fabvab
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,487
What about a 21 day quarantine by the volunteers when they come back? I know it would be a hassle for them, but it would be worth it to avoid risking lives here.Over there -They spend less than $100 per year per person on health care
Six African countries have already banned or suspended flights from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, and others have instituted other travel restrictions
travel bans are appealing because they make people feel safe. But she argued that safety could be an illusion.
"It gives us the false assurance that we can ignore the problems that are happening in Africa," she said. "At the end of the day, we can't. And our own safety depends on our getting it right there, not on building the walls."
Many public health experts who oppose the travel ban argue that it's simply not practica
doesn't support a travel ban right now because people with financial means can travel to an intermediate country before entering the United States. West Africa's many porous borders make such travel even easier, he said.
A ban could also encourage people to lie about where they have been,
international volunteers who go into West Africa to help treat Ebola patients need to know that they can get back out... travel restrictions might make volunteers think twice,
77 people have been blocked from leaving the affected countries since this summer
None of them tested positive for Ebola, he said, adding that they most likely had malaria, a mosquito-borne disease that shares early symptoms with Ebola.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141007-ebola-travel-ban-restrictions-health-world/
I suppose instead of travel ban on everyone from Liberia, you could also impose a 21 day quarantine on them also. Just throwing that out there. I'm sure it's already been said before in this thread.