Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > EBOLA, Open Borders, and Undocumented ILLEGALS

EBOLA, Open Borders, and Undocumented ILLEGALS
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 01:12 PM
 
So, we aren't screening who comes into our county, and thousands of questionable "Political refugees" are streaming in along with who knows who else. Now we aren't stopping the flights from the Ebola areas of west Africa. Do we even know how many radical Islamist terrorists have sneaked in so far? How many MS13 gang members are here?

Do you think the Obama admin is really up to the task of keeping us safe?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...dc-quarantine/
( Last edited by BadKosh; Oct 3, 2014 at 01:22 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 01:54 PM
 
Do you really think any other administration would be?
What exactly does Ebola have to do with Islamic terrorists anyway?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
Right now the only ebola terrorist on US soil is some asshole citizen who decided to lie about being in contact with it so he could leave Africa.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 02:24 PM
 
As I've said many times before, I wish we let in a reasonable number of people legally, say, a half-million more per year.

Then, if we needed to crackdown on illegal immigration, for whatever reason, we'd have the moral authority to do so.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you really think any other administration would be?
What exactly does Ebola have to do with Islamic terrorists anyway?
Um....(JEEZ!) Its two different problems because of open borders, lax security and screening and lousy policies.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:02 PM
 
In all fairness, from the article cited in the OP ...

The regulations proposed under the Bush administration would have granted the federal government a power of “provisional quarantine” to confine airline passengers involuntarily for up to three days if they exhibit symptoms of certain infectious diseases. Federal officials would also have been able to quarantine passengers exposed to people with those symptoms.
Mr. Duncan had no symptoms when he boarded the plane so this policy simply isn't relevant. Of course, that's not going to stop Fox News from criticizing the Obama Administration nevertheless. Imagine that.

The health questionnaire typically contains questions about the passenger's recent contact with Ebola patients. Passengers also are asked whether they've experienced any symptoms consistent with Ebola, such as vomiting, diarrhea or joint pain, in the past couple of days.

Duncan was screened three times before he boarded his flight in Liberia to Brussels, Kesselly said.

"The first screening was at the gate, before you get to the parking lot. The second time is before you enter the terminal building and the third is before you board the flight. At every point your temperature is scanned."

His temperature at those checkpoints was a consistent 97.3 degrees Fahrenheit, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief Thomas Frieden told reporters Thursday. "Basically, he didn't have a fever," Frieden said, noting that the Ebola patient's temperature was taken by a trained CDC health care worker with a thermometer approved by the Food and Drug Administration.


Kesselly said airport authority would seek to prosecute Duncan "if it is determined that he made a false declaration during the health screening questionnaire."

"We cannot make the (Ebola) risk zero until the outbreak is controlled in West Africa," said Frieden. He went on to say that isolating West African countries completely through travel restrictions would make it more difficult to assist in controlling the outbreak, and would eventually put the United States at greater risk.
Liberian President criticizes Ebola patient in Dallas - CNN.com

If the CDC is checking travelers for fever symptoms 3 times before they board a flight to leave the affected countries in West Africa, then apparently the US is "screening who comes into our country".

OAW
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:12 PM
 
He also LIED about being around those infected.
He wasn't an American citizen either.

He was seen 'vomiting violently' outside his apartment.
What happened to the vomit?
Maybe cats & dogs ate it and then licked their owners faces?

When will they finally stop all air travel from these infected regions?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:19 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
He wasn't an American citizen either.
My mistake. Just an international asshole.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
He also LIED about being around those infected.
That remains to be seen. There are some reports that say he knew the pregnant lady he was helping had Ebola. There are others that say he may have thought she just had a pregnancy related illness. If it turns out to be the former then the President of Liberia has already indicated he would be prosecuted assuming he survives and returns home.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
He wasn't an American citizen either.
And? You do realize that non-citizens fly to the US all day everyday right?

