E-Bola

[Boom_70]

Kerry's jet broke down and he was forced to fly commercial. Be funny if we find out that Kerry was exposed to an Ebola carrier and he has to be quarantined.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/10/16/secretary-of-state-flies-united-after-air-force-757-breaks-down/17357707/

 

[cjericho]

Great opening line:

Lockheed Martin thinks it may just about have a handle on this nuclear-fusion thing, but the U.S. government cannot manage to keep Ebola patients off a flight to Cleveland. Sometimes, you simply must hate the 21st century.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390532/ebola-administration-kevin-d-williamson

They would've been able to keep those people off the flight if the CDC budget wasn't slashed.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I think the question that needs to be asked is this: A travel ban, as I understand it, means not one person is allowed to travel in or out of the countries in question.

So what do we do about health care workers who are trying to go to the countries to help affected people? Are there other people who absolutely need to go to these countries to be part of the effort to stop the spread of the virus?

My biggest issue with a travel ban is that comes off as "see how easy that is" approach. But as we've learned many times over, the problem with "see how easy that is" approaches is that they seldom work the way they are supposed to.

With that said, if officials aren't doing enough to explain the issues with a travel ban, they need to be more direct. If, for example, a travel ban means that not one exception can ever be made, then we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to tell health care workers that they can't go to these West African countries to help affected people and reduce the spread of the virus there.

Do those health care workers have to fly commercial? Couldn't it be a controlled event. Workers fly on private or military plane and return on same with proper precautions and quarantines upon return.

I just don't buy the argument that it would make it more difficult to stop the spread.

It did not seem difficult for a travel ban to Israel to be instituted

Flying a private plane costs more money, unless you find somebody who is willing to donate services or offer them at a reduced rate. Military flights might be an option, but there's only so much of those flights available, and you could have issues ranging from complaints about the military being utilized for this purpose, to distrust factors from the West African countries in question.

Briefly on that: The distrust factor that West Africans have for foreigners is a major issue to overcome. We both know the medical personnel going there just want to help, but the hard part is getting the person who doesn't trust a foreigner to understand that.

Back to the travel ban: The United States could do whatever it wants, but getting every other nation to follow suit is the hard part, and that's especially important when somebody who wants to get from West Africa to the United States will need to take a flight to a European nation, then board a connecting flight. Or more to the point: Just because you keep these people from coming to the United States, does not mean they won't try to go to another nation, and lead to the same things that happened with Eric Duncan.

That means your best approach is to stop these people from boarding a plane in the West African nations to begin with, which likely means shutting down the airport to nearly all traffic, and that's going to be a real challenge to get those West African nations to do that.

If we can keep a head of lettuce or bird out of the country we should be able to
find a put in a travel ban on humans. Seems simple enough to look at the recent
stamps on a passport.

Those heads of lettuce have really been busy booking flights around the world.

 

[Boom_70]

Great opening line:

Lockheed Martin thinks it may just about have a handle on this nuclear-fusion thing, but the U.S. government cannot manage to keep Ebola patients off a flight to Cleveland. Sometimes, you simply must hate the 21st century.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390532/ebola-administration-kevin-d-williamson

They would've been able to keep those people off the flight if the CDC budget wasn't slashed.

Not seeing the connection. Why was CDC budget slashed?

 

[cjericho]

Great opening line:

Lockheed Martin thinks it may just about have a handle on this nuclear-fusion thing, but the U.S. government cannot manage to keep Ebola patients off a flight to Cleveland. Sometimes, you simply must hate the 21st century.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390532/ebola-administration-kevin-d-williamson

They would've been able to keep those people off the flight if the CDC budget wasn't slashed.

Not seeing the connection. Why was CDC budget slashed?

Not sure why, but that reason was given earlier on this thread.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

That was the Star Man charge- sequestration.
Sufficiently shot down.

 

[Boom_70]

I think the question that needs to be asked is this: A travel ban, as I understand it, means not one person is allowed to travel in or out of the countries in question.

So what do we do about health care workers who are trying to go to the countries to help affected people? Are there other people who absolutely need to go to these countries to be part of the effort to stop the spread of the virus?

My biggest issue with a travel ban is that comes off as "see how easy that is" approach. But as we've learned many times over, the problem with "see how easy that is" approaches is that they seldom work the way they are supposed to.

