bocastephen

Now I've been on the record for about 10 years at FT rallying against security nonsense, but as someone with a MD FACS spouse, I see the other side of this equation. The risk to Africa right now is over 1MM people dead - maybe more.

There is already concern in the medical community that the virus has mutated and can infect via the air in confined spaces without direct contact with a carrier's bodily fluids - I am not sure if this was reported in the news yet, but this news is making its way through the medical community, if not the general news. Another mutation could occur at any time - and better that mutation occur far away from North American soil.

The main risk here from the perspective of the medical community is allowing things to get out of hand due to mistakes. The guy who just died in Texas from Ebola had a broad contact matrix while infected - because the hospital made critical mistakes in diagnosing him. If these types of mistakes continue to occur on a frequent basis, all of a sudden we have a big problem - if not a significant number of infected or exposed people, then certainly a public panic.

While screening for Ebola upon arrival might seem silly, the checks are (as I understand it) restricted to passengers arriving from specific impacted regions, and the checks add another layer of protection which will help minimize the impact of clinical mistakes which are almost guaranteed to occur and lead to increased risk.

If this thing gets out of hand over here, the death toll might pale in comparison to influenza, but the public panic and government knee-jerk reactions will cause far more pain than the disease itself, and that is pain I'd rather avoid. If someone is stupid enough to travel to West Africa right now with this thing spreading like wildfire, a cursory check upon arrival here is reasonable.

nk15

I agree that more aggressive measures are needed, flight bans, etc, there is a risk for a major epidemic here, and even the US couldn't handle the one case they had. The flight bans should be comprehensive, including all flights originating from the infected countries and be initiated by the infected countries themselves. The west needs to pour millions of dollars into solving this problem aggressively, and very soon.

Boraxo

This is such a joke, typical knee jerk response and security theatre while avoiding the real solution. CBP are not trained medical professionals, and even the MDs have misdiagnosed ebola victims. The only real solution is to quarantine these countries by suspending regular flight service and to quarantine anyone arriving from these countries. As others have noted, most do not arrive on nonstops but via European connections. So that is an awful lot of flights to check.

Ceridrial

not sure that Heart Disease, cancer etc are infecious?


Also - running for your flight, will raise your temp - so will that make the scanners go off? Ebola has a 3(?) week incubation period, so no symptons before #false negative....?

bugsy

In all honesty the screening is next to useless - considering the incubation period is currently being listed as 2-21 days - it's entirely possible that an infected person would not start showing any symptoms until weeks after being screened....

As others have stated, what is needed is money, trained personel & facilities in the affected regions to help combat the problem at it's source - I doubt the situation will be bought under control so long as treatment & quarantine centers are having to turn away patients due to lack of space.

FliesWay2Much

I can't recall the source, but either a White House or CDC Spokeshole admitted this was nothing more than security theater. He said the primary purpose of this screening was to "calm the public."

You want to go where?

None arrive on nonstops because there are none. Broad quarantines aren't a solution, either. It would exacerbate the problem in the region, making it more likely that the countries in question would not be able to control the epidemic and it would destroy their economy. Setting aside the ethics of this type of quarantine, it won't work because people will get more desparate and will start crossing land borders, with or without permission. It's a lot harder to quarantine a country than a ship.

The right solution is to a) help these countries end the epidemic in their own countries, and b) to improve our own capabilities to isolate and treat victims quickly and educate and monitor those exposed. This solution also has the benefit of preventing not only this epidemic but helping to prevent the next one.

You want to go where?

Believe it or not, doctors can be anti-scientific as well. News 'making its way' through the medical community is no more reliable than news making its way through other communities. Have epidemiologists (not surgeons) pointed to evidence in infection patterns which demonstrate this?

WHO data seem to suggest that transmission in this epidemic is no different than in past epidemics of Ebola. The problem is that since many of the victims are in cities and towns, it is harder to use isolation to control it, especially given that these countries have virtually no medical facilities.

This is true, which is why we need to put our money into improving our medical response when someone in the US shows up with symptoms of Ebola, or any other infectious disease.

Unfortunately, these screenings cost money and money is not unlimited. I would rather the money be used for something which will be more effective. These screenings will find lots of people with the flu, and probably not find anyone with Ebola.

The likelihood of things getting out of hand over here are fortunately quite small. Countries such as Senegal and Nigeria have managed to stop outbreaks in their tracks. Do you really think the US medical system is so incapable that they will not be able to do the same? It is statements like "the death toll might pale in comparison to influenza" that create public panic and encourage knee-jerk reactions.

Should we mindful, yes. Should we spend money to strengthen our infrastructure to combat infectious disease, yes. Should we waste money on actions which even the government acknowledges are more to pacify the public than to actually combat the problem, no.

petaluma1

http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2...-129_Aug14.pdf

'Nuf said.

PLeblond

OK,

Would you propose then banning flights to coutures with Cholera? Yellow Fever? The Bubonic Plague? That would mean a travel ban to/from China, Peru and the United States...

The point is there are many highly communicable diseases word wide in many countries. Let's put this into perspective for a moment.

PLeblond

My point was that people panic about things, that when put into perspective, are not a major problem.

Yellow Fever causes 30,000 deaths a year. Anyone hear a peep about that recently?

You want to go where?

(bolding mine)

Coutures with cholera - ewww. Sorry, just had to acknowledge a moment of black humor with your (I presume) autocorrect error.

Back to the subject at hand, you make a great point. Where do we draw the line?

We are becoming irrational about Ebola because it has high mortality and because we are unfamiliar with it, but there are far more serious health concerns currently in the US which we blithely ignore every day.

PLeblond

Indeed. My less than proficient typing and autocorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.

There is a great deal of misinformation out there. And modern (pseudo) journalism isn't helping. I blame CNN et. al.

GRALISTAIR

I remember CO cancelling flights from Newark to Honkers when Bird Flue or Sars (CANT REMEMBER ) broke out.

PLeblond

Did that help stop the spread? I remember Toronto being a hotspot of SARS outbreaks. That's a city with hundreds of flights to US cities daily.