One of the less pleasant parts of getting old is watching the same stupid mistakes made over and over and being unable to even get anyone to listen.

Drives me around the bend some days,

of visa holders from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.

Make no mistake, we have one or two or five more importations of ebola by travelers like Mr. Duncan, there WILL be a restriction on travel from those 3 countries. After the 20+ infected and all the attendant havoc caused in Nigeria by one guy- Patrick Sawyer- someone want to ask the Nigerians if travel bans are "misguided"? You bet your bippy they, along with much of the rest of the world, are restricting travelers from the countries at the epicenter of the epidemic, until this is over.

This is not AIDS, it's a completely different disease and situation. One thing in common with AIDS was that pretending it's not a problem will get people killed.

Fixing our medical systems would help at least as much as a travel ban.

We have far too many uninsured and still a huge number of underinsured who are not going to seek medical help until forced to do so by sheer misery.

They have nothing to do with each other.

It's a very simple, rational idea and it is one that a whole TON of countries around the world have already done- limit visa travel by persons from the 3 main affected areas of this outbreak. The countries themselves have quarantine zones. By the same rationale that says it's "not fair" to Liberians who have a trip to NYC scheduled, it's not fair to the folks in the quarantine zones inside their own country. It sucks, but lethal, incurable, communicable diseases suck, too.

It's simple, basic, epidemiological sense, and the desperate, ever-changing attempts to either come up with some rationale against it or change the subject to something different, only underscores the fact that there just isn't a real good rational reason to continue to allow a handful of travelers in from 3 countries where this disease is out of control, not until it IS under control.

And believe me, a couple more cases like Mr. Duncan, and there will be travel restrictions. You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it. It might be nice if they could be implemented before more of our people, like the health care workers in Texas, get infected by another vacationer.

It would be a relatively simple, and hardly cost prohibitive, measure to simply suspend the outstanding travel visas from those 3 countries pending the situation being brought under control. Visas can be checked by already available personnel. It would probably be cheaper than screening everyone who comes in, screening of course being easily bypassed with false answers on a form or a couple advil.

None of that precludes, or even has anything to do with, anything about guns OR fixing our medical systems.

I don't really disagree with you, a travel ban seems to be indicated here but I think implementing a hermetic seal is probably impossible.

More fundamentally though I think the level of incompetence this situation has starkly revealed in the elites running our healthcare system is a far greater danger than Ebola. If African nations can beat Ebola and I understand a couple have, then we can too if we have competent leadership.

Nothing I've seen encourages me to think our leadership is competent at anything beyond ass covering.

However it seems inane to me to continue to allow visa travel from those 3 countries, when much of the rest of the world isn't anymore.

Would it be perfect? No. Screening isn't perfect, either. But it would conceivably keep situations like we've seen in Dallas a lot less likely or frequent.

even know about the 20 years of banning, deporting, questioning and discrimination? Even the article in the OP claims that ban was 'called for' but fails to note it was passed, put in place and enforced for 20 years.

I have history coming out of my ears but I didn't remember that. I'm often impressed by the level of recall and detail you bring.

The HIV Travel Ban just ended in 2010. I remember these things because they were functional barriers to my life and my business, causing harm to people I cared about and also hindering simple business and work travel for key persons....
I just think it is stunning that there can be so much discussion of a travel ban without any accurate mention of the 20 year travel ban which just ended 4 years ago. I am fairly surprised officials have not mentioned it, because a nation that placed and preserved a pointless and discriminatory travel ban for so long should be thinking long and hard about making such a decision again and our national experience with such bans should inform both those who support a ban and those who do not.

Please explain to me the process by which you think a Liberian national who has their travel visa temporarily suspended by the state dept, is going to fly into this country and then gain entry.

Also "travelers will lie" is the newest rationale for not restricting travel. They've tried a whole series of other ones, previously. It's obvious there's some knee-jerk resistance to the idea that has nothing to do with reality. And like I said, tons of countries have already done what we haven't.

where they closed the Dallas Rail because someone barfed at one of the stops?

