Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Ebola: Preventing Its Spread Here
There is a piece on the website Politico entitled “Travel Ban, Visa Ban, Either Way It Won’t Work.” It is written by Tara C. Smith, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at Kent State University.
In arguing against keeping out or quarantining abroad those who have been in the countries in which Ebola has been rampant — Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea — she has two points to make. First, she points out, there are no direct flights between the US and the affected countries — which is true, but irrelevant. Her real argument can be found in this paragraph:
What, then, about restrictions on visas or passports? With outright flight bans widely criticized as unrealistic, some Republican leaders now are looking instead to visa restrictions—an issue Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has said he will press when Congress returns to work in November. This would be logistically more possible to enact—but would it actually make U.S. citizens safer here or abroad? Unlikely, for the same reasons a flight ban wouldn’t—people can still get in and out, even with a reduction in travel.
Note the character of the argument. A travel ban would not be infallible. It would only reduce the number of those apt to have been exposed to Ebola that would get through. Some would get through. They might slip in with the illegal immigrants from south of the border. The fact that they had spent time in the affected countries in West Africa might escape notice. So, she concludes, this would not “actually make U. S. citizens safer here.”
One does not have to have a degree in epidemiology to see that there is something amiss with Professor Smith’s argument. She is no doubt right in supposing perfection impossible. She is no doubt right in supposing that someone might slip through. But is she right in supposing that “a reduction in travel” would not “actually make U. S. citizens safer here?” After all, the real question is not whether we cannot handle a case or two of Ebola here. The real question is whether we can handle a larger outbreak here. The travel ban instituted in Nigeria worked brilliantly. Why, you might ask, should such a travel ban fail here?
Professor Smith is not stupid, She knows the weakness of her argument. From our perspective, what is wrong with her approach is that she is not all that interested in our welfare “here.” Consider the one objection she makes to immigration controls:
As CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has already pointed out, any reduction in flights would also hamper the ability to get medical personnel, outbreak experts and supplies in and out of these countries. Even if military transports could be effectively used in place of commercial transports (a dubious and expensive proposition), would additional people volunteer in the uncertain light of serious flight and travel restrictions? Would you volunteer your 30 or 60 days in an epidemic-hit country if you weren’t certain you could get back out?
The kicker is this: “[W]ould additional people volunteer in the uncertain light of serious flight and travel restrictions? Would you volunteer your 30 or 60 days in an epidemic-hit country if you weren’t certain you could get back out?”
This is, in fact, a genuine concern — and it explains why epidemiologists such as Thomas Frieden and Tara C. Smith are willing to peddle to us lies with regard to our own safety. Their primary focus is on Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and they sympathize with those who volunteer to serve in the danger zone constituted by those countries. Consider Professor Smith’s concluding sentences:
Visa bans would either be overly broad—and unfairly ensnare anyone from the affected countries, whether in Ebola-affected areas or not—or overly narrow, and miss someone from Senegal who recently visited Liberia or Sierra Leone.
The key to her concern is fairness. Would it have been fair to require that Dr. Craig Spencer be quarantined abroad for twenty-one days or more before returning to the United States? He was, after all, as many have noted, a hero of sorts. He risked his life for the welfare of others — and the same can be said for Kachi Hickox, who has been quarantined in New Jersey and does not like it one bit.
I admire the courage of Dr. Spencer and Nurse Hickox, and I sympathize with Professor Smith’s concern. But, in the end, public health is not about fairness. It is about the safety of one’s fellow citizens here at home, and that requires that one subordinate one’s compassion for those suffering overseas and one’s admiration for those who risk their lives in seeking to help those overseas to a concern for the welfare of one’s own fellow citizens here at home. This is what Andrew Cuomo, Chris Christie, and Pat Quinn did when they imposed a quarantine on those coming into their states from the affected areas of West Africa. It is precisely what Barack Obama, who was elected to defend the United States, resolutely refuses to do.
We live in an era in which left-liberals not themselves up for re-election think it shameful to prefer the citizens of their country to those who hail from or live abroad. “Think globally, act locally” has long been their motto. The legitimacy of patriotism is what is at stake, and it is our misfortune that we now have a President in power who thinks patriotism something shameful.
Here is a question you should ask yourself: Can you think of a single Democratic officeholder not up for re-election ten days from now who has spoken up in favor of restrictions on travel from the affected regions of West Africa to the United States?
Published in General
Thank your son. Dr. Spenser, if the reporting is correct, did not have symptoms until the night before his admission when he isolated himself and therefore did not expose anyone! Nor does the DWB protocol allow it.
Is there any evidence that they underestimated the problem? Yes, indeed, a lot of dead DWB personnel.
As for erring on the side of caution, one must always ask what is the cost. In the case of the global warming scam, the cost would be immense in human lives. In the case of Ebola, the cost would be minimal. It would involve three weeks or so of quarantine for those who have been in the affected areas.
The failure to impose such a quarantine has already been costly in Dallas. We will see about New York.
Has it? Nine of these doctors have died of Ebola in Africa. 17 (including this latest) have come down with it.
How many doctors have been exposed to Ebola? Without knowing this one cannot evaluate the efficacy of their protocol.
“U.S. soldiers returning from Liberia are being placed in isolation in Vicenza, Italy out of concern for the Ebola virus, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.
“The soldiers being monitored include Maj. Gen. Darryl Williams who was the commander of the U.S. Army in Africa but turned over duties to the 101st Airborne Division over the weekend, Martin reports. There are currently 11 soldiers in isolation.
