Originally posted by 59demon
Originally posted by Tardacus
people who travel to 3rd world countries should be quarantined for at least 7-10 days upon their return to their home country.
I am inclined to agree with the above poster. You do realize the implications (costs, logistics, and personnel) involved with a mandatory quarantine
for every traveler?
It'll be interesting to watch how this pans out in the days to come, but I feel nothing much will come of this event.
Treat it as an additional cost for the traveller, then it won't be a taxpayer burden.
If, it is known in advance of travel, that a compulsory period (length of which to be properly determined according to incubation periods of the more
dangerous viral and bacterial infections, but generally up to 21 days) of quarantine is in effect, the traveller may choose one of two options.
1) If travelling to any one or more destinations that are identified as being a greater risk to health, specifically in terms of infectious viral and
or bacterial infections that pose significant risk of subsequently infecting the domestic population of the departure country, the traveller is free
to travel but is required to budget appropriately to finance a precautionary quaranine placement for up to 21 days upon their return.
2) Don't travel to countries who are listed as being particularly hazardous to health, and hazardous by way of passing infections on to the domestic
public upon return.
The choice is between potentially infecting innocent people with a serious and in many cases fatal viral or bacterial infection if travel to one of
these countries is unavoidable, or to pay for the trip AND pay for the quarantine required after the trip.
There's no choice between paying extra for your trip, possibly double or triple the original cost of the trip or possibly being the unwitting agent or
host of a disease that will go on to kill people, possibly in numbers reaching epidemic levels.
You want to travel to places where you can potentially contract, carry and pass on lethal viral infections? Then you pay to ensure you are not going
to be responsible for the deaths, intentional or otherwise, of innocent people.
It's a sensible, clear and justifiable policy that should ALREADY be in operation IMO.
At the moment it's a lottery, and innocent people's lives and safety is being put at unreasonable risk...because it would mean extra cost for the
A few hundred £/$/Euros to not kill someone is a VERY small price to be asked to pay to eliminate the risk of passing on dangerous infections...a
very small price. If you don't want to pay for that level of reasonable public safety, then DON'T travel to countries listed as being dangerous
(listed by WHO task force probably and accepted and adhered to by host / scheme participating countries).
IMO, it's a travesty that something like this is not already in operation, and innocent and unsuspecting people's lives are being put at risk by the
lack of such a policy.
The sooner this or something like it is enacted, the better.
Pet dogs and cats used to be required to spend up to 6 months in quarantine if travelling in from outside UK borders, and AT the owners expense, to
reduce the risk of those animals passing on rabies to innocent people..rabies is a dangerous and nasty infection and is often fatal...so is SARS and
SARS-like viral infections, so a 3 week quarantine for humans instead of months is a reasonable trade off IMO.
edit on 5-6-2013 by MysterX
because: added text