With that said, if officials aren't doing enough to explain the issues with a travel ban, they need to be more direct. If, for example, a travel ban means that not one exception can ever be made, then we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to tell health care workers that they can't go to these West African countries to help affected people and reduce the spread of the virus there.

Do those health care workers have to fly commercial? Couldn't it be a controlled event. Workers fly on private or military plane and return on same with proper precautions and quarantines upon return.

I just don't buy the argument that it would make it more difficult to stop the spread.

It did not seem difficult for a travel ban to Israel to be instituted

Flying a private plane costs more money, unless you find somebody who is willing to donate services or offer them at a reduced rate. Military flights might be an option, but there's only so much of those flights available, and you could have issues ranging from complaints about the military being utilized for this purpose, to distrust factors from the West African countries in question.

Briefly on that: The distrust factor that West Africans have for foreigners is a major issue to overcome. We both know the medical personnel going there just want to help, but the hard part is getting the person who doesn't trust a foreigner to understand that.

Back to the travel ban: The United States could do whatever it wants, but getting every other nation to follow suit is the hard part, and that's especially important when somebody who wants to get from West Africa to the United States will need to take a flight to a European nation, then board a connecting flight. Or more to the point: Just because you keep these people from coming to the United States, does not mean they won't try to go to another nation, and lead to the same things that happened with Eric Duncan.

That means your best approach is to stop these people from boarding a plane in the West African nations to begin with, which likely means shutting down the airport to nearly all traffic, and that's going to be a real challenge to get those West African nations to do that.

If we can keep a head of lettuce or bird out of the country we should be able to
find a put in a travel ban on humans. Seems simple enough to look at the recent
stamps on a passport.

Those heads of lettuce have really been busy booking flights around the world.

Try and bring a piece of fruit or plant from Hawaii to the mainland and you'll be treated like a terrorist. We're well protected against the spread of fruit flys

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

IBola UBola we all bola for Ebola

 

[Boom_70]

That was the Star Man charge- sequestration.
Sufficiently shot down.

Sequestration - widely documented and introduced to process by Obama
budget team members Gene Sperling and Jack Lew who I believe now signs our money.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I think the question that needs to be asked is this: A travel ban, as I understand it, means not one person is allowed to travel in or out of the countries in question.

So what do we do about health care workers who are trying to go to the countries to help affected people? Are there other people who absolutely need to go to these countries to be part of the effort to stop the spread of the virus?

My biggest issue with a travel ban is that comes off as "see how easy that is" approach. But as we've learned many times over, the problem with "see how easy that is" approaches is that they seldom work the way they are supposed to.

With that said, if officials aren't doing enough to explain the issues with a travel ban, they need to be more direct. If, for example, a travel ban means that not one exception can ever be made, then we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to tell health care workers that they can't go to these West African countries to help affected people and reduce the spread of the virus there.

Do those health care workers have to fly commercial? Couldn't it be a controlled event. Workers fly on private or military plane and return on same with proper precautions and quarantines upon return.

I just don't buy the argument that it would make it more difficult to stop the spread.

It did not seem difficult for a travel ban to Israel to be instituted

Flying a private plane costs more money, unless you find somebody who is willing to donate services or offer them at a reduced rate. Military flights might be an option, but there's only so much of those flights available, and you could have issues ranging from complaints about the military being utilized for this purpose, to distrust factors from the West African countries in question.

Briefly on that: The distrust factor that West Africans have for foreigners is a major issue to overcome. We both know the medical personnel going there just want to help, but the hard part is getting the person who doesn't trust a foreigner to understand that.

Back to the travel ban: The United States could do whatever it wants, but getting every other nation to follow suit is the hard part, and that's especially important when somebody who wants to get from West Africa to the United States will need to take a flight to a European nation, then board a connecting flight. Or more to the point: Just because you keep these people from coming to the United States, does not mean they won't try to go to another nation, and lead to the same things that happened with Eric Duncan.

That means your best approach is to stop these people from boarding a plane in the West African nations to begin with, which likely means shutting down the airport to nearly all traffic, and that's going to be a real challenge to get those West African nations to do that.

If we can keep a head of lettuce or bird out of the country we should be able to
find a put in a travel ban on humans. Seems simple enough to look at the recent
stamps on a passport.

