First Ebola Diagnosis in US

[kallend 2,027]

wmw999

The "Liberia exclusion" in 2011 was actually an extension (the third) of a program that was started by President Bush. (Source justice.gov).

The quarantine program was the CDC's, and was roundly objected to on the basis of cost and liability for the airlines, and by others based on civil liberties violations. It would have required airlines to report apparently-ill passengers for possible 2-3 day detention if the passengers were uncooperative. The program was initiated in SARS days. (Source: Daily Caller) Obviously a 2-3 day quarantine wouldn't have done anything, especially since he wasn't showing any symptoms when he flew.

I'm sympathetic with a possible desire to get where medical care is good, but I think the appropriate response at the USA end would have been to live in a shed or something with his family putting food outside the door until he passed the quarantine period. His behavior is more akin to a teenager's believing that you can't get pregnant or an STD on the first time. Wrong, and with a very significant consequence.

Wendy P.

Are you letting mere FACTS get in the way of a good anti-Obama rant AGAIN, Wendy?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Your missing the part where it mandated that airlines collect and maintain contact information for fliers in case they later needed to be traced as part of an investigation into an outbreak.


Soo... Outbreak happens in Africa, government requests records from airlines showing travel destinations and names, and see where people have been. They then manage High risk, or possibly infected travelers via that database. That's what I was referring to. Obama. Nixed this, see my post above.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Are you letting mere FACTS get in the way of a good anti-Obama rant AGAIN, Wendy?

To be fair, it's not a particularly good rant.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

I can't believe you're seriously in favor of the government tracking all of our movements just in case we happen to travel through a disease prone area.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable if everyone had to get government approval for any travel outside their state of residence.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

cvfd1399

Your missing the part where it mandated that airlines collect and maintain contact information for fliers in case they later needed to be traced as part of an investigation into an outbreak.

which is an improvement, but far from comprehensive. How many Americans visit Cuba each year? How many of them do the Feds know about? Very few. People take a boat from Cancun, the Cubans happily stamp a detached sheet, and everyone has a good time.

If people know that a flight into country X will be recorded and treated as a presumption of deathly plague, they will take a bus.

You can make one link in the chain as strong as you want, but if the rest are straw, it doesn't work. There is far more to be gained by figuring out what to do about an infection than trying fruitlessly to prevent it from ever occurring. Failure is a given.

[billvon 2,991]

>I can't believe you're seriously in favor of the government tracking all of our
>movements just in case we happen to travel through a disease prone area.

Government keeping Americans in plague areas by force - a good idea, it's just common sense, what an idiot Obama is to not do it

Government promoting voluntary end-of-life counseling for seniors - DEATH PANELS

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Here you both go....Sorry it was 4 years ago, and I did not remember the exact specifics, but I knew it basically nixed plans to prevent diseases spread by travelers....

Quote

...The regulations, proposed in 2005 during the Bush administration amid fears of avian flu, would have given the federal government additional powers to detain sick airline passengers and those exposed to certain diseases. They also would have expanded requirements for airlines to report ill passengers to the CDC and mandated that airlines collect and maintain contact information for fliers in case they later needed to be traced as part of an investigation into an outbreak.

OK, that still has does not support your original statement that there was an executive order banning travel from specific places, so you can just go ahead and admit you were wrong now, 'kay?

As to your new info, in order, the ebola patient wasn't symptomatic, and had stated he wasn't exposed to ebola. He would not have been reported to the CDC and he has been traced. So nothing would be any different to how it is.

As to your interpretation of the bold part, you're wrong again. It says collect contact information so they could be traced in the event of an outbreak. That's retroactive, not proactive. It does not mean they would back trace his flights and deny him entry to the country. So nothing would be any different to how it is.

And lastly, lest it be forgotten in the mad rush to blame anyone and everyone for the terrifying ebola outbreak in the USA, as yet there is no terrifying ebola outbreak in the USA. It's just this guy and the cameraman in Nebraska. So put the kettle on, have a nice cup of tea and just calm down a little, eh?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

I can't believe you are against a system that would help stop someone from coming to the us with Ebola and possibly infect somone you love.


Don't want to be tracked by the government lmfao! Do you own an iPhone, computer, credit card? Hell have you driven on a U.S. road lately? Those traffic cameras actually go somewhere and are recorded.

[cvfd1399 0]

I wasn't wrong, just had the details about what package the plan was in, and why, but the fact that he nixed a plan was the main topic I was trying to remember, and I was correct, so quit being a dick.

And the rest is your interpretation of that plan. It was supposed to track travelers to allow the U.S. to find people who visited countries with a breakout proactively and retroactively.

[kallend 2,027]

cvfd1399

I can't believe you are against a system that would help stop someone from coming to the us with Ebola and possibly infect somone you love.


Don't want to be tracked by the government lmfao! Do you own an iPhone, computer, credit card? Hell have you driven on a U.S. road lately? Those traffic cameras actually go somewhere and are recorded.

Compare the number of Americans who have died from ebola with the number who die every year from:

traffic accidents
gunfire
diabetes due to poor diet
heart disease due to poor diet
coal mine accidents
other workplace accidents
living near illegally dumped toxic waste
etc.

Now where do you think we should put our priorities?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,489]

cvfd1399

I wasn't wrong, just had the details about what package the plan was in, and why, but the fact that he nixed a plan was the main topic I was trying to remember, and I was correct, so quit being a dick.

