User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

  1. #21
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    @Slate

    You are suggesting I find the two options mutually exclusive.

    I wouldn't say mutually exclusive, per se. But I am looking at a cost-benefits perspective. I honestly don't know which is more expensive, travel ban or preventative/screening/protocol training/etc. And I also don't how much money is available for this/how a country's budget works. But it seems like enforcing a travel ban would be really expensive and STILL people with the disease would get through. Would fewer? Probably... but fewer enough? Maybe?

    So that is why I said perhaps the preventative/screening/protocol training/etc may be a better plan, bc if the disease is coming through either way, then why not spend that same money maximizing the preparation all the facilities receive to detect and deal with potential cases?

    But I think you are saying that we can stop enough more cases of the disease getting through that the remaining few cases which might find their way through will be insignificant in comparison?


    It is all so hypothetical, I have no hard numbers, and I'm not an expert.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.
    Likes Slate liked this post

  2. #22
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theDarkSide View Post
    They already fly through other countries because there are no direct flights, so its the same. Nothing's changed. Washington Post
    You are calling a flight with a layover the same thing as a road trip.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #23
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate View Post
    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?
    Whether people think it's common sense or not is arguable clearly, But.. I'm saying we have the resources and power to do something more proactive than just "ban those fuckers, and if anyone was/is stupid enough to go there, ban them too." And since we have the power to treat the people that live with us and were born with us as people, we (generally) utilize it.

    We're better equipped for massive outbreaks than those countries currently outbreaking are. I'm quite sure of that. That's not the same as saying I want the risk for outbreak here--Dallas is pretty close to home--but I am more confident living here with one vs another country, and if I caught Ebola in another country trying to provide aid I'd sure as shit would want to be treated in America and have a higher chance of surviving it.

    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. I don’t think you understand this particular issue; commercial airlines are in no way the appropriate medium to regulate this dilemma.
    I'm not at all saying commercial airlines are regulating anything. Only that I'm acknowledging they aren't going to be stopped because people DO lie about where they've been even when outbreaks aren't an issue, and it is far easier to re-route flights to stop at particular airports for better regulation than it would be to ban flights. It doesn't make sense to just ban flights from countries nearby on its own--people will just travel to Another country farther out. So. To me, the rights of the citizens and the control of the spread go hand-in-hand, it weaves into itself, it's not so simple as "I want to stop disease, so I smash flights" or "No, let all the flights come in from wherever whenever, citizens rock" .. They have to balance, which makes it all gray as to how to balance the need for quarantines, medical support, and how to go about it while giving citizens autonomy over their own lives and health care. (Because in the US you can always refuse treatment.) So making treatment more appealing and ensuring patients feel a certain way are super important to the more logistical side of things. Hearts and minds and whatnot.

    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.
    If I learned anything from living in a third world country, it is that people don't forget. You fuck up once, people remember that shit. It doesn't even have to be you. Just someone who looks like you is enough. That has a huge impact on people opting for treatment and complying with treatment. We can't FORCE medical care on anyone. So all these stupid little emotional tidbits of things are important players.

    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.
    It isn't viable to completely stop flights because people live here, and have a right to be treated as a resident here--meaning they can come home. If you aren't preventing everyone exposed from coming home, what's the point? Banning flights and people accessing America is really an all-or-nothing approach, and it's really quite impossible to regulate. Banning most flights is like getting rid of most of the poison-laced M&Ms in a jar of them. Chances went down, but who cares? No one is satisfied enough to eat out of the jar.

    What IS viable is careful screening to including vital signs, testing for symptomatic people even if they claim it's a cold or allergies or whatever (made better with flight attendants taking note of those coughing, sneezing, feverish, etc), and tons of resources built up and things like mandatory sit-through classes for people coming from these at-risk flights.. and making sure those flights go through the same check points (i.e. instead of banning flights, make them stop at certain air ports pre-equipped to deal with this) which, to me, would be any flight out of Northern Africa right now.

