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.
The risk of infection is not as high as you seem to think.
Keep a US citizen out of the country just because she was exposed to someone who was asymptomatic at the time? Very low risk, if any.
And I guess I don't see what benefit we derive from not treating these cases where they originate, or of quarantining people offshore if there was a risk of exposure. Maybe someone can enlighten me on that account.
Maybe you should review some of the ignorance and fear from 2014.
Cases are being treated in the DRC.
Because the ignorance and fear came to naught. As usual.
Allowing a US citizen to return home as opposed to be held in isolation in the DRC. Making a statement that aid workers will not be penalized for traveling to help with outbreaks of disease overseas.
Its a simple question, there's a risk, what's gained by taking that risk?
You are concentrating on worst case scenarios based on fear and ignorance rather than facts.
Again, I'm saying that the serverity of the potential negative outcomes have to be weighed against the potential gains in decisions like this, not just the "odds" of a negative outcome.
You are concentrating on worst case scenarios rather than reality.
Allowing a US citizen to return home as opposed to be held in isolation in the DRC. Making a statement that aid workers will not be penalized for traveling to help with outbreaks overseas.
Nope. Just considering what is known about the transmission of the disease and history. Facts, not blind fear.
Seems to me that you're concentrating on best case scenarios rather than reality.
Hardly. The less that is done to contain an outbreak at its source the more dangerous it becomes. Reducing incentive to help, doesn't help.
All trivial when compared to the potential negative outcomes.