White House Not Planning Travel Ban For Ebola Countries

[Purveyor]

Source: The Hill

The White House is not considering instituting a travel ban from countries battling outbreaks of the Ebola virus, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday.

The administration has heard new calls for a travel ban from Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.) and others since the first case of Ebola in the United States was announced earlier this week.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Earnest touted a multi-layer screening system in African airports for ensuring that passengers exhibiting Ebola-like symptoms don’t board planes.

He said pilots, flight attendants, customs officials and border patrol agents have been given training on how to look for signs of Ebola.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/219726-white-house-not-planning-travel-ban-for-ebola-countries

[uppityperson]

1. That is good. It seems the same precautions should be applied to everyone since you don't

know otherwise. Viruses do not differentiate by nationality or skin color.

[Purveyor]

2. It might be a really good decision or a really, really bad one. Time will tell for

Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

certain.

[JDPriestly]

35. I think it is a big mistake. It may not be necessary to quarantine those countries in which ebola

has been diagnosed, but it would be a good precaution anyway. The ebola virus is believed apparently not to be that contagious. But I think that the contagious nature of the disease is clear enough that we should not risk its entering our country easily.

Quarantines are not all that horrible. Used to be standard for scarlet fever and other diseases right here in the US. I was placed under quarantine and hospitalized because I had scarlet fever when I was very young. That was the way and is the way you prevent he unnecessary spread of serious, momentarily incurable or very dangerous diseases.

We should care about each other enough to impose quarantines in the face of communicable diseases that can be fatal. It's just common sense.

I support a quarantine on the countries with ebola epidemics.

[uppityperson]

38. Ebola has been diagnosed in the USA, so I guess you mean us too since you say those countries inw

hich ebola was diagnosed? Or only with epidemics?


I hope you understand the difference between being quarantined in USA and on Libera/Siera Leonne/Guinea, as well as the differences in available health care and even food.

[JDPriestly]

39. I would quarantine people who possibly could have had contact with someone who has the

disease and most everybody in countries with epidemics.

The difference between being quarantined in the US and in Liberia/Sierra/Leone/Guinea and availability of health care is irrelevant because this is a life and death matter. Food can be supplied to people who are under quarantine if there is an international effort to supply it.

An effective, enforced quarantine would help to make the limited available health care come closer to being adequate to meet the medical needs of those infected with the disease.

What would you suggest other than a quarantine? What is cheaper and more effective? I can't think of any alternative. Sooner or later, the disease will either kill so many vulnerable people that a quarantine is no longer viable or exposure to the disease will be limited by quarantine. That is the way I see it.

A quarantine is a way to protect those who have not yet had contact with the disease. It is difficult but much easier than allowing the disease to spread.

The sooner a quarantine is imposed, the sooner the epidemics will end.

[rocktivity]

3. Somebody got through that screening system by lying

and the help of the U.S. just handing him a visa.

What can we do to stop to people from getting plane tickets in the first place without a clean bill of health -- require everyone flying from an ebola-affected area to wait three weeks?


rocktivity

[longship]

5. Apparently he got the visa and booked the ticket before he was infected.

Plus, he had no symptoms when he traveled.

So there was no intent in this case, no matter what people think. They are wrong.

[rocktivity]

6. Apparently, he decided to put an escape plan in place

He LIVED with the person who died with ebola -- he must have had a clue!


rocktivity

[longship]

9. Well, before the person in his household became sick.

He helped transport her. But he already had the visa and plane tickets. Not showing symptoms, he traveled.

I cannot infer any intent in the guy because I cannot know what was going on in his brain, and neither can anybody else. But both his visa and plane tickets were apparently purchased before he was infected -- according to current reportage.

Certainly he obtained the visa prior to infection since it takes about six weeks. Apparently he purchased the plane tickets shortly after he received the visa, which was a couple weeks prior to his infection.

[JDPriestly]

36. I thought I read it takes 21 days from exposure to the first symptoms of the illness.

The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days. Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding (e.g. oozing from the gums, blood in the stools). Laboratory findings include low white blood cell and platelet counts and elevated liver enzymes.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

Liberian authorities said Thursday they will prosecute Dallas Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan when he returns home for allegedly lying on his airport departure screening questionnaire about whether he had had contact with a person infected with the virus.