    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.
    Vaccines for all sorts of diseases are not mandatory in the US. Everyone has the right to opt out of vaccinations, despite risking exposing themselves and others to highly communicable diseases. Those who are allergic to vaccines, immunosuppressed, etc. Are all unable to vaccinate, and perfectly healthy people completely capable (and do) refuse on the grounds of insert-anything-from-religious-to-laziness-here, exposing all of those populations to the disease whether they want it or not. Trust me, people's rights to be threatened by disease are not US top priority in comparison to the rights of the individual, though they do mitigate it as best they can. You can't infringe on those individual rights, even if it isn't serving the greater good at all.


    TLDR: Banning flights out of countries mean people will go to other countries to fly, spreading it further. No bueno. Better to treat those as they're coming in and try to catch them early and offer incentives difficult to refuse for testing and treating Ebola than it is to try banning flights, which just looks bad and sounds bad overall and won't really do much of anything to treat the problem. In my personal opinion, I think rerouting flights and setting up airports in a way to handle this would be much better, and giving incentives as well, but who cares what I think I'm not running this shit.
    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
    Likes gromit, Slate liked this post

  4. #24
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate View Post
    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)
    Can you give me an example (not from a Hollywood movie) of a virus mutating to become airborne?

    What we are not afraid to say about Ebola virus

    When it comes to viruses, it is always difficult to predict what they can or cannot do. It is instructive, however, to see what viruses have done in the past, and use that information to guide our thinking. Therefore we can ask: has any human virus ever changed its mode of transmission?

    The answer is no. We have been studying viruses for over 100 years, and we’ve never seen a human virus change the way it is transmitted.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #25
    The Dark Lord The Wailing Specter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFP Ne
    Posts
    3,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theDarkSide View Post
    I haven't heard a good argument against a travel ban either.

    It is undesirable for Ebola to spread to America. We got enough disease that we don't need one more. A travel ban would limit the ability for people to bring Ebola here. People would still come, but it seems like it'd be less, which is better than more. I don't see how this reasoning is flawed. I just don't.
    They could just fly to Europe, then to America.
    Enneagram: 6w7 (phobic) > 2w1 > 9w1
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Holland Code: AIS
    Date of Birth: March 15, 1996
    Gender: Male
    Political Stance: Libertarian Liberal (Arizona School/Strong BHL)
    ATHEIST UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST HUMANIST
    and
    SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST


    I say this as a reminder to myself, but this goes for everyone:

    You can achieve anything you set your mind to, and you are limited only by how dedicated you are to succeed!

    -Magic Qwan

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    @Slate

    You are suggesting I find the two options mutually exclusive.

    I wouldn't say mutually exclusive, per se. But I am looking at a cost-benefits perspective. I honestly don't know which is more expensive, travel ban or preventative/screening/protocol training/etc. And I also don't how much money is available for this/how a country's budget works. But it seems like enforcing a travel ban would be really expensive and STILL people with the disease would get through. Would fewer? Probably... but fewer enough? Maybe?

    So that is why I said perhaps the preventative/screening/protocol training/etc may be a better plan, bc if the disease is coming through either way, then why not spend that same money maximizing the preparation all the facilities receive to detect and deal with potential cases?

    But I think you are saying that we can stop enough more cases of the disease getting through that the remaining few cases which might find their way through will be insignificant in comparison?


    It is all so hypothetical, I have no hard numbers, and I'm not an expert.
    I don’t think there are any experts out there beyond Actuaries (and even then I don’t think they have the data to perform such), and I’m not an Actuary in either case. And what you said here really is the heart of the issue with what I see as all the right questions. So lacking the hard data, it essentially turns to what direction we are willing to make our errors in, which is what we are dealing with here as hindsight is 20/20

    Travel bans are relatively inexpensive to enforce in and of itself, if the bans were on countries with high economic activity that would yield higher economic costs, but that isn’t the case here though. I look at Travel bans as a grace period which would give us time to beef up our protocols, along with more time to put more boots on the ground.

