Various bipartisan leaders quickly shot from the hip in response to the recent Ebola developments:
Common sense dictates that we should impose a travel ban on commercial airline flights from nations afflicted by Ebola. -Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
I urge you to consider the enhanced danger Ebola now presents to the American public, and therefore request that appropriate travel restrictions be implemented immediately. -Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) to President Obama
Are such epidemics best addressed by complete geographical quarantining… or focused isolation? I would argue the latter, especially regarding a disease carried by contact (no signs of the unlikely leap to becoming an airborne disease that can attach to the alveolar cells of the lungs).
The restriction of travel to and from an affected region of the world not only seems impossible to execute, its possible any benefits seem greatly outweighed by impeding a swift, international response for study and treatment. Such a need is further enhanced when the region in question includes some of the world’s poorest economies, Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, demanding assistance.
RELATED:
5 Things You Should Know About Ebola and Air Travel
CDC Director: Why I don’t support a travel ban to combat Ebola outbreak
CDC Develops a New, Faster Lab Test for Enterovirus D68
The control, research, and treatment of a range of infectious diseases through vaccinations and safety procedures in modern medicine continue to advance around the world, including underdeveloped countries. While these minimally funded healthcare systems impacted by this recent Ebola outbreak have made great advancements in disease response and control, they still demand further outside support on an international level — from biotechnology to education and screening.
Instituting a travel ban would thwart short-term progress on attacking the disease quickly and thoroughly, and could even ripple into long-term results that could be catastrophic.
A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city, or country. A travel ban would essentially quarantine the more than 22 million people that make up the combined populations of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.
When a wildfire breaks out we don’t fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else. —CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden
Let’s work on putting out the fire.
What say you?
____
@travelblawg
facebook.com/travelblawg
Subscribe in the sidebar!
Ivory Coast borders the outbreak area, yet they don’t have an outbreak. Why? Travel restrictions. Frieden’s incompetent and I’ll be surprised if he still has a job in two months.
I agree that a travel ban would be a disaster. You can’t quarantine entire countries. The people will travel, tracked or untracked, legally or illegally. The result of pushing travelers underground could be devastating.
To BlueDog, yes, IMHO the cost of cleaning up disasters is and should be paid by our taxes. What is the purpose of taxes if not to spend for the common good? Individuals should not see their families financially destroyed if they get sick. Else they have another motive to hide their illness as long as possible.
Of course you can quarantine entire countries. It’s been done, very successfully, in order to limit disasters that would otherwise have cost enormous tax dollars. Incidentally, what’s is even more important than your tax dollars is for there to be fewer dead and ill people from Ebola.
You can certainly quarantine countries by simply closing the border. That’s what Guinea-Bissau and Ivory Coast (countries bordering either Guinea, Sierra Leone, or Liberia) did and thus far they’ve been successful. Hmm… just thinking about it they’re quite smart for doing that and protecting their citizens (unlike the USA/Europe…)
Peach, my point of mentioning the cost of the cleanup is to then extrapolate those costs to the possible hundreds of folks already exposed in this country by patient one. If this infection gets out of hand we could be spending enormous amounts of funds cleaning airplanes, subways, restaurants, you name it. Do not allow these potentially exposed people to enter the US at all costs in political fallout.
The cost alone to clean the apartment of patient zero was $180,000. Who is going to pay these costs? The taxpayer? Also if an infected patient were to become contagious in a Central American country, where do you think all those infected patents will go? North of course to cross our borders and create a nightmare for the border patrol, and well as those people living in the southern states. I say quarantine the three countries until a cure can be found.
@Darth
What does a private hospital in Texas violating protocol has to do with the federal government? CDC clearly stated that she shouldn’t fly. If the hospital allowed her to fly there is nothing the government could have done. Aren’t private businesses supposed to run without government intervention?
@Joey How do you propose to enforce the travel ban? The US government can sure ban all flights from West Africa to the US. However most people traveling from Africa connect through Europe and other countries in the world (incl. the guy who brought Ebola into the US). You would really have to ban all flights coming into the US. No incoming flight means there aren’t outgoing flights either so we are essentially quarantine ourself which is a sure way to crash the US economy.
All travelers carry passports (duh) which detail where and when a person has been in a country. It’s very easy to determine which countries a person has visited and when they arrived and left. How do you think the european countries are enforcing their ban? Why is the US one of the last to enforce the ban?
Your reply to Joey is preposterous. You enforce the travel ban by simply denying boarding to a passenger who arrived on a flight originated in one of these countries. I am not discarding the possibility that somehow someone from these countries could make it through to the US however the likelihood will be much lower. Had such a travel ban been in place, Mr Duncan would not have made it to the US and no ebola would be present in the US at least for now.
I am yet to read a more politically correct BS article on this topic than this one.
This would obviously have to be an international effort (not only US.) At this point in time, the only major airlines flying to those 3 countries are Royal Air Maroc, Brussels Airlines, and Air France.
I don’t understand why they can’t temporarily suspend all flights to/from those 3 countries for at least 42 days (the official amount of days WHO considers as a mark to determine whether an area is ebola free) when for a period of 2 weeks back in 2010 all European flights were suspended due to an Iceland volcano eruption.
The fact is we never had an outbreak here. I was under the assumption that people would not be able to travel to this country during an outbreak so not to spread it. I don’t know where I got that silly idea but it actually makes sense. They flew from Africa to Britian then to the US you might say. Yes, and they have paperwork that says this. They don’t get on that plane. Charter flights for relief effort where they can take all precauions. You go there and get sick that is the chance you take. Stay there until you are well. Don’t like it, don’t go. Now it’s been introduced here and opinions like this are going to kill us. Thank you.
Travel ban and creating new drugs are the only ways to stop Ebola
It will cost the USA a lot more money if they do NOT put a travel ban in place. Ashoka Mukpo is stating his medical bills will be $500,000! Imagine if this pandemic does occur in the west, especially in the megacities of San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc. People will stop going to work fearing of getting ebola there or during their commute (if they take public transportation.) Sure people can work remotely but most people cannot. US economy will become sluggish yet all the US hospitals may be overwhelmed with the ebola disease (worst case scenario but certainly possible.)
In the early stages of this disease, it is certainly possible to pose a travel ban — especially to 3 poor African countries that do not really affect the world economy that much (not like Europe or the USA.) Even if it’s only a temporary ban that should be ok.
In addition, more research is really needed. By now we know fire and what is needed to create it and control it. We don’t know ebola. Think of the early 1980s with HIV. That’s comparable to where we are now with ebola. It’s better to contain it in the 3 affected countries while we can versus spreading it everywhere in the world uncontrollably (which is what’s clearly happening.)
Ebola ban and creating new drugs are the only ways stop Ebola.
Excellent! You are taking the word of a bureaucrat who basically lied to the American people about “protocols” and whose agency purportedly told a person who was in close contact with the Zero Patient that it was OK that she should fly. And it turns out she has now tested positive for the virus.
One of the prime responsibilities of the Federal Government is to ensure the safety of the American people. You do that by restricting access to the general population by quarantines and flight restrictions. If the virus never gets here, then it is unlikely people can be infected.
Playing a politically correct game is pure BS.