I guess people barf all the time on the dallas rail. And man, I thought BART was bad!

Well, people do indeed barf. I mean it happens more than we'd like to think.

...following your suggestion? Let me think about that for a moment.

will start and spread inside our 'borders.' Act fast!" -- Real estate mogul Donald Trump said on Twitter.

From "Danger of Ebola: Myths and Misconceptions"

Let's see:

1) Donald Trump wants it! Well, it must be bad. Although Alan Grayson wants it, too. I'm confused?

2) No ban could be perfect, 100% - well, obviously, anything that can't be 100% shouldn't be done.

3) You can't wall off all of Africa or completely isolate those 3 countries - no, you can't. And again, it's easy to argue against proposals no one makes. What you CAN do is suspend the visas of the small number of nationals of those 3 countries who are planning on visiting the US, in the near term, until this is over. That, combined with monitoring of our people who return, will provide some additional protection against situations like we see in Dallas. Not perfect protection, but some.

4) It provides a false sense of security and as such people may not expend enough energy on solving the problem over there - This one blows me right the fuck away. First of all, it assumes that Americans won't give a shit about Africa unless we get a steady importation of ebola cases over here, sickening and killing Americans. AND it assumes we're not bright enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think the contrary position is actually more true- a slow trickle of ebola cases and then subsequent containment freak-outs over here will DISTRACT the American people from focusing on "solving it over there". But either way, "it might make people feel too secure and as such not behave as we think they should" is a shitty reason not to adopt a public health measure which could save actual, real lives.

5) It will cause people to lie about where they've been (this is the new one, that the admin. seems to have settled on) again, there are people with travel visas issued by the state dept. If the state dept. suspends the visa, how are they going to fly into our country and get through passport and customs? Maybe a few might figure it out, but again, anyone that determined to break the rules probably wouldn't have gone through the trouble of getting a visa, and is just as likely to lie about their travel either way.

Simple political calculus:

Let's say we continue with the status quo, where the administration won't listen to the majority of the people- not just Republicans and independents, but a majoirty of Democrats, according to a WaPo poll taken before the 3rd Dallas case was diagnosed, even...

So we continue to allow visa-holders in from the epicenter of the outbreak, and sooner or later (probably sooner) another sick person flies into the US, maybe they don't know they're infected, maybe they lie on the form or take Advil to get past the temperature screening... And okay, so they infect some more people. Maybe someone's kid, who then gets sick at school. Maybe someone barfs at the grocery store.. And they can obviously trace it back to another visa holder who came in-- after the calls for restrictions became impossible to ignore.


Who do you suppose will take the political blame for that?

Not those offering lame excuses to keep issuing visas. They'll ramp-up the blame-shifting excuse machine to tell us all how it's our fault people felt so desperate to get to the US for treatment before we sealed off their home country or some such. They're already pulling out all the stops to make it our fault. I see no reason why they would end the practice.

Still, it's already at something like 67% calling for some form of restrictions, and that includes a majority, according to the WaPo poll, of Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents (so much for it being a crazy teabagger rw reactionary thing) ... so maybe "take" the blame is the wrong word. But get the blame, for sure.

Because if it was 67% before we found out even the second nurse was infected, those numbers will only go up as we inevitably get more of these visa travelers coming in with ebola.

If Obama institutes travel restrictions later he gets to look like the leader of the free world who followed along AFTER the other party told him to. I'll bet the GOP will just love that.

"See. If only they had listened to us sooner."

I know conservatives won't give a shit about Africa, if it can't be fixed with bombs and bullets they want no part of Africa. The rest of us mostly can't pay attention long enough to have any effect.

Also given the absolute fustercluck we are currently right in the middle of perhaps perambulating while masticating is indeed beyond the reach of our elites.

With passports from the infected nations. And since they're coming in from other countries, as there are no direct US flights, let's ban all those who were on planes with them. And their families, who may have caught it too. And put a ban on allowing medical workers to go to those countries to try to help the afflicted, because at some point they're going to want to return to the US. Can't be too careful.