Ok, you weren't trying to claim that there was a plan that would have done anything specific, you were just claiming that there was a plan. About something. With, like, health and airlines in it. Yeah, that's the main topic.

Quote

And the rest is your interpretation of that plan. It was supposed to track travelers to allow the U.S. to find people who visited countries with a breakout proactively and retroactively.

No, it's me reading what the article says. It says, in the very part that you highlighted "Collect and maintain contact information". It does not say "Track their continuing journeys and do stuff based on that information". If you want to claim that the legislation said that, find something that says that. Right now, you clearly haven't.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

kallend

***
I can see reasons why people would look to a president regarding an infectious disease. The NRA? That's like blaming Planned Parenthood for the ozone hole.

The president is a lawyer. I see no reason that ANY lawyer is any more of an authority on infectious disease than the NRA. Present company included.

He was also a former professor, prior to becoming gainfully employed. Anyhow, in fairness to the presidency generally, presidents do have the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC and the Surgeon General reporting to him. And, this president has a mean game of golf, which means he rubs shoulders with a lot of doctors.

[billvon 2,991]

>I can't believe you are against a system that would help stop someone from
>coming to the us with Ebola and possibly infect somone you love. Don't want
>to be tracked by the government lmfao! Do you own an iPhone, computer, credit
>card? Hell have you driven on a U.S. road lately? Those traffic cameras actually go
>somewhere and are recorded.

So you are now on record as supporting the right of the Federal government to manage some aspects of your family's healthcare and record your movements. That was fast.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I can't believe you are against a system that would help stop someone from coming to the us with Ebola and possibly infect somone you love.


Don't want to be tracked by the government lmfao! Do you own an iPhone, computer, credit card? Hell have you driven on a U.S. road lately? Those traffic cameras actually go somewhere and are recorded.

I'd rather have as many freedoms as possible instead of living in a police state in order to protect my loved ones from irrational fears. They feel the same way.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,489]

DanG

Quote

I can't believe you are against a system that would help stop someone from coming to the us with Ebola and possibly infect somone you love.

I'd rather have as many freedoms as possible instead of living in a police state in order to protect my loved ones from irrational fears. They feel the same way.

But don't you understand the scale of the problem? So far, in the USA, a grand total of none have been infected already! This shit is real, yo

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

i don't give a shit if they know where I have gone...I sign up for a flight online, pay with a credit card, scan my id at the airport, and subject my self to inspection by the airport security, what part of privacy do you think you have right now?? I would be thrilled to be contacted that I might have been exposed to Ebola if I was on a flight with someone that was found out to have it!!!!! Compared to your government stay out of my privacy world where no one knew who was on the flight to contact and you all died I'll take the first one.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Collect and maintain contact information

Why do you think they wanted to maintain the data, for a booty call later?? It was to proactively and retroactively track people from an infected country...period.

[jakee 1,489]

cvfd1399

Quote

Collect and maintain contact information

Why do you think they wanted to maintain the data, for a booty call later?? It was to proactively and retroactively track people from an infected country...period.

That's not what it says. The limit to what can be reliably assumed from the highlighted part of your link was what you said in your last post - you can be contacted and tracked if you were on a plane with someone known to have been infected.

'Collect contact information' does not mean 'and track onwards movement around the globe' and it does not mean 'and bar entry to non symptomatic passengers based on travel itinerary' any more than it means 'and only serve Guinness from the inflight bar'. It simply does not mean that, and you would not have interpreted it that way if you hadn't been actively looking for something to support your preconceived idea.

If the proposed legislation says what you think it said, find something that contains that statement. Until then, given how long you've had to find the info, it can only be assumed that you're wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,447]

And companies and/or the government have never, ever, done something more than originally prescribed with collected data, have they?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cvfd1399 0]

Say that exact same thing the guy above us. He thinks just because the whole god damn plan is not laid out there for him to see, then it's not possible it works other then how he fucking thinks it does.

[billvon 2,991]

>i don't give a shit if they know where I have gone...

OK. I'll remember your position on that. (Hello, higher healthcare premiums if you go to a gun range!)

>Compared to your government stay out of my privacy world where no one knew
>who was on the flight to contact and you all died I'll take the first one.

So the government is entitled to do whatever it takes to save lives, even if it doesn't actually save any lives. The ban on large sodas in New York is starting to make more sense. And those assault weapon bans are looking better and better.

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

i don't give a shit if they know where I have gone...I sign up for a flight online, pay with a credit card, scan my id at the airport, and subject my self to inspection by the airport security, what part of privacy do you think you have right now??

You're implying that it would be redundant for the airlines to record that information a second time. So, there's zero harm in Obama rescinding any regulations requiring airlines to spend money, passing costs on to consumers, to collect the information again.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,489]

cvfd1399

Say that exact same thing the guy above us. He thinks just because the whole god damn plan is not laid out there for him to see, then it's not possible it works other then how he fucking thinks it does.

You made a claim. You have not supported said claim. I do not accept said claim. It is certainly possible that the proposed legislation you speak of contains the provisions you claim it does - but you haven't shown anything that specifically says so. So we're back at square one. You've claimed something you can't prove.

All you've shown so far (if you're standing by your latest article as the source for your original claim) is that you were wrong about Obama scrapping existing protections with an executive order. Why would that make me want to take you at your word that you recall the other details correctly?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

You can't support that it doesn't do what I said, so I don't believe what you say either....

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

You can't support that it doesn't do what I said, so I don't believe what you say either....

Purple unicorns exist. You can't prove that they don't, so it must be true.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!