5 ms·

If it spreads to central american slums a panicked wave of people will rush the US border. The current authorities are insane enough to not stop them.

cdelsolar 12y ago
Really?
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I know it's almost inconceivably stupid that the feds wouldn't seal the border in the case a of a global pandemic, but the recent experience of the enterovirus epidemic being brought here by central american teens who were not deported really makes things clear.
  - macspoofing 12y ago
    >I know it's almost inconceivably stupid that the feds wouldn't seal the border in the case Like with scotch tape?
    - hga 12y ago
      No: if your passport includes a stamp from the 3 affected countries (no doubt later to be expanded), you don't get in, period. Or you go straight into isolation for 21 days. Our non-existent southern border is a further problem, mitigated to a degree by the extra time it takes to travel that way. Not to mention that if we're concerned, Mexico should be bat shit scared of Ebola breaking out in its various slums; they have little more chance of containing it in them than these three West African nations. A little bit of research into what everyone used to when we had widespread, often endemic incurable diseases running rampant, will show that we have solutions to Ebola.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Are there a lot of social connections between West Africa and Mexican slums? Is travel from West Africa to poor areas of Mexico something the world should actually be concerned about? Why? (I think it is likely pragmatic to at least encourage people to not travel, for instance, I don't see why the nurse flew to Ohio in the first place, but I don't understand how the Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea->Mexican slum is a useful idea to focus on)
        hga 12y ago
        That's what I was intentionally thinking. But then I realized it might take only one index case to start another hell on earth like we see in the three current epidemic nations. So then you e.g. wonder about indirect vectors. Suppose, for example, those guys who pressure washed Duncan's vomit etc. outside his apartment without using any PPE, even had their water bottles too close, were directed to do it quickly, before a few days of heat and UV almost certainly killed the Ebola in it. And then one takes a visit back home. Or look at this 2nd nurse, who felt compelled to travel to Cleveland to continue organizing her wedding. Suppose that was south of the border instead (essentially no further by air, right?). Concepts like requiring "a lot" are potentially lethal when the real metric is "it only takes one". Not that Mexico's medical system is non-existent or hopeless by any means, I'd assume it would take another goof for it to get into an area where containment was impractical to impossible. My general point is that as long as we (the world at large, but the US has a special responsibility to our neighbors) allow unconstrained export of Ebola from its current epidemic nations, bad things are certain to happen. Look at the current Dallas nightmare. Surely, we hope, we'll do better next time. But other nations will also screw up their first cases, and plenty have less margin. When stakes this high ... well, here's a quick list of the big 3rd World regions and populations, in billions: Africa: 1.111 Latin America: 0.558 Southeast Asia: 0.618 South Asia: 1.591 Total for above: 3.378 PRC: 1.350 Just how comfortable are we with dicing with the lives of that many people? While it's hardly inevitable, especially if we can soon develop a safe, easily manufactured and distributed vaccine, what are we going to say to our children if we let 1 billion or more people die because we're now too [fill in the blank] to implement old fashioned quarantines.

cdelsolar 12y ago

Really?

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
I know it's almost inconceivably stupid that the feds wouldn't seal the border in the case a of a global pandemic, but the recent experience of the enterovirus epidemic being brought here by central american teens who were not deported really makes things clear.
- macspoofing 12y ago
  >I know it's almost inconceivably stupid that the feds wouldn't seal the border in the case Like with scotch tape?
  - hga 12y ago
    No: if your passport includes a stamp from the 3 affected countries (no doubt later to be expanded), you don't get in, period. Or you go straight into isolation for 21 days. Our non-existent southern border is a further problem, mitigated to a degree by the extra time it takes to travel that way. Not to mention that if we're concerned, Mexico should be bat shit scared of Ebola breaking out in its various slums; they have little more chance of containing it in them than these three West African nations. A little bit of research into what everyone used to when we had widespread, often endemic incurable diseases running rampant, will show that we have solutions to Ebola.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Are there a lot of social connections between West Africa and Mexican slums? Is travel from West Africa to poor areas of Mexico something the world should actually be concerned about? Why? (I think it is likely pragmatic to at least encourage people to not travel, for instance, I don't see why the nurse flew to Ohio in the first place, but I don't understand how the Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea->Mexican slum is a useful idea to focus on)
      - hga 12y ago
        That's what I was intentionally thinking. But then I realized it might take only one index case to start another hell on earth like we see in the three current epidemic nations. So then you e.g. wonder about indirect vectors. Suppose, for example, those guys who pressure washed Duncan's vomit etc. outside his apartment without using any PPE, even had their water bottles too close, were directed to do it quickly, before a few days of heat and UV almost certainly killed the Ebola in it. And then one takes a visit back home. Or look at this 2nd nurse, who felt compelled to travel to Cleveland to continue organizing her wedding. Suppose that was south of the border instead (essentially no further by air, right?). Concepts like requiring "a lot" are potentially lethal when the real metric is "it only takes one". Not that Mexico's medical system is non-existent or hopeless by any means, I'd assume it would take another goof for it to get into an area where containment was impractical to impossible. My general point is that as long as we (the world at large, but the US has a special responsibility to our neighbors) allow unconstrained export of Ebola from its current epidemic nations, bad things are certain to happen. Look at the current Dallas nightmare. Surely, we hope, we'll do better next time. But other nations will also screw up their first cases, and plenty have less margin. When stakes this high ... well, here's a quick list of the big 3rd World regions and populations, in billions: Africa: 1.111 Latin America: 0.558 Southeast Asia: 0.618 South Asia: 1.591 Total for above: 3.378 PRC: 1.350 Just how comfortable are we with dicing with the lives of that many people? While it's hardly inevitable, especially if we can soon develop a safe, easily manufactured and distributed vaccine, what are we going to say to our children if we let 1 billion or more people die because we're now too [fill in the blank] to implement old fashioned quarantines.