kinds of attention is being paid to the source, not less!

Before Mr. Duncan returned was the US planning to send the assistance that it's sending now? No, probably not thanks to a certain Republican member of the Senate...was the US working on a viable vaccine, probably...but now it's working faster to get it done!

We Americans always seem to push the envelope when we're affected by something like this...when it's someone else dying we don't seem to be in a rush to do the right thing...we just sit and watch the evening news and thank our stars that it's them and not us!!!

[uppityperson]

33. The USA is sending less help, money, people now? Seriously? You really believe less attention is

being given to the outbreaks in W Africa?

A month ago, how many people could tell you whatncountries in W Africa were being affected? A month ago, how many USA troops were headed out to help?

A month ago, how much media coverage was there? A month ago, how many posts on the outbreak were there on W Africa?

[boston bean]

41. You seem to be of the mind that more cases here is a good thing

cause it will focus attention on W. Africa....

Riiiigggghhhhttttt......

[uppityperson]

43. That is a pretty wild assumption, that I think more cases here "a good thing"

And that is the only reply to all those questions? I am done with you.

[boston bean]

44. Well, in your opinion W. Africa is getting so much more attention now that it is here

soooooo..... And if it wasn't here, us god awful people here wouldn't care, which is a bunch of bs, imho.

Listen, I completely 100% disagree with your assertions that travel not be restricted. We won't agree, until one of us changes our minds and it's doubtful mine will ever be changed.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I think so.

The Nigerians found out exactly how much trouble one importation can cause. People say "oh, the Nigerians contained it"... barely. It nearly got out of control both in Lagos and Port Harcourt.

We're seeing it now, too.

[Jesus Malverde]

30. Thanks for being a voice of reason...nt

[uppityperson]

32. Some are, note that word SOME, and plenty are saying we ahould send no aid, spend no

money to help the area of the epidmic. Yes, reading comments innewspapers, even my local ones, on facebook, taking to people on real life, yes. There are those who say do nothing to help, send no health careprociders, no equipment or supplies, no educators, no guards, spend no money on anyone, any country who would help.

you seem to have misunderstood my last sentence. The masses are easily scared and yes, there are plenty who do npt believe in science like evolution. Those are the ones I personally know who are saying do nothing, blockade the area and let it "burn itself out".

Thank you for understanding and being frustrated by dichotomous thinking as it is very frustrating to read.

Banning people from the 3 affected countries in W Africa would have saved us from Mr Duncan coming to visit his family and marry his love. Instead, they might have joined him in, say, Canada, or. Euro country. And he would have exposed who knows how many people in flights, other airports, some of whom might even, gosh darn it, be USAnians on vacation. Restricting visas will stop a lot of healthy people, a few unhealthy, from 3 countries entering our country. What about Spain, since ebola is now there? Should the USA continue adding banned visas as ebola shows up other places? Infected and infectious Usa doctors would be allowed back? Would they need to be quarantined first, to make sure they were healthy or just let in? Or only restrict people from the 3 countries?

I am amused that you call people who have reasoned out the problems with such a ban "reflexively anti-ban" as it indicates people who are pro-ban have carefully thought it out, where people like me only act or think reflexively. Way to elevate the discourse.

I have read calls to ban all travel out of Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia. Aside from them being soverign nations, there is no way to do that as people travel by foot, by auto, by boat as well as air. On DU, in papers, on social media. Blockade the whole country, let no one out. I am glad you agree, or excuse me if I misread you, that that is an unworkable idea.

So, how do we stop the outbreak at its source? And of course that is the only way to do it. Spend money, time, people to locate, confine, treat those affected. The sick, their contacts. Educate people so they do not hide their sick, do not use unsafe practices with their ill and dead. LOTS of money, time, people, equipment.

The one positive thing that happened by having MrDuncan in the USA is it brought home, no pun intended, how serious this could be. I wish there were more tv programs, more media coverage, of how awful health care conditions are in the 3 Wafrican countries, how different their societal ways are, how it is contributing to the outbreak and what positive steps our huge and comparitively much richer nation could take. It might help counter those calls to "blocke them in and let it burn itself out" and the outrage that the usa is sending soldiers to help build hospitals.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. It's very simple, and it's not about any of the things you keep trying to make it about.