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
He was seen 'vomiting violently' outside his apartment.
What happened to the vomit?
Maybe cats & dogs ate it and then licked their owners faces?
Hazmat teams have been dispatched to the apartment complex. Apparently it took longer than anticipated because contractors were balking at the job because of their fears of Ebola. A clear downside with relying upon private sector contractors to handle a critical public health situation like this.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
When will they finally stop all air travel from these infected regions?
Over one confirmed case in the US? They won't. The economic and political fallout would far exceed the public health risk at this stage in the game.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Um....(JEEZ!) Its two different problems because of open borders, lax security and screening and lousy policies.
To be fair you commented that flights out of West Africa hadn't been stopped and then immediately afterwards asked about terrorists sneaking in. It seemed like you were trying to link the two. Then you linked to Fox News and I have no problem believing they would link the two in a heartbeat.

I'm glad you aren't connecting the two together beyond them both being potential consequences of border control policies.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 09:33 PM
 
It's Bush's fault.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 10:13 PM
 
title: EBOLA, Open Borders, and Undocumented ILLEGALS
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, we aren't screening who comes into our county, and thousands of questionable "Political refugees" are streaming in along with who knows who else.
Are we talking about the same country? Have you tried walking across the border into Mexico, or tried walking back? It's "papers, comrade" or a quick deport to Mexico City.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 10:18 PM
 
2.5M people do it each year, it can't be that tough.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 10:22 PM
 
Is that unique visitors, or repeats? If they get caught 9 times out of 10, then it's 250K unique visitors.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 12:51 AM
 
2.5M that actually make it in, no telling how many attempt it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 06:14 AM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 07:42 AM
 
Time to reopen Ellis Island.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 07:48 AM
 
First off, are there any "documented illegals?" There, I feel better.

Just being IN a country that has a disease problem does not mean one is exposed to anyone who HAS the disease. And someone who has that disease may not show any symptoms of it for quite some time after contracting it. Influenza here in the US is very much like that -- you're in a public situation with other people and maybe one other person coughs, just once, and a week later you start getting sick...

And of course everyone on this forum keeps meticulous records of every single stranger they come within 100 meters of, just in case there's a chance that guy over there with the brown hair might just possibly get sick next week. Yeah, of course we do.

HOW DOES ONE KEEP TRACK OF BEING EXPOSED TO SOMEONE WHO SHOWS NO SYMPTOMS? Ooooh, that's a toughie.

Now, does closing down everything help? It didn't seem to with the SARS and avian flu issues in the Far East. A whole lot of not-sick people had a horrible time just trying to keep food on the table, while plenty of really sick people slipped through a lot of almost impossible to block cracks.

Finally, there is ONE real issue to apply to this thread's title: an unfriendly force using people who were exposed to a disease as a means of "weaponizing" that disease, and intentionally infiltrating them into the US to cause widespread disease and the large amount of damage that could lead to. This was actually the very first thing I thought about on reading this thread's title, and I thought about it at length. That sort of plot takes an "evil genius," more willing saps than the drug folks have, and more luck than anyone could count on, along with everything related to public safety within the US pretty much ignoring some really obviously "different" people for weeks for the plot to have any impact at all. It might work in a movie, but not in real life.

I think there should be some realistic screening of people coming into the US. That would includes a review of their passport history, a quick questionnaire, and a face-to-face interview of people who were at a higher likelihood of being exposed. That would take an extra 3-4 minutes at the Customs desk, and slow down entry of everyone, but with some simple training, it wouldn't' be difficult for an already trained Customs inspector to be able to flag an arriving passenger for medical evaluation. Unfortunately, it would a) take several weeks just to set up the training and develop the questionnaires, b) make an awful lot of well-intentioned but sort of simplistic-minded people get their drawers in a bunch because of "profiling!!!!11!one!!!," an c) would miss the majority of people who had been actually exposed without any knowledge that they had been.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 01:19 PM
 
The long incubation period of Ebola makes it a particularly difficult one to stop from spreading.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2014, 04:42 PM
 
Precisely. Avian flu is much faster, something like 3-5 days, and as with all types of flu, most people have some sort of "preliminary" symptom like fatigue before that. Ebola can take up to 21 days from infection to onset of "marker" symptoms like sudden onset of fever.