Those heads of lettuce have really been busy booking flights around the world.

Try and bring a piece of fruit or plant from Hawaii to the mainland and you'll be treated like a terrorist. We're well protected against the spread of fruit flys

Which is the point. You need a human to bring fruit or a plant. We can control lettuce and birds because they are not human beings. A human being can fly from Africa to Europe, then fly from Europe to here. So how do we ban that person?

 

[Boom_70]

IBola UBola we all bola for Ebola

TV 38 in Boston used to run a great local show called Candlepins for Cash. A huge favorite with New Englanders.

Now back to regular programing.

 

[Boom_70]

I think the question that needs to be asked is this: A travel ban, as I understand it, means not one person is allowed to travel in or out of the countries in question.

So what do we do about health care workers who are trying to go to the countries to help affected people? Are there other people who absolutely need to go to these countries to be part of the effort to stop the spread of the virus?

My biggest issue with a travel ban is that comes off as "see how easy that is" approach. But as we've learned many times over, the problem with "see how easy that is" approaches is that they seldom work the way they are supposed to.

With that said, if officials aren't doing enough to explain the issues with a travel ban, they need to be more direct. If, for example, a travel ban means that not one exception can ever be made, then we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to tell health care workers that they can't go to these West African countries to help affected people and reduce the spread of the virus there.

Do those health care workers have to fly commercial? Couldn't it be a controlled event. Workers fly on private or military plane and return on same with proper precautions and quarantines upon return.

I just don't buy the argument that it would make it more difficult to stop the spread.

It did not seem difficult for a travel ban to Israel to be instituted

Flying a private plane costs more money, unless you find somebody who is willing to donate services or offer them at a reduced rate. Military flights might be an option, but there's only so much of those flights available, and you could have issues ranging from complaints about the military being utilized for this purpose, to distrust factors from the West African countries in question.

Briefly on that: The distrust factor that West Africans have for foreigners is a major issue to overcome. We both know the medical personnel going there just want to help, but the hard part is getting the person who doesn't trust a foreigner to understand that.

Back to the travel ban: The United States could do whatever it wants, but getting every other nation to follow suit is the hard part, and that's especially important when somebody who wants to get from West Africa to the United States will need to take a flight to a European nation, then board a connecting flight. Or more to the point: Just because you keep these people from coming to the United States, does not mean they won't try to go to another nation, and lead to the same things that happened with Eric Duncan.

That means your best approach is to stop these people from boarding a plane in the West African nations to begin with, which likely means shutting down the airport to nearly all traffic, and that's going to be a real challenge to get those West African nations to do that.

If we can keep a head of lettuce or bird out of the country we should be able to
find a put in a travel ban on humans. Seems simple enough to look at the recent
stamps on a passport.

Those heads of lettuce have really been busy booking flights around the world.

Try and bring a piece of fruit or plant from Hawaii to the mainland and you'll be treated like a terrorist. We're well protected against the spread of fruit flys

Which is the point. You need a human to bring fruit or a plant. We can control lettuce and birds because they are not human beings. A human being can fly from Africa to Europe, then fly from Europe to here. So how do we ban that person?

Would seem simple enough to look at a passport for country of origin. If it's stamped Liberia - see ya in a few years. Have a safe flight home.

 

[cjericho]

Does the US not have a 'No Fly List' Isn't that banning people.

 

[Boom_70]

Does the US not have a 'No Fly List' Isn't that banning people.

Yeah that too. Back in July if you wanted to fly to Tel Aviv you were out of luck.
The Federal Aviation Administration ordered U.S. airlines to stop flying to or from Ben Gurion International Airport.

Clearly a number of ban examples.

 

[SnarkShark]

Does the US not have a 'No Fly List' Isn't that banning people.

Yeah that too. Back in July if you wanted to fly to Tel Aviv you were out of luck.
The Federal Aviation Administration ordered U.S. airlines to stop flying to or from Ben Gurion International Airport.

Clearly a number of ban examples.

Yeah, but you could still get to Israel taking another airline from another country.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Does the US not have a 'No Fly List' Isn't that banning people.

Yeah that too. Back in July if you wanted to fly to Tel Aviv you were out of luck.
The Federal Aviation Administration ordered U.S. airlines to stop flying to or from Ben Gurion International Airport.

