People coming here from ebola stricken nations? (2 Viewers)

[RCon]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

 

[Fennis]

what would happen if the federal government came and said we are going to quarantine Texas. No one in or out of the state.

would the Steelers get a forfeit win?

trying to keep people calm, the NFL awards the win to the Texans.

 

[Parrothead]

what would happen if the federal government came and said we are going to quarantine Texas. No one in or out of the state.

would the Steelers get a forfeit win?

trying to keep people calm, the NFL awards the win to the Texans.

F that then

 

[fantasycurse42]

what would happen if the federal government came and said we are going to quarantine Texas. No one in or out of the state.

I like this.

 

[timschochet]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.

quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.

How does that pertain to the best interests of U.S. citizens?

 

[timschochet]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

You've now twice suggested that there are "ugly" posts in here. Please show the posts that are "ugly".

 

[RCon]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

 

[RCon]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

Not in this thread, they haven't.

 

[Fennis]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.

quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.

How does that pertain to the best interests of U.S. citizens?

its in the US best interest to slow and prevent the spread of Ebola. If it begins to spread rapidly there will be many more cases in the US.

 

[avoiding injuries]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.

quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.

How does that pertain to the best interests of U.S. citizens?

I think Tom Frieden got a hold of Fennis' password.

 

[timschochet]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

You've now twice suggested that there are "ugly" posts in here. Please show the posts that are "ugly".

Find them yourself.

Seriously, I.m done arguing over this petty stuff. If you want to offer me reasons why my arguments against this idea are wrong (see post #56) then offer them and we can have a discussion. Whether or not I personally believe some posts are ugly is irrelevant to the main issue at hand.

 

[Parrothead]

Africa stems Ebola via border closings, luck

Thursday October 16, 2014 02:42 PM
TOM ODULALYNSEY CHUTEL, Associated Press

Associated Press
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries — and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Senegal did so well in finding and isolating a man with Ebola who had slipped across the border from Guinea in August that the World Health Organization on Friday will declare the end of the disease in Senegal if no new cases surface.

Nigeria is another success story. It had 20 cases and eight deaths after the virus was brought by a Liberian-American who flew from Liberia to Lagos, Nigeria's commercial capital of 21 million people, in July. Nearly 900 people were potentially exposed to the virus by the traveler, who died, and the disease could have wreaked havoc in Africa's most populous nation.

Instead, Ebola appears to have been beaten, in large part through aggressive tracking of Ebola contacts, with no new cases since Aug. 31.

WHO, the U.N. health agency, called it "a piece of world-class epidemiological detective work." The organization is set to declare an end to the outbreak in Nigeria on Monday.

Nigeria had a head start compared with other West African countries: Officials were able to use an emergency command center that had been built by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to combat polio.

Border closings may also be helping halt the spread of Ebola.

Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, all of which share borders with at least one of the three most affected countries, have closed those borders.

The disease continues to ravage Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, overwhelming their health systems.

And some observers warn that border closings can have limited effect in a region with highly porous boundaries and few resources to patrol them. Border posts are sometimes easily skirted.

There is also concern that travel restrictions will make things worse in the affected countries by creating what amounts to an economic embargo.

"We have been isolated," said Kaifala Marah, Sierra Leone's finance and economic development minister. "It really is killing our economies."

Authorities in some African countries imposed tight air travel restrictions, tougher than those contemplated by the U.S. or British governments.

South Africa and Zambia slapped travel and entry restrictions on Ebola-stricken countries. Kenya Airways, the country's main airline, stopped flying to the affected lands.

In Zimbabwe, all travelers from West Africa are put under 21-day surveillance. Health officials regularly visit those travelers to check their condition.

Nigeria initially banned flights from countries with Ebola but relaxed the restriction once it felt that airlines were competent to take travelers' temperatures and follow other measures to prevent people with Ebola from flying.

Nigeria has teams taking the temperature of travelers at airports and seaports.

In Ethiopia, the main international airport in Addis Ababa screens all arriving passengers — including those from Europe and the U.S. — for fever using body scans.

South Africa has tested 14 people for Ebola, all of whom proved negative.

"To tell you the truth, we were testing them just to settle your nerves," Aaron Motsoaledi, South Africa's health minister, told reporters. "Clinically speaking, most of them did not fit criteria for testing."

Another factor is luck. All it takes is one infected person to slip around guards at a border post or get aboard a plane.

"God has been merciful we haven't reported a case in Kenya, but we really need to up our disaster preparedness," said Dr. Nelly Bosire, an official with Kenya's main medical union.

"The fact we stopped doing the West African flights had an impact. On that part I think we got it right. But it still has more to do with luck."

___

Associated Press reporters Elias Meseret in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Michelle Faul in Johannesburg and Farai Mutsaka in Harare, Zimbabwe, contributed to this report. Chutel reported from Johannesburg.
- See more at: http://readingeagle.com/ap/article/africa-stems-ebola-via-border-closings-luck#sthash.IQBemYPp.dpuf

 

[timschochet]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

 

[RCon]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

You've now twice suggested that there are "ugly" posts in here. Please show the posts that are "ugly".

Find them yourself.

Seriously, I.m done arguing over this petty stuff. If you want to offer me reasons why my arguments against this idea are wrong (see post #56) then offer them and we can have a discussion. Whether or not I personally believe some posts are ugly is irrelevant to the main issue at hand.

It's not irrelevant when you start throwing around accusations. Your quoted post above didn't offer arguments against, it just made a nasty comment about everyone who disagreed with you. You then backtracked to claim the insult only applies to some people, but can't specify who or show why. That's all relevant to the post you made.

 

[Fennis]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.

quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.

How does that pertain to the best interests of U.S. citizens?

I think Tom Frieden got a hold of Fennis' password.

why else do you think the ebola is spreading like wildfire?

 

[Parrothead]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

I'd have no problem with that. Nations are free, or should be, to take that reasonable action if they feel its in the best interests of their citizens.

if controlling Ebola is in the US best interest than isolating the West Africa countries is not in America's best interest.

I heard the CDC chairman try to explain this, unsuccessfully. Maybe you can do a better job.

quarantine attempt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729741/Liberia-declares-curfew-orders-quarantine-50-000-slum-dwellers-battle-stop-spread-Ebola-capital.html

Tensions came to a head over the weekend when a mob attacked and looted an Ebola screening centre, accusing officials of bringing sick people from all over Monrovia into their neighbourhood.

Dozens of people waiting to be screened fled in the chaos. Looters made off with items, including bloody sheets and mattresses that could further spread the virus.

In many areas of the capital, meanwhile, dead bodies have been in the streets for hours, sometimes days, even though residents asked that the corpses be picked up by health ministry workers wearing protective gear.

How does that pertain to the best interests of U.S. citizens?

I think Tom Frieden got a hold of Fennis' password.

why else do you think the ebola is spreading like wildfire?

other African nations stopped it by closing the borders

 

[RCon]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

You'll notice I haven't taken a position on whether a travel ban would or would not be a good idea. I can see both sides of that argument.

I also haven't taken a position on whether a travel ban would be more or less likely to prevent Ebola in the US, although I will now: obviously, at this point right now, the claim that a travel ban would make it more likely for Ebola to spread to the US is ridiculous.

I'm simply taking the position that you tend to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of someone in any position of authority, no matter how ridiculous. You simply refuse to believe that politicians intentionally lie.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

So much nativism in here. Ugly.

Are you able to discuss anything without (intentionally?) mischaracterizing arguments of others?

I am not characterizing everyone who believes in a travel ban as a nativist. But some are, and they have expressed their views, and they are ugly.

You've now twice suggested that there are "ugly" posts in here. Please show the posts that are "ugly".

Find them yourself.

Seriously, I.m done arguing over this petty stuff. If you want to offer me reasons why my arguments against this idea are wrong (see post #56) then offer them and we can have a discussion. Whether or not I personally believe some posts are ugly is irrelevant to the main issue at hand.

At least we agree on the bolded, but if your feelings about the tone of some posts are irrelevant to the issue at hand then why do you insist on repeatedly sharing those feelings?

 

[Jim11]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Um, you do realize that Nigeria's border control usually consists of a couple of goats and 4 foor foot chain-link fence right? Comparing their border with ours is nonsense.

 

[Jim11]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Um, you do realize that Nigeria's border control usually consists of a couple of goats and 4 foor foot chain-link fence right? Comparing their border with ours is nonsense.

Ok, I guess we should just give up. Pull out all border patrol agents and just let people come in at will.

 

[msommer]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Um, you do realize that Nigeria's border control usually consists of a couple of goats and 4 foor foot chain-link fence right? Comparing their border with ours is nonsense.

Friend of mine once had the business end of an AK-47 pointed at his face at the Nigerian border to Benin. He managed to talk his way out of it, though

 

[Fennis]

I think the business end of a gun should really be the trigger.

 

[captain_amazing]

This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.

So, referring to the two nurses who now have it...were they swapping spit with the contanimated guy, or have they explained how the contracted it?

I think it was a Grey's Anatomy situation.

 

[McGarnicle]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

"Only" 9,000??? That would be 142,000 out of our population of 316 million. There would be mass hysteria.I mostly agree that travel bans are overkill as long as we don't see any huge spike in new cases. But I question whether the right safeguards are in place and fully expect some new cases before this is over.

 

[17seconds]

It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

Besides looking at their Liberian passport, yes it is impossible.

 

[fatness]

what would happen if the federal government came and said we are going to quarantine Texas. No one in or out of the state.

Then we'd hear about god-given rights and targeting conservatives.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-Safer

Thursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

How many cane toads were brought to Australia?

 

[fatness]

Only after a two year quarantine and forced sterilization.

Nice.

 

[pollardsvision]

For folks talking about banning individuals from flying into the US from nations where individuals are infected with Ebola, would you have a problem if other countries decided to implement the same policy (which meant no one from the US would be able to fly those countries since we're infected as well now)?

Go for it, frenchy.

We're surrounded by water and pushovers. We have bombs, money, medicine, and real football. I'm good here for a bit.

 

[fatness]

From the comments section on Jim11's Breitbart link:

Hussein is keeping us safe by lying to us and by letting more Ebola patients into the country freely.

Print this WAPO you lick spittle scum bags in the Obola media. UKIP now and forever.

Fits in with the population control program the progs are working on. If they could confine it to conservatives they would be ecstatic.

What better way to bring the arrogant Great Satan to its knees he's thinking.

Heck the Hussein Feds are probably advertising in Liberian Newspapers and airports to come to America. Uncle Hussein will give you free food, housing, big screen tv and medicine. Just say your fever is 100.3 and you can come on in.

 

[Tchula]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

 

[timschochet]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

 

[timschochet]

It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

Besides looking at their Liberian passport, yes it is impossible.

i meant that they could give it to others who could come here.

 

[timschochet]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-SaferThursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Um, you do realize that Nigeria's border control usually consists of a couple of goats and 4 foor foot chain-link fence right? Comparing their border with ours is nonsense.

Ok, I guess we should just give up. Pull out all border patrol agents and just let people come in at will.

Glad you're finally on board.

 

[fatness]

Texas is sending another one out of the state right now.

For some reason the border-closers are exempting Texas from consideration.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

Come on, Tim. Common sense and 75% of people disagree with this. It isn't like you can't have charter flights to get aid in.

 

[Parrothead]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

commercial flights genius.. aid workers, doctors, etc do not apply..

 

[fantasycurse42]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

commercial flights genius.. aid workers, doctors, etc do not apply..

Maybe he was thinking some sort of force field around Monrovia or something along those lines

 

[Jim11]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

commercial flights genius.. aid workers, doctors, etc do not apply..

He was parroting what the CDC said. Travel bans would hamper our ability to treat the folks in W. Africa, they said...as if medical people would be banned as well.

 

[timschochet]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

commercial flights genius.. aid workers, doctors, etc do not apply..

He was parroting what the CDC said. Travel bans would hamper our ability to treat the folks in W. Africa, they said...as if medical people would be banned as well.