I can't remember if that was bad logic argument #2, or #3. "why don't you just send all the chickens to the moon while you're at it? See, it's impossible to send all the chickens to the moon"

Except no one is saying send the chickens to the moon.

What really do you think will happen when the State Department temporarily suspends the 10K or so outstanding travel visas to Nationals of Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia? Because I guarantee you, that WILL happen if we get a couple more situations like Mr. Duncans.

Not could, "will".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/14/americans-want-flight-restrictions-from-ebola-countries-and-its-not-close/

Two infected. Three medical professionals who contracted Ebola and
RECOVERED. No one seems to remember them but they're easily found via an internet search. Whereas the seasonal flu virus(es) are likely to kill tens of thousands here. Yet we don't mandate flu shots. So yes I think you're overreacting in a manner worthy of ridicule.

One guy flew into Lagos and infected 20+ with ebola in Nigeria, and they barely were able to contain it. One guy. They nearly had a disaster in Port Harcourt, because one MORE guy who was infected by the first guy, broke quarantine and infected some other people. That's the problem- the more people you have exposed, the more difficult it will be to contain. The more cases we import, the more hospitals and schools that will have to be shut down, the more flight manifests that will have to be contacted, etc.

People should get flu shots, I highly recommend them. But it has nothing to do with ebola.

I'm wondering why it's so dang important that the travel plans of a handful of visa holders from 3 countries not be put off until this is over?

The ones who lived with him after he showed signs of illness? With no protective gear? Oh, no indications they have Ebola? Correct. But they were EXPOSED to it! Apparently exposure does not spell automatic infection. Including when traveling. Your example not withstanding, and you don't state whether the sick passenger bled or vomited on the flight. those who traveled on the same plane as Amber Vinson are said by the CDC to have a very low risk of contracting the disease. Nor does contracting it mean automatic death as I pointed out earlier. Inferior hygiene standards in the African countries and more intimate, unsanitary contact with the still contagious dead account for much of the spread of the disease abroad. You have bought into the hysteria as spouted by too many Republicans in congress and Fox News commentators, with the notable exception of Shep Smith. Try listening to his reasoned analysis of the situation.

I am talking about the state department temporarily suspending visas and visa issuance to nationals of the 3 countries at the epicenter of this outbreak, until this is under control.

It is a position that Alan Grayson was advocating, well before FOX News.

And it is one that a majority of Americans- not just Republicans and Independents, but Democrats as well- agree with.

Trust me, if there is another importation like Duncan's, there will be visa restrictions. I guess the real question is, who will take the blame for the additional infections and deaths before that inevitable action is taken?

Not everyone from these countries has the disease. And there are no direct flights from the countries in question which would make embargoing them easier. There are numerous potential points of entry, and huge numbers of people who already have been in contact with people from these countries already on flights. If Ebola is so highly contagious that incidental contact with them can spread it then you need to keep out far more people. Only that's not the case apparently, or we'd have a lot more sick people in the countries that do get flights from the African countries. And just because a majority favors something doesn't mean they are right. There was a similar panic during the early days of AIDS to restrict Haitians coming into this country because some had the disease. So very sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not buying into the scaremongering tactics of the Reoublicans and the mainstream media. You go right ahead and live in fear.

This is a totally different situation than AIDS, and geographical containment DOES work, it IS working.

There are already quarantine zones INSIDE of Liberia and Sierra Leone- inside those zones people aren't being examined individually, they are physically separated from the zones where transmission is lower, or non-existent.