    In theory, if we had 3 months, we could have dog sniffing ebola out for flight screening, which those 3 months could be obtained via the reduction of a travel ban, who knows what our security will develop. The main issue is that in the immediate moment, we are exposed and unprepared, which is the main issue I see.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Can you give me an example (not from a Hollywood movie) of a virus mutating to become airborne?

    What we are not afraid to say about Ebola virus
    The virus right now isn't airborne, and may never go airborne, I will try to find the source again, but the article was more specific on its dna.


    Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
    Ebola Believed To Be Potentially Airborne, Researchers Claim


    Here is also another one where it says its unlikely but possible
    "But interviews with several infectious diseases experts reveal that whereas such a mutation—or more likely series of mutations—might physically be possible, it’s highly unlikely."
    Fact or Fiction?: The Ebola Virus Will Go Airborne - Scientific American

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Whether people think it's common sense or not is arguable clearly, But.. I'm saying we have the resources and power to do something more proactive than just "ban those fuckers, and if anyone was/is stupid enough to go there, ban them too." And since we have the power to treat the people that live with us and were born with us as people, we (generally) utilize it. :

    This is still just a discrepancy in value here, we both agree the US would be able to handle this better better than West Africa, but better does not mean successful. Nothing you said was illogical or anything like that here, there is nothing to debate on this aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I'm not at all saying commercial airlines are regulating anything. Only that I'm acknowledging they aren't going to be stopped because people DO lie about where they've been even when outbreaks aren't an issue, and it is far easier to re-route flights to stop at particular airports for better regulation than it would be to ban flights. It doesn't make sense to just ban flights from countries nearby on its own--people will just travel to Another country farther out. So. To me, the rights of the citizens and the control of the spread go hand-in-hand, it weaves into itself, it's not so simple as "I want to stop disease, so I smash flights" or "No, let all the flights come in from wherever whenever, citizens rock" .. They have to balance, which makes it all gray as to how to balance the need for quarantines, medical support, and how to go about it while giving citizens autonomy over their own lives and health care. (Because in the US you can always refuse treatment.) So making treatment more appealing and ensuring patients feel a certain way are super important to the more logistical side of things. Hearts and minds and whatnot. :
    If we agree that commercial airlines can’t regulate properly right now, then it is open season on who comes in, in the short term. It’s one of the reasons why we’ve had like 5-10 different Ebola scares (flights/airports closing down) in the US because there are no controls. The third option you speak of, which we agree on, with US bases to receive people for medical care and all with regulated flights, takes time to implement, which a flight ban would buy time, and it does take time for people to find a loop around.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    If I learned anything from living in a third world country, it is that people don't forget. You fuck up once, people remember that shit. It doesn't even have to be you. Just someone who looks like you is enough. That has a huge impact on people opting for treatment and complying with treatment. We can't FORCE medical care on anyone. So all these stupid little emotional tidbits of things are important players. :
    None of my arguments are on forced vaccinations, or any application thereof, thus there aren’t any opinions to offend in this regard either since there aren’t any widely Ebola vaccinations available to give to anybody. Again nobody has said anything about mass vaccinations.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It isn't viable to completely stop flights because people live here, and have a right to be treated as a resident here--meaning they can come home. If you aren't preventing everyone exposed from coming home, what's the point? Banning flights and people accessing America is really an all-or-nothing approach, and it's really quite impossible to regulate. Banning most flights is like getting rid of most of the poison-laced M&Ms in a jar of them. Chances went down, but who cares? No one is satisfied enough to eat out of the jar.

    What IS viable is careful screening to including vital signs, testing for symptomatic people even if they claim it's a cold or allergies or whatever (made better with flight attendants taking note of those coughing, sneezing, feverish, etc), and tons of resources built up and things like mandatory sit-through classes for people coming from these at-risk flights.. and making sure those flights go through the same check points (i.e. instead of banning flights, make them stop at certain air ports pre-equipped to deal with this) which, to me, would be any flight out of Northern Africa right now. :
    “Chances went down, but who cares?”

