Tweet
Ban or no ban -
1. USA
Fact: Screening for the disease in place in the USA at targeted airports (usual entry points for international travelers)!
Questions:
- What of seaports? ...e.g. freighters with foreign workers who may have ties with and have recently visited countries with high infection rates?
- What of travelers with dual nationality?
Born in countries with high rates of infection travels to and from his country of birth on a passport issued by that country...and then travels to the USA on passport issued by his country of residence to possible circumvent a ban?
So is it better to have 'open travel'=no restriction save failing to suggest 'Ebola free' or 'Ebola possible infection' at a screening...
...or...
...to institute a ban whereon it would be necessary to build out a
'terrorist type data-base' for all travelers carrying a passport issued by one of the countries with high infection rates...
...yet ignore a banning of all resident nationals with
dual passports that is inclusive of passport from one of the countries with high infection rates...and also ignore persons in other countries who live in communities with high exchange rates of travel with one of the high risk areas?
- Would someone desperately wishing to enter the USA go to great lengths to circumvent being banned? ...or would such a person there being no ban forego an attempt to dodge the screening?
My thoughts come down on the side of:
- 'Open travel' and screening at the point of departure and also at the point of entry thus increasing the percentage chance of identifying someone who have the disease.
- Minimizing of need to circumvent a ban by someone traveling on a passport from high risk countries or areas.
---------
2. Jamaica
Fact:
- Assumption: Relatively few inflow of visitors from the countries with high rates of infected Ebola victims or even persons with association with the countries with high incidence of infected Ebola victims. (Wonder what the numbers are?)
- Ban in place for persons traveling from any of the countries with high infection rates.
As far as I know, persons who have a need to visit enter from countries outside of the countries with high infection rates I think Jamaica's ban is merely symbolic. Political expedience for a GOJ under some pressure needing a boost that appearing proactive on defense against spread of the disease?
What is the GOJ doing to really protect its citizens against the invasion of the disease? Is there screening tests at our ports?
My thoughts - GOJ's actions not worthy of even a 'sneeze'/'glance'/'a look' or 'whatever'...waste but provides GOJ pluses and emotional comfort to the citizens.
1. USA
Fact: Screening for the disease in place in the USA at targeted airports (usual entry points for international travelers)!
Questions:
- What of seaports? ...e.g. freighters with foreign workers who may have ties with and have recently visited countries with high infection rates?
- What of travelers with dual nationality?
Born in countries with high rates of infection travels to and from his country of birth on a passport issued by that country...and then travels to the USA on passport issued by his country of residence to possible circumvent a ban?
So is it better to have 'open travel'=no restriction save failing to suggest 'Ebola free' or 'Ebola possible infection' at a screening...
...or...
...to institute a ban whereon it would be necessary to build out a
'terrorist type data-base' for all travelers carrying a passport issued by one of the countries with high infection rates...
...yet ignore a banning of all resident nationals with
dual passports that is inclusive of passport from one of the countries with high infection rates...and also ignore persons in other countries who live in communities with high exchange rates of travel with one of the high risk areas?
- Would someone desperately wishing to enter the USA go to great lengths to circumvent being banned? ...or would such a person there being no ban forego an attempt to dodge the screening?
My thoughts come down on the side of:
- 'Open travel' and screening at the point of departure and also at the point of entry thus increasing the percentage chance of identifying someone who have the disease.
- Minimizing of need to circumvent a ban by someone traveling on a passport from high risk countries or areas.
---------
2. Jamaica
Fact:
- Assumption: Relatively few inflow of visitors from the countries with high rates of infected Ebola victims or even persons with association with the countries with high incidence of infected Ebola victims. (Wonder what the numbers are?)
- Ban in place for persons traveling from any of the countries with high infection rates.
As far as I know, persons who have a need to visit enter from countries outside of the countries with high infection rates I think Jamaica's ban is merely symbolic. Political expedience for a GOJ under some pressure needing a boost that appearing proactive on defense against spread of the disease?
What is the GOJ doing to really protect its citizens against the invasion of the disease? Is there screening tests at our ports?
My thoughts - GOJ's actions not worthy of even a 'sneeze'/'glance'/'a look' or 'whatever'...waste but provides GOJ pluses and emotional comfort to the citizens.