User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 47

  1. #11
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Yeah I'm starting to think amping up treatment protocols and screenings at hospitals, as well as public awareness is a better course of action. Esp because people can fly through other countries and then you really cannot tell where they are coming from.

    Of all the possible exposures in the US, it does seem to be spreading pretty slowly.

    Seems like ERs/EDs need the most support and protocols in this context.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.
    Likes Ivy liked this post

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    So where do you draw the line when you initiate that? There's a lot of gray in the areas of personal rights, confidentiality with medical conditions, genuine unknowns in the world of disease, and protecting citizens. Should we tell someone who lives in the US they cannot return home because they might have a disease? There's an incubation period--meaning it's hidden, you can test negative, go home, and then boom--you have it. If you quarantine suspected personnel before or immediately after they get to the US, you're squishing people into ill-constructed spaces for days at a time... and if someone DOES have it, and several do not, they could spread it to those people through the quarantine itself.

    It doesn't make as much sense as being aggressively proactive as a government to treat those coming in that DO have the disease and manifest symptoms--as well as to provide aide and support to the countries spreading it like crazy.
    I understand that's not not politically correct for first world nations to follow through with common sense actions, but the Caribbeans and other African countries have full on travel bans on highly infected nations. They enacted this when they saw the infected American visitor enter the US.

    A travel ban on infected nations has no gray area, its defined by geography, not by infected / not infected. While its not a full measure in and of itself, its a very expansive one that covers a lot of potential risk, leaving the whack a mole strategy for anything else.

    Also the reality of being able to screen all potentially infected is impossible, if you think otherwise then you don't know logistical issues involved. If anything, the last month and a half has shown how severely ill prepared the entire US medical/security system is with dealing the entire situation. Literally every thing failed, from initial screening exposing hundreds to it, to failed diagnoses in the US when the guy did go to the doctor, to improper training to medical officials which got one of them infected when treating him. Those are some massive gaps, literally nothing went right, in no way shape or form are we prepared.

    The worst case scenario with Ebola is that it actually has the genetic potential to become airborne (unlike HIV which has no genetic potential to become airborne), and viruses evolve exponentially when they are able to process more diverse populations, so should the virus spread internationally the dangers of creating a super Ebola virus is very real, and it would be extremely costly to contain. Our current medical system has been tied in knots from the several major diseases coming north from central/south America which have been hitting the US as of late (TB, Dengue, Chagas, and Chikungunya, especial for us down here in SoCal)

    In which case the attention would shift entirely to saving ourselves, rather than providing oversea aid.

    Obviously if I was in a highly infected area providing medical assistance and got infected, I would want to be able to go back to the US, that is completely natural, but I shouldn't be able to do that through commercial airlines, that should be banned from those nations, due to the simple fact everything related to rational self interest would encourage me to make sure I got there no matter what. Instead, the US should set up a base (which they are), to receive Americans for initial treatment and then in a very control manner transport them back that way.

    My $.02 at any rate.

  3. #13
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    How can we detect/enforce if they have gone other places first?
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  4. #14
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate View Post
    I understand that's not not politically correct for first world nations to follow through with common sense actions, but the Caribbeans and other African countries have full on travel bans on highly infected nations. They enacted this when they saw the infected American visitor enter the US.
    It really is a 1st world nation sort of thing. There are some things we just cannot do. It's easier and most effective for African nations to do so--the problem is too close to home. The Caribbeans? They have so many tourists they have to protect, and their revenue is heavily involved in that.. no one wants to go on vacation and come back with Ebola. But the US and other nations like that are far too big and have far too much income to make a black-and-white decision like that. Nothing ever gets to be easy with money involved.

