Originally Posted by
aroundtheworld76
15, 000 who share living spaces, who touch the recently deceased out of tradition and necessity, who have had, until now, no access to the type of care that has driven mortality rates down towards meningitis levels in the US.
My apologies if I seem indignant, but it stems from a frustration of reading and hearing folks say "why take the risk" regarding travel restrictions (keeping this travel focused, lest we end up in Omni), when in fact they are not taking a risk. They are taking no more of a risk than the upset parents of Ryan Whites classmates back in the 80s. "Why take the risk" based restrictions needlessly remove a significant number of potential volunteers, denying those 15,000 people a chance.
I went to a conference last week in the UK that while not Ebola focused, involved plenty of clinicians and researchers who have been fighting Ebola. The radical difference in public perception, even though the British tabloid press is as bad as the US, was quite refreshing. Hopefully that's maintained once the UK sees its first few Ebola cases. Cases that are totally anticipated to occur given the number of deployed staff.
While I agree with pretty much all of that, I don't really see how it conflicts with my original post. If you thought I had a similar attitude to that presented in the American press then I can see how you jumped to conclusions, but a university advising it's staff and students (very few of whom are presumably suitable to be volunteers anyway given it's a law school) not to go to ebola epidemic areas and to make sure they weren't infected before returning to campus if they do seems entirely sensible to me.