I see a political problem if and when President Obama institutes a travel ban.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

He is going to get roasted for not instituting one earlier. I have no strong feelings either way but I can see the political problem of instituting a travel ban now rather than sooner.

[appleannie1]

1. Since there are no direct flights to and from Africa, he would have to shut down all

international flights, period. Can you imagine what that would do to the world economy? Even to go home to South Africa, my son-in-law has to fly first to Europe and then get another flight to Johannesburg.

[boston bean]

4. That is just not the case that all international flights would have to be shut down.

not.the.case.

we have the capability to stop any one person entering our country by reviewing their travel history and if they had been in a hot spot recently, they don't board the plane.

If some other country wants to take the risk well, that is on them. ie if a person from Liberia enters Brussels with an end location of the US, we can prevent them from getting on the plane. If Brussels wants to accepts flyers from those regions, that is up to them.

[appleannie1]

5. And if the person is not from Africa but had come in contact with someone who had

been there, if you do not shut down all flights, how do you prevent a possibly infected person from traveling? The nurse from Ohio has never been to Africa yet could have infected someone that might have bumped into her. So, yes, you would have to shut down all flights.

[boston bean]

6. Again, we are speaking of travel from hot spots.

That does help with one aspect of this problem, no??

I mean how did it get here in the first place?? US issued a tourist VISA and Duncan hopped on a plane. Total incompetence. And to allow it to potentially re-occur after seeing first hand how unprepared we actually are, is stupid.

[AngryAmish]

11. perfect is not the enemy of the good

[Savannahmann]

7. What?

Are you joking? I only ask because you would have to be.

First, Homeland Security exists for one bloody purpose, to worry about people coming to this nation. Are you suggesting that after more than a decade they can't figure out what potential passengers are from the affected areas?

Second, American Flagged carriers do fly in and out of the affected regions. Do you think they could be told not to bring anyone out who hasn't gone through a three week screening prior to boarding?

Look at who flies into Monrovia Liberia for example. https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=SAV;t=ROB;q=who+flies+into+monrovia+liberia;d=2014-11-03;r=2014-11-07

Lots of American flagged carriers. Delta, American, US Airways, even United. In fact, it looks like everyone but Jet Blue and Northwest fly in and out of there every day or two.

For some reason, we are in no position to tell the American Flagged carriers to stop bringing people out? How about the European flagged carriers? Do you think that Europe wants Ebola running amok through their population? We learned about plagues from European history, what makes you think they want another one? A couple phone calls and the European flagged carriers are onboard. We're down to a handful of regional airlines like Egypt Air or whatever.

Only a fool would suggest that the only way for someone to get from point A to B is a direct flight. Only an heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools would say that because it doesn't happen that way, there is no possible way to stop air travel. There is always a way, if you want to accomplish a given task.

It's bad enough that the Democratic Party ignores public support on a number of issues, but to ignore overwhelming public support for some of the most idiotic reasons I've ever read is beyond stupid into political suicide.

An example if you like. If we stop travel, we'll be unable to track the travel of people and know who they came in contact with. This is the entire purpose of a quarantine. It is to prevent travel, and prevent the people from interacting with, and infecting other people. It is to contain the outbreak, and minimize the impact upon the rest of the public. That is the very definition of a quarantine, prevent travel.

It will only delay the spread of Ebola. By reducing the number of people infected, we limit the spread of Ebola, every individual who has ever gone through Junior High School Health class knows that. Anyone who has ever read an article on how the Bubonic Plague was stopped knows that. It was stopped by stopping those people from entering areas that were not infected.

It would become a Logistical Nightmare. This argument revolves around the idea that if we don't let out anyone who hasnt' gone through a quarantine process of say three weeks, that no help can get in. Because everyone knows that aide flights to Hurricane impacted areas for example, have to come back full of people or the trip isn't worth it. This argument is so amazingly stupid that I can't believe that anyone would even consider writing it. By limiting the spread, we take the limited availability of Ebola treatments, and can get those treatments to a higher percentage of the people. Because while we're chasing a few hundred people around the US who may have been exposed, we're burning assets and withholding treatments from West Africa. We're holding onto our best treatments here, because we have to care for our own first. Idiots.

It could destabilize the countries at the heart of the outbreak. Again, massively stupid. While the outbreak is going on, nobody wants any travel from those countries. Neighboring nations have sealed their borders to prevent the disease from spreading to the unaffected areas. Besides freeing up more medical supplies and personnel for the affected areas, it protects their own citizens.

Let's say my house is on fire. You have a hose, and you start working on the part of my house that is closest to your house, if the first spark falls in your yard, you are going to turn your hose on that spark. Your first concern is not saving my house, it's to make sure your house does not burn down too. If I ran up and said you had to let your house burn down with mine so I wouldn't feel like I was all alone in this you would hit me in the head with a shovel. And you should hit me in the head with a shovel in that case, because I'm talking insane nonsense. Before we can help the economy of those nations, we have to stop the spread of the disease, and then work on rebuilding the economic. But there has to be a population of the nation in question before the system can be stable. It can't be stable with dead bodies piled in the street.