Like, "what about restricting entry from Spain or Texas"- not saying that.

"what about banning all travel out of G/SL/L" - not saying that.

That I am saying is that the US can and should in its capability to control who enters THIS coutnry, restrict entry of people from those 3 main affected nations, where ebola transmission is -by the WHOs admission- out of control... just as many OTHER countries already have done.

It's kind of funny that you keep bringing up how a travel ban on people coming from those 3 countries- which, you seem to understand what the proposal actually means in that sentence, if not the rest of your post- would have "saved us from Mr Duncan coming to visit his family and marry his love", as if that negates the validity of the idea- it would have saved Mr. Duncan's family from having their lives put in direct danger by him, that's what it would have done.

And it would have prevented 2 and potentially more health care workers from getting infected with a deadly virus, and it would have prevented the ever-escalating clusterfuck we're seeing now in Texas and also Ohio.

[uppityperson]

40. And now a travel ban from Texas and Ohio is needed.

I am tired of arguing and am stopping as it is getting us nowhere helpful.

This whole situation sucks from the ignoring the ebola health care problem for months, to thousands already dead many of whom are caregivers, to a nurse who should have known better breaking quarantine and flying, to the whole wtf was that hospital doing to risk so many issue. Have you read Omaha Steve's link?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025670381
http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/blog/entry/statement-by-registered-nurses-at-texas-health-presbyterian-hospital-in-dal/

[boston bean]

42. A ban of anyone identified as having contact with an ebola patient, yes, most certainly

should be prevented from flying.

In W. Africa, they are in the middle of a epidemic.

And by god, if it gets that bad in TX and OH, close air travel as well.

Stop comparing apples to oranges, you are a much smarter person than to be doing that.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. No, and again, that's a ridiculous diversion from the actual point.

There are 3 countries at the epicenter of the outbreak, 3 countries with out of control transmission of ebola.

Would restricting travel from those 3 countries be a "perfect guarantee"? No, no one is saying it would. However, just because a measure might not be 100% effective, doesn't mean it couldn't significantly help.

[Egnever]

2. The public is easily lead

Make the tv say damn near anything and the public will not their head in agreement.

[JI7]

3. this is why republicans are able to win elections

[customerserviceguy]

4. And they're positioned to win this one

It is important for the President to issue executive orders to do something to appear to stop the flow of Ebola to this country, even if he wants to relax those restrictions later. The Repukes will paint him as more sympathetic to African feelings than to the health of US residents.

Is the fear rational? Is most fear rational? Doesn't matter, you have to attend to it in either case. Better to be seen as erring on the side of caution than to err on the side of potential danger.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. So, he should just "do something" like the idiots on Fox are constantly telling him to do?

Doesn't need to make sense and/or be effective, right?. Just do something (or just look like you're doing something). Is THAT what we've been reduced to expecting/demanding of our leaders in this country?

[LisaL]

14. Better to do nothing?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. That's not my point at all

I'm for doing something smart and effective as opposed to something that looks good on paper but accomplishes nothing.

[bullwinkle428]

27. This type of sentiment is what enabled implementation of the Patriot Act.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. And treating ebola like it's no big deal is what enabled the clusterfuck in West Africa.

[HereSince1628]

5. Fear promotes short cuts to simple explanations and simpler sounding solutions.

These are the times that try politicians souls.

Whether to be a thoughtful statesman or merely a representative of the people.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. +1

This sort of atmosphere is ripe for Fox/right-wing idiocy and "easy fixes". Most people realize that few (any?) flights come directly from African countries, right? In order to lock down/prevent people from African countries affected by Ebola, we'd have to catch them and stop them at connecting flights along the way as well. Are we capable of enforcing such a ban? Will Republicans permit funding of such a massive operation? Would they fund the "Ebola Czar" that some of them are calling for? They won't even confirm Obama's nominee for Surgeon General, who could be that "Czar" and it wouldn't cost anybody a penny more than what we've already allocated for the position.

[LisaL]

8. I don't think that death rate was ever at 50 %.

The numbers coming out of Africa appear to be lowballed.
But as it gets more and more out of control, chances are increasing more people infected with Ebola will make it into US.
No?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. How will more and more people get out and get here

Many will be too sick or poor to leave. Not to say that I wouldnt want us to try keeping things from getting that bad.

