<p>Frugal doctor
Why on earth must the decision to ban non-citizens be dependent at all on what we decide to do with Americans??</p>
<p>That’s great but I think you are an exception. I am in an area with excellent medical centers but I don’t think we are well prepared. As I said before, I think it’s wasteful to get every hospitalin the country fully prepared. They should designate a few hospitals or have a mobile team to be deployed or ….</p>
<p>Coolwweather, They said in the news, “when it dries, it dies”, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. No need to feel guilty about being protective of your own citizens.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with Americans, just simple math. People are asking to ban travel from high risk areas in Africa. I pointed out that Nigeria, when they had their outbreak, was lower risk than Dallas. So, if the issue is banning the country due to risks, the math shows that Dallas would have been considered a higher risk than Nigeria.</p>
<p>I think the disagreement comes down to whether a travel ban will halt the spread into our country. I don’t believe it will. If you could guarantee that it would halt it, I would say yes of course.</p>
<p>Since this is a college issues website, I wonder what effect this dallas ebola story has had on SMU applicant interest.</p>
<p>This article explains that the “R naught” value, the number of people will be infected is 1.5 - 2, lower than the measles. <a href=“No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR”>No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR;
<p>Not trivializing this awful, deadly disease, but the risk of contracting it is, to the general public, low. So while yes, we need to contain it, NOW, the reaction to it need not be frenetic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would not worry if other African countries have their Ebola outbreaks under control as well as Nigeria has. Nigeria is irrelevant in this discussion. It’s distorting the argument. Is it intentional? How does Dallas compare to Liberia? That will be more relevant comparison.</p>
<p>Doesn’t simple logic tell you that if nearly all of the worlds ebola carriers are located in certain African countries, then limiting travelers from those countries will reduce the risk of importing more to our country? Who cares whether Dallas has a higher ratio than Nigeria? That is irrelevant. </p>
<p>frugaldoctor, Nigeria was a good choice for your illustration for another reason: They know how to do this. They had 20 cases, 8 deaths, and the outbreak is close to being declared over. They pursued common sense public health measures: They isolated the sick, they limited exposure of health care workers, and they tracked down contacts.</p>
<p>Jym,
Interesting R0 article, but already Duncan has reached his R0 limit (2 nurses) and the waiting period isn’t over yet. The article also says this;
</p>
<p>It’s unclear whether that has been accomplished in this case. </p>
<p>Two problems with a travel ban. First, it would give us a false sense of security. Second, and more important, all of our energies, attention, time, resources, and people need to be directed to stopping the outbreak in West Africa.</p>
<p>Simple logic tells me that if we stop the travelers embarking from certain infected countries and we live happily ever after. But 22 years of experience working in probably 24 or so countries tells me that real life doesn’t work logically.</p>
<p>An epidemic like this needs to be stopped at its source ASAP. The people on the ground are asking for money, aid, and open flights to get the volunteers they need. Right now, it is nowhere near enough. So, I can’t support a ban and a mythical alternative military or health flights (that neither exist) that will provide the support and assistance that the people who are risking their lives are asking for. By the way, any volunteers here?</p>
<p>Here is how Dallas compares to Liberia: Dallas is rich and has the one of the best hospital systems in the country and they’ve failed to contain the epidemic so far. Liberia is dirt poor, health system has collapse and economy is near the brink of collapse. If Dallas can’t contain this infection yet, Liberia is about to have an explosion of cases without the money and volunteers that they need. Once that happens, those patients are permeating through every country in Africa. That collapse can be hasten by a travel ban, leading to economic collapse, and a large migration of poor Liberians into neighboring countries.</p>
<p>So, while logic may dictate a simple solution or explanation (like the rooster crowing in the morning is the reason why the sun comes up), reality on the ground dictates that we are about to lose this battle the way things are going. </p>
<p>I think we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>@Lasma: you said the right thing. They isolated the SICK, not EVERYONE. This travel ban is about isolating everyone from affected countries.</p>
<p>Thanks Frugal Doctor for the helpful perspective you inject into this thread. I really appreciate your views and find them more helpful than anything I read in the media. It is unfortunate that those who are in a position to speak are not well informed and don’t have a good global understanding and enough knowledge to be helpful to do more than spread fear and mistrust.</p>
<p>Yes, thank you, frugaldoctor. </p>
<p>Thank you, Frugaldoctor.</p>
<p>So is this Ebola virus not surviving well in the cold climate vs warm and hot or it doesn’t matter. This question is in regard to the comment that when it dies when it dries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not enough is known about the virus to have any confidence in those calculated values.</p>
<p>This website gives a good explanation between airborne and droplet transmission and will answer part of DrGoogle’s question:</p>
<p><a href=“FAQ: Methods of Disease Transmission”>http://microbiology.mtsinai.on.ca/faq/transmission.shtml</a></p>
<p>sorghum,
Those R-0 transmission values are not new. The mathematical estimates have been previously calculated and established , if I understand them correctly. Frugaldoctor, can you weigh in?</p>