I wish not to get into a back and forth. I express my opinion. Done. There's nothing anyone can say that will change my mind. Nor can I change yours. It really is common sense stuff what needs to be done. I care only for the country I live in and the rest can go to hell. Shut all down until that place over there dies. Let nature do what it does.
I think there's nothing wrong with a good debate, but if you choose not to look beyond your beliefs, so be it. I'm just saying that quarantines, travel restrictions, etc. are nothing more than responses from the constant bombardment of fear mongering the American people get.
I doubt you care, but since it keeps being brought up, lets look at a few things.
People believe that without a travel ban, infected Africans will flood the United States. Does that mean you believe the U.S. embassy is handing out visas like Halloween candy in affected countries? If you think that, then the solution, beyond implementing more rigorous screening of passengers (which is already happening), would be stricter medical controls for visas. Not a travel ban.
Also, there's no need for a formal travel ban, because there's already a de facto private travel ban to those countries. U.S.-based airlines stopped flying to Ebola-afflicted countries two months ago (to protect their crew and passengers from exposure — and themselves from lawsuits).
A recent study shows that even if the world managed to scale back air traffic flows by 80 percent, it would delay the international spread of the disease by only a few weeks.
http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/...ed-with-the-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak/
Of course, as mentioned earlier, this 80% ban is almost undoable, simply because to ban travelers from Ebola affected countries, you'd have to ban flights from many other areas that don't have travel bans. Like Duncan did with his flight from Monrovia to Brussels then to the US.
Also, as mentioned before, health workers traveling to these countries don't have private planes. They are private volunteer groups such as Red Cross and Doctors without Borders that use commercial airlines, so a blanket travel ban would effectively cut off aid to these countries. Potentially opening the door to a much great spread of Ebola. This would only heighten their sense of desperation, increasing their desire to leave, and thus producing political instability, especially if their governments try and stop them due to pressure from the international community. Many African countries have already announced their own travel bans. But it is unlikely that they'll be able to enforce them without very draconian measures in the face of a mass exodus of people, making the spread of the disease across the African continent that much harder to contain.