    A travel ban on infected nations has no gray area, its defined by geography, not by infected / not infected. While its not a full measure in and of itself, its a very expansive one that covers a lot of potential risk, leaving the whack a mole strategy for anything else.
    The gray area more stems from the rights to go home and such. If you're a citizen of the US, your country is pretty much condemning you to stay in that infected country instead of getting you home to health care that's up to standards you're used to with situations like this. People lie on their customs forms, people cross country borders, do whatever they can to get home. It's not a viable strategy in and of itself.

    And we're already under fire sooo much from shady immigration treatment and policies.

    Also the reality of being able to screen all potentially infected is impossible, if you think otherwise then you don't know logistical issues involved. If anything, the last month and a half has shown how severely ill prepared the entire US medical/security system is with dealing the entire situation. Literally every thing failed, from initial screening exposing hundreds to it, to failed diagnoses in the US when the guy did go to the doctor, to improper training to medical officials which got one of them infected when treating him. Those are some massive gaps, literally nothing went right, in no way shape or form are we prepared.
    Ebola is a relatively new outbreak, it isn't something anyone was trained for that's for sure. And no, screening wouldn't be the most viable.. but it would be more viable than telling people they cannot come home until infected country X cures ebola somehow. The people that inoculated themselves actually broke the protocols in place.. had they followed things to standards they probably would not have gotten infected. It happens with other diseases too, not just Ebola, all the time.

    In which case the attention would shift entirely to saving ourselves, rather than providing oversea aid.

    Obviously if I was in a highly infected area providing medical assistance and got infected, I would want to be able to go back to the US, that is completely natural, but I shouldn't be able to do that through commercial airlines, that should be banned from those nations, due to the simple fact everything related to rational self interest would encourage me to make sure I got there no matter what. Instead, the US should set up a base (which they are), to receive Americans for initial treatment and then in a very control manner transport them back that way.
    I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of blocking flights. I'm just trying to answer why they wouldn't be blocked right now. We don't have another option that makes sense right now, and like you said, they're trying to fix that. Routing the flights into centers that can receive people from African countries and their neighboring countries at risk to places set up for safety (like a base) is much better than barring them entirely.

    I would say, however, no flights TO those countries should be allowed right now.. Though you can't really stop people from traveling there if that's where they want to go. People have free will to choose to expose themselves.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    How can we detect/enforce if they have gone other places first?
    In you're replying to me, then recall this

    "While its not a full measure in and of itself, its a very expansive one that covers a lot of potential risk, leaving the whack a mole strategy for anything else. "

    First, the same measures we would have without the travel ban would STILL, be in place with it (we monitor more than just highly infected countries). I don't see where your logic comes from, that the application of a travel ban negates our current security method of "scanning/checking". Second, getting to other places is still an obstacle, first are the resources to be able to travel to another country, second is bypassing the other country's security, third is bypassing American Airline Security (which we have with or without a travel ban), that puts a lot more pressure and a lot more obstacles for them to by pass decreasing the chance of it going through.

    Incubation takes several weeks (2 weeks to my knowledge) something that commercial airports can't monitor, hence why the guy initially got through, you literally need to monitor every single person looking to fly for an extended period of time to "monitor" anything properly, which isn't going to happen.

    I'm more curious why you think our current methods get negated if we have a commercial flight ban, or do you honestly not think we don't monitor healthy neighboring countries as well?

    Also, what stops people running to other countries to use their institutions? Answers, there isn't one, especially when the highly infected areas already are overloaded their own institutions, which is why we monitor other countries as well.

  6. #16
    Problem? Grand Admiral Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/so
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    So where do you draw the line when you initiate that? There's a lot of gray in the areas of personal rights, confidentiality with medical conditions, genuine unknowns in the world of disease, and protecting citizens. Should we tell someone who lives in the US they cannot return home because they might have a disease? There's an incubation period--meaning it's hidden, you can test negative, go home, and then boom--you have it. If you quarantine suspected personnel before or immediately after they get to the US, you're squishing people into ill-constructed spaces for days at a time... and if someone DOES have it, and several do not, they could spread it to those people through the quarantine itself.
    Even considering those factors, we can do better through stricter policies.
    You don't quarantine them all in the same room.

