<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone knows that, but the whole point is that we do not want the virus to gain a foothold over here, because that would totally change the risk assessment. And that requires you to take precautions. </p>
<p>I’ve read a bunch of these arguments comparing the risk of ebola to supposedly benign things like walking across the street, and no surprise, things done more frequently end up being “riskier.”</p>
<p>The closing of other nations’ borders is not a precaution - it’s, well, it’s an invasion. And that was suggested more than once on this thread. And many of the supposedly precautionary measures that were implemented (closing of schools in Ohio) were simply absurd, and based on hysteria rather than science. </p>
<p>Surely any sensible person will agree that that there can be excessive, unnecessary precautions. For example, nobody (I assume) is proposing that we close our borders to all international travel, or that we ban interstate travel within the United States, although these precautions might reduce the risk of more Ebola here. The problem I have is that when anybody tries to assert that a particular level of precaution is sufficient, on balance, there will always be somebody to argue that there should be more precautions, and to question the motives of the person who is trying to get the balance right. This is the reason (in my opinion) that we are required to go through a bunch of pointless theater every time we board an airplane. And it’s hard to roll it back, because, again, anybody who tries is labeled as having some kind of evil motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best way – the ONLY way – to prevent the virus from gaining a foothold over here is to get very serious about stamping it out over there. If we fail to suppress it in West Africa, then nothing we can do will prevent it from coming here. It will roll over travel bans and closed borders as if they were feathers.</p>
<p>Article in today’s NYT - that it’s very unlikely there will be any travel ban and at most maybe a visa restriction (though I wouldn’t put any money on that either.)</p>
<p>I won’t post article because it is a bit political - so putting this out here is case anyone is interested in reading it. </p>
<p>Interesting development:</p>
<p>After the CDC and others were repeatedly saying that people could easily get around travel restrictions, the U.S. just announced that all people traveling from hot zone countries can only enter the U.S. via specific airports. </p>
<p>And at those specific airports, they will be Ebola-screened using new procedures (to be seen what they are). In addition, anyone currently traveling or who have booked travel from hit zone countries must change flights or re-book going through one of those airports.</p>
<p>As many have already said on this thread, we can control passenger flow via visa issuance and the tracking of flights linked to those visas. And lo and behold, the US had just implemented a re-routing and tracking of hot zone passengers.</p>
<p>This is great example where the agencies lose credibility. Several agencies kept saying that people could easily get around travel restrictions, then the U.S. turns around and is directing how and where people from hot zone countries travel to the U.S. The trusting of passengers in filling out a form seems out.</p>
<p>Ironically, this was a suggestion by Dr. Osterholm on Fox last week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that is exactly what I am doing, by asking my questions, because oftentimes the answers don’t make sense to me.</p>
<p>For example, several medical professionals on this thread have suggested that the idea that Ebola might be or might become airborne is absurd, for various reasons including that HIV didn’t go airborne. It turns out this is not what the virologists are saying at all.</p>
<p>Another example is LasMa’s constant posting against the travel ban. Fine, we get your position by now. But in the same breath you say, “Let’s look at what Nigeria did,” and guess what? Nigeria banned entry to those from the infected countries. And, studies on travel bans do show that they reduce and delay the flow, even if they don’t wipe it out completely.</p>
<p>There is not a single person on this thread who is an Ebola expert, so it baffles me that people can feel so self-assured about what this virus can or cannot do, or how we should address it.</p>
<p>The difference, Bay – and it’s a HUGE difference – is that Nigeria closed off its OWN borders, where as people here were calling for the U.S. to close other nations’ commercial flights. I doubt the world community would have liked to see that. </p>
<p>There was a statistical study published a few days ago (?) in the Lancet that showed that with current screening methods 2.8 people per month with Ebola could enter the U. S. That is simply unacceptable. </p>
<p>Emilybee: I always thought travel ban and not issuing visas were equivalent. The U. S. embassies should not issue visas to the U. S. until the Ebola outbreak is quelled.</p>
<p>What about American citizens in the hot zone? What about people who have 10-year visas so they don’t need to be reissued? </p>
<p>“I always thought travel ban and not issuing visas were equivalent.”</p>
<p>No, did you read the article? Not the same. </p>
<p>“Travel ban” to me always meant ‘no travel to the U. S.’. What other countries allow is their business. And only necessary medical aid workers should be going to the hot zone. Presumably they would have the good sense to self-quarantine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty sure no one is under the illusion of wiping it out, at least not on the African continent that is.</p>
<p>However, the chances of eliminating it in country is obviously increased greatly by reducing entry to people who were and are still of greatest risk of being exposed. It’s all about exposure risk reduction. And if a country gets lucky in wiping it out, then that is icing on the cake really. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, none of us is an expert.</p>
<p>And the top doctors who actually can get away with calling themselves Ebola experts are the ones saying they are still learning and cannot make any certain statements, as there is not have enough outbreak history with Ebola AND specifically no history with this new strain. </p>
<p>Does not matter the length of the visa. In one simple move, the U.S. could make those visas invalid. </p>
<p>I have had the US temporarily invalidate visas mid-flight for colleagues on a private jet. The guy lands and his visa is no longer accepted. The U.S. does this every so often for executives traveling to suspect countries which also buy US products. The executives are detained and debriefed to get current in-country intelligence, then sent on their way with a now re-validated visa.</p>
<p>
I could be wrong, but I believe the healthcare posters are saying it is NOT airborne. </p>
<p>Speaking for myself, this Ebola strain is not airborne. It may become airborne one day and hopefully it will behave like the Reston Ebola. That strain was believed to be airborne but it lost its virulence. </p>
<p>Everything I read says the ebola is NOT currently transmitted via any airborne route, but there is concern among some that it COULD mutate to become transmitted via airborne route. Viruses and bacteria mutate all the time.</p>
<p>Nina Pham $87,862 [GoFundMe</a> - Nina Pham](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■/fsqtbo]GoFundMe”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■/fsqtbo)
Amber Vinson $6,345 [GoFundMe</a> - Amber Vinson](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■/4amber]GoFundMe”>Amber Joy Vinson Fund , organized by Terri Clark)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what studies you’re looking at. Here’s a roundup of the research, with citations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The evidence on travel bans for diseases like Ebola is clear: they don’t work]( <a href=“Wuhan coronavirus: Travel bans for diseases like this don’t work - Vox”>Wuhan coronavirus: Travel bans for diseases like this don’t work - Vox)</p>
<p>The reason for my “constant posting” is frustration, i guess. I can’t fathom why people are so determined to ignore the virtual unanimity of public health experts</p>
<p>jym,
Keep going with my sentence. They are saying the idea of going airborne is absurd.</p>
<p>Nice to see frugaldoctor weigh in on the issue.</p>
<p>If Dr. Osterholm is to be believed (and is there any reason we shouldn’t believe him?), Ebola experts do not know with certainty that it is not airborne. He cited an experiment with pigs and monkeys, in which the viral transmission indicated airborne.</p>