“They apparently were met by Carabinieri in full hazmat suits. If the policy remains in effect, everyone returning from Liberia – several hundred – will be placed in isolation for 21 days. Thirty are expected in today, Martin reports.”…
I presume Gen. Williams will soon be fired.
The two nurses who contracted Ebola were treating Duncan. If we put your quarantine in effect it means no HC works who treat Ebola patients will ever come down with Ebola? Your being silly or you don’t know what a quarantine is!
You might want to read Comments #34 and 35 above and then sit back and think about what you have written. As I said above myself, there have been quite a few DWB deaths.
If we want to minimize the risks of this dread disease spreading here, we need to do what the US army appears to be doing. Liberal jim, this is not a matter of silliness; it is a matter of common sense. I know that perfection is impossible. I know also that some with Ebola may slip through. In a case like this, one does everything that one can do.
The quarantine protocol we are talking about is the one used after these doctors return to the US which has little to do with your point.
As to your point. The isolation protocol being used would not be evaluated on the number of workers, but the number of patients contacts. Secondly, it is thought that many of the cases which HC workers develop are not from patient contacts but contacts in the community. Given the available infrastructure I am confident the best protocol is being used. After all it is their lives that are on the line. The isolation protocol involves much more than the protective suits that are worn. The primary mission of our military is to upgrade the medical and sanitation infrastructure which will allow for the improvement both the isolation, public health and treatment protocols.
In the Dallas there was one Ebola patient and two nurses became infected. This is at a major hospital, in a major city, in the most developed country in the world. In the 3rd world countries of W.A. there have been thousands of patients treated, over several months, and the number of HC workers infect are still less than 50 and many of these workers were not highly trained professionals. Again many of these may will have been infected in the community and not as a result of patient contact. In Dallas there seems to have been a problem with the isolation protocol. I would not draw the same conclusion for W.A., in fact, though I do not have any first hand knowledge of the available infrastructure, I would say they are doing an amazing job.
Ah, so the DWB protocol is to live life normally and go bowling, until your 21-day quarantine period is up. After which you can live life normally.
Now it’s clear.
“…the number of HC workers infect are still less than 50 …”
According to whom? Are you just making this up as you go along?
August: “To date, more than 240 health care workers have developed the disease in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, and more than 120 have died.”
“Unprecedented number of medical staff infected with Ebola”
Is this supposed to assuage fears? “Contacts in the community” is exactly what the quarantine is intended to minimize, if not eliminate.
Sadly Christie has confirmed for me exactly who he is and has already caved.
So, we quarantine or closely monitor returning health care workers when they enter the US. Meanwhile, “contacts in the community” from West Africa, who it is thought ARE THE SOURCE OF MANY OF THE INFECTIONS IN HEALTHCARE WORKERS, are allowed into the US and under a far less restrictive regimen, taking their temperatures and voluntarily checking in with health departments or CDC. Does the idiocy of this not get your attention? That would mean the healthcare workers were NOT exposed to massive amounts of viral laden bodily fluids from extremely ill patients when they got infected, the scenario that CDC is painting as the ONLY way to get Ebola. SOMEHOW those “contacts in the community” who we are allowing to roam free in the US have managed to infect an unprecedented number of healthcare workers in Africa. No doubt they managed to infect others as well. What makes you think it will be any different here?
The logical conclusion here is to quarantine returning health care workers and a ban on all visitors from West Africa unless they have been shown to be OUT of the epidemic area, or in a strict quarantine for the WHO recommended 42 days.
One, the problem with those berating questioners of the Obama Ebola policy is that they seem willing to accept at face value the assurances of Administration officials, when that same Administration already has a track record of being careless with matters of life and death for political purposes.
Two, never mind the fact that there is a great deal of legitimate uncertainty about the outer parameters of disease transmission, there is ample evidence that Ebola is, or is becoming, a fast-mutating disease. This may have many ramifications in the real world, most importantly that the characteristics of transmission risk may change (evolve).
Three, I do NOT admire Dr. Spencer or Nurse Hickox. They are willing to play fast and loose with the lives of others for the personal connections they have made. It needs to be said that the heroic thing to do would be to submit to voluntary quarantine. That is responsible behavior. There is no reason they could not continue their lab work here in the US while being quarantined. But they are being selfish and short-sighted by submitting others to a risk they took for themselves.
As the Army is doing, even for Generals.
“Australia Temporarily Closes Border to People from Ebola-Ravaged Nations”
“”This means we are not processing any application from these affected countries,” Morrison reportedly said. “The government’s systems and processes are working to protect Australians.””
Now nurse Hickox is refusing to abide by Maines quarantine requirement. People like her are going to force a travel ban in both directions. SHE will help make harder to send aid to the area.
“Ebola doctor ‘lied’ about NYC travels”
Told police he’d self-quarantined, then they checked his MetroCard.
Lock ’em all up.
I can’t think of a series of events where the authorities make some statement and then event promptly prove them wrong. It’s like God’s got it in for the Obama administration.
One can hope, anyway…
I caught this, too, and sent in a post just before I got an email indicating that you had commented. I hope that they put it up quickly.
Biology’s funny. It’s basically physics^chemistry^biology, in order of complexity. Unimaginably so, in other words. And in any complex system, you really get in trouble when you make assumptions.
It turns out you may not “get over” Ebola…
“Family and friends of British nurse to be tested for Ebola after she contracts the virus again: Glasgow medic returns to London hospital isolation unit in ‘serious condition’”
According to the story, she was not re-exposed, so she didn’t really “contract” it again, it must have been dormant, as it was in the doctor who had a colony in his eye.