He must be trolling us. It is the only thing that explains such disregard for personal safety.

Either that or he has some seriously delusional trust that our government and health system will be able to handle this thing from start to finish. And I've already seen way too many holes in both of those to have any more faith in either.

10/15/2014 9:47:38 PM

your position is also pretty delusional (in fairness though, not as delusional as wanting to bring infected people into the US)

10/15/2014 9:50:53 PM

What part of my position is delusional? The banning flights? Maybe it is, but more and more people are calling for it.

Or my worry that it might get worse?

10/15/2014 9:52:56 PM

when did I ever advocate bringing people in?

I'm just against a ban

I'm also pretty sure I made it clear that it wasnt some theory that I came up with. I saw a clip of Sanjay Gupta (who works at the hospital who has treated multiple patients who have had Ebola) talking about why a ban is a bad idea

10/15/2014 10:10:24 PM

I'm fairly certain that clip discussed banning flights TO Africa. Meanwhile, rj is saying the ban should be for flights FROM Africa.

[Edited on October 15, 2014 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2014 11:32:33 PM

I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, which is par for the course

what other potential diseases do you want to ban commerce over?

10/16/2014 12:35:47 AM

We should ban travel out of Texas too.

10/16/2014 12:36:28 AM

^^ what other words do you want to put in my mouth? Also, feel free to produce the clip where Gupta is saying bans from Africa would be bad. I haven't been keeping up with the media hysteria, after all.

^ Too late; Dubya already got out over 14 years ago

[Edited on October 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2014 12:58:16 AM

so you were fairly certain about a clip that you hadn't seen?

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kgr74h/au-bon-panic

the clip I've been referencing is about 2/3 of the way in

10/16/2014 1:02:13 AM

Travel bans are, at best, a stop-gap measure (like voluntary quarantines) and at-worst, would exacerbate the situation.

Someone would just travel to another country first (potentially affecting more people), then book another itinerary to the US. It wouldn't really stop anyone from coming who might have ebola, just slightly slow down these people.

I get why smaller country with less resources (and 1 airport) would institute a ban. But for the US, this doesn't make any sense. It won't do anything. It's a feel-good measure, designed to appease irrational fears rather than solve any actual problem.

[Edited on October 16, 2014 at 1:51 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2014 1:51:37 AM

Banning flights from the infected countries won't do a hell of a lot. For one thing, there aren't a lot of direct flights from Monrovia to the US. Maybe there's not any -- I notice that Duncan took the same Africa->Brussels->Dulles route that I'll be taking next month. You gonna ban all flights from Belgium?

OK, so you ban all passengers originating in Liberia. Seems too complicated to work but what do I know. So, they take a bus to Abidjan and fly out of there.

OK, OK, we'll just ban Liberians. Aside from the fact that that'd be fucked up and, I think, illegal, it doesn't help much. Africans move around a lot. If Liberia is anything like Benin, a significant portion of the population consists of peripatetic workers from neighboring countries.

Then there's the question of what you want to do with the Americans who are in the affected countries, either fighting ebola, working for US firms, running the embassy, or working for any of the dozens of aid groups that operate in every African country.

10/16/2014 4:11:40 AM

How do you guys feel about Ebola-related "viral" Halloween costumes?

10/16/2014 4:47:22 AM

Too soon

10/16/2014 7:31:57 AM

I would say definitely not cool on the Ebola costume. I am sure you will see some idiot go as a patient as well.

10/16/2014 8:33:39 AM

Quote :

"Aside from the fact that that'd be fucked up and, I think, illegal, it doesn't help much"

While I agree that shouldn't be done, I really don't see what's illegal about barring citizens of one specific country from entering the US. We have that right as a sovereign country.

10/16/2014 8:53:31 AM

I thought that it would violate US law, because of backlash after we finally got rid of the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some quick research makes me think I'm wrong. Move along, nothing to see here.

10/16/2014 9:39:40 AM

I see no problem with restricting air travel

10/16/2014 9:43:10 AM

I feel bad for Frontier airlines. They've got to be losing money because of this stupid nurse.

