It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DestroyDestroyDestroy
It's not easy to get infected with Ebola in it's current infectious state. Stop getting baited by media fearmongering. The reason it's running rampant in the Africa's has more to do with poor public health and a lack of education regarding the illness than it does the illness itself. I mean, there are dumbf***s over there who raid and ransack Ebola clinics, pillaging bedsheets, pillows, and mattresses used to nurse sick patients. They think that Ebola is a hoax, so they behave recklessly like idiots and get Ebola.
We have literally nothing to worry about here in the states. As long as people maintain decent hygiene and don't smother themselves in bio-hazard medical waste, they'll be fine.
originally posted by: Vrill
You and some others are going by what Ebola used to be during its original outbreak in the 1970s. Its a very antiquated way of thinking about Ebola. Viruses and diseases tend to mutate over time and gain other properties and ways of contracting them.
So for me personally, I take the original thought process of how Ebola used to be with a grain of salt until we know for sure.
Besides, we have no clue how Ebola will manifest in different regions of the world. It *could* act differently being in a whole different environment/setting.
originally posted by: NiteNGale2
a reply to: Vrill
And, there are no direct flights from Brussels to Dallas. He had to stop at another location to end up in Dallas. London, Ontario, Chicago, and Philly are among possible connecting airports for that leg of his travels. I've not read what other airport he passed through yet though.
Why hasn’t the U.S. closed its airports to travelers from Ebola-ravaged countries?
....Travel restrictions make fighting Ebola much harder:
......Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone are already economically isolated because this epidemic has spread far wider and lasted much longer than any other Ebola outbreak in history. What those countries need most now is assistance from the world.
More flight restrictions will only make it more difficult for life-saving aid and medical professionals to reach West Africa. The restrictions already in place have proved so problematic that U.S. military forces are building an "air bridge" to get health workers and medical supplies to affected areas.
"Any discontinuation of transport will affect humanitarian aid, doctors, nurses and human resources entering the country, the transfer of biological sampling and equipment for hospitals," Daniel Menucci, a representative for the World Health Organization Travel and Transport Task Force, said in August. “All of this needs international transporting, international airlines. This will create more problems in helping the countries most affected.”
Ebola Outbreak: Japan Develops 30-Minute 'Simpler' Test To Quickly Diagnose Deadly Virus
originally posted by: drwill
a reply to: kosmicjack
Here's a transcript:
COSTELLO: Mary, do you envision a time in the near future, maybe if we see another Ebola case, let's say in Boston or some other city in the United States, that the travel ban, or at least a partial ban, might be implemented?
MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, absolutely. And it's just a matter of common sense. We see people in moon suits telling us not to worry and fly the world. But what they don't understand is the nature of an aircraft. And let me draw a parallel to the ambulance in Texas. The ambulance in Texas took this gentleman to the hospital who has Ebola. The ambulance is then taken out of service and they are scrubbing the school where these five little children went, in moon suits, to take any precautions. You cannot do that to an aircraft. An aircraft is a $350 million flying computer, and there's no way to disinfect the seats, there's no way to disinfect the bathrooms and you're forgetting about the people who work in the belly of the plane, who load it, who service it. It is a trajectory through which the virus can be transported and you can't clean it. And that's the problem, an aircraft is not an ambulance, and you just can't do that.
COSTELLO: So what are you suggesting, Mary? Should there be some sort of ban or a partial ban be put into place?
SCHIAVO: Yes. Absolutely, and it should be a ban on the aircraft. We should suspend service to those infected areas. Yes, people can still travel to Brussels and travel to the United States, but it's not possible for us to contain it on the aircraft. You're focusing on the people and I think we need to focus on the actual service providing instruments, the aircraft, the services, the things that go on the aircraft. So, yes, I think a ban is in place and it should have been put in place long ago. Like I said, they're standing there in moon suits telling us it's OK to get on the plane. It's not. No common sense.