. . . .
On the form obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed by a Liberian government official, Duncan answered "no" to questions about whether he had cared for an Ebola patient or touched the body of someone who had died in an area affected by Ebola.

"He will be prosecuted" when he returns to Liberia, Binyah Kesselly, chairman of the board of directors of the Liberia Airport Authority, told reporters.

He said that people like Duncan and Patrick Sawyer, a Liberian-American with Ebola who traveled to Nigeria and infected people there, have brought a "stigma" upon Liberians living abroad.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/02/liberia-ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-airport-screening/16591753/

[hedgehog]

42. If he actually knew he had Ebola,

why did he wait so long to get treatment?

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt1

[840high]

10. He lied on the questionnaire.

[rocktivity]

15. If this really is his questionnaire

(link) and if he filled it out after he had contact with the person who died, he lied indeed.




rocktivity

[TorchTheWitch]

21. the questionnaire is given at the airport as well as temperature taking

Of course he lied at that time since he helped the pregnant woman with Ebola on the 15th of September. What the hell good is a questionnaire weeks before flying?

[Fred Sanders]

4. Adults who listen to scientists and science and not the voices on the TV are in charge.

[Igel]

26. In which country?

Not sure that science would say, "As long as they're not showing symptoms, they're safe."


There are a couple of weeks between infection and symptoms. It's not about keeping people with the symptoms out, it's about keeping the infection out and keeping others from being sick and possibly dying.

This decision is about keeping obviously sick people out. Because otherwise somebody that's not a carrier might be inconvenienced. And it would look bad.


Even assuming that the press secretary misspoke and they're not just screening for symptoms but exposure, mistakes happen. The wrong box is checked, people lie, people don't know they've been exposed or don't believe they've been exposed.

Convenience and image >> safety.

[Fred Sanders]

28. You are not infectious until you are symptomatic, so......get with the facts, they are your friend.

"Many news stories have driven home the point that the virus is mainly transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids, people are only infectious when they develop symptoms, and it’s unlikely that Ebola will evolve to become airborne."

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/10/how-does-ebola-spread-hard-facts-key-studies

[JDPriestly]

37. In the past, we in the US placed quarantines on children who had diseases like scarlet fever.

This was pre-penicillin. The entire family was placed under quarantine. Same for other infectious diseases. It was not just the people who had the disease who were placed under quarantine. It was all who were potentially infected by the sick person. I was placed under quarantine for scarlet fever. My family was under quarantine. That was here in the US.

It is a precaution that is very wise and not punitive. I think that countries our cities with ebola outbreaks should be placed under quarantine even though ebola is transmitted through contact with body fluids.

Some people have sensitive skin, eczema and other conditions that cause them to have open skin much or even all of the time. They should not be subject to contracting a serious, potentially deadly disease because someone who does not know that he is contagious uses a public restroom before the vulnerable person does.

Why take chances? Ebola is often deadly. A quarantine is appropriate in my opinion.

[Fred Sanders]

43. I will have to go with the opinion of the epidemiologists, I prefer science over deeply held beliefs

[JDPriestly]

47. Epidemiologists probably don't use as many railroad station restrooms as I do.

And most of them probably don't have my eczema.

Contact with the bodily fluids of others is not as rare as doctors who wear surgical gloves in their work when they touch their patients might think.

[quadrature]

7. who benefits from Ebola?

time to get in on the ground floor.
good luck with your investments!

[Man from Pickens]

8. I'm not comfortable with this decision

The consequences of underestimating the risk are simply too great. This is something that needs to be clamped down on - hard, and now. This is a far greater national security threat than whoever we're bombing at the moment.

[840high]

12. I'm not one bit happy with this decision.

[Cayenne]

14. Better over react than under react on this one.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Agreed

The President had damned well better hope that this man from Liberia is the ONLY case of Ebola to get here, and that he hasn't spread it to anyone else.

I guess we'd need a few dozen cases of this here before he'd do anything to restrict travel from the most highly affected areas.

[candelista]

41. I think you've got it.

Some of our fellow Americans are going to have to die before they put in the stoplight.

[customerserviceguy]

44. Good metaphor

In many cities, they use death rates at an intersection to decide which ones to use yield signs, stop signs, four-way stops, and the most expensive thing, a traffic signal.

