E-Bola

Boom_70 · Oct 17, 2014

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 · Oct 17, 2014

3_Octave_Fart said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Baron Scicluna · Oct 17, 2014

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Boom_70 · Oct 17, 2014

cjericho said:

3_Octave_Fart said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Not seeing the connection. Why was CDC budget slashed?

cjericho · Oct 17, 2014

Boom_70 said:

cjericho said:

3_Octave_Fart said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Not seeing the connection. Why was CDC budget slashed?
Click to expand...

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

3_Octave_Fart · Oct 17, 2014

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

Boom_70 · Oct 17, 2014

Baron Scicluna said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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 · Oct 17, 2014

IBola UBola we all bola for Ebola

Boom_70 · Oct 17, 2014

3_Octave_Fart said:

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

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 · Oct 17, 2014

Boom_70 said:

Baron Scicluna said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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 · Oct 17, 2014

3_Octave_Fart said:

IBola UBola we all bola for Ebola
Click to expand...

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 · Oct 17, 2014

Baron Scicluna said:

Boom_70 said:

Baron Scicluna said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

Boom_70 said:

Morris816 said:

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.

Log in or Sign up

E-Bola

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

cjericho Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

cjericho Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

E-Bola

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

cjericho Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

cjericho Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches