GRALISTAIR

Probably not - but there seems to be a knee-jerk tendency in certain countries- I mean come on - after 9/11 and setting up the TSA - that was definite knee-jerk IMHO

alanR

So anyone will have gone through at least 2 security checks, spent 15 hours or more on flights then just as they arrive in the US they start showing symptoms becoming infectious.

In other news UK joins headless chickens

PLeblond

Agree whole heartedly. Much of airport security is designed to make people feel safe more than actually preventing issues.

alanR

But it gives people a false sense of security. Let's say someone is tested and passes. Then several days later starts sweating, coughing etc - how likely is it they'll think "I have a cold" rather than Ebola?

Xyzzy

h joy -- more of our tax dollars at waste. Other than allowing some politicians to shout that they've done something I can not see how this will do anything other than inconvenience quite a few people.

I'm sure that in the next few days the folks at Cabal News Network will have all sorts BREAKING NEWS talking heads and live pictures of people having their temperatures taken. Thank gdness I dumped cable...

PLeblond

I'm on your side here. I think the measures are not needed and for show.

However: I think once ebola symptoms hit full on, you don't think you 'have a cold'.

susiesan

Has SA suspended their flight from IAD-JNB that stops in Dakar? I am on SA208 next year on April 5 for a vacation in South Africa and I have not received any word that my flight is cancelled.

You want to go where?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant that flights from Liberia/Guinea/Senegal to Lagos/Dakar have been suspended, not other flights to Dakar and Lagos. There doesn't seem to be any reason to. The outbreak in Senegal has been contained. They quickly set up controls and there haven't been any secondary cases in Senegal, after the one index case. Since that case was identified on August 28th, it is safe to say that Senegal is currently Ebola-free. Nigeria is in almost the same situation. While there was a small group of secondary cases in Nigeria, there haven't been any new cases identified since September 5.

In any case, I don't think any suspension decisions have been made as far in advance as April 2015. While it is always wise to monitor your flight status as airlines change their schedules for any number of reasons, there is no reason to worry at this time about Ebola-related suspensions on flights to Dakar.

susiesan

But everyone does not have a right to come to this country, the US. If ebola exposed and infected people want to leave their countries looking for treatment they can go somewhere else. I find it interesting that most of the other countries in African continent have a travel ban on allowing people from the 3 infected countries in yet the US won't put such a temporary ban in place.

PLeblond

If they do not have the proper travel documents to enter the country, they would not get on the plane in the first place regardless if they are sick or not.

Also, my understanding is that once symptoms are present, its very fast and intense. One would not be able to get on a plane once symptoms are present so it would not be possible to take a flight to NA for treatment. For more information, see the WHO or CDC website.

susiesan

That's exactly what Duncan did. He knew he was exposed to ebola when he carried the pregnant sick girl into the car. He quit his job, bought a ticket to the US, and he lied about his exposure on the forms at the Monrovia airport and was able to board the flight. He did get sick here as he suspected he would and got free treatment courtesy of US taxpayers. It's being called ebola tourism.

Xyzzy

Nne off the things the US is doing now would have stopped this from happening. It's just like the "Who packed your luggage" and "Did anyone unknown to you give you something to bring along?" questions that airlines often ask when travelling to the US. The answers would still have been "no" in the incident that caused them to ask the questions in the first place (Pan Am 103). It's all show and no substance.

You want to go where?

I can think of a number of reasons.

1. Travel to other countries on the African continent is much cheaper than it is to the US. Since the price barrier is lower, more people can make these trips, increasing the likelihood that an infected person will arrive in their country.

2. Visa hurdles are much lower as well, again increasing the likelihood that an infected person will arrive in their country.

3. General medical and hygiene infrastructure in Africa is much lower than the US, making it harder to manage an outbreak should one arise.

4. African health systems are already stretched to the limit fighting Malaria, HIV, Dengue, trypsanomiasis, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Why add one more problem to their plate?

So, African countries are at greater risk of an outbreak and less able to contain it.

On the other hand, the US does have the capability of managing this risk. Not only do we not ban people from the US from Ebola-affected countries, we don't ban people from Cholera-affected countries, from Yellow Fever- affected countries, from Malaria-affected countries, and the list goes on. All of these diseases kill more people each year than Ebola. Where would you propose we draw the line?

DC777Fan

Let me know the next time you hear about somebody catching heart disease from contact with another person (that doesn't involve shared fried food, of course).

You want to go where?

Catching it - obviously not going to happen. Ignoring their own significant risk factors for heart disease while panicking about their infinitesimal risk from Ebola - it is already happening.