mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2014 14:44:52 GMT -5
I hope that everyone who lobbies for travel bans from Ebola stricken countries realizes that this means no person out of the US, for whatever reason, until at least 21 days after the last resident in this country who might have been exposed, however indirectly, is cleared? That'll go over great I'm sure... Oh, no! No travel bans that apply to ME! I'm different! It's those people over there that need banning!
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,831
|
Post by NastyWoman on Oct 19, 2014 14:49:34 GMT -5
Well if I strictly follow the posts here, I would not be affected since we really only care about what happens to "citizens" and as a legal immigrant I don't count and I should be able to take the good with the bad right?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2014 15:03:43 GMT -5
Well if I strictly follow the posts here, I would not be affected since we really only care about what happens to "citizens" and as a legal immigrant I don't count and I should be able to take the good with the bad right? Ya count to me, Joss!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 15:04:11 GMT -5
I hope that everyone who lobbies for travel bans from Ebola stricken countries realizes that this means no person out of the US, for whatever reason, until at least 21 days after the last resident in this country who might have been exposed, however indirectly, is cleared? That'll go over great I'm sure... I don't believe we have an Ebola epidemic here at this time as they do in parts of Africa so no, at this time that is not what a travel ban would mean.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 15:05:21 GMT -5
Well if I strictly follow the posts here, I would not be affected since we really only care about what happens to "citizens" and as a legal immigrant I don't count and I should be able to take the good with the bad right? Really? Who here told you that?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 15:51:33 GMT -5
I think whether she should have gone on the cruise is debatable. I think whether she should have been quarantined is debatable. I think Mexico refusing to let the ship stop in Cozumel is "ridiculous overreaction and paranoia" Number 2 on your list..... Once the CDC contacted Carnival, I imagine there was not a lot of choice, but then they say the quarantine was voluntary, so the point is moot. Nice to see second world countries have a higher health protection standard for their citizens than America does.
the rest of the world is free to act as stupidly as it wishes. it is none of my concern.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 15:53:20 GMT -5
I hope that everyone who lobbies for travel bans from Ebola stricken countries realizes that this means no person out of the US, for whatever reason, until at least 21 days after the last resident in this country who might have been exposed, however indirectly, is cleared? That'll go over great I'm sure... I don't believe we have an Ebola epidemic here at this time as they do in parts of Africa so no, at this time that is not what a travel ban would mean. what about the contries that don't ban Africa? should we ban them too. i think that Belgium is the #1 connecting airport for Liberia. should we travel ban Belgium?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 16:24:27 GMT -5
what about the contries that don't ban Africa? should we ban them too. i think that Belgium is the #1 connecting airport for Liberia. should we travel ban Belgium? Damn those Flemings and Walloons. travel bans are pointless as of this moment. the crazy right can talk about it all they want- and attempt to make Obama look bad for not calling for one- but the ONLY thing that would make him look bad, imo, is to accede to their foolish, short sighted, and ignorant suggestions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:33:19 GMT -5
I don't believe we have an Ebola epidemic here at this time as they do in parts of Africa so no, at this time that is not what a travel ban would mean. what about the contries that don't ban Africa? should we ban them too. i think that Belgium is the #1 connecting airport for Liberia. should we travel ban Belgium? If a passport shows that person has been in areas with the Ebola epidemic less than 21 days ago, I say yes, until those 21 days are up .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:36:13 GMT -5
Damn those Flemings and Walloons. travel bans are pointless as of this moment. the crazy right can talk about it all they want- and attempt to make Obama look bad for not calling for one- but the ONLY thing that would make him look bad, imo, is to accede to their foolish, short sighted, and ignorant suggestions. Obama doesn't need any help to make him look bad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 16:38:17 GMT -5
what about the contries that don't ban Africa? should we ban them too. i think that Belgium is the #1 connecting airport for Liberia. should we travel ban Belgium? If a passport shows that person has been in areas with the Ebola epidemic less than 21 days ago, I say yes, until those 21 days are up .
the reason i am asking is this. let's say someone from Liberia goes to Belguim on a business trip or vacation. let's say that on the second day of his vacation he meets an American in a bar, and sleeps with her- neglecting to tell her he has a fever. she then gets on a plane and comes home. so, the Liberian has the travel ban. awesome. it helps precisely ZERO in this situation to prevent Ebola from getting here. edit: this is only one of a THOUSAND scenarios i can think of. a Liberian goes to Madrid for the running of the bulls. he goes out in the streets with the throngs even though he has a fever. now, perhaps a hundred people are infected. the Gambian national rugby team goes to an international tournament in Holland. while there, they play 23 teams, but neglect to mention that one of their players was infected with Ebola. i am sure with a little creativity you can imagine how porous this situation in. a travel ban SOUNDS nice and does zip to STOP the spread of ebola. you stop the spread of ebola by fixing the problem in the nations that are afflicted before it becomes a continent wide epidemic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 16:38:34 GMT -5
travel bans are pointless as of this moment. the crazy right can talk about it all they want- and attempt to make Obama look bad for not calling for one- but the ONLY thing that would make him look bad, imo, is to accede to their foolish, short sighted, and ignorant suggestions. Obama doesn't need any help to make him look bad.
