I'm in favor of a travel ban from the Ebola-racked countries.
I support sending help there...and keeping the disease there.
Why is this policy not already in effect?
I'm in favor of a travel ban from the Ebola-racked countries.
I support sending help there...and keeping the disease there.
Why is this policy not already in effect?
Yeah, no cons for me personally but I guess there might be a few people not too happy about it
You could ban travel from countries which have large scale infection rates, but that only slows it. It would eventually get here and to other industrialized countries on a larger scale if we do not act to snuff it out in West Africa. Your latter suggestion is the only way to properly deal with the virus. There must be a large scale international intervention in West Africa to control Ebola. This needs to be done as soon as possible when the virus is still mostly contained to one part of one continent. Every country has a stake in this, so I would hope there will be more cooperation when more cases appear in industrialized nations. At this time, I am not so sure it is necessary to ban all travel from those countries, but we certainly should implement strict airport screening of passengers on incoming flights originating in those countries. If the virus continues to spread here, yeah, I would favor a travel ban.
"Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.."
Penn Jillette
Why do you progressives always play the race card? This virus is deadly and I could not care any less which country the carriers are from if it poses a real threat to our population. Dang libtard. Did you watch something on MSNBC about this instead of more balanced news like Fox?
Because the experts who study this stuff have said it would be counterproductive. Obama has made it very clear, he's not philosophically against a travel ban but he's following the advice of the experts in the field. That is what every President would do.
What appears to be common sense is not always correct.
Pros: Well, these are obvious.
Cons:
- We limit our ability to fight the disease at its root. We need a flow of people and material to fight the disease in western Africa. If you don't get a handle on it there, it will come here no matter what restrictions are in place. With millions infected and spreading it to other countries we're all in trouble.
- Desperate people will find a way out. That's been the case in previous epidemics. When that happens we lose our ability to monitor the situation.
- History has shown that trying to seal borders/regions has not been effective.
- We do not control what other countries do. Unless the entire world enacted bans on travel to western Africa it would come here sooner or later and by that point it might be completely out of control.
- Look at the Belize situation. We have a person who is at almost no risk being denied entry into Belize so that the person could be evacuated. We might not be as open about this next time considering how irrational they are being. That will be a loss for Belize. Let's not forget the economic impact this could have on Belize if we take punitive measures. Anyway, the same could happen here if we act irrationally.
Hey, I'm all for travel bans if the experts say it would help but I'm not going to panic and pretend I know more than the experts.
Barack has appointed an Ebola Czar (not a joke)-----Everyone feel safer now?
OleVet Posse Instigator
I heard the CDC head recommended against the travel ban because he said it would cause terrible damage to the economies of the "fledgling democracies" in question.
I might very well respect his opinion regarding Ebola. I don't give a fig about his opinions on geopolitics. And the African economies matter very little when American lives (and our economy) are at risk.
Send help, yes, absolutely. Protect America first.
He did not just expound on the geopolitics of a travel ban. He also gave his opinion against a travel ban because it would hinder health care organizations from tracking the disease and carriers and thus hurt our ability to manage Ebola. The World Health Organization has come out with the same rationale against travel bans. Do you respect this opinion of multiple health care organizations?
The stability of African economies is very much related to the ability to contain Ebola. Let's suppose there is instability and an economic downturn in Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea. It is locals who are performing the tasks of dealing with Ebola patients with probably very limited resources. The international intervention which is coming on a larger scale will also be hampered if the local economies are in tatters. Also, when there is economic unrest, people tend to flee and go elsewhere, like to neighboring African countries or abroad. All of this puts our lives at greater risk. Make sense?
Last edited by lexsooner; 10/17/2014 at 01:15 PM.
I'm not sure a travel ban would have any impact on keeping Ebola out of the U.S. After all, it's already here.
haha. puh-leeze!
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
He did so after the Republicans criticized and begged him to do so. They apparently had Czars until they don't.
Damned if you do damned if you don't.
And thanks, lex, for explaining the rationale why we need to worry about the local economies in west Africa. It's not a purely altruistic situation. Our best interest is tied to the interests of west Africa in a large part. If you can't see that then you're not seeing the bigger picture.
The thing that drives me crazy is that if Romney, McCain, either Bush, or even Reagan were in office right now, they'd listen to the CDC, the WHO, and other experts and take their advice. That's what a President does.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 10/17/2014 at 03:33 PM.
I don't know about that. Maybe because he thinks someone with administrative abilities is needed and the technical details can be handled and explained by subordinates. In either case, I'm not here to defend who he chose.
Your original post that I quoted was not a criticism of who he appointed but instead a criticism that he appointed someone to begin with. It's the whole "Obama Czars" thing again except you forgot that it was Republicans who were demanding one be appointed.