more people die of the flu than of ebola in this country. you want to ban them too? there's a hundred more diseases that come from over seas that kills people every year. but you get the first ebola case and you want to seal the borders. heck i bet drunk tourists kill more americans than some diseases, how about banning all tourists.
semp
This is a fallacious argument. Consider letting a toddler play with a revolver with a couple of rounds loaded and, when someone says "that's unwise," retorting with, "More people die in traffic accidents than die of partially loaded revolver accidents in this country. You want to ban cars, too?"
Everything in life is a matter of cost/benefit analysis. If you get more benefit than it costs you, it's good to do, otherwise not.
What do we get if we ban travel into the US from Ebola-ravaged countries? We reduce probability of Ebola-infected people making it in among our population, mingling with family members, school kids, etc. (like what just happened). We reduce probability of having to provide extremely expensive treatment to Ebola-infected visitors (like what just happened). What is the cost to us if we ban travel? Since amount of travel into the US from the Ebola countries is small, cost is small, perhaps mostly made up of the inconvenience of foreigners having to wait to travel until the Ebola epidemic is over.
Looking at it from the opposite point of view, what do we get if we let Liberians travel into the US? A small number of Liberians are happier, since their travel isn't inconvenienced. The people they visit are happier (unless their visitor turns up with Ebola). Some US airlines might make a small amount of revenue (very small compared to other routes of travel, since those are much, much more frequent). What is the cost? If there is no Ebolo getting into the US, the cost is zero. If there is no US transmission, but we have to treat a Liberian infected with Ebola, the cost is probably on order $1M per case (my estimates knowing what some of the costs are like). If there is US transmission, the cost is *enormous*. So, estimated cost is 0 + (probability of US transmission) * (enormous) + (number of imported Ebola cases) * $1M. My feeling is that estimated cost is substantial because, although those probabilities are small, the cost multiplier is enormous.
Analyzing from both sides (two previous paragraphs) to me means it's much wiser to ban travel. 5-10 other nations seem to agree, as do 5-10 airlines, including British Airways, Korean Air, and Emirates Air Lines (all of which ban travel from Ebola countries).