Perhaps you should offer your lecture to the people actually fighting this thing on the ground, tell them they're immoral or bigoted, and don't know what they're doing.

how is it that both totally different situations need a travel ban? The US kept the last one in force for 20 years, until 2010. Compare and contrast the two 'totally different' situations.
Basically, your community discriminated against people with HIV for no good reason at all, for two entire decades over bullshit fear. Now, that same community wants to do yet another panic moment travel ban. Oddly, those pushing for this one seem utterly and totally unaware of the previous 20 year restrictions. It is as if you, the author of the OP, and the entire thread population do not even remember that HIV Ban. Your community demanded it, put it in place, left it there for 20 fucking years and now just 4 years after than injustice was finally ended, here we are discussing travel bans as if we'd never done one in the past.
It really is something to witness.

How many lives are in turmoil right now waiting out their 21 days?

Hundreds, no doubt soon to be thoudsands and if a few more with Ebola make it into the country it will go into tens of thousands.

Lives torn apart- they can't work, can't (are at least not supposed to) go out in public, can't do anything but wait.

Most Americans are 3 weeks of missed work away from bankruptcy.

How much is that all affecting the economy? Get a few more cases and how much will it affect the holiday shopping and travel season? It won't take but a few percent stayibg home to change it all..

How many more health care professionals will be put at risk when these people who traveled and lied about exposure to get here finally seek aid, before ten full protecyive measures can be taken? When I did volunteer EMS we didn't even have the right PPE for this anywhere in the county, much less on any of the ambulances. Unless thag patient says to the dispatcher "I might have ebola" the crew responding won't know that run is any different. If a third party calls the odds of proper notification are even lower.

There are much bigger ramifications for each and every infected person that gets in.

Thomas Duncan alone had caused hundreds to live in fear waiting, caused a hospital to all but become a ghost town, caused all sorts of economic costs aside from those with decons of planes and other facilities, now disrupted an entire cruise, and the impact of this ONE INFECTED PERSON to the economy directly and indirectly will probably run into the hundreds of millions.

Time for a restriction on recreational and business travel to affected areas, with aid workers allows with proper monitoring. People need passports tagt have stamps shaping travel history to get in the country as well as visas, the argument they can hide travel history is invalid.

is compounded by the 24/7 news. They have to hype the situation to draw viewers. It doesn't matter if the info is factual or false as long as people tune in to watch.

One big difference, most people thought AIDS only affected gay men, so they didn't feel at risk in the beginning. They feel more vulnerable to ebola.

Ebola infects in a different manner than AIDS, and much more easily when someone is sick. Not that people necessarily knew that in the beginning with AIDS, but we certainly know it now with Ebola.

Ebola? A few thousand. Currently about 35 million people are living with HIV. The bulk of them contracted it via heterosexual activity.
You can count US ebola cases on one hand today.
The common thread between the two is that people who did not actually 'know' anything elevated fear, rumor, conjecture and assumptions to the level of 'fact' in both cases.

Look at the speed it takes to spread.

Ebola is more contagious than HIV. It's easier to catch. That's pretty well scientificly established.

There is a reason top HIV experts talk to patients with no PPE and do exams with gloves and maybe a face shield but top Ebola experts wear full level 4 gear when even in a room with an Ebola patient, and it isn't ignorance.

Claiming Ebola is no more contagious than HIV is ignoring clear science at a level close to anti-vaxxers.

and in Africa. 'More contagious' and 'easier to catch' have no real connection to the notion of a universal vulnerability. So LeeLee, I did not claim Ebola is no more contagious. That is not what I said. So do not put words in my mouth.

Malaria is both more contagious and far easier to catch and there are hundreds of millions of cases in Africa each year, hundreds of thousands of deaths. And yet in the US it is nearly impossible to catch malaria. Because to be vulnerable to a virus, you have to be around it.
To catch Ebola, you have to be in close proximity to a person sick with Ebola. To catch HIV, all one needs is to behave like a human being with others who are seemingly healthy.

Ebola even in Africa has killed in all history a tiny fraction of the number killed by HIV every year. HIV spreads through sex, yes that's right, sex. Not 'gay sex' just sex and in Africa it is heterosexual transmission that is the leading method of transmission. So a few thousand have Ebola. 35 million or so have HIV. Ebola is in specific localities. HIV is all over the world.