We're all government's guinea pigs at some point.

[elehhhhna]

51. the ultimate suicie mission

also

[TomCADem]

11. Right Wing Has Been Saying Since August That Ebola Is A False Flag Op...

...and that the threat is just an underground effort to take away our liberties.

[Demeter]

17. Well, they would know about false flag ops and taking away liberties...

Make the quarantine one-way. They want to go to Liberia, give them free tickets.

[Cayenne]

13. He damn well better reverse that decision and pronto.

Not doing everything possible to keep it out will have consequences at the polls.

[Demeter]

16. Concur

Quarantine works. Anything else is arrogance, madness, and a quest for ponies and rainbows.

[eilen]

18. Most hospitals in my region are only allowing visitors over 16 to pediatric units

as a precaution of that enterovirus. I think avoiding this travel ban will only bring more ebola to the US. There should at least be a 3 week quarantine unless it is a medical mercy flight as with the journalist and doctors that were flown to American hospitals for treatment. Our healthcare system cannot handle the burden of an ebola outbreak. I work in a hospital and we can't even staff our floors on a regular operational week. (by design-- they just refuse to hire).

[aceofblades]

19. One question may be what a potential 'travel ban' would entail

To my knowledge there are no direct commercial flights to Sierra Leone, Liberia or Guinea, and such a ban if it were in place would not(in and of itself) have been enough to prevented this current case. So what are the other viable solutions? I'm not entirely sure.

One option could be to revoke all visas issued to any 'affected country' although I would wonder about what standards would be used for what an 'affected country' is going into the future if more countries have cases(and if unaffected countries lump the U.S. with it's confirmed case into that pile as well, despite the quantifiable and qualitative differences that there may be)

Bottom line is,there's legitimate cause for concern, and there are other potential options but whatever measures are instituted, I hope that the possible consequences (not just foreseen today but in the potential future.) are examined and balanced with the current threat.

[AngryAmish]

24. Passports carry a record of entry and exit from countries

Let everyone know that if they were in the infexted countries don't come. If they get here passpirt control can quarantine.

Basic science.

[Dopers_Greed]

20. Not doing anything is going to him though

When there are most US ebola infections (and there will be), this is obviously going to blamed on Obama.

People are already mad that there's no travel ban, however misguided their opinion is.

[christx30]

48. Mr. Duncan lied on his

questionnaire. He came to the U.S. and promptly infected his family, and may have infected 10 or more others, some of them unknown. Had he been honest on his questionnaire he would have not been here to infect and possibly kill all of those people. A travel ban would have stopped that from happening completely. I think a travel ban is a very good idea. Even if it only slows it down by 30 or 40%, the still better than nothing. It would give our healthcare system time to treat the affected people.
I mean, what are the downsides of having to travel ban? To be honest, are there any? Are we just not wanting to look like assholes? I really could not give a crap about that. I would rather keep my wife and children safe than have someone in west Africa like me. So it is time, no, past time to restrict visas from countries in west Africa. Stop them from coming over here now.

[Marrah_G]

57. I didn't realize that his family here have come down with Ebola

When did that happen?

[TorchTheWitch]

22. as we already learned it's not just people exhibiting symptoms

The problem is that there is a window between infection and exhibiting symptoms that's as long as 21 days. What difference does it make if a person like Mr. Duncan not exhibiting symptoms but infected or a person already exhibiting symptoms flies here? NONE. Either way that person is infected and can infect others here.

Add to that our abysmal system of health care with most people either under-insured or not insured. If we get an outbreak that's only going to encourage people that may be infected to not go to the hospital until it's too late, and they've already infected others.

Ebola is DEADLY and there is no vaccine or cure. What the hell are we doing letting possible Ebola infected people into this country? It spread from one country to others in West Africa because of TRAVEL, just as the black/red plague spread to other countries in Europe in the middle ages. It spread so quickly to other countries in West Africa because of open borders with no bodies of water between requiring plane or ship to cross borders, but allowing it to spread outside of Africa to other continents by plane or ship is inexcusable, and it doesn't matter if the person from one of the outbreak countries is exhibiting symptoms at the time of travel or not. Those with symptoms will be caught out and not allowed on the plane. Those like Mr. Duncan who are infected by not yet exhibiting symptoms at time of travel will if they lie on the questionnaire, and why would they not lie given that this country doesn't have third world medical institutions, and they aren't full up with Ebola patients already. Who would WANT to stay in an outbreak zone if they can get to a country with modern medicine that isn't having an outbreak? Why else would Mr. Duncan have lied on the questionnaire? Because he wasn't exhibiting symptoms, and he wanted out. In his place I would have clawed my way onto the plane to get out.