Not only that, it would kill trade. If I were the governments of the west African countries you want to ban commercial travel from, you think I would allow you to send medical experts into my country? I would say, screw you, and I would publicly accuse America of paranoid bigotry- and we'd be guilty of it.

 

[renesauz]

This is complete insanity. Liberia is a nation with 3.4 million people. There are 9,000 of them inflicted with the Ebola virus. That's about .025% of the population. And for this we're going to prevent all travel to the United States? It wouldn't work anyhow because people travel all over- perhaps a Liberian travels to London, and from there to Germany and from there to the USA. It's impossible to stop even if you wanted to.

This disease is deadly but it's extremely difficult to catch, and the fear mongering surrounding it needs to stop.

This.

Routine screening needs to happen, not complete isolation.

 

[EYLive]

OMG The sky is falling!!

Don't almost 500,000 people die from the flu globally every year? Yet you dopes are choosing to freak out over this??

 

[msommer]

I fear what would happen if Ebola spread to Mexico. I don't think they would be able to contain it. We'd have a flood of people coming across the border. some of them would be contaminated and it would spread all over.

this could happen to all sorts of countries, which is why we need to contain it in Africa by treating it in Africa. Travel bans would hurt our attempt to do so.

commercial flights genius.. aid workers, doctors, etc do not apply..

He was parroting what the CDC said. Travel bans would hamper our ability to treat the folks in W. Africa, they said...as if medical people would be banned as well.

Not only that, it would kill trade. If I were the governments of the west African countries you want to ban commercial travel from, you think I would allow you to send medical experts into my country? I would say, screw you, and I would publicly accuse America of paranoid bigotry- and we'd be guilty of it.

Just to put some numbers into this trade argument:

Us exported for about $10 bn in 2013 to ECOWAS countries and imported for about $13 bn - mostly oil which s on the decline (11.8bn) an cocoa ($1 bn)

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/August/US-ECOWAS-Sign-Trade-and-Investment-Framework-Agreement

Total us exports in 2013 was $2.3tn

ECOWAS is fifteen countries of which Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia by no means are the largest

So while you may have to give up candy bars, it's not really going to matter.

Personally I'm against the travel ban because it is unenforceable

 

[jon_mx]

Who's buying this? (also posted in ebola thread)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/16/WH-Not-Having-Ebola-Travel-Ban-Keeps-Americans-SaferThursday at the White House daily briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that not having a travel ban from West African nations ravaged with the Ebola outbreak keeps Americans safer because we are screening passengers from those counties. However, he said a ban would mean they would be traveling, "underground," and therefor undetected.

I buy it. Absolutely. Of course, there are other reasons for not doing this just as important. I think that anyone in favor of a travel ban is incredibly short-sided. We did 23 billion in trade with West Africa in 2013 alone. All that is put at risk when we start imposing travel bans. We would create terrible resentment in these countries. Just as bad, we would be telling any of our doctors or nurses who wanted to help them, sorry but if you go there you can't come back. All because we are terrified of a disease which is only spread with great difficulty, and which so far has only affected 9,000 people in an area with a population of 20 million? It's absurd.

Yeah, but you don't count. You believe everything someone in government tells you.

OK, how is the government lying to us, and how does this lie or lies justify a travel ban from West Africa?

I dunno, but here's what they did in Africa:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Health officials battling the Ebola outbreak that has killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa have managed to limit its spread on the continent to five countries - and two of them appear to have snuffed out the disease.

The developments constitute a modest success in an otherwise bleak situation.

Officials credit tighter border controls, good patient-tracking and other medical practices, and just plain luck with keeping Ebola confined mostly to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea since the outbreak was first identified nearly seven months ago.

Um, you do realize that Nigeria's border control usually consists of a couple of goats and 4 foor foot chain-link fence right? Comparing their border with ours is nonsense.

So theirs is much tougher?

 

[fantasycurse42]

OMG The sky is falling!!

Don't almost 500,000 people die from the flu globally every year? Yet you dopes are choosing to freak out over this??

The mortality rate of the flu is not 50-70%.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Nuke the bastards

Welcome to Earf.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

I've gone out and intentionally contracted Ebola. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with Ebola is a good guy with Ebola.