Ebola

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

It helps when one reads the entire article and not just the parts that back what you want to hear,, In fact there was a good study about just that phenomena as it related to smoking done some years back..


the last paragraph

“What this research fails to consider,” said Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, senior lecturer in international security studies, at the University of Sydney, “is that in public health crises like Ebola the political pressure on leaders to be seen to be doing everything they can to protect their citizens is immense. We can have the best available evidence, but it won’t amount to a hill of beans if we don’t also understand the politics behind these events.”

---

No, I did read all of it, but when I read an article of 13 paragraphs 11 of which along with its title and its summary all make the same thesis I don't say that the article is all about the counterpoint from the last 2 paragraphs. I say that that completely undeveloped counterpoint is more of an afterthought.
If, on the other hand. I read an article 90% of which deals with the politics of something in disregard of the material facts, then yes, then I would say that that article makes the point you have been trying to make.
I still would not see putting somebody's political future ahead of public safety as a positive thing though.

P.S. I do understand the argument about politics, I just don't agree that americans are panicked to the point where bad policies are necessary.
Here's the same political argument - it makes no difference whether Chris Christie ordered the bridge closed or if he is using the quarantine to revive his presidential candidacy. He still will not be a US president because: (1) people have no trouble picturing him as ordering the NY bridge closing as a petty political retaliation (2) in the aftermath he didn't think twice before throwing his subordinates under the bus to save his behind, so he will have hard time attracting top political talent for the primaries (3) he brushed off that nurse's complaints with the casualness of a psychopath (4) he embraced Obama after the storm

It has nothing to do whether he would make the greatest US president - the politics just won't make it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

There is no requirement to stamp the passport of a returning U.S Citizen. It's only if they request it. There is also no universal requirement to stamp a passport entering each country. Most do it but some don't.

Have you ever seen the passport of a real world traveler? There are so many stamps on every page you really can't decipher all of them. Many stamps are poorly stamped, blurred, partly missing and totally unreadable.

---

"There is no requirement to stamp the passport of a returning U.S Citizen" do you mean from the country you left or the US? If you mean the US, why would you stamp the passport? The person is returning home to their country of residency and their passport proves that they are a citizen of that country. Yes, there have been times when I have not had a passport stamped for sure. Yea, those stamps can be pretty ugly and in some cases barely legible for sure. No system is perfect but the basis of one is in place for a long time. Not particularly sure what constitutes a "real world traveler" either nor do I have an overwhelming urge to look at others passports, not in my job description to do that.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

No, I did read all of it, but when I read an article of 13 paragraphs 11 of which along with its title and its summary all make the same thesis I don't say that the article is all about the counterpoint from the last 2 paragraphs. I say that that completely undeveloped counterpoint is more of an afterthought.
If, on the other hand. I read an article 90% of which deals with the politics of something in disregard of the material facts, then yes, then I would say that that article makes the point you have been trying to make.
I still would not see putting somebody's political future ahead of public safety as a positive thing though.

---

I gotta find that research that was done about watching Information about smoking for ya,, you just proved their thesis once again...

Doesn't help to have the information available if one refuses to see the entire picture...

It also really doesn't amount to a hill of beans anymore what the truth is, the public is no longer listening to "Facts" and really hasn't been since Dallas..

Last poll I heard is that 80% of the US public wants Visas restricted and almost as many wants some type of quarantine in effect.. We know what AU did and several others already

Your's is nothing. I used to work as an Immigration Inspector now and then at LAX and the real heavy travelers had addendum pages added to their passports and it's an unreadable mess or they get new passports which are bound to the old ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

LOL pretty much exactly what we said here in this thread

Only three Ebola-infected travellers per month are likely to fly from west Africa | World news | The Guardian

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Actually it says the exact opposite of what you have been saying:

It is saying that people in US and UK should stop preoccupying themselves that the sky is falling in their country and instead concentrate on the actual problem on the ground in Africa.

---

I just realized that you might have misread my post, I said above now in bold that "we", as in all of "us" ie: both sides of the argument were represented in this article

I was NOT saying that it backed my hypothesis only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Your's is nothing. I used to work as an Immigration Inspector now and then at LAX and the real heavy travelers had addendum pages added to their passports and it's an unreadable mess or they get new passports which are bound to the old ones.

---

Thank you,

This sure explains much I couldn't understand before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I just realized that you might have misread my post, I said above now in bold that "we", as in all of "us" ie: both sides of the argument were represented in this article

I was NOT saying that it backed my hypothesis only

---

Yes, I misunderstood it. The article was very one sided going all about the scientific issues, with the politics in the last paragraph looking as just an afterthought. So to me it didn't look like this thread with more about politics and I thought you were saying the wrong thing.