    It doesn't make as much sense as being aggressively proactive as a government to treat those coming in that DO have the disease and manifest symptoms--as well as to provide aide and support to the countries spreading it like crazy.
    Once someone has symptoms, they've already potentially spread it to other people. You want to stop them before they become symptomatic....We're already sending people to those countries. You can do more than one thing at the same time.
    Not having commercial flights leaving infected countries would also help in not spreading it like crazy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    If you ban all air travel in Liberia, people are just going to travel to another country to fly. The result is it makes the disease more likely to spread to surrounding nations which makes it more likely to affect Americans, not less. Nigeria has done an incredible job of limiting the spread of Ebola and a travel ban in Liberia would make things much, much worse for Nigeria.
    They already fly through other countries because there are no direct flights, so its the same. Nothing's changed. Washington Post


    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    Yeah I'm starting to think amping up treatment protocols and screenings at hospitals, as well as public awareness is a better course of action.
    We should do that no matter what. Reducing the risk of people being infected in the first place is not mutually exclusive with improved screening.

    Esp because people can fly through other countries and then you really cannot tell where they are coming from.
    We know who is coming in. They have to have documentation from their country of origin, and the US issues the documentation that they need.

    Of all the possible exposures in the US, it does seem to be spreading pretty slowly.
    You would expect it to start slow before becoming an epidemic. It's being predicted that Africa will have 10,000 new cases per week, and we don't want to let things get that far out of hand in the US.

  7. #17
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate View Post
    In you're replying to me, then recall this

    "While its not a full measure in and of itself, its a very expansive one that covers a lot of potential risk, leaving the whack a mole strategy for anything else. "

    First, the same measures we would have without the travel ban would STILL, be in place with it (we monitor more than just highly infected countries). I don't see where your logic comes from, that the application of a travel ban negates our current security method of "scanning/checking". Second, getting to other places is still an obstacle, first are the resources to be able to travel to another country, second is bypassing the other country's security, third is bypassing American Airline Security (which we have with or without a travel ban), that puts a lot more pressure and a lot more obstacles for them to by pass decreasing the chance of it going through.

    Incubation takes several weeks (2 weeks to my knowledge) something that commercial airports can't monitor, hence why the guy initially got through, you literally need to monitor every single person looking to fly for an extended period of time to "monitor" anything properly, which isn't going to happen.

    I'm more curious why you think our current methods get negated if we have a commercial flight ban, or do you honestly not think we don't monitor healthy neighboring countries as well?

    Also, what stops people running to other countries to use their institutions? Answers, there isn't one, especially when the highly infected areas already are overloaded their own institutions, which is why we monitor other countries as well.
    I think you might be reading into my words a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by theDarkSide View Post
    We should do that no matter what. Reducing the risk of people being infected in the first place is not mutually exclusive with improved screening.

    You would expect it to start slow before becoming an epidemic. It's being predicted that Africa will have 10,000 new cases per week, and we don't want to let things get that far out of hand in the US.
    Truth.

    We know who is coming in. They have to have documentation from their country of origin, and the US issues the documentation that they need.
    And if their country of origin is the US (or some other non-epidemic country) originially?
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.
    Likes Grand Admiral Crunch liked this post

  8. #18

    Default

    Just to start off, if I misinterpreted anything you wrote let me know, I'm not immune to misinterpretation, also while I may come off as brazen, its just how I communicate.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It really is a 1st world nation sort of thing. There are some things we just cannot do. It's easier and most effective for African nations to do so--the problem is too close to home. The Caribbeans? They have so many tourists they have to protect, and their revenue is heavily involved in that.. no one wants to go on vacation and come back with Ebola. But the US and other nations like that are far too big and have far too much income to make a black-and-white decision like that. Nothing ever gets to be easy with money involved. :

    Essentially your argument, which I’m going to exaggerate, so I’ll apologize in advance because it’s how I translated it, is that successful nations can’t have common sense policies because we might have the resources to survive a massive outbreak within our own nation?

