It's time to talk about common sense when it comes to travel from Ebola affected West Africa to the USA. The issue is not stopping flights or preventing all travel. There are no flights from the three affected countries to the USA. Passengers have to fly to Europe and switch planes there if they want to make the trip to the USA. The issue instead is denying entry visas to the USA for holders of passports from the three countries or others who have been in those three countries within the previous 21 days. On top of this, American citizens who would not need entry visas would be quarantined for 21 days if they returned home from a trip to one of the three countries.
The effect of the travel restrictions would be to reduce the number of people coming to the USA each day who might possibly carry the Ebola virus. On average, 150 travelers come to America each day from these three countries. If only one tenth of one percent of the people carry Ebola, that is still one infected passenger arriving every week. That is one infected passenger too many. Because Ebola is undetectable during the incubation period, there is really no fool proof way to screen out infected folks other than refusing entry to all. One sick person could cause a calamity, and that needs to be avoided.
But we are told that the "experts" disagree. Here is how the latest AP story puts it:
Think about that. The ban would prevent non-Americans from traveling to the USA from the three countries. Why would that limit supplies or people going to those countries? Would a non-American really decide not to go to help in Africa because for three weeks after that he or she could not come to visit the USA? Of course not! Anyone who felt strongly enough to go to Africa to help would not be dissuaded because there might be a delay in later coming to the USA.
And what about the people from the affected countries lying about their histories. These people would need false passports to enter the USA and they would also have to lie about where they have come from. It would be extremely difficult to evade the ban. While it would not be foolproof, it would surely reduce travel from the affected countries to the USA by over 90%. That is a good thing. It means that many fewer potentially infected people could enter the country.
The experts also say that other methods work better than the travel restrictions to keep Ebola out of the USA. This is another of those silly things that "experts" supposedly say. There is no need to pick one or the other method; we should use both.
So, how can we really be having a debate about these travel restrictions being imposed? The answer comes when you read the articles like the latest one from the AP. The reporter there says that "Republicans and even a few Democrats" are calling for a travel restriction. Suddenly, sensible public health measures are political issues.
The effect of the travel restrictions would be to reduce the number of people coming to the USA each day who might possibly carry the Ebola virus. On average, 150 travelers come to America each day from these three countries. If only one tenth of one percent of the people carry Ebola, that is still one infected passenger arriving every week. That is one infected passenger too many. Because Ebola is undetectable during the incubation period, there is really no fool proof way to screen out infected folks other than refusing entry to all. One sick person could cause a calamity, and that needs to be avoided.
But we are told that the "experts" disagree. Here is how the latest AP story puts it:
The experts' key objection is that a travel ban could prevent needed medical supplies, food and health care workers from reaching Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the nations where the epidemic is at its worst. Without that aid, the deadly virus might spread to wider areas of Africa, making it even more of a threat to the U.S. and the world, experts say.
In addition, preventing people from the affected countries from traveling to the U.S. could be difficult to enforce and might generate counterproductive results, such as people lying about their travel history or attempting to evade screening.
Think about that. The ban would prevent non-Americans from traveling to the USA from the three countries. Why would that limit supplies or people going to those countries? Would a non-American really decide not to go to help in Africa because for three weeks after that he or she could not come to visit the USA? Of course not! Anyone who felt strongly enough to go to Africa to help would not be dissuaded because there might be a delay in later coming to the USA.
And what about the people from the affected countries lying about their histories. These people would need false passports to enter the USA and they would also have to lie about where they have come from. It would be extremely difficult to evade the ban. While it would not be foolproof, it would surely reduce travel from the affected countries to the USA by over 90%. That is a good thing. It means that many fewer potentially infected people could enter the country.
The experts also say that other methods work better than the travel restrictions to keep Ebola out of the USA. This is another of those silly things that "experts" supposedly say. There is no need to pick one or the other method; we should use both.
So, how can we really be having a debate about these travel restrictions being imposed? The answer comes when you read the articles like the latest one from the AP. The reporter there says that "Republicans and even a few Democrats" are calling for a travel restriction. Suddenly, sensible public health measures are political issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment