U.S. Considering screening visitors for Ebola before entering the country.

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:49:01 -0400

The United States is finally considering screening travelers for Ebola before they are allowed to enter the country.

Top health officials announced on Sunday that they are considering 'all options' when it comes to adding checks at U.S. airports.

Currently, passengers from disease-stricken West African nations are only screened at the airports in their home countries. Travelers have their temperatures taken to check for fever - an early sign of Ebola infection - and are questioned about their contact with people infected with the virus.

Shouldn't this be a no brainier? We should do what ever it takes to protect the citizens of the U.S. This is no time for political correctness. Just my .02

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 6 at 2014 12:50 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:50:25 -0400

I swear this is how the zombies got going in most of the movies I have seen...lol. I had NO idea that we weren't already doing this! I think I trust our people at the airport to do a better job screening than the country that can't take care of the outbreak in their own country. What do you think the REAL loss of life is by now MSgt Private RallyPoint Member ?

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 6 at 2014 1:28 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:28:44 -0400

I agree that we should be doing this (should have been doing this)....

As I recall from seeing documentaries about Ellis Island, the US used to give health screenings before admittance to the country. A no-brainer, as far as I am concerned.

Of course, I realize it is much easier said than done...

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 6 at 2014 1:28 PM

Cpl Chris Rice — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:28:57 -0400

There is no screening that will catch the disease before it is symptomatic, and contagious. So you cannot send them back, and you are going to have to treat them. I mean if you quarantine 21 days that is going to look like people getting hotel rooms at the government expense for 3 weeks. The best thing is to screen before they get here for symptoms and risk factors.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 8:40 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:40:12 -0400

As others have said, screening is fine, but if we're screening for symptoms (what else, really?), then we're going to give an OK to people who have Ebola but don't yet have a fever.

I think the only sure fire way to keep people with Ebola out of the USA is some kind of quarantine (also already discussed). Unfortunately, I think that's a scientific / medical fact.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 14 at 2014 8:52 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:52:36 -0400

The process of screening airplane passengers for fever, as well as the issuance of Ebola questionnaires, is to be implemented at five U.S. airports, which take more than 94% of the passengers from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the three countries that are hit heavily with Ebola. These airports are John F. Kennedy International Airport (Queens, New York); Newark Liberty International Airport (Newark, New Jersey); O'Hare International Airport (Chicago, Illinois); Washington Dulles International Airport ( Dulles, Virginia) and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (Atlanta, Georgia). Although no plans have been announced for other airports, screening in the U.S. represents a second layer of protection since passengers are already being screened upon exiting these three countries.

So we already announced that there is 6% gap for anyone suave enough to use the inter-net?
Now I am not an expert on this but how about banning ANY travel from the Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone until the 42 day quarantine, conducted by us, is completed. ALL international travel with connecting flights to these countries…100%, not 94%...be directed through these airports? Additionally, if we add LAX, to this list, we knock a big chunk of the 6% out.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 4:34 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:34:14 -0400

Well I think it's time for a travel ban.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Oct 14 at 2014 7:21 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:21:05 -0400

We can can take the stance that those who are calling for a ban are jumping the gun. Maybe its a bit rash, but the bottom line is, if it gets ahold here were in deep doo doo. I think we need to jump in with both feet now rather than make excuses for an epidemic later. Its about the American people. If a few people have their feelings hurt because they are quarantined, I'm ok with that. If I go to Africa, I won't complain if I'm quarantined when I come back.

People need to also be aware that this isn't the only similar situation. Just the only one in the news. There is a strain of TB resistant to all forms of treatment in South America. It, unlike Ebola, is airborne. If it hitches a ride with our southern visitors, were in trouble. We need to be more vigilant and less politically correct.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 14 at 2014 7:45 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:45:39 -0400

Wake me when the headline reads, "African countries screening those leaving the country for signs of Ebola to prevent spread of disease."

Response by CMC Robert Young made Oct 14 at 2014 8:38 PM

CMC Robert Young — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:38:58 -0400

A travel ban is a no brainer....but that's the problem with it. It is so deceptively simple that nobody with a brain will think to simply stop the problem at the source.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Oct 14 at 2014 9:43 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:43:23 -0400

You are absolutely correct. This should be a no brainer. In my opinion, political correctness is only part of the problem right now. I believe there has been gross negligence by the administration and congress in allowing it to get this far.

As usual, the POTUS leads from behind. Why are we just now doing something. It isn't like EBOLA just came out of nowhere last week and is now a major issue. The government has know about this for some time. The WHO has made no secret about the disease and its spread.

Why weren't these protective measures put in place long before today? Like you Master Sargent, I could ask questions all day, and the list of them keeps growing.

It is too late to ask why, we know this administration is the most negligent, at least that I have seen in my time, and I can remember when water gate happened.

There has to be some form of political pressure, or golf course closure, to get this POTUS to move on anything. This is no time to wait for Putin to return his calls, or Kim Jon Un to come out of hiding to ask.

Perhaps the reason the North Korean President is ill, is he has EBOLA, one never knows. Enough ranting, our government has to act, act responsibly, and act like they have a pair. enough of the political correctness, and finger pointing to save face for the election.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 14 at 2014 11:26 PM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:26:02 -0400

It's not a bad idea.....For all the good it would do with people bum-rushing our Southern border unchecked.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 7:18 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:18:11 -0400

Now there's a second healthcare worker in Texas that has contracted Ebola. Screening at airports is better than nothing, but only slightly, because a LOT of people who have Ebola will get past the screeners, since they don't yet have symptoms.

One politician (maybe more) has suggested banning all travel from the African countries where the Ebola epidemic is raging. That sounds to me like a bit much, but then again, maybe not, if it's going to save lives.

The second infected healthcare worker got me wondering about how this virus is really spread. I've heard all the news reports about how it takes contact with body fluids. Something doesn't seem right about that, especially if the nurses were taking precautions. I wonder if this disease is more infectious than the experts think?

Here's what the CDC says about transmission of Ebola:

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/

Transmission| Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC

Because the natural reservoir host of Ebola viruses has not yet been identified, the way in which the virus first appears in a human at the start of an outbreak is unknown. However, scientists believe that the first patient becomes infected through contact with an infected animal, such as a fruit bat or primate (apes and monkeys), which is called a spillover event. Person-to-person transmission follows and can lead to large numbers of affected...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 7:42 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:42:49 -0400

Here's an article in today's (22 Oct 14) Foreign Policy e-mail. I agree that Ebola is a political issue. Then again, just about everything that gets the attention of the White House is political.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/10/22/epidemiologists_politicized_ebola_monitoring_lacks_medical_value_obama_africa_klain_cdc?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks&utm_campaign=2014_EditorsPicks22%2F10RS

Doctors: CDC’s New Ebola Tracking Plan Is Political Theater