RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries?

RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries?

US airports should have closed airports from Ebola ravaged countries.

29% (13)

The US should immediately close airports from Ebola ravished countries

38% (17)

We should never close airports from any country.

11% (5)

What the hell is going to happen next in this country?

4% (2)

I could care less, until the US has at least 100 cases of Ebola

6% (3)

I am not worried, I will never get Ebola.

4% (2)

I am worried, and I have no idea what I should do.

4% (2)

Total Votes : 44

(last vote on : 11/4/2014 8:15:41 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 2:53:59 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, what is to be done with the rest of the passengers on a flight where a person has been identified as infected (or exhibiting signs of potential infection)? Do the passengers in the same row/section also get quarantined? The article discussing the situation in nigeria must have missed your attention.[8\|]

Marini -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 6:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic All travelers flying to the United States from the three countries hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa will now have to travel through the five airports with enhanced screening, officials announced Tuesday. This new rule, which goes into effect Wednesday, closes what had been a relatively small gap in the stricter screening measures rolled out earlier this month. The enhanced measures, which included temperature checks and Ebola-specific questionnaires, was put into place at five U.S. airports to screen people who had been in Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea. There are no direct flights to the United States from the three countries. About 150 people typically fly to the United States from these places each day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, often arriving after transferring planes at European hubs like Brussels or London. And federal officials say 94 percent of these travelers fly into one of five U.S. airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York; Washington Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C.; O’Hare International Airport in Chicago; Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta; and Newark Liberty International Airport near New York. But this meant that six percent of travelers — or roughly nine people a day, according to the CDC’s numbers — would have avoided the measures meant to catch potential Ebola cases before they leave the airport. Finally, and it only took a few weeks to finally decicde to do this, eh. Well, I am glad. This is at least taking a stand, and actually caring about American citizens, which is usually rare.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 6:21:53 PM)
[image]http://www.ebuzzd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kardashian-ebola1.jpg[/image]

Marini -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 6:25:37 PM)
And we want it to stay that way. Let's hope we don't have ANY more Ebola cases in the States. Wouldn't that be nice?

Lucylastic -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 6:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic All travelers flying to the United States from the three countries hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa will now have to travel through the five airports with enhanced screening, officials announced Tuesday. This new rule, which goes into effect Wednesday, closes what had been a relatively small gap in the stricter screening measures rolled out earlier this month. The enhanced measures, which included temperature checks and Ebola-specific questionnaires, was put into place at five U.S. airports to screen people who had been in Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea. There are no direct flights to the United States from the three countries. About 150 people typically fly to the United States from these places each day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, often arriving after transferring planes at European hubs like Brussels or London. And federal officials say 94 percent of these travelers fly into one of five U.S. airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York; Washington Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C.; O’Hare International Airport in Chicago; Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta; and Newark Liberty International Airport near New York. But this meant that six percent of travelers — or roughly nine people a day, according to the CDC’s numbers — would have avoided the measures meant to catch potential Ebola cases before they leave the airport. Finally, and it only took a few weeks to finally decicde to do this, eh. Well, I am glad. This is at least taking a stand, and actually caring about American citizens, which is usually rare. The prez announced it on oct 8th Marini, its taken this long to get it operational, but its yes ....finally. It seems congress wanted to take it to november...after the elections. lets hope we have no more cases to worry and that the people in the worst affected areas get some much needed help.

Marini -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/21/2014 7:13:03 PM)
Exactly Lucy, scientists all over the world should be working on a cure/or vaccine, Also, I would love to see a larger GLOBAL focus on assisting those countries, that are struggling to assist and meet the needs of those infected with Ebola. I have been reading a lot about what is gong on the frontline, and it is an outrage that many of the countries are not getting more assistance. Here is an entry from a blog from Doctors without borders, the ambulance stories are disheartening. Doctors Without Borders--- Ambulance Stories We can spend billions on so much worthless crap, and when you hear about how people are struggling trying to take care of those stricken with Ebola, it just makes you mad. Liberia and many other cities, are still in desperate need for amublances among other medical needs. Ambulance work in Liberia is busy and lonely Living in many of those cities must be a living hell.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:13:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [image]http://www.ebuzzd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kardashian-ebola1.jpg[/image] Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:16:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Exactly Lucy, scientists all over the world should be working on a cure/or vaccine, Also, I would love to see a larger GLOBAL focus on assisting those countries, that are struggling to assist and meet the needs of those infected with Ebola. What makes you think scientists all over the world aren't working on a cure/vaccine? Those things don't happen overnight.