Clearly a number of ban examples.

Yeah, but you could still get to Israel taking another airline from another country.

Which is why the excuse that a US travel ban to West Africa would hurt disease-fighting efforts is bull****.

 

[Dick Whitman]

There appears to be a related thread that has, likely due to a glitch in the coding for this site, disappeared.

Mods, can you recover?

Thanks.

 

[Starman]

That was the Star Man charge- sequestration.
Sufficiently shot down.

Sequestration - widely documented and introduced to process by Obama
budget team members Gene Sperling and Jack Lew who I believe now signs our money.

Introduced as a response to teabagger hostage-taking threats to precipitate a default on the debt ceiling and impose draconian cuts on unemployment benefits, by dumb**** Obama and his dumb**** advisors, who simple-mindedly believed the cuts in military spending would get some GOPs to back off. They were too naive to realize that cutting taxes for billionaires, throwing moochers off the public dole and making sure the mooslim negro could be blamed for every ******* thing that went wrong under the mother ****ing sun, were the only priorities that mattered.

 

[YankeeFan]

You guys are funny recounting all the reasons why a travel plan is unnecessary, won't work, and is in fact counterproductive.

If one or two more infected individuals reach our shores -- especially if it were to happen before the elections -- Democrat politicians will be storming the White House to demand he institute a travel ban, and the President will institute one faster than Beau Biden can snort a line of coke.

As Politico points out in their "Anatomy of a Cave" article, it was only a matter of time before the President was forced to name an EBola Czar. He'll institute a travel ban if forced to also.

It was just a matter of time.

Sure, President Barack Obama had for close to two weeks resisted calls for an “Ebola czar.” Indeed, since the outbreak of the virus, he had insisted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should lead the administration’s response. And as recently as Wednesday, his top spokesman stressed that the White House was doing fine without designating one high-level official to focus solely on the issue.

But to many in Washington, it was a question not of if but when Obama would cave to congressional and public demands for him to assert himself on Ebola by appointing a point-person to manage the issue, especially once Democrats started joining the Republican chorus of criticism.

Well before Friday’s announcement that Obama had chosen former Biden and Gore aide Ron Klain to serve as the administration’s “Ebola response coordinator” — and the hints about the appointment that the president made on Thursday night — the pattern was set. It’s one that’s played out many times in Obama’s nearly six years in office: Wait to respond to a crisis, draw criticism from Capitol Hill and the American public, dismiss outsiders’ suggestions as politically driven and reactive to a short-term Washington uproar — then eventually give in.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/president-barack-obama-ebola-112002.html#ixzz3GSFeuJ4e

 

[Boom_70]

You guys are funny recounting all the reasons why a travel plan is unnecessary, won't work, and is in fact counterproductive.

If one or two more infected individuals reach our shores -- especially if it were to happen before the elections -- Democrat politicians will be storming the White House to demand he institute a travel ban, and the President will institute one faster than Beau Biden can snort a line of coke.

As Politico points out in their "Anatomy of a Cave" article, it was only a matter of time before the President was forced to name an EBola Czar. He'll institute a travel ban if forced to also.

It was just a matter of time.

Sure, President Barack Obama had for close to two weeks resisted calls for an “Ebola czar.” Indeed, since the outbreak of the virus, he had insisted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should lead the administration’s response. And as recently as Wednesday, his top spokesman stressed that the White House was doing fine without designating one high-level official to focus solely on the issue.

But to many in Washington, it was a question not of if but when Obama would cave to congressional and public demands for him to assert himself on Ebola by appointing a point-person to manage the issue, especially once Democrats started joining the Republican chorus of criticism.

Well before Friday’s announcement that Obama had chosen former Biden and Gore aide Ron Klain to serve as the administration’s “Ebola response coordinator” — and the hints about the appointment that the president made on Thursday night — the pattern was set. It’s one that’s played out many times in Obama’s nearly six years in office: Wait to respond to a crisis, draw criticism from Capitol Hill and the American public, dismiss outsiders’ suggestions as politically driven and reactive to a short-term Washington uproar — then eventually give in.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/president-barack-obama-ebola-112002.html#ixzz3GSFeuJ4e

Optics