WHO points out that "humans are not infections until they develop symptoms." So we have to think hard about what constitutes "exposure." Just being around an infected person who does not exhibit symptoms is NOT "being exposed" with this disease. It seems that the virus is contained until it finally builds to the point of internal structural damage, so your being in a room full of infected but not symptomatic people is not going to transmit the disease to you.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 08:00 AM
 
So, is this a problem brought on by poor sanitation, superstition, ignorance, and emotions gone wild?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
First off, are there any "documented illegals?" There, I feel better.
I like this post.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, is this a problem brought on by poor sanitation, superstition, ignorance, and emotions gone wild?
None of it helps really. The superstition causes people to ignore warnings about forgoing rituals where the bodies of the dead are washed, sanitation can cause unnecessary exposure to infected bodily fluids, and the ignorance and emotional responses are probably to blame for that incident where a bunch of locals attacked clinic staff and all the dying people ran away and hid.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
2.5M people do it each year, it can't be that tough.
It probably won't make you feel any safer but from all the countries I have been to - and that are quite A LOT! Except Australia I have been to every continent, almost the complete Americas and most of Europe - your country was by far the most annoying to get into! (haven't been to North Korea or China yet)
***
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:18 AM
 
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:57 AM
 
MB airline manufacturers should turn the cabins into sterilization chambers. Maybe 12 hours of UV light would kill everything.

/s
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
It probably won't make you feel any safer but from all the countries I have been to - and that are quite A LOT! Except Australia I have been to every continent, almost the complete Americas and most of Europe - your country was by far the most annoying to get into! (haven't been to North Korea or China yet)
Well yeah, if you're trying to get in legally, but if you're in Mexico you can just wait until nightfall and walk across the border. The story's the same with the Mexicans I've spoken with (at least 100) the whole thing is pretty trivial to them now, some have made the trip, back and forth, well over a dozen times.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 10:55 AM
 
President stupid wants to improve the filtering of foreigners AFTER THEY GET HERE. WTF? Why not do better examinations IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES before letting them get on a plane?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Why not do better examinations IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES before letting them get on a plane?
Probably because we don't have jurisdiction there.
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:09 PM
 
Then the solution is to ban all flights from western Africa, and the connecting flights that originated there.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Then the solution is to ban all flights from western Africa, and the connecting flights that originated there.
So then people will take a flight out of Africa to SA or Europe, wait a day, then take a new flight to the US.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:55 PM
 
That's kind of the point, more time to show potential symptoms is a good thing, ebola sets in quickly and 24 hours can reveal a lot to screeners.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's kind of the point
No it wasn't.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's kind of the point, more time to show potential symptoms is a good thing, ebola sets in quickly and 24 hours can reveal a lot to screeners.
Actually it can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear. It doesn't appear that really qualifies for "sets in quickly".

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No it wasn't.
Inadvertently, yes.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Actually it can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear. It doesn't appear that really qualifies for "sets in quickly".
You're going to ignore what the site actually says, which is 2-21 days and the average being 8, and go with the absolute top end of the scale, aren't you? Why are you doing that again? What is there to gain from that distortion?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Inadvertently, yes.
Well let's congratulate him on that then.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're going to ignore what the site actually says, which is 2-21 days and the average being 8, and go with the absolute top end of the scale, aren't you? Why are you doing that again? What is there to gain from that distortion?
He said "up to". No distortion.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 04:47 PM
 
