There are numerous articles and news casts and rants about this so I won't attach one article seeing as you can google it and get a ton of stuff.
My main point in this article is on flights in and out of heavily infected African countries.
My teacher, Mr. Durrant just got back from a project in Africa and said that the media is blowing this way out of proportion. (Which is why I hate modern news media). He said that asking someone in Africa if they have Ebola is like asking someone from California if they have it because the guys in Texas have it. Yeah it's deadly, and yeah it's killed a lot of people but in all honesty, someone needs to talk to the news people and tell them to chill. Seriously.
On to my main point, if everyone is as freaked out and paranoid about it as they seem to be, why the heck haven't we closed boarders? Stop all flights, shipments and travel from those few African countries. Seems like the logical, smart, common sensical, responsible, anti-stupid and non moronic thing to do. But, alas, it hasn't happened.
However, I don't have a lot of knowledge on this deal so my question to you is are there any real reasons of concern on why we wouldn't shut the boarder? And do they justify it? Are they good enough?
Comment below, let me know!
There are many reasons we haven't shut our borders: see http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/01/why-hasnt-the-u-s-closed-its-airports-to-travelers-from-ebola-ravaged-countries/
ReplyDelete.
Short, condensed version:
1) Ebola is not airborn. It is transmitted only by bodily fluids, so unless you are cleaning up their house in a faulty HAZMAT suit, you are probably fine.
2) Restrictions are redundant. If you don't show symptoms, you aren't contagious and won't be detected. If you do, you won't be able to get on a plane.
3) Travel restrictions make it harder to fight Ebola, so, ironically, instituting them would hasten the spread of Ebola, not slow it.
4) Time. Along the lines of number 3, the longer it takes us to get people in and get Ebola under control, the likelier it will get out en masse and end the world.
5) For those that DON'T have Ebola in West Africa, the knowledge of how Ebola is spread makes it substantially harder to get food or water. We need no travel restrictions so those people who have a higher chance of survival due to not being deathly ill can get their nutrients.
-Liam Brookhart
But how long can you be infected before symptoms start to show, do you know? Also, on a happier note. Isn't it up to a 80% survivable rate? Or is that in just one country?
DeleteThey say the monitoring period is like 2-21 days after you've come in contact with someone who is diagnosed. Also, survival depends on your previous health and your health care providers. We have much higher standards in medicine than most other countries.
DeleteI think our country is blowing the whole Ebola thing out of proportion. Yes you can die from it, but it is not as contagious as everyone thinks. It does have to be transmitted through bodily fluids, so unless you are touching the person you are probably fine. A reason for everyone freaking out could be that the first guy who got it in the U.S. had just recently gotten home from a west africa country. I think that you can be contagious though before symptoms actually show, but I don't know for how long. I think that we need to calmly and effectively stop the growth of Ebola, but there is no reason to start freaking out and say that it is going to start the next zombie apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteI think its best to not close off the boarders because if they did the media would have a field-day and people would go insane. I wrote a post on this on my blog too (#toodopeforthepope) and in the article I cited people weren't allowed to go to work because they went to an African country even if there were no cases.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, no matter what people do there is going to be worry and people freaking out. If the United States does nothing against it, the media will simply say we are all doomed and the US isn't taking enough precautions against it and to watch your back. If they do close boarders and put us under lock down, then the media will say we're doomed because our leaders think this is a serious enough problem to isolate us from everyone else. We can't win here.
DeleteI dont believe we should stop all means of travel between countries with ebola. However, i do believe means of travel should be regulated to some degree. it should be treated as any other deadly contagious virus, and treated with extreme caution. a new more sophisticated environment in the US could cause it to genetically mutate in ways making more contagious, more resistant, and more deadly. It has already mutated, making the virus more contagious. That being said, we shouldnt cut off means of travel to these countries at all. I think as a developed country we have an obligation to help out those who do not have as many resources.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the news is making this a really big deal. It was just 3 people who were infected and they seem to have it under control. It is probably really frustrating to the medical personnel involved because people who making it seem like a bigger deal then it really is.
ReplyDelete-Alan Kitchen
From what I've read and seen, one of the main concerns about closing the borders involves American citizens. Either citizens who have been travelling in other countries that would be unable to get home or the citizens from organizations like Doctors Without Borders, who are the biggest source of aid for Ebola in Africa right now. Either way, the government has a certain responsibility to these citizens, because they are still our citizens, and leaving them out there would be (in my own opinion) a morally terrible thing to do.
ReplyDelete