[LisaL]

10. All it takes is one making it over here.

[uppityperson]

11. by "more" do you mean one might? That is true, anothernperson might, even 2

[XemaSab]

12. I don't care so much about people coming into the US

as I care about people getting out of the affected countries.

We have the capacity to diagnose and contain an outbreak.

I'm not so sure about hella other countries around the world.

[LisaL]

13. Do we have the capacity to contain the outbreak?

[Cha]

15. And, the reasoning behind it.. from your link, ssy

“I understand that there are calls to do this,” Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Monday, referring to an outright ban on travel from the three countries grappling with Ebola outbreaks. “The way we’re going to reduce risk to Americans is [to]… stop it at the source in Africa.”

A travel ban, he argued – as he has many times in recent weeks – would hamper that effort.

“If we do things that unintentionally make it harder to get that response in, to get supplies in, that make it harder for those governments to manage, to get everything from economic activity to travel going, it’s going to become much harder to stop the outbreak at the source,” he said. If that were to happen, it would spread for more months and potentially to other countries, and that would increase rather than decrease the risk to Americans. Above all, do no harm.”


Thank you scarystuffyo

[Lee-Lee]

16. I don't buy the excuse given that it will hamper relief efforts

And nobody I hear talking, left or right, does.

The people making that claim would have us belive there are only two possibilities- travel as usual with no restriction or a complete ban.

At this point I think the sensible thing is a ban on all travel not related to relief work- there, we help limit spread yet relief goes on.

Now two healthcare workers in Dallas are fighting for their lives because we didn't do that and trusted Thomas Duncan to honestly report he had been exposed on his questionnaire.

[Vinca]

17. Does this mean we quarantine Texas?

[B Calm]

18. Excellent Point! Rick Perry resistance to ObamaCare is to blame

for the outbreak in Texas.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Not to defend Perry but

The ACA isn't healthcare, it's a vehicle for buying insurance. Not that Mr. Duncan would have been eligible as I believe he was not a US citizen and was only visiting.

Perhaps you're thinking of a universal healthcare system.

Which we don't have.

just sayin'

[bullwinkle428]

28. I can't speak for B Calm, but I think that he was trying to argue that

Perry refused the Medicaid expansion component of the ACA, which does provide healthcare for those below a certain income level.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. It wouldn't have made a difference.

Duncan wasn't a resident alien, he was a visitor. Even if he was staying to make this his new home he hadn't been in country long enough to apply and be approved for benefits.

[seveneyes]

21. How many more Duncans are on their way here?

To continue allowing tourists from infected areas is insane.

[JoePhilly]

22. Give them duct-tape and plastic wrap.

And tell them the safest place is under the bed ... which is good since that's where they already are.

[LisaL]

25. The way this is going, soon we all might be hiding under the bed.

[JoePhilly]

26. The media will stop stretching before

... that happens.

They want people watching in terror.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Yeah, keep laughing.

Washington Post: "Not Even Close".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/14/americans-want-flight-restrictions-from-ebola-countries-and-its-not-close/



Know what happens to politicians who ignore those kinds of numbers? They find other jobs.

[Lee-Lee]

34. I fear that if we have more cases the administrations reluctance to halt at least some travel

will be a big issue in the midterms. Fear breeds anger and that will drive people to vote against anything they see connected.

Here in NC Tillis has been louder and more direct in calling for a travel ban than Kay Hagan, who had been softer in calls for it. Let one case pop up in this state and that will become a big issue.

I imagine the Karl Rove is just salivating at the idea of more people getting infected here to use that fear to his advantage.

[Zorra]

35. Apparently, some people think that their health, and the health of others, is more important than

the interests of commercial profit interests.

Unthinkable!


Keep shopping!

[TwilightGardener]

36. Funny how most people are more into direct self-preservation than high-minded

arguments against "stigmatizing" or isolating third-world countries. The truth is, we simply don't want their plague here, and no amount of preaching from government officials will change that. Maybe regular Americans feel that we should be able to benefit from living in America, hemorrhagic-fever-free, rather than importing diseases from third world shitholes.

[LostInAnomie]

39. We should.

The only reason we don't is because of business interests and PC nonsense.