<p>Folks, please take a look at who these African Ebola patients are. Let me be as nice as I can, they are the bottom of their country’s income level. These are not people who can readily afford to get on a plane anyway. But if they do, there are too many ways to circumvent a ban that makes it ineffective.</p>
<p>Bay, Nigeria has a population of roughly 170 Million people. They’ve had less than 30 infected people (please correct me if I am wrong). Dallas has had 3 infections out of 7 million. So, Dallas has a higher Ebola infection rate than Nigeria. Does it make any sense to stop people with Dallas addresses from entering any other municipalities outside of Dallas? That is the effect of the ban. If you ban people from those African countries, like Nigeria, you really should ban citizens of Dallas due to their higher infection rates.</p>
<p>Plus, people with those passports haven’t necessarily been through those infected areas. They may have been in other countries. There are plenty of African Immigrants living in South Africa who have not been to their homeland in years but carry their homeland’s passports.</p>
<p>My colleague on my trip had 2 passports, a US passport and a Liberian passport. If you block his Liberian passport, he just uses his US passport and circumvents the ban.</p>
<p>Lastly, corruption is everywhere. I have paid off officials to get through some serious red tape and it is seen as the way of doing business in Africa and most of the poorer Third World Countries. I would love to tell you what they are, but fear getting in trouble. Unfortunately, there was no other way around it. But it would shock you the level of corruption and when it comes up.</p>
<p>People want easy solutions, but the solution here will be very hard, inconvenient, and expensive for all of us eventually.</p>
<p>I read this differently. This does not say refuse. It says Americans here come first instead of importing others to treat them. And if there is a line at a US hospital for treatment being paid for by US tax dollars, then the US citizens come first, when a bed opens up.</p>
<p>Not that much different than a our concierge health care plan where we do not have to wait in any ER waiting room or for a specialist. Regardless of the line, we get treated immediately once signing in. </p>
<p>I have 2 US passports. I believe people who travel to certain countries that do not like each other also do. I can use either passport for exit or entry, so my travel history would not be apparent to anyone checking my passport. What are the customs agents going to do with folks like that?</p>
<p>We can only hope that it doesn’t advance to the point that there is a line of American citizens waiting to be treated for Ebola. Maybe they can do it like concert tickets and set up a virtual waiting room </p>
<p>I only chose Nigeria after reading the story of the college banning students from Ebola countries. It illustrates the disconnect between people infected and a shotgun fix.</p>
<p>@bunsenburner I forgot about that. I also have 2 passports for travel to Israel and Muslim countries.</p>
<p>However . . . I’m not sure that wealth is the best triage method when dealing with Ebola. Is that the healthcare version of those who buy front row seats on stubhub vs those who wait all night in line?</p>
<p>Rationing Ebola care: The moment Ebola overruns the healthcare system, you will have a system similar to the field hospitals set up in Africa. Patients will be Isolated to makeshift areas, given supportive care, and those who make get to leave. The public will completely support it. Isolation of infected people will be the only way to safeguard the public if and when the numbers approach hundreds or thousands of people.</p>
<p>I find it bizarre that some people argue against denying entry to citizens from Ebola-stricken countries. Just bizarre. We are not talking about Americans here. I thought we already barred immigrants with certain diseases. </p>
<p>I am not an expert but my understanding is that Ebola becomes more contagious towards the end and in death than it is early on. My understanding is that the great urgency of providing care in Africa is that with isolation in treatment centers each patient is less likely to infect family and neighbors. When patients “go underground” they are a greater risk to society. The traditional idea of rationing care on a battlefield by treating those who can be helped first doesn’t necessarily hold because the most ill are the most dangerous in terms of spreading the disease. </p>
<p>Bay: I believe we do bar immigrants with certain known diseases but not those who are coming from high risk areas without a known infection. But answer this, would you bar Dallas residents from leaving their city due to the risk they pose?</p>
<p>A hypothetical black market of vectors vs. simple containment. The CDC, if electing to continue this strategy, should drop any monitoring/travel restrictions of Dallas nurses and just offer treatment. Frieden’s comments indicate they’re not going to do this anymore.</p>
<p>Many African nations are denying travelers from affected area. They are successful in preventing Ebola from spreading to their countries. Why should we expect a different outcome in the US?</p>
</p>