In any case I'm not dismissive about the politics but I hate when good politics trumps reason and leads to bad policy. Which I don't think is yet the case in US, though I don't watch TV and most of my impression is from my friends and on the streets, including NYC where I just were.

I wished that I could say the same, I see (From my friends around the world) that most of us realize the science and pretty much believe that is very hard to catch Ebola.. I haven't seen many at all claiming a pandemic is in the making..

I honestly think only the die hard Conspiracy Buffs believe that the US government is intentionally trying to spread the disease here to kick research into gear and get a vaccine.. Although looking at the timing I can see where they are seeing the links of conspiracy

I do believe that the powers that be not only screwed the pooch with their dumb statements right before some occurrences in Dallas that made them lose the public trust, but using your own words from above "It is complete foolishness to switch from cooperative to adversarial position when it doesn't guarantee you 100% effective prevention which you want, and will dramatically decrease the chances of achieving the real goal" this is exactly what the Administration did after they screwed up in the first place with some ill timed and badly worded speeches.. Then the CDC doubled down and unfortunately looked quite bad in the public eye so they also managed to lose the public trust.

The Doctor from the NIH was the only voice of logic and reason that seemed to resonate across the board in the US the Administration and the News should have probably utilized him more but I got the impression he was ,like you say, more about helping his patients then seeking the spotlight..

I actually agree that the new "Czar" I hate that word, does not need to be a Medico and probably it is better that he is either a Politico or better yet a Logistics expert of some type JMHO..


I do however think that a clamp down on Travel from the Hot Zone, at least until we have solid protocols in place will help, I think all the excuses that I have seen so far here in this thread, across the Media, and Social Media have been rather weak... I haven't seen an excuse yet that would stop me from signing that order if I were in charge... I would have followed AU with a temporary visa ban...

I thought there are protocols in place already - people who are at risk self-monitor, after they exhibit symptoms and become contagious are isolated and their contacts are tracked and monitored. It already worked successfully in Nigeria on an order of magnitude larger problem than the three cases in US.

I don't know the thoughts of Obama, but I know that the president of the US has a ton of advisers some political some expert to analyze things and tell him the upside and downside of decisions. I know a number of people who have in the past and some serve now as expert advisors to the US government on very important issues as science/technology/nuclear weapons and those are among the smartest in the field and most experienced and wisest as people.

I know that the way countries interact with other countries is very important - that's why US, UK, and France guard rather aggressively their turfs in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea respectively even though these are neighbors.
A decision to stop issuing visas to a country like that, even if it's small definitely has geopolitical consequences.
Unlike most of you I have actually gotten US visas and have many friends like me - it's not an automatic process, quite the opposite. Other than applying in advance with fairly intrusive questionary which is then vetted in the embassy/consulate and also by number of agencies in US, you then go for an interview and the bureaucrat behind the window looks at you, asks you anything they feel like, look at your reactions, your nervousness and finally decides with their sole discretion whether to issue it. They could've made their mind ahead of time, or it's been denied from the US.
That's the full bureaucratic apparatus of US against you deciding if there is any reason to say no and they don't have to give you any explanation. I've had several friends who were denied visas - they were chinese or afgan nationals working on high-tech research nano/bio stuff - academic and public but sensitive to US, ultimately they could continue but after 6month to a year delay and that research suffered.

I'm pretty sure that it's far simpler and politically smart to silently stop approving most visas than to set a public policy of 'no more visas to citizens of these three countries'. Solving internal political issues at the expense of international relations seems like the kind of things you don't do. Unless you're Putin, that is, and need constant reinforcement lest your position get very shaky very fast.

Then there is the effect in the internal politics. I am not knowledgeable in these things, but I can see no upside in banning visas and a lot of downside. Especially right before elections. All those wannabes who have been using the issue to get popularity would have a new talking point: 'See, I finally dragged Obama kicking and screaming into doing something I said is no brainer X weeks ago'.
Keeping the same does what - decrease the approval of Obama by few more percentage points at most? First it has very little to do with what he does - he doesn't get positives from low gasoline prices or improving economy/jobs, just negatives from high prices and stagnant/low growth economy/jobs. No matter what decision he makes, his political opponents would say it's the wrong one and there'll be a chorus repeating it. He's not running for reelection and he's not campaigning in the current election.
And the congress' approval is a third of his yet 80%-90% of them will keep their jobs.
I just don't see the political necessity for Obama to do anything different, so he seems to be doing what he thinks is good policy. Which is not a bad thing.
The problem with opposing everything from your political opponent regardless of its merit has the consequence that you have no leverage to affect anything they do.


And the visas don't address the problem with american citizens. Out of the three people who brought ebola to US one was a foreign national with a visa and three medical professionals with US citizenship.

Not to change the subject but just as an interesting tidbit to history.

This week in 1918 the Spanish Flu killed 21.000 Americans in one week.