And why should I listen to Sanjay Gupta. I asked my daughter's pediatrician what she thought, and I view their opinions about they same....they both have medical degrees, are probably a lot smarter than me, but are not epidemiologists or virologists. They have informed opinions, but they're just that - opinions.

[Edited on October 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM. Reason : asdfa]

[Edited on October 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM. Reason : asdfa]

10/16/2014 10:09:39 AM

you're pretty hilarious

wanna accuse me of trolling again?

10/16/2014 10:20:16 AM

I don't see your point. Are you trying to say that I should take Sanjay Gupta, some CNN talking head with a medical degree, as THE expert on how an outbreak acts?

10/16/2014 11:35:44 AM

you're like the Drudge Siren, if the Drudge Siren were able to type and post on a message board

10/16/2014 11:52:04 AM

What is the "Drudge Siren"

10/16/2014 12:02:41 PM

10/16/2014 12:06:49 PM

I think his point is that it's not ludicrous to think that banning all flights from africa may not be the best way to handle this, and doing so could possibly be counter-productive, when you suggested that it was ludicrous.

10/16/2014 12:27:22 PM

From CNN:

Quote :

" Several Texas and Ohio schools are closed as a precaution against exposing faculty and students."

Seems kinda overkill

10/16/2014 4:07:37 PM

they have sent out ebola memos at work.

10/16/2014 5:32:25 PM

Why would it be counter productive to heavily restrict flights to and from Ebola stricken countries?

10/16/2014 6:07:04 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2014/10/13/ebola-travel/

Why don’t we just ban flights from Africa?

The idea seems logical. Prevent sick people entering the country, keep your loved ones safe. It’s selfish, but understandable. A survey of over 1000 people by NBC News found that the majority of Americans (58%) support a ban on flights from countries where the Ebola virus has broken out.

Dr Tom Frieden, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has tried to explain why he doesn’t support a travel ban:

Importantly, isolating countries won’t keep Ebola contained and away from American shores. Paradoxically, it will increase the risk that Ebola will spread in those countries and to other countries, and that we will have more patients who develop Ebola in the US. People will move between countries, even when governments restrict travel and trade. And that kind of travel becomes almost impossible to track.

Simply put: you can’t seal the country. If you blocked air travel, it would force desperate individuals to use alternative routes – over land and sea – to escape the epidemic. They’ll still end up in the US, except you won’t know where.

10/16/2014 6:16:12 PM

Right, but other countries in Africa have already banned air travel in order to protect their borders, at this point, it'd be pretty difficult to smuggle yourself into the US from Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc if we were to ban travel. Also, you're not just banning flights, you're banning people with passports from those countries (or at least giving them closer scrutiny). By the time someone got from an Ebola stricken country on a flight that was heading into the US, odds are they'd be VERY symptomatic and noticeable.

Right now, with no restrictions, you have a single person, who could be asymptomatic, just hop on a plane and call it day. Also, with other countries imposing restrictions, do we really want the US to be consider the only safe harbor in the storm? That's the very last thing we need is to encourage the thought "If I make it to the US, I'll be okay"

10/16/2014 6:34:28 PM

What would be the sense in banning someone with an African passport? An African living in Germany can fly to US on a Liberian passport. It's not like having the African passport makes you more susceptible than other people traveling from Africa.

A travel ban would just be further security theater. It's not that is selfish, is that it's mostly ineffective in the long run, the benefits don't really outweigh the costs. It's not really relevant what most Americans want, because Americans are idiots.

Africa has different challenges than us, I don't know how their flight ban is implemented, but just because they're doing it doesn't make sensE for us to do it.

10/16/2014 7:25:29 PM

All I know is that NOT banning flights has directly resulted in two transmissions.

10/16/2014 7:30:21 PM

that's a tricky (and ridiculous) game to play

10/16/2014 7:47:44 PM

NOT cancelling CBS's Scorpion caused 2 cases of Ebola

10/16/2014 7:49:48 PM

^^^ guy could have gotten stuck in Europe, infecting Europeans, who then come to the US.

