2 ms·
" hopefully we will close air travel for anybody who has been in west africa" - CDC advises against this. It does more harm than good, and makes it difficult f
by ghshephard 12y ago
" hopefully we will close air travel for anybody who has been in west africa" - CDC advises against this. It does more harm than good, and makes it difficult for supplies, and medical staff to travel in/out of the area. Also, once you put in travel restrictions, you enter an adversarial rather than cooperative phase, and people start to fight you, rather than work with you.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ebola-us-border-111581.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ebola-us-border-111581...
What I don't understand, is why don't we enhance screening for anyone who has travelled recently in West Africa? I get pulled into secondary every time I note I've visited a "Farm" - you would think the impact on the system wouldn't be that great to just ask a few questions (and take a temperature) of people who've visited ebola impacted regions.
- tomjen3 12y agoI read the story and they don't get the problem - the problem isn't saving people in Africa, but making sure the disease doesn't spread via people who travel on airplanes.
- ghshephard 12y agoSpeaking from a US centric view, the only way to protect America is to control the disease at it's source. If you prevent air travel, you make it difficult, if not possible to control the disease. By putting on travel restrictions, you will lose control of the disease and jeopardize the United States. So, in effect, if you wanted to spread the disease and put the United States in grave danger, you would put travel restrictions in place.