Sanity -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [image]http://www.ebuzzd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kardashian-ebola1.jpg[/image] Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe? Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either

Lucylastic -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Exactly Lucy, scientists all over the world should be working on a cure/or vaccine, Also, I would love to see a larger GLOBAL focus on assisting those countries, that are struggling to assist and meet the needs of those infected with Ebola. What makes you think scientists all over the world aren't working on a cure/vaccine? Those things don't happen overnight. some of the problems from canadas vaccine.... TORONTO -- The CEO of the company that holds the licence for a Canadian-made Ebola vaccine has a message for people who are frustrated by how long it is taking to get it into use in West Africa. The race to get the vaccine safety tested and made in sufficient quantities so that large studies can be rolled out in affected countries early next year is moving at warp speed, he suggests. "There haven't been any delays. We couldn't go any faster without really doing things dangerously," said Dr. Charles Link, CEO and chief scientific officer of NewLink Genetics, of Ames, Iowa. "I don't think humanity has ever tried to do something this complex, to be quite honest." \ In the circles of people working on plans to contain the devastating Ebola outbreak, there has been a lot of mumbling and some serious grumbling about whether NewLink -- a small biotech focused on developing cancer vaccines -- has the experience and wherewithal to push this important project forward. Earlier this week, Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor, said the Canadian government should terminate NewLink's licence, or green-light other manufacturers to make the vaccine using the so-called "carve out" clauses in the contract. They permit Canada to enlist other vaccine makers in emergencies. The Public Health Agency dodged the question when asked whether it was considering exercising its carve out options. In an emailed reply to the question, the agency talked at length about Canada's donation of 800 to 1,000 vials of the vaccine to the World Health Organization, but did not indicate if it is considering rescinding NewLink's licence or issuing new ones. NewLink licensed VSV-EBOV, as the vaccine is called, in 2010. With a consensus emerging that vaccines may be the only way to stop the outbreak that has engulfed Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, many eyes have turned to this product, created at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. VSV-EBOV is one of only two experimental Ebola vaccines sufficiently developed at this point to be tested in people. The first human trials with the vaccine began in Bethesda, Md., last week and four more -- in Germany, Switzerland, Gabon and Kenya -- will start in the next few weeks. Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, the World Health Organization's point person for Ebola vaccines and drugs, said Tuesday that about 250 people will be enrolled in these Phase 1 trials, which are aimed at showing whether the vaccine is safe to use in people. They will also determine how much vaccine is required to induce what should be a protective response. Link said the company has a batch of vaccine that is close to being ready. It is working with two European contract manufacturers to produce more, and anticipates having an American manufacturer signed on to help in the next couple of weeks. The company expects to have between 60,000 and 70,000 vials of VSV-EBOV by the end of the year, Link said. Depending on how much is required per person, those vials could represent 600,000 to 700,000 doses -- or six million to seven million. Link said preliminary work is already underway in Sierra Leone and Liberia to plan for the start of a Phase 3 trial there early in the New Year. The current idea would be to go from Phase 1 trials straight to Phase 3, the large trials meant to show if a drug or vaccines actually works, Link said. The Phase 3 trial would test the vaccine in thousands of volunteers, including health-care workers. Link spoke of a trial design that would see between 30,000 and 40,000 people randomly assigned to get VSV-EBOV, the other experimental vaccine which is being made by GlaxoSmithKline, or a placebo -- probably hepatitis B vaccine. Some argue the placebo arm is needed to show if these vaccines are actually protective. But a number of public health experts have denounced that plan, calling it unethical. "It's the $64,000 question that's being talked about all around the world right now," Link admitted. Hopes are high for the NewLink vaccine. Studies in animals suggest it can be given both to prevent infection before exposure to the virus -- the way childhood vaccines work -- and to mitigate the severity of the illness if given shortly after exposure. Lots more info here... Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/testing-of-canadian-ebola-vaccine-moving-as-fast-as-possible-newlink-ceo-1.2065137#ixzz3Gs7hZXzU

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 5:27:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe. Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either Right, because more people have been married to a Kardashian (even broadened the criteria for ya!) than died from nuclear bombs. [8\|] If we, ya know, ignore Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 5:40:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Exactly Lucy, scientists all over the world should be working on a cure/or vaccine, Also, I would love to see a larger GLOBAL focus on assisting those countries, that are struggling to assist and meet the needs of those infected with Ebola. What makes you think scientists all over the world aren't working on a cure/vaccine? Those things don't happen overnight. some of the problems from canadas vaccine.... TORONTO -- The CEO of the company that holds the licence for a Canadian-made Ebola vaccine has a message for people who are frustrated by how long it is taking to get it into use in West Africa. The race to get the vaccine safety tested and made in sufficient quantities so that large studies can be rolled out in affected countries early next year is moving at warp speed, he suggests. "There haven't been any delays. We couldn't go any faster without really doing things dangerously," said Dr. Charles Link, CEO and chief scientific officer of NewLink Genetics, of Ames, Iowa. "I don't think humanity has ever tried to do something this complex, to be quite honest." \ In the circles of people working on plans to contain the devastating Ebola outbreak, there has been a lot of mumbling and some serious grumbling about whether NewLink -- a small biotech focused on developing cancer vaccines -- has the experience and wherewithal to push this important project forward. Earlier this week, Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor, said the Canadian government should terminate NewLink's licence, or green-light other manufacturers to make the vaccine using the so-called "carve out" clauses in the contract. They permit Canada to enlist other vaccine makers in emergencies. Did NewLink develop the vaccine? Professor Attaran is pushing for a greater supply of a drug that hasn't been proven safe or effective yet. I think that's a bit more emotional a response than necessary. It won't be his ass if someone dies or endures harm because of the vaccine not being safe. I don't have any doubts that there are several countries working on researching, creating, developing, and making Ebola vaccines. No doubts at all.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 6:02:01 AM)
~FR~ Senegal, one of the poorest countries, managed to end their epidemic. It's not rocket science. Closing airports would cause a host of other problems, and wouldn't stop much -- it might even make things worse, as travelers to the US from affected countries take a more circuitous route to cover their tracks on the way to the US. Instead of talk show paranoia, listen to the doctors. The current methods and some awareness and cooperation will do the job.

