Ebola outbreak: Travel bans 'irrational,' says Red Cross head

[Mister Nightowl]

Source: CBC (Canada)

Thomson Reuters Posted: Oct 22, 2014 6:11 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 22, 2014 6:20 AM ET

Closing borders will not effectively curb Ebola infections, the head of the Red Cross said on Wednesday, amid debate over whether bans on travel from hardest-hit African countries would help combat the spread of the deadly virus.

This year's outbreak of the highly infectious hemorrhagic fever thought to have originated in forest bats is the worst on record, having killed more than 4,500 people, mostly in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.

Travellers from the region have infected two people in the U.S. state of Texas and one in Madrid, prompting some leaders, including some U.S. lawmakers, to urge a ban on travel from West Africa.

Elhadj As Sy, Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), said such restrictions would not make sense.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-travel-bans-irrational-says-red-cross-head-1.2808463

[joshdawg]

1. But, but ebola

will kill everyone here.

The panic, fear and paranoia expressed by the right-wingers are all they have. They have no plan to fix anything, just criticism at everything this administration is doing.
A travel ban is irrational and unnecessary. But then the right-wingers know that, they just like to hear themselves spew.

[underpants]

2. Speaking of medical infrastructure - I thought that was what our foreign aid money went towards

At least some of it

[rocktivity]

3. When in doubt, follow the money

Who was the first to get bailed out after 9/11? The airlines.

"...The only solution is how can we join our efforts to contain those kinds of viruses and epidemics at their epicentre, right where they start."

Sy said he believed it was possible to contain the disease in four to six months if proper practices were implemented, but that additional investment in the West Africa's health infrastructure would be needed to prevent future outbreaks.

In the meantime, what's "proper" and "rational" about allowing infected people to take Ebola to the four corners of the earth? Since we can't tell when they're infected, a restriction like requiring travelers from or through Ebola-affected countries wait 21 to 30 days would be better than doing nothing at all -- even if it means a temporary economic hit.

And hopefully Sy's "investment in West Africa's health infrastructure" includes finding a way to detect Ebola during the incubation period when it's easier to treat. That could happen in six months, according to this article -- the same six months Sy allots to containing the virus. But either way, doesn't it make sense to "invest" in at least TRYING to keep Ebola in the "epicenter" and out of other countries? One person with Ebola has traveled from Guinea to Mali. But that's better than one dozen.


rocktivity

[FLPanhandle]

4. People act irrationally when scared

And there are many people (even here) who the media has scared.

[eweaver12]

5. If not Border Control, what else?

Enforcing travel bans and restrictions during a global pandemic has been proven to be ineffective in past cases. Is there ever a reason that it would be effective? Do you think if Ebola persists like it is, will restricting travel to and from certain high-risk area be a plausible tactic to try and slow the spread?

[Deadbeat Republicans]

6. Let's invest a boatload of money into the Red Cross,

what could possibly go wrong with that scenario?!?