[rocktivity]

25. DING DING DING! TorchTheWitch, you're our grand prize winner!

Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

What difference does it make if a person like Mr. Duncan (is) not exhibiting symptoms but (is) infected...? NONE.

Duncan made his escape because he had good reason to believe he was infected. Taking temperatures at the airport solves only part of the problem, as it allows infected but non-symptomatic people to travel. That's like pulling a weed -- if you don't remove the roots as well, you accomplish nothing.

But at the same time, I think a total travel ban is too drastic. Just require anyone wanting to travel from ebola-affected countries to pass a blood test, wait three weeks, and pass a second blood test.


rocktivity

[Stardust]

31. Excellent solution! I could never understand how nabbing infected people after they've

already arrived and the subsequent cost of quarantining, disinfecting, relocating, hospital care etc. is less onerous than requiring a 21-day travel delay. I have a sneaky suspicion that delaying travel would inconvenience the oil and gas darlings too much.

[TorchTheWitch]

32. and where would they be waiting those weeks?

They need to be tested at time of travel or the whole exercise is useless since they can still become infected AFTER a clean test unless they spend that time in total clean environment isolation. How long does it take from blood draw to test results? How much would it cost each traveler? What is the deep need to come here or go to any other place where there's no outbreak in order to go through all of that in the first place?

It's simple, just don't allow any person from an outbreak area to travel to any other country it's so easy to control because they have to go by plane or ship until the outbreak is over. US citizens of course should be allowed to come back here, but they bloody well not be doing it on a commercial flight, and they need to go into isolation as soon as they get here. That's HOW is stop the damn thing - contain it. Letting possibly infected people go from here to there all over the world is not containment by any stretch of the imagination. And containment is every single expert's protocol.

This virus is too damn deadly to be allowed here or anywhere else out of the outbreak countries. That's why they've been doing the questionnaires and temperature taking for people to get out of these countries to begin with - no one wants Ebola infected people bringing it to other places outside the five countries that already have outbreaks. Except that all this temperature taking and questionnaires doesn't do a blessed thing to stop infected people that aren't yet symptomatic.

Last I read there's only two airlines that have been flying in and out of the outbreak countries: a Brussels airline and another one called Royal something I believe that I don't remember what country it's from. And there's a big reason they're the only ones doing it and why Mr. Duncan had to take the Brussels flight to Brussels before taking another flight from there to here. It's easy to track where a passenger originated from though since they're doing these flight hops with the same passport. There shouldn't have been any reason why WE didn't know he was coming from Liberia at the start of his trip.

Ebola started as it always does with ONE person, and it spread all the way to four other countries killing thousands in just a couple of months because of TRAVEL whether that travel is outside the home or all the way to another country. Unfortunately, it was travel that was impossible to stop from surrounding countries because of the open borders and being able to get there on a donkey or on foot.

This outbreak is enormous compared to past Ebola outbreaks, and that's because past outbreaks occurred in Central Africa in areas like the Congo that are sparsely populated and where it occurred in one or two little isolated villages so that it didn't have the chance to get out of those areas. This outbreak is huge because it occurred in very populated areas of West Africa where it's become impossible to contain. And it may not be possible to contain it since wide swaths of people are woefully ignorant and believe that it's witchcraft or some odd hoax for the government to kill them off. But it CAN be contained globally easily by not allowing people to fly out of outbreak areas.

This isn't rocket science, and there's no deep reason that anyone possibly infected needs to come here if they aren't a US citizen. Mr. Duncan was just coming here to visit family (though there is good reason to believe he had no intension of leaving once here), and he took a deadly virus with him that it's virtually guaranteed that others are going to die from due to his infecting them.