This nonsense that the travel restrictions are unworkable and counter productive is absolute rubbish. I don't know who decided that it was a good idea, but I definitely don't want them providing any medical care for me or my family. I doubt you could get them to stop licking windows long enough to actually provide the medical care anyway.

This is absolute political suicide, and absolute rubbish.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The presumption is the best way to mitigate a risk is to just avoid it.

It should take a lot to rebut that common sense presumption.

[Ace Rothstein]

12. No US carriers fly direct to Liberia.

You need to look at the flights in more detail. They all fly to Europe or elsewhere in Africa then switch to a non-US carrier for the flight into Liberia.

[Savannahmann]

15. Yet they are US Flagged carriers correct?

They can stop bringing passengers out until the passengers are screened can't they? It doesn't matter where the destination is, it's the travel. I understand that some of this is difficult to grasp. The destination is a part, a part of it. The problem is that infected people are leaving the area. They are ending up here. See Duncan in Texas for proof of that. They are contagious. See two healthcare workers for proof of that. Other nations are aware of the threats, and are taking action. Mexico and Belize just prevented a ship from calling on their ports, a cruise ship that comes by about once a week, because a laboratory technician who handled one of the samples from Duncan was on board.

The risk of infection may be small, perhaps one tenth of one percent. But the results of such an infection would be catastrophic.

Now, lets say we don't bother stopping the flights on US Flagged carriers, and more Ebola patients end up scattered around the world.

One little airline, small one. Frontier airlines. It has notified 800 people that they flew on the plane with the second health care worker that has the little bugger. I understand Ms. Vinson wants to get married, and was working on her wedding plans in Ohio. Let's say the odds are one in a thousand that she could have infected you in such a setting, it means it's probable that at least one person on that plane was exposed, and who knows where that ends.

But lets say that each person infects two more. Do you remember a commercial from the 1980's about that? I know it's horrible and the math doesn't match the screen, but you'll get the point.

And so on, and so on, and so on. Take your phone out, bring up the Calculator app, see how many times you have to double the numbers before it gets worrisome. So how do you stop that? You quarantine those with the disease. You screen and isolate the people who wish to leave. You monitor them until there is no danger that they are carrying the disease.

We're neighbors, like I said above in the scenario. How does setting your house on fire help the fire department put the fire out at my house? How does setting the neighborhood on fire help fight the fire out my house? The argument that there is no direct flights should have been dropped when we matured enough to put the crayons down and pick up a number two pencil. We need to eliminate all paths of travel possible, and it's best to start that at the source. And so on, and so on.

[Ace Rothstein]

16. No, they are foreign flagged carriers.

Royal Air Maroc is Moroccan and Brussels Airlines is Belgian. Those are the only two airlines currently flying into Liberia.

I would suggest canceling all Visas from the three affected countries for the next 3 months to be acceptable. We can then extend the Visa cancellations at the end of those three months, if necessary. It wouldn't stop people from other countries who have visited the hot zone from arriving in the US but it would limit our exposure to more infected people arriving here.

[spanone]

2. he gets 'roasted' no matter what he does.

[bigwillq]

3. I tend to agree. If one were to impose a travel ban, they should have done it

already. Not now.
Dropped ball.

I also have no strong feelings either way.

[amandabeech]

13. Are you looking at a travel ban from the political angle,

or from the public health angle?

I can understand your comment from the former, but not the latter perspective.

[Lee-Lee]

9. Agreed- and it will hurt all those on the ballot who followed his lead

I'm already hearing attacks here in NC on Kay Hagan for coming out against travel restrictions, even though she later changed her position (that seemed not very firm against anyway).

If he does it now every Democrat who stood with him against them will take a huge hit.

If he doesn't and more patients come in on flights I fear the effect will be even worse.

If they get it under control and we have no more cases then he and those who stood with him look good.

That is a huge gamble.

My fear even more so is that the if we see more cases this will really start changing attitudes about immigration among the people who didn't feel strongly about it one way or another. And if we lock down travel that feeds into the anti immigration narratives.

It really is a no-win unless things stay open and we get no more cases.

[CK_John]

10. Does that include the ships, like oil tankers and circus cruise types?

[amandabeech]

14. I don't know that there are any cruise ships coming from the three hot spot countries.

We do get oil tankers from Nigeria, but Nigeria closed its borders and tracked down the contacts of the first case there, and in a few days will be without a new infection for 42 days.

Ships sailing from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia would have to stay in quarantine off-shore for 21 days, I imagine. That's money for the owners of the ship and the cargo, but ebola is a terrible disease and it is worth it to us and the rest of the world community that its spread is limited. At least in my book.

I would support economic aid to the affected countries once ebola is conquered or very much under control.