But maybe if flights were banned, he wouldn't have been in the cab with the pregnant woman that got him sick. But then this pregnant woman might have infected someone elsE, who didn't get treatment, and then infected 5 more people.

We have 1 death so far, and2 illnesses that seem well under control. We need to make sure the problem is controlled in Africa, Asia, China, and any other 3rd world countries (assuming it breaks out), to really help stop Ebola.

10/16/2014 8:07:52 PM

Quote :

"A travel ban would just be further security theater. It's not that is selfish, is that it's mostly ineffective in the long run, the benefits don't really outweigh the costs. It's not really relevant what most Americans want, because Americans are idiots. "

What are the costs of banning people with Liberian (and other Ebola infected countries) passports entry into the US? I doubt we have much commerce that depends on those people traveling to the US. There aren't many ways the disease could have made its way across the ocean to the US, the way it did happened to be a Liberian who boarded an airplane. I get that it wouldn't stop all chances of someone with Ebola making their way to the US but I would like to hear more on these costs because I don't really see any.

10/16/2014 9:57:35 PM

I'm not worried about a widespread outbreak of Ebola in the U.S. or anywhere else in the first world, but looking at the numbers, it looks like the spread of infection across Africa isn't anywhere close to getting reined in. Total infections are still doubling every 3-4 weeks, like they have been for a while. Whatever damping effect medical aid is having is getting overwhelmed by that exponential growth. I mean, maybe we're slowing the growth rate a little, but we're just slowing the rate at which the problem is accelerating, at best.

My worry is that a tipping point could be approaching (or already reached?) after which no amount of effort that the global community could reasonably put forth would be able to get this thing under control, and that devastation across the continent could really become vastly more severe than anything going on now.

10/16/2014 10:13:59 PM

Quote :

"In the West African countries of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, the Ebola virus is “out of control,” to quote a phrase used frequently during the outbreak, including by the World Health Organization in a statement on Tuesday. In the West African countries of Nigeria and Senegal, the virus appears very much in control. The outbreak could be declared at an end in Senegal by Friday, and in Nigeria by next Monday, WHO said."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/an-important-indicator-in-the-fight-against-ebola/

10/16/2014 10:22:52 PM

Quote :

"What are the costs of banning people with Liberian (and other Ebola infected countries) passports entry into the US?"

Any new travel regulation costs money to implement. Blocking all Liberian passport holders requires getting airports all over the world on board with not letting them onto US-bound flights. Otherwise, what are you going to do? Stop them at customs? At that point they're already in the US.

A regulation like this would be contentious. I don't know who has the authority to implement it -- DHS? FAA? Congress? -- but either way, there would be push back on it.

You straight up fuck people with dual citizenship, or Liberian immigrants in the process of becoming US citizens.

All of this for...well, I'm not sure there's any benefit.

Quote :

"My worry is that a tipping point could be approaching (or already reached?) after which no amount of effort that the global community could reasonably put forth would be able to get this thing under control, and that devastation across the continent could really become vastly more severe than anything going on now."

We may well be past the point of no return for Liberia. Possibly Guinea and Sierra Leone as well. But I'm still confident about Africa. I mean, in the ebola sense. Otherwise, pretty much fucked.

But even Nigeria, a government renowned for corruption and incompetence, managed to control on outbreak with remarkable speed. This is in a city of 21 million people packed cheek-to-jowl, a place where it could have spread at a rate to make Monrovia look calm.

10/17/2014 3:57:13 AM

^I read where all told, their government contacted 18,500 people, from 19 infections. Pretty impressive. Nigerians are probably a little different than Americans though. They probably know not to mess with ebola.

Us?

Official: Hey, nurse, you have been exposed, you might want to stay put for a few days
Nurse: Stay put? Fuck that noise, I got a wedding to plan. And oh by the way, I got a fever.
Official: Oh? Ok. Go ahead and fly, its alright.

10/17/2014 7:16:36 AM

99.whatever is within the normal range for variability for the day. that said, she shouldn't have been flying after caring for someone with ebola. ALSO, i highly doubt it matters. No one in this country has contracted ebola through non-caregiving contact. and even in the caregiving context, hospitals that have their shit together haven't spread ebola to anyone other than the original patients.