    I think that was what I was getting at when I said value difference, if you agree it would reduce chances, then there isn’t much to debate about. Now in regards to morals, the US is throwing huge amounts of money, medical/military personal, building massive basses, etc. The US is entirely invested with relieving the situation, the only thing that is being asked with a flight ban is temporary time to to beef up our security/protocol/bases. Once those are established they would then be the main source of restricting diseases not the ban, in which case it would be removed. The ban helps shore up our short term weaknesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Vaccines for all sorts of diseases are not mandatory in the US. Everyone has the right to opt out of vaccinations, despite risking exposing themselves and others to highly communicable diseases. Those who are allergic to vaccines, immunosuppressed, etc. Are all unable to vaccinate, and perfectly healthy people completely capable (and do) refuse on the grounds of insert-anything-from-religious-to-laziness-here, exposing all of those populations to the disease whether they want it or not. Trust me, people's rights to be threatened by disease are not US top priority in comparison to the rights of the individual, though they do mitigate it as best they can. You can't infringe on those individual rights, even if it isn't serving the greater good at all. :
    Again, vaccinations were never anyone’s argument. Also quarantines are frequently used in the US, against individuals all the time, so if we are going based on precedent quarantines are not uncommon and have been used on individuals already, that’s not even including the fact that the US does implement travel bans even on issues not relating to disease.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    TLDR: Banning flights out of countries mean people will go to other countries to fly, spreading it further. No bueno. Better to treat those as they're coming in and try to catch them early and offer incentives difficult to refuse for testing and treating Ebola than it is to try banning flights, which just looks bad and sounds bad overall and won't really do much of anything to treat the problem. In my personal opinion, I think rerouting flights and setting up airports in a way to handle this would be much better, and giving incentives as well, but who cares what I think I'm not running this shit.
    Again as reiterated in earlier posts, the ability for them to do that (which we both agree on) takes time, and thus a travel ban means that they have to go through more barriers which would bide time. The other argument you missed was that people who can leave are already leaving even without the US implementing a travel ban to reach those other countries medical systems since theirs are already maxed out. The idea that they haven’t tried leaving yet is not true and the idea that they would start leaving if a ban occurred is false, since there are already incentives to do so. Surprisingly nobody wants to stay in an hot zone.

    Also, I obviously care for your opinions as am taking the time to respond to you and I like discussing the topic.

  9. #29
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theDarkSide View Post
    I haven't heard a good argument against a travel ban either.

    It is undesirable for Ebola to spread to America. We got enough disease that we don't need one more. A travel ban would limit the ability for people to bring Ebola here. People would still come, but it seems like it'd be less, which is better than more. I don't see how this reasoning is flawed. I just don't.
    Here is the thing. While Ebola is contagious, it isn't airborne like a few strains of Smallpox (unless, by some miracle in the future, it mutates to become airborne,) which limits things to bodily fluids (like Urine, blood, stools, and such.)

    And honestly, I'd rather know that people are willing to have themselves tested before coming over here than have people forcing themselves, whether knowingly or not, with Ebola. Travel Bans make desperate people come over, whether they are infected or not, and it causes problems as this is one area control should be given for.

    If I'd have control by stopping people from X people versus having control by screening people moving between countries, I'd take the second any day as long as we have clean protocols to work with.

    A complete ban on travel allows for too many uncontrolled variables. Some of them already mentioned here.....What countries will this infected person try to get into to avoid this ban and make it look like he/she has the common cold or fever? Will it spread far and wide because people aren't willing to get screened of the virus?

  10. #30
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    It's my understanding that Nigeria has achieved some measure of success in stopping ebola outbreaks by closing their border. What empirical evidence is there that a travel ban will actually increase the incidence of an infectious disease?

    I don't fly so I don't know how easy it is to get passports into the USA. Am I to understand that one can just hop over to another country, lie about the country of origin and get a passport? If that's the case, then that's a problem that needs to get fixed.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

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