That's one hell of a swing, 3 weeks compared to 2 days, clearly it's manipulation of the facts by omission. Anywhere from 2 days to a week makes that extra day pretty damned valuable, when talking about something like screening for one of the most dangerous diseases of the last century.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well yeah, if you're trying to get in legally, but if you're in Mexico you can just wait until nightfall and walk across the border. The story's the same with the Mexicans I've spoken with (at least 100) the whole thing is pretty trivial to them now, some have made the trip, back and forth, well over a dozen times.
I need to point out that "just walking across the border" isn't as easy as it sounds. Sure, crossing the border somewhere that isn't well observed ain't a big deal. But those places are very remote, which means a LONG walk through an unpleasant (and often deadly) desert before you get anywhere. So unlawfully entering the US from Mexico may be "easy," but the point is usually to "get somewhere other than a shallow grave in the desert," and that's not at all easy. The Border Patrol and the Texas DPS spend a lot of time rescuing folks in the desert, and unfortunately quite a bit of time collecting remains. Not to dampen the discussion or anything, but there it is...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's one hell of a swing, 3 weeks compared to 2 days, clearly it's manipulation of the facts by omission.
He didn't omit anything. That's what "up to" means. As includes numbers less than the one specified. If anyone did omission, it was you as you didn't specify any time frame.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Anywhere from 2 days to a week makes that extra day pretty damned valuable, when talking about something like screening for one of the most dangerous diseases of the last century.
That value of that extra day is highly variable. It could a 1 in 2 chance of catching the disease or 1/21. 1 in 21 is not that valuable.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're going to ignore what the site actually says, which is 2-21 days and the average being 8, and go with the absolute top end of the scale, aren't you? Why are you doing that again? What is there to gain from that distortion?
And what exactly was a "distortion" about "up to 21 days"? Was that somehow inaccurate? The figure YOU mentioned was 24 hours ... and even an average of 8 days before symptoms appear doesn't support "ebola sets in quickly and 24 hours can reveal a lot to screeners."

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He didn't omit anything. That's what "up to" means. As includes numbers less than the one specified. If anyone did omission, it was you as you didn't specify any time frame.
.
Boom!

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He didn't omit anything. That's what "up to" means. As includes numbers less than the one specified. If anyone did omission, it was you as you didn't specify any time frame.

That value of that extra day is highly variable. It could a 1 in 2 chance of catching the disease or 1/21. 1 in 21 is not that valuable.
All numbers aren't equal from 1-21 in terms of incubation. "Signs and symptoms typically begin abruptly within five to 10 days," from the Mayo Clinic web site. Anything more than 10 days is a statistical outlier. Do I get a boom? Here, I'll do it.

BOOM!

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And what exactly was a "distortion" about "up to 21 days"? Was that somehow inaccurate? The figure YOU mentioned was 24 hours ... and even an average of 8 days before symptoms appear doesn't support "ebola sets in quickly and 24 hours can reveal a lot to screeners."
24 hours can reveal a lot, that's not even a question, especially dealing with a disease that incubates within about a week, on average, and starts that abruptly. Given your propensity for making shit up during a debate, however, it isn't possible to take anything you say at face value. They end up having to vet their information and yours at the same time and that gets tedious after a while.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
All numbers aren't equal from 1-21 in terms of incubation. "Signs and symptoms typically begin abruptly within five to 10 days," from the Mayo Clinic web site. Anything more than 10 days is a statistical outlier. Do I get a boom? Here, I'll do it.

BOOM!
No. Because in your zeal for contending with me apparently basic arithmetic has begun to elude you.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
24 hours can reveal a lot, that's not even a question, especially dealing with a disease that incubates within about a week, on average, and starts that abruptly. Given your propensity for making shit up during a debate, however, it isn't possible to take anything you say at face value. They end up having to vet their information and yours at the same time and that gets tedious after a while.
If a person is exposed and there is a 5 - 10 day incubation before symptoms appear ... do tell how a 24 hour travel delay would help a screener between days 1 - 4 if symptoms appear if symptoms appear on day 5? Or between days 1 - 9 if symptoms appear on day 10?

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No. Because in your zeal for contending with me apparently basic arithmetic has begun to elude you.
It's right there on the Mayo site, I don't think you're mentally impaired so it shouldn't be so tough checking that link.