thompsonx -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 7:05:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either Why is it that right wing assholes cannot open their mouths without vomiting shit?

Musicmystery -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 7:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [image]http://www.ebuzzd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kardashian-ebola1.jpg[/image] Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe? Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either I'm pretty sure closing off air traffic from nations with nuclear bombs won't protect us there either. In both cases, more effective strategies are now in place.

DomKen -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe? Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either Do you have any idea how many Americans have died from our own nuclear bombs? Have you ever heard of John Wayne? You might want to read up on the film The Conqueror.

Sanity -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Brings about the question as to what's more dangerous, Ebola or the Kardashians. Maybe we should ban both just to be safe? Using that kind of logic, nuclear bombs can't be all that bad either Do you have any idea how many Americans have died from our own nuclear bombs? Have you ever heard of John Wayne? You might want to read up on the film The Conqueror. As many as have died from viruses? No.

Sanity -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 4:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm pretty sure closing off air traffic from nations with nuclear bombs won't protect us there either. In both cases, more effective strategies are now in place. Airport screenings for Ebola are just a show put on for us by our ineptocracy. Airport screenings for nuclear bombs though, are for real and so far they have been very effective.

FieryOpal -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 5:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic All travelers flying to the United States from the three countries hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak in West Africa will now have to travel through the five airports with enhanced screening, officials announced Tuesday. This new rule, which goes into effect Wednesday, closes what had been a relatively small gap in the stricter screening measures rolled out earlier this month. The enhanced measures, which included temperature checks and Ebola-specific questionnaires, was put into place at five U.S. airports to screen people who had been in Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea. There are no direct flights to the United States from the three countries. About 150 people typically fly to the United States from these places each day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says, often arriving after transferring planes at European hubs like Brussels or London. And federal officials say 94 percent of these travelers fly into one of five U.S. airports: John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York; Washington Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C.; O’Hare International Airport in Chicago; Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta; and Newark Liberty International Airport near New York. But this meant that six percent of travelers — or roughly nine people a day, according to the CDC’s numbers — would have avoided the measures meant to catch potential Ebola cases before they leave the airport. “We are continually evaluating whether additional restrictions or added screening and precautionary measures are necessary to protect the American people and will act accordingly,” Jeh Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security, said in a statement Tuesday. Meanwhile, the number of people traveling to the United States from these countries has plummeted recently. The number of people flying in to New York’s JFK airport from one of these three countries has dropped in half, officials said. Of course, there are limits to what this screening can accomplish. A person can unknowingly contract Ebola and exhibit no symptoms while traveling, which means the screening would be unable to identify them as a possible carrier of the illness. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/10/21/all-travelers-from-countries-with-ebola-must-now-fly-through-u-s-airports-with-stricter-screening/ The 3 nearest international airports to me are Dulles, DC National (renamed after Ronald Reagan), and BWI (Baltimore-Washington). This reminds me, Marini, that I didn't directly address your OP. I'm assuming by "close airports" you meant boycotting or forbidding entry into the U.S. If somebody wants to enter a country badly enough, s/he will find a way of circumventing his/her own country's airport(s) and fly out of one that doesn't have restrictions in place. As with STDs and other viruses, there's an incubation period, so no methodology will be foolproof (without at least a 3-month waiting period, and even then...); enhanced airport screenings are a start, and enforcing a quarantine is always an option to be exercised with prudence and due diligence.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/22/2014 5:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I'm pretty sure closing off air traffic from nations with nuclear bombs won't protect us there either. In both cases, more effective strategies are now in place. Airport screenings for Ebola are just a show put on for us by our ineptocracy. Airport screenings for nuclear bombs though, are for real and so far they have been very effective. Really. What screening exactly is for nuclear bombs? Metal detector, sure. I had to take off my shoes too. And they tested the apples I brought with me. I don't remember any nuclear screening. Do fill us in. Idaho is a different place, apparently. But as for show -- The Dept. of Homeland Security is the finest theater billions can buy.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.078125