then they should stfu.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:41:08 GMT -5
If a passport shows that person has been in areas with the Ebola epidemic less than 21 days ago, I say yes, until those 21 days are up .
the reason i am asking is this. let's say someone from Liberia goes to Belguim on a business trip or vacation. let's say that on the second day of his vacation he meets an American in a bar, and sleeps with her- neglecting to tell her he has a fever. she then gets on a plane and comes home. so, the Liberian has the travel ban. awesome. it helps precisely ZERO in this situation to prevent Ebola from getting here. It's about reducing risk, the same way we reduce risk for many things.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 16:44:36 GMT -5
the reason i am asking is this. let's say someone from Liberia goes to Belguim on a business trip or vacation. let's say that on the second day of his vacation he meets an American in a bar, and sleeps with her- neglecting to tell her he has a fever. she then gets on a plane and comes home. so, the Liberian has the travel ban. awesome. it helps precisely ZERO in this situation to prevent Ebola from getting here. It's about reducing risk, the same way we reduce risk for many things. you reduce risk by fixing the problem, not by trying to keep it at arms length. you want me to admit that our hospitals are not prepared? fine. they are not prepared. THAT is what we should focus on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:50:03 GMT -5
It's about reducing risk, the same way we reduce risk for many things. you reduce risk by fixing the problem, not by trying to keep it at arms length. you want me to admit that our hospitals are not prepared? fine. they are not prepared. THAT is what we should focus on. We can reduce risk and at the same time prepare our hospitals. We can reduce risk and at the same time try help the Africans get rid of the disease, we can reduce risk and the same time try to develop a vaccine. You don't reduce risk by importing a disease. You reduce it by containing it as much as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:57:29 GMT -5
Also a travel ban will include American health care workers that go to Africa to help it? Then probably they will not go and its gonna be worse in Africa and then more sick people will get to other country's and later they will get to USA. A travel ban will not help it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 16:57:46 GMT -5
you reduce risk by fixing the problem, not by trying to keep it at arms length. you want me to admit that our hospitals are not prepared? fine. they are not prepared. THAT is what we should focus on. We can reduce risk and at the same time prepare our hospitals. We can reduce risk and at the same time try help the Africans get rid of the disease, we can reduce risk and the same time try to develop a vaccine. You don't reduce risk by importing a disease. You reduce it by containing it as much as possible.
still waiting for that link. got any time today?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:02:20 GMT -5
We can reduce risk and at the same time prepare our hospitals. We can reduce risk and at the same time try help the Africans get rid of the disease, we can reduce risk and the same time try to develop a vaccine. You don't reduce risk by importing a disease. You reduce it by containing it as much as possible.
still waiting for that link. got any time today? 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.
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38
Multimedia Rethinking Africa: Nation-by-Nation Profiles Rethinking Africa: The Subsidy Debate Rethinking Africa: Innovative Businesses Latest Africa News Sudan could be arming S. Sudan rebels, says report
Buy AP Photo Reprints
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. hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 17:02:29 GMT -5
Also a travel ban will include American health care workers that go to Africa to help it? Then probably they will not go and its gonna be worse in Africa and then more sick people will get to other country's and later they will get to USA. A travel ban will not help it. that's precisely it. the proximate goal is stopping the disease in AFRICA. if we don't stop it there, it WILL come here. a travel ban will mean that the only people who will go there are either signing their own death sentence or committed to staying there until the disease is conquered. now what SANE person would do that. in fact, i will take it one step further. even DISCUSSING the travel ban puts the containment effort in serious jeapordy. so, we can have it one way or the other, but not both. we can have our stupid travel ban, and watch the disease possibly spiral out of control without our help, OR we can contain the disease before it reaches plague proportions, but we really can't have both.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2014 17:04:48 GMT -5
still waiting for that link. got any time today? 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.
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_EBOLA_AFRICA_CONTAINMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-14-24-38
thanks! edit: i read this article and it covers travel restrictions, but i don't really see anything about a travel embargo (ban).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:06:57 GMT -5
Also a travel ban will include American health care workers that go to Africa to help it? Then probably they will not go and its gonna be worse in Africa and then more sick people will get to other country's and later they will get to USA. A travel ban will not help it. No one is asking for a ban on people going in to help. They are asking for a ban for people coming in. If you go to help add on 21 days for quarantine before you come back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:11:08 GMT -5
thanks! edit: i read this article and it covers travel restrictions, but i don't really see anything about a travel embargo (ban). I am not finding the one I saw the other day. I have used up my free visiting pass to some websites this month searching for Ebola news mostly. Now they want my $ which they won't get so that's the best I can do right now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:16:30 GMT -5
Also a travel ban will include American health care workers that go to Africa to help it? Then probably they will not go and its gonna be worse in Africa and then more sick people will get to other country's and later they will get to USA. A travel ban will not help it. No one is asking for a ban on people going in to help. They are asking for a ban for people coming in. If you go to help add on 21 days for quarantine before you come back.
They will still be in country so every day 21 days will start again. They can not go back to America. And if they get sick they no they can not go back to USA for best health care. So probably no one will go. Then Africa will get worse and then other country's will get worse and then USA will get worse.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:18:55 GMT -5
No one is asking for a ban on people going in to help. They are asking for a ban for people coming in. If you go to help add on 21 days for quarantine before you come back.
They will still be in country so every day 21 days will start again. They can not go back to America. And if they get sick they no they can not go back to USA for best health care. So probably no one will go. Then Africa will get worse and then other country's will get worse and then USA will get worse. Quarantine. 21 days. We make the rules, That's the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:21:14 GMT -5
They will still be in country so every day 21 days will start again. They can not go back to America. And if they get sick they no they can not go back to USA for best health care. So probably no one will go. Then Africa will get worse and then other country's will get worse and then USA will get worse. Quarantine. 21 days. We make the rules, That's the rule. And if they get sick to bad for them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:28:06 GMT -5
We can reduce risk and at the same time prepare our hospitals. We can reduce risk and at the same time try help the Africans get rid of the disease, we can reduce risk and the same time try to develop a vaccine. You don't reduce risk by importing a disease. You reduce it by containing it as much as possible.
still waiting for that link. got any time today? here's another The Kenyan government announced other restrictions, saying it is temporarily suspending entry into Kenya of passengers who have passed through Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.
Health professionals and Kenyan citizens returning home from those countries will be the exceptions, but will have to undergo extensive screening and close monitoring, said James Macharia, Cabinet secretary of the Kenya Ministry of Health.
The measures come as the World Health Organization warned this week that the magnitude of the Ebola crisis in West Africa is "vastly" underestimated. www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/health/ebola-outbreak/index.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:31:05 GMT -5
Quarantine. 21 days. We make the rules, That's the rule. And if they get sick to bad for them? No. Like I said we make the rules. Something like Kenya is already doing. Health professionals and Kenyan citizens returning home from those countries will be the exceptions, but will have to undergo extensive screening and close monitoring, said James Macharia, Cabinet secretary of the Kenya Ministry of Health.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:36:46 GMT -5
We can reduce risk and at the same time prepare our hospitals. We can reduce risk and at the same time try help the Africans get rid of the disease, we can reduce risk and the same time try to develop a vaccine. You don't reduce risk by importing a disease. You reduce it by containing it as much as possible.
still waiting for that link. got any time today? another Still, Kalzeubet Payimi Deubet, Chad's prime minister, said on Thursday his country would close its border with Nigeria to prevent Ebola entering the country.
"This decision will have an economic impact on the region but it is imperative for public health needs," Deubet said.
Nigeria has reported 15 cases - the lowest number in the four affected countries - and the WHO has expressed "cautious optimism" that the spread can be stopped.
South Africa said on Thursday it was banning all travellers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone from entering its territory, barring its own citizens. www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/08/african-nations-tighten-ebola-travel-bans-2014821235529353370.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 17:51:45 GMT -5
And if they get sick to bad for them? No. Like I said we make the rules. Something like Kenya is already doing. Health professionals and Kenyan citizens returning home from those countries will be the exceptions, but will have to undergo extensive screening and close monitoring, said James Macharia, Cabinet secretary of the Kenya Ministry of Health.
Then it is as djAdvocate wrote you are writing about travel restrictions and not travel ban. Already there are travel restrictions. Only you say they better be stronger I think.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 29, 2024 13:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 23:26:20 GMT -5
Also a travel ban will include American health care workers that go to Africa to help it? Then probably they will not go and its gonna be worse in Africa and then more sick people will get to other country's and later they will get to USA. A travel ban will not help it. that's precisely it. the proximate goal is stopping the disease in AFRICA. if we don't stop it there, it WILL come here. a travel ban will mean that the only people who will go there are either signing their own death sentence or committed to staying there until the disease is conquered. now what SANE person would do that. in fact, i will take it one step further. even DISCUSSING the travel ban puts the containment effort in serious jeapordy. so, we can have it one way or the other, but not both. we can have our stupid travel ban, and watch the disease possibly spiral out of control without our help, OR we can contain the disease before it reaches plague proportions, but we really can't have both. I disagree with your assessment that we can't restrict a good % of infected Ebola victims from entering our country while at the same time assisting Africa but your certainly entitled to it.
|
|