If a person is exposed and there is a 5 - 10 day incubation before symptoms appear ... do tell how a 24 hour travel delay would help a screener between days 1 - 5?

OAW
Tell me how it wouldn't on days 6-10? Now I know you're just purposely being obtuse.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Tell me how it wouldn't on days 6-10? Now I know you're just purposely being obtuse.
I'm being "obtuse"? Oh that's classic!

The point here is that if a traveler is ALREADY symptomatic then a 24 hour travel delay isn't going to tell a screener anything that they don't already know. If a traveler is NOT symptomatic then a 24 hour travel delay will only do any good if said traveler becomes symptomatic before the flight leaves the next day. But with up to a 21 day incubation period there's a greater chance of that NOT happening in 24 hours. IOW, you would catch more potentially infected people by instituting a 7, 14, or 21 day travel delay. By that I mean conduct a screening on day 1 and then a subsequent screening on the outlying day before allowing them on the plane. But a 1 day travel delay? Simply put ... BadKosh's suggestion of a complete travel ban from all West African countries affected by the disease makes more sense than that. And for the record, to simply call that position "impractical" would be charitable.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm being "obtuse"? Oh that's classic!
Yes, and it's chronic for you.

The point here is that if a traveler is ALREADY symptomatic then a 24 hour travel delay isn't going to tell a screener anything that they don't already know. If a traveler is NOT symptomatic then a 24 hour travel delay will only do any good if said traveler becomes symptomatic before the flight leaves the next day. But with up to a 21 day incubation period there's a greater chance of that NOT happening in 24 hours. IOW, you would catch more potentially infected people by instituting a 7, 14, or 21 day travel delay. By that I mean conduct a screening on day 1 and then a subsequent screening on the outlying day before allowing them on the plane. But a 1 day travel delay? Simply put ... BadKosh's suggestion of a complete travel ban from all West African countries affected by the disease makes more sense than that. And for the record, to simply call that position "impractical" would be charitable.
That makes no sense at all, an extra day for detection, especially when dealing with a disease with such a fast onset (5-10 days), is a very good thing. On average that's 10-20% more time.

However, I agree that what would be better is a required 3 week notice of travel plans if the person is originating from, or resides in, certain parts of Africa and traveling to any US destination. That won't happen, though, because people will cry and complain. I suppose they could volunteer to submit to a blood test before departure, to shorten that time, but even then I don't know how effective that would be. The best thing to do is just make them wait.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 11:07 PM
 
Ebola (especially the current strain) is not the danger that people paint it as, at least not in the developed world. With proper healthcare, treatment of symptoms and adequate hydration, you only really die if you have an underlying condition, or maybe if you are too young or too old. Its still nasty and you don't want to catch it, but the death rate is skewed in Africa because people don't have the drugs or the water required. Or they already had something else or they were weak from poor nutrition etc.
We are also far better equipped to contain it in the west.
The current strain kills 50% in Africa, in the US or Europe I'd expect that to be more than halved. We are also fortunate with the current strain some of the others have killed up to 90%, though again thats in Africa.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 07:18 AM
 
It appears that some here are getting wound up in arguing about specific details without grasping the point: it CAN take three weeks for a person to show symptoms, and it MIGHT take as little as 5 days. NONE of which changes the point that it takes a LONG time for someone to show signs of ebola.

That means that the old reliable stuff about screening people for exposure to a disease like influenza just isn't effective. So what is needed is a new, different paradigm for this disease. How about "if you suddenly get sick, GO TO A HOSPITAL IMMEDIATELY. Urgent care clinics aren't enough, "waiting for an appointment with my doctor" is just wrong, and "hoping I'll just get over it" is stupid.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 09:38 AM
 
You can ALSO get hit by a frozen fish during a tropical storm, it happens to ~half a dozen people every year (waterspouts). The Mayo site specifically says the onset is sudden with the vast majority of people showing symptoms within 5-10 days. That's pretty quick to show signs.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,