Apparently the CDC has been on the Dallas case from the first. Well, why the hell haven't they isolated all the people that came into physical contact with Mr. Duncan like the nurses and doctors who saw him when he first went to the hospital, the unknowing paramedics that picked him up when he was vomiting all over the place? Why is it that only the family that Mr. Duncan stayed with are in quarantine? Why were they allowed to be quarantined in an infected apartment on their own and trusted not to try to leave (and they DID try to leave!).

The CDC's own literature says that those 100 people they identified need to be in isolation but the only ones that are are the few family members Mr. Duncan stayed with. If the CDC is supposed to be so knowledgeable and were in Dallas right away on the case just how the hell is it they they've been ignoring their own protocol? Days after Mr. Duncan vomited on the pavement outside the apartment complex it was being power-washed by two guys with absolutely no protection whatsoever. Were they even washing it with chlorine according to the CDC's own protocol or just blasting highly infected vomit to a wider area? If their bodies were completely unprotected I sure as hell doubt it. Why did they wait for days before sending properly suited up people to disinfect the apartment? Why are food and essentials delivers by Red Cross personnel that are handing those packages off to the isolated members in the apartment with no protection suit whatsoever, not even a paper mask useless as it is.

It's a complete cluster-fuck.

[rocktivity]

33. If they pass the first blood test, they can wait at home.

I guess I didn't make it clear that the tests would be conducted in, and by, the Ebola-affected countries. I certainly don't think the U.S. should have to set up a passenger quarantining program -- countries that don't have the resources for such testing should be supplied with them.


rocktivity

[TorchTheWitch]

34. and if they get infected between the time of blood draw and

time of travel? How is waiting at home acceptable isolation when anyone else that lives there is free to come and go picking up the infection from someone and then infecting the person waiting at home?

See? It isn't feasible and it wouldn't work. Mr. Duncan was infected only days before he got on the plane and from someone who lived in the same home and picked up the infection from who knows where. We don't even know if he got the infection at the time of helping to take her to the hospital. Sick as she was he could have picked it up from her some other way and at some other time once she was having symptoms. Same for her brother that got the infection, started having symptoms the same day. Had Mr. Duncan gone through this protocol of blood testing and waiting at home he still could have become infected during the waiting at home period and carried the virus with him here.

At what point of infection does blood testing show the virus anyway? Right after they're infected? A few days after they're infected? Not until symptoms start?

It is far simpler and cheaper and guaranteed to work if non-US citizens just can't travel abroad from outbreak areas until the outbreak is over. US citizens would have to be on an isolated special flight as if they were infected and put into isolation when they got here. The time of symptoms first occurring and death occur very rapidly. A non-symptomatic person could start having symptoms while in flight, and it's a very long trip. What if Mr. Duncan's symptoms started when he was in flight on a commercial airline where people are packed in like sardines and everyone has to use the same bathrooms that aren't cleaned mid-flight? It's a lucky thing that he just happened to not start having symptoms until after he was already here or everyone on that flight could be at risk.

[rocktivity]

54. Well, that's what the second blood test would be for

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2020, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

and it would be given on the desired date of departure.

I know it's not a 100 percent foolproof cure-all. But it would have fooled Mr. Duncan.

We don't need to stop EVERYONE, just everyone who's infected -- contagious or not.


rocktivity

[TorchTheWitch]

55. do we even know if the disease can be detected

in one who is not yet exhibiting symptoms? As far as I know no one not exhibiting symptoms is tested, and maybe that's because there isn't enough virus in their body to make testing worthwhile. If there's a possibility of coming up with false negative tests on the infected but not symptomatic

What about the expense of testing, mandatory isolation and second testing? Who would pay for that? It ain't cheap, and those people are needed far more in helping stem the outbreak and taking care of patients who are afflicted. There is already an extraordinary shortage of available health workers which is why so many volunteer groups are being used and their educating and using locals to also help.