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    The gray area more stems from the rights to go home and such. If you're a citizen of the US, your country is pretty much condemning you to stay in that infected country instead of getting you home to health care that's up to standards you're used to with situations like this. People lie on their customs forms, people cross country borders, do whatever they can to get home. It's not a viable strategy in and of itself.

    And we're already under fire sooo much from shady immigration treatment and policies. :

    That isn’t a gray area, that is just a conflict of interest, a gray area involves issues dealing with scaling. If your main concern is protecting the right to go home / visit the US, and my main concern is limiting the outbreak / protecting my host nation, that is just a simple conflict of values, and nothing to do with scaling. Also people will lie with or without a travel ban if it means getting treated in the US. Another thing, it’s very easy to be totally ignorant of it as it takes weeks for physical signs to show.

    In regard to your last line, we are under fire from people who abuse their own people, in some of the most violent regions in the world, that info I just provided like your last argument line there is still irrelevant to the topic of Ebola containment. We could have or not have past/current immigration issues, the circumstances of Ebola doesn't change.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Ebola is a relatively new outbreak, it isn't something anyone was trained for that's for sure. And no, screening wouldn't be the most viable.. but it would be more viable than telling people they cannot come home until infected country X cures ebola somehow. The people that inoculated themselves actually broke the protocols in place.. had they followed things to standards they probably would not have gotten infected. It happens with other diseases too, not just Ebola, all the time. :
    You didn't explain why it wouldn't be viable to prevent people from coming to the US. Your other line seems to also agree that screening isn’t effective, which doesn't support the idea of open commercial flights. It would also be a “new” outbreak if it became airborne, that would be another shock to the system. The rest you provided is about the right to travel to the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of blocking flights. I'm just trying to answer why they wouldn't be blocked right now. We don't have another option that makes sense right now, and like you said, they're trying to fix that. Routing the flights into centers that can receive people from African countries and their neighboring countries at risk to places set up for safety (like a base) is much better than barring them entirely.

    I would say, however, no flights TO those countries should be allowed right now.. Though you can't really stop people from traveling there if that's where they want to go. People have free will to choose to expose themselves.
    What would be the point of blocking flights beyond during times of high risk? Or what is the point of blocking flights if we establish many bases to handle the situation? The entire point of blocking commercial flights is to protect ourselves when we aren’t prepared when we don’t have proper security. I think this is why I am having trouble wrapping around some of the counter arguments here.

    Also no flights to those countries doesn’t address the issue of limiting the outbreak / protecting my host nation. As you said they can do want they want, it’s the harm of potentially infected visitors.

    I would say multiple people's right to not be threatened by disease is in competition with the right of individuals in infected areas to visit the US. In which case, I side with the former.

    While we can reiterate our value differences, which is fine, it also means we have nothing to debate about. I'm more interested why people think Commercial flight bans wouldn't aid in risk reduction, and I would be willing to provide argument statements (not that I haven't scratched some already) as to why it would provide some assistance.
    Likes Grand Admiral Crunch liked this post

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    I think you might be reading into my words a bit.
    Ha ha, always possible, I find it humorous only because I started my other post warning of the same thing. Regardless, I was hoping you'd address the points presented.

  10. #20
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate View Post
    Ha ha, always possible, I find it humorous only because I started my other post warning of the same thing. Regardless, I was hoping you'd address the points presented.
    Ok . . . I don't necessarily disagree with them...?
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFP: Lack of Fear of Germs?
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 11:12 PM
  2. Lack of breakfast and obesity?
    By The Ü™ in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 11:06 PM
  3. [INTJ] INTJ: Lack of Concentration?
    By Usehername in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 01:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO