Canada won't issue visas to residents of countries with widespread Ebola

[Bosonic]

Source: Winnipeg Free Press

TORONTO - Canada is following in Australia's footsteps and has suspended, effectively immediately, the issuance of visas to residents of the West African countries battling Ebola.

In a move that puts Canada at odds with the World Health Organization, the federal government said Friday it is suspending visa applications for residents and nationals of countries with "widespread and persistent-intense transmission" of Ebola virus disease.

That stress on countries with widespread transmission provides an out for the United States, which currently still has at least one active Ebola case within its borders.

The federal government said it would stop issuing visas in the worker, student or visitor class and won't issue any pending permanent residency visas for people from those countries either. Any applications already in the system will also not be processed at this time. The change, which goes into effect immediately, was announced Friday in the Canada Gazette.

Read more: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/newsalert-canada-wont-issue-visas-to-residents-of-countries-with-widespread-ebola-281102852.html

[randys1]

1. Rightwing asshole runs Canada, I think

[atreides1]

2. Yes he does

But remember who put the "Rightwing asshole" in charge...that would be the "asshole" voters!

[randys1]

3. Amazingly depressing, but it is just a matter of time, when starvation sets in

homelessness, etc. they will wake up.

There are very few absolutes in the world, but one of them is trickle down economics destroys the average person.

[pnwmom]

4. Their parliamentary multi-party system allowed for a conservative government

to be elected by a minority.

So a multi-party government isn't the panacea some people think it would be.

[former9thward]

6. Starvation???

There is no starvation in Canada. Hyperbole much?

[randys1]

7. I said when, if you dont think conservative ideology, left unchecked, wont lead to starvation

homelessness and so on then you are not paying attention.

The one percent, the folks who own the politicians, the Oligarchs do NOT need you or us Americans anymore, as consumers.

We will live in a near 3rd world condition if they have their say

[former9thward]

8. I am paying very close attention.

When is this starvation going to happen?

[randys1]

9. It has started in America, some have to choose between food and needed RX to survive

http://www.capitalareafoodbank.org/2012/05/forced-to-choose-housing-medicine-or-food/

You dont know about this stuff?

REALLY????????


http://www.foodbankccs.org/2013/02/seniors-choose-between-groceries-and-medicine.html

[former9thward]

13. Let's not switch countries.

You said Canada.

[RKP5637]

26. If the cost of food goes up much more in some places in the US starvation, on the edge or there,

well be a strong reality. Every time we go shopping, for example, the prices continue to go up ... often people are wandering around holding this or that item, particularly older people, almost memorized hoping they are reading the price incorrectly. Some may not notice this, but it is edging up bit by bit. So much of America lives in this delusional denial with their head up their butt!

[amandabeech]

10. I'm not quite following your post.

Are you saying that Canada will starve or that Canada's move here will result in starvation in the Ebol-affected countries?

I couldn't find anything that discussed whether or not this means that Canada will not assist in any relief efforts, like sending food and medical supplies, to the affected countries.

[randys1]

12. That is a fair question, I wasnt referring to Ebola but to conservatives running Canada and

the ones in America

Conservative ideology is sick, twisted, deadly.

When I saw that Canada, a country I want to think of as progressive, acting like this, I got even more depressed.

[amandabeech]

14. I have met a few conservative Canadians.

They're mostly well-off people in Ontario and quite a few people similar to our North Dakotans and Montanans in the west.

I think, though, that despite this action, Canada has a "set point" to the left of us, and that they will rebalance after their next parliamentary election.

So, don't give up hope on our neighbors to the north. I know I won't.

[Yo_Mama]

16. I think it has to do with their health care system

Actually in both Australia and Canada. They have very strong socialized health care systems and they work hard on controlling costs and having reasonable levels of access to care. But they do not have the excess beds we do - there is a certain degree of rationing of care based on resources.

I think in Canada's case especially, the reality is that they would find it hard to treat Ebola cases without having to deny care to some, and that they simply chose not to encounter the dilemma. This doesn't mean they won't send aid and so forth - Canada is notably internationally good that way.

[jtuck004]

5. Perhaps their opponents should learn to work and take responsibility for their lack of ability

in motivating the people instead of calling everyone names and pretending it's all someone else's "fault". We have Congress for that. And Daycare centers. And Kindergarten.

Maybe the voters lost faith. That's the fault of the message. And sometimes the messenger. Not the voter.

The old saying... "When you point out the problem remember there are three fingers pointing back at you". Still true, most times.

[Monk06]

11. the "asshole" voters! - In Ontario

It's just Steven Harper carrying water for the US right wing.

He's just saying, "I'm doing what Obama refuses to do"

[Fred Sanders]

15. Harper and his party have been anti-science, openly, for years. He is playing to the 39% of

Canadians who voted him in 5 long years ago.

[Yo_Mama]

17. What's anti-science about this?

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/diseases-conditions-maladies-affections/disease-maladie/ebola/response-reponse-eng.php

Sooner or later, if you allow entrants you will have a few Ebola cases. It would be anti-science to pretend otherwise.

[Fred Sanders]

18. Fear is anti-science.

[alp227]

23. Sometimes, truth is a defense for fear. nt

[cali]

25. lol. fear grounded in science certainly isn't anti-science

that's some broad and erroneous generalization you made there, fred.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Like Bill Maher and Islam, it happens.

[George II]

19. What are they doing about their own returning citzens?

Unless I missed one or two, EVERY case of Ebola in the US occurred in US citizens.

[kiva]

20. Thomas Duncan was a Liberian citizen. n/t

[George II]

21. I missed one.

[rocktivity]

22. Nobody has to be banned, just delayed for three to four weeks

after reserving their tickets. Then if they test negative for Ebola, they can be issued their travel documents.


rocktvity

[Bragi]

28. So when do they take "the test?"

Is it when they buy the ticket, or when they depart?

Suggestion: think this through.

[rocktivity]

29. Both -- there are two tests.

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They get to reserve the ticket if they pass the first test. Twenty-one to thirty days later, they get to use the ticket if they pass a second test on the day of departure.

I realize it's not totally foolproof. But it would have stopped Mr. Duncan, and it would have gotten Dr. Spencer into the right hospital without needlessly exposing others.


rocktivity

[Bragi]

30. How is that better than a single test?

If I get cleared to buy a ticket, then the test given then will show that I am presumably non-symptomatic, and hence not infectious. Right? But I can't get on the airplane, right?

Okay, if I then show up 21-30 days later with my ticket, then the second test given then may show again that I am non-symptomatic at that moment, but this time I'm to fly.

I could still, however, have contracted the disease between the dates the two tests are given, any not be showing symptoms, right?

So your two-stage test doesn't do anything, really, more than a single test does, other than to stop currently non-symptomatic, non-contagious people from flying.

[rocktivity]

31. The purpose of the waiting period is to ensure you don't go contagious during THAT time.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 03:21 PM - Edit history (7)

It's about stopping future Thomas Duncans from blowing town because they know it's more likely than not that they're infected.

Like I said, it's not a cureall. But in the absence of a complete travel ban, one or two people entering other countries and becoming contagious within 21 days is better than one or two dozen people entering other countries and becoming contagious within 21 days.


rocktivity

[Bragi]

32. Oh, I see

So you would keep all people locked down in effected countries for 21-30 additional days so as to prevent someone who thinks they may have ebola, but who is NOT contagious, from fleeing right away.

I think that the main result of your plan would be to discourage a great many health care workers from abroad from volunteering to work in the infected countries, which is what is really needed to stop the spread of the disease. In return, your plan might prevent a few non-contagious people who may have fled from doing so.

So, while I don't think your plan would be a good idea, for the reason stated above, I applaud the fact that you're trying to creatively think through a better approach.

[rocktivity]

33. For the medical personnel working there, add the 21 days to the end of the work assignment

during which they can self-monitor and do work that doesn't involve treating patients or being at the medical facility.

Had Dr. Spencer been required to do it, he could have been properly transported to one of the specialized U.S. Ebola hospitals -- lots more cost effective than overwhelming a local hospital, sanitizing everywhere he'd been, and tracking down and monitoring everyone he's had contact with.


rocktivity

[Bragi]

34. Still not a good idea

If you add 21-30 days at the end of each assignment, then fewer medical professionals will be able to willing to volunteer to go, which makes it more likely the disease will spread beyond where it is now confined.

Doing this when there is no scientific reason for it (i.e. non-symptomatic people cannot spread the disease) sends us down a slippery slope where we make bad decisions.

I think taking steps we hope will reduce fear in the US, for example, while knowing that it will, in fact, make the further spread of the disease in the infected countries, and elsewhere, more likely, would be a bad public health decision.

Anyway, that is my main point here. Perhaps we could continue our conversation at another relevant but more recent thread. See you there!

[HeiressofBickworth]

24. I don't see the problem

Canada is an independent country. Their government can issue visas to whomever they wish or withhold visas from whomever they wish. People applying for a visa aren't automatically entitled to one. There is another discussion on the wisdom of their acts, but they are entirely within their rights with regard to issuing visas for whatever reason they decide is sufficient.

When I moved to Australia in 1975, they had a closed immigration policy. I got a visa only because my mother, brother and sister already lived there and owned a motel and restaurant which provided employment for me. Otherwise, Australia's doors were closed. Again, entirely within their rights to do so.