|
Kaliko -> RE: Should the US close airports from Ebola ravaged countries? (10/31/2014 4:53:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
Australia's act is criticized as being very selfish. I guess it's one of those things. If there is a Zombie Apocalypse, spread by a virus, and it may not be airborne, and could be through liquids, so the zombie actually has to bite you to spread to you, and if there is a 3 weeks incubation period before someone shows up if they got zombified or not, should countries allow all the non-zombiefied people in from Zombie virus ridden countries to save them, or completely close their borders and screw all the countries with zombie problems, and shut everybody out.
We already know Australia's reaction to that.
Except that Ebola is not airborne, and is not being spread by people biting each other.
Fear of Ebola, though, is being spread by willful ignorance and bizarre misinformation. I'm thinking policy probably should go for a more fact-based approach.
I understand the science of it, as far as we know, anyway, and I am not under any misconception that I might catch Ebola from, say, standing in line at a grocery store behind someone who is infected. (Provided I keep my hands to myself, etc.)
The reason why I am in favor of quarantine and/or restricting visas is because I don't believe that people can be trusted to self-monitor and self-quarantine. We've already seen instances in which people flew and went out among groups of people when they were not feeling well. The subjective nature of determining when someone isn't feeling well is what concerns me. We've seen the CDC make mistakes about this, and we've seen people err in their own judgment. And information and direction has changed enough times for me to feel that we are still learning. Which is fine! This is the first time we are dealing with this disease on our shores and even though we've dealt with this type of disease, this one is new to us. Yes, I'm thankful that our structure is different than Africa's, but it is indeed also different. So this is new territory, and the CDC has not given me any reason to think otherwise. Again, this is fine. Not knowing everything is fine. Acting like we do is the problem that will bite us in the ass.
My fear is not that I will drive through the state of Maine and catch Ebola from Ms. Hickox. My fear is that we as a people will fuck this up with our arrogance. It's difficult for me to understand why somebody wouldn't take every reasonable precaution to prevent even the most remote possibility of transmission of something that we haven't quite gotten a handle on yet. Then there is the argument that being quarantined while well is not reasonable. Again, I find that difficult to understand when I see workers clad head-to-toe in protective gear to inspect an airplane that the public is told we are safe to fly on. "Reasonable" is, again, subjective. So I am in favor of restricting visas and quarantining those that have worked with Ebola patients.
The CDC and WHO have seemed to change things a lot since the start of this whole thing. I do understand that partly why they do that may be in response to public fear and how to best word things so as not to induce panic. But part of it is also finding things out as we go. For example, I think that those who suspect that possibly Ebola may not be as contagious early on as we originally thought might be right. But, we are still finding things out. Why can't we just admit that and keep people quarantined and the disease contained until we know more? That, to me, is a reasonable precaution.
I don't feel like I'm trembling in fear or expecting anything unreasonable. I am not panicked. (Anymore.) It just seems to make sense. What am I missing? I would love to be convinced that I'm wrong, as it seems the courts will not agree.
|
|
|
|
