The Ebola Thread (US Domestic)

[Cory]

Of course we should institute a travel ban on majorly affected nations. Anybody who's even so much as played Pandemic knows this is the first step. I have yet to hear a serious argument as to why we shouldn't. We now have multiple Ebola cases in America explicitly because of our refusal to take this necessary step.

Containment is the first step to resolving this.

[Cory]

If travel is banned to affected nations, then no one will be able to go to the affected nations to assist in the effort against the disease. How can you contain the disease without actually going to the place the disease exists?

Unnecessary travel should, of course, be avoided.

Obviously there would be exceptions. I'm talking about commercial travel.

[Cory]

Of course.  Design decisions made in the service of having a playable board game with simple and engaging mechanics should totally be taken as expert advice from actual epidemiologists.  Makes perfect sense. 

This is the same principle by which Risk proved that control of Australia is the most important step towards control of the world; or, to get even nerdier, how Twilight Struggle proved that domino theory was correct.

A.) That's not my point and you know it. I also noticed you still haven't actually pointed out why such a ban is a bad idea.

B.) I wasn't talking about the board game. I was talking about the computer version, it's similar but you play as the virus and try to kill as many as possible.

[Cory]

Enforcing it would be a horrible waste of resources.  It's not as if people from there would never consider coming here if we cancel the direct flights, so for a travel ban to be have any effectiveness, we'd need to do background checks on every passenger arriving here on any flight.

On any international flight. But although I will admit it's expensive, you know what they say "desperate times" and such.

It won't accomplish its intended purpose.

Indeed, by making it more difficult to get assistance to West Africa where we need to send it if we're to get Ebola back under control, a total travel ban actually makes it more likely we'll get additional cases in the US.

It's already been over that isn't what people are talking about. It's about limiting commercial travel. It obviously wouldn't apply to health workers/government.

Impose a travel ban on those countries, and people would just go through a third country and lie about where they're coming from.  Thus we'd get more cases where people who should be monitored for having traveled there slip through the cracks, and risk infecting others.

This is on it's way to being a Point Refuted A Thousand Times. They have this thing called a Passport. It's not as simple about just bullsh**ting about where you're from.

[Cory]

A: I actually have, just in a different thread.

A.) Your first link in that post repeats the Point Refuted A Thousand Times about how "they will just go through Europe!!11!". Because Passports don't exist and everyone is just taken at their word at customs.

B.) Most of the examples of travel bans not working were with diseases that were already here (HIV/AIDS, the flu).

B.) The SARS example was only screenings.

C.) Swine Flue was never really a big deal to begin with and spreads much more easily then Ebola.

D.) The post 9-11 flight ban example is just a total non-sequitur.

B: Oh!  That makes so much difference!  My point is demolished!

Good gravy. 

Again, you know I was just using that as a metaphor and it wasn't a part of my overall point. But don't let that stop you from dishonestly trying to make that the issue to make yourself look more serious or something.