Keep telling yourself that the number one cause of death in Africa is not very contagious. See where that gets us....
Here is a list of the top causes of death in Africa...."The largest single cause of death (in South Africa) is HIV/AIDS accounting for 132990 (25.5%) deaths. This is at least five times greater than the next largest single cause of death."
http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/faqdeath.htm

.... I basically blew this article off as bullshit. There really isn't much to compare here. One disease you can get by touching a wall an infected person touched an hour ago, the other you have to to have sex with them.

There is nothing more mendacious than a failed analogy.

aged 18-44? Did you know that in South Africa, HIV is the leading cause of death among all groups and that it kills 5X more than the next leading cause of death?
It is not an analogy at all. It is a process of comparing and contrasting two public health crisis situations. The two have both similarities and differences, both of which should inform our path forward. To do otherwise is a misuse of knowledge gained in the very hardest ways.

.. of the stats. The entire premise of the article rests on its infectiousness. In that regard, there is simply no comparison to make.

they would tone it down, because I am just waiting for some good American to torch someone's house (or worse, apartment) to save us. Hospitals have lots of flammable gas (such storage blows up once in a great while on its own, so a very slight bit unstable anyway) and they could find themselves having to implement the plans they probably already have in trying to figure out how to secure themselves against domestic terrorists and seeing patients easily. In space suits.

What's wrong with the mind of mankind? Why can't we learn from experience?

Even that doesn't always work I can tell you from painful experience.

... it all seems so futile. Life. Democracy.

That's why it is sort of important to discuss a possible travel ban in the context of our national experience with the last ban. But people don't remember that they supported and enforced a double decade travel restriction on millions of people. Slipped our national minds. Amazing to me. People demanded that ban just as they are demanding one now, then they got it, forgot it and let it stew uselessly for years and years.....

for their own safety so they don't catch Ebola or turn gay. You know, better safe than sorry. The quarantine might be lifted after early November.

It was way more than a 'call' that ban was in place until the year 2010.

I am not reading the full article because these excerpts contain inaccuracies such as calling a two decade long travel ban a 'call for a travel ban'.

of US healthcare workers (or from any other countries, for that matter) contracting HIV/AIDS from their patients were there? I don't remember any, and there's the big difference. The earliest stories about the current Ebola outbreak that most people in the US can recall are about those who went over to West Africa to treat people with the disease.

Yes, there were overblown fears about catching HIV during the early days of that disease, but fear of catching Ebola if one is a healthcare worker treating those victims is not exaggerated by any means.

"Then one day in August 1986, everything went wrong. Fassbinder made the deadly mistake of caring for a patient. Because of it she became the first healthcare worker documented to have contracted HIV other than through a puncture. It was in the days before universal precautions were, well, universal. Yes, you might wear gloves if something looked particularly nasty; but, no, you wouldn’t to remove IV lines. The cuts from a weekend of gardening left Barbara’s hands vulnerable to infection, and that is exactly what happened."
http://www.workingnurse.com/articles/Barbara-Fassbinder-the-First-Healthcare-Worker-to-Contract-HIV


Total of 57 documented cases of transmission to Health Care workers in the US. No new cases like that since 1999 because of greater knowledge and better protocols....

The news was much more about contracting HIV through sexual contact and needle sharing. In this case, clearly that is not the situation.

We've known about it for decades, watched outbreaks occur and recede. We've studied ebola and know some things about it; the reason we don't have a vaccine or drug therapy is because no one thought it would ever go any further than underdeveloped regions of Africa. The interest and money were never there.

Ebola's clinical presentation is completely different than HIV, even though it is transmitted the same way. Ebola is fast and furious, directly destroying the body.

The hysteria and fearmongering - those are indeed the same with both viruses.

And that is a fact.

I mean, Ryan White was not allowed to go to school, despite having AIDS, due to unscientific, short-sighted bigotry.

Since AIDS and ebola are TOTALLY THE SAME THING, we should let kids who are sick with ebola go to school, too!!!!!








.....right?