10/17/2014 8:17:00 AM

No one in this country has had Ebola. Well until that guy came over with it. No one in this country had gotten Ebola IN this country. Well until the nurses came in contact with it and contracted the disease.

So now we are at, no on in this country OTHER than a healthcare worker has contracted Ebola. However, we allow those people who cared for Duncan with little to no protective gear at times travel freely using mass transportation across the country.

Why does this issue have to be made so black and white? It seems like everyone wants to group people in the two categories of you are a paranoid crazy person or you are overconfident and there is no way this virus could spread in a country like the US of A. How about we say we don't think this virus can spread that easily through this country BUT let's go ahead and take extra precautions just in case in order to cut this off as quickly as possible. I am not sure what is so hard about that.

10/17/2014 10:57:01 AM

^You left out the first part, where our president said that it was highly unlikely that it would ever get here.

Like I said, everybody has been wrong up to this point, so why should I trust what the CDC has to say going forward.

Maybe it is just me, but if I had been in contact with an ebola patient, and I'm running anything higher than 98.7, I'm staying home, out of respect for anybody else I come in contact with. But nope. "I got a wedding to plan, fuck everybody else"

10/17/2014 11:18:31 AM

highly unlikely != 0% chance

10/17/2014 11:47:50 AM

Quote :

" How about we say we don't think this virus can spread that easily through this country BUT let's go ahead and take extra precautions just in case in order to cut this off as quickly as possible. I am not sure what is so hard about that."

Nothing, when you put it like that. Everyone agrees with that, because everyone thinks that their idea of "extra precautions" is good and sane and reasonable.

I think the CDC should have had a response team in that hospital as soon as the guy was admitted, and they should have handled his care. I don't think we should be closing schools. Both are "extra precautions," but one of them seems, well, crazy and paranoid to me, and the other seems woefully inadequate to someone else.

Quote :

"Like I said, everybody has been wrong up to this point, so why should I trust what the CDC has to say going forward."

Because they are doctors and epidemiologists who have been studying this disease for some 40 years whereas you are a guy with the internet. Unless your point of view is backed up by another body of comparable experts, the CDC is the best you've got.

And, hypothetically, even if you're right and they're wrong and there's ebola raging in the streets across America, you should probably still listen to what they say because they could have the national guard shoot you, and wouldn't we all be crushed then?

10/17/2014 11:55:10 AM

Everyone didn't agree with that from the start. The head of the CDC and all the officials down here in Dallas were so overconfident and cocky they acted like you would have to have someone with Ebola shit in your mouth 2 girls 1 cup style to contract the virus.

10/17/2014 12:01:27 PM

probably because they didn't want everyone who felt like they had flu-like symptoms who had also been in the vicinity of a black person to rush to the ER in fear of having Ebola.

so far, the only people who have contracted the disease are two nurses who obviously had contact with his bodily fluids. two out of who knows how many people who also dealt with him.

10/17/2014 12:12:01 PM

Quote :

"^You left out the first part, where our president said that it was highly unlikely that it would ever get here."

he said that an outbreak here is highly unlikely, you dumb fucking hack



[Edited on October 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM. Reason : and it is unlikely]

10/17/2014 12:24:14 PM

EBOLA CRISIS AT PENTAGON *drudge siren*

http://www.arlnow.com/2014/10/17/developing-ebola-scare-at-the-pentagon/





[Edited on October 17, 2014 at 1:13 PM. Reason : Time for the ebola stick]

10/17/2014 12:49:04 PM

^^

That wasn't me being a hack. That was me stating the overconfidence of the current head of the country.

How else can I say it? I mean, I didn't use any derogatory terms towards our president. I was honestly being apolitical in that statement. You're so eager to see politics in everything.

10/17/2014 1:20:11 PM

^but there is a huge difference between "ebola won't get here" and "an ebola outbreak won't happen here".

I never heard POTUS so the former, only the latter.

10/17/2014 1:30:44 PM