The only thing that is 100% foolproof, wouldn't cost an arm and a leg or waste medical workers' time better spent in helping the afflicted to stem the outbreak is to just not allow any non-emergency travel out of the outbreak areas though nothing can be done about local travel from one African country to another with their open borders that can be traveled on foot. That's the point of quarantining whether it's quarantining a person, a household, a two street area, a village or a nation. And not doing it will guarantee outbreaks globally. It is becoming impossible to stem the outbreaks in the afflicted areas. There are too many people crowded into small areas, not anywhere near enough health workers and supplies, and so many of the people either still don't know about Ebola, believe it's witchcraft or a hoax or are just normally skeptical or fearful of outsiders since all of the afflicted countries are war torn areas and recently. Other countries should have been sending in help from the outset instead of waiting months while the outbreaks went out of all control to become as horrific as they are now. And at this point there is really no excuse to continue to allow willy-nilly non-emergency travel out of these outbreak areas and that the methods used to keep infected people from leaving don't work and are a waste of time and energy.

For this country, at the least we should not be allowing anyone into the country tracked back from recently traveling from an outbreak area without immediate isolation here.

[customerserviceguy]

30. Right you are

You've stated it well. The Rethugs would love to see the President screw up this one just before the election.

[6000eliot]

40. I fear the virulent idiots in the media who are fanning this hysteria

far more than I would ever fear the slim chance that this disease would ever really reach epidemic proportions in this country.

[Snow Leopard]

23. The screening isn't very effective

I'd prefer a travel ban

[FLPanhandle]

27. Good. At least someone has some common sense.

Ebola fears are so out of proportion with the risk.

Seeing this whole Ebola panic is a great example of human psychology.

[crim son]

45. I am far from panicking

however I am a great believer in Better Safe Than Sorry. Obama is making a mistake, no matter how optimistic you are.

[FLPanhandle]

49. If "better safe than sorry"

Then all travel to/from places with mosquito borne illnesses and new flu strains should be stopped. AIDS and Hepatitis infected should not be allowed to travel. In fact, if someone coughs on a plane maybe we should turn it around. Afterall, if we are going to ignore common sense in exchange for "Better Safe than Sorry", then any new regulation is fair.

The panic of Ebola is simple human fear over something new.

[crim son]

46. How many times have we been wrong when attempting to predict the future?

"Nobody could have anticipated..." SMH. It is also typically human to ignore a real threat until it's too late.

[avaistheone1]

50. I think Obama is making a big and serious mistake on this one.

I am bewildered with his decision.

[underthematrix]

52. PBO is not restricting entry because

an illegal market could develop in which people with EBOLA could come here and remain undetected for two months, which is more likely to cause an outbreak.

[Iamthetruth]

53. Yet they had no problem stopping travel to Israel

Go figure, tells you a lot.

[rocktivity]

56. It took a while, but I finally found the answer

Last edited Wed Oct 8, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Vox.com: Testing travelers at US airports won't keep Ebola out

During the incubation period, which can last up to 21 days, the virus isn't detectable: there are no symptoms and there isn't enough of the virus in the bloodstream to show up on a test.

That means that there just isn't a way for border screening to detect all cases of Ebola, because some people may enter the country while still incubating the disease.

Well, requiring ticket buyers to spend their incubation periods at home can make that number of "some people" even smaller.


rocktivity

[rocktivity]

58. Quick, cheap Ebola tests could be key to halting virus

USA Today: (T)he real answer to stopping Ebola? Diagnostics...Though...humanitarian organizations and governments...have spent or committed more than $1 billion on the epidemic so far, diagnostics are nowhere near the top of the list...

With (the) $20,000...standard...qPCR...Ebola testing machine...in short supply (reportedly fewer than a dozen in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone combined) and a lag between testing and results, quick, cheap Ebola tests could seriously stanch the disease's spread...

(T)he qPCR's sleeker, cheaper, faster rival, the Q16...(made by) PrimerDesign...is comparatively cheap, at $6,000, and weighs less than 5 pounds, which makes diagnosis possible even in remote, rural areas. Results take 90 minutes, but the best part is this: The Q16 can diagnose the virus within five days of infection, weeks before patients start showing symptoms...It's slated to test live human samples soon.

Then there's Selim Unlu, nanotechnologist, and his team at Boston University. Their invention...draws blood "straight from the vein," dabs it on a silicon chip and shines a single-colored LED through it. The Ebola-specific particles appear as bright dots on the chip, if present. Like the PrimerDesign machine, it will be able to detect Ebola in asymptomatic patients. And it'll also be able to test for the Marburg virus, also a hemorrhagic fever, and bacterial infections like E. coli...(H)is machine will take at least six months to hit the market...

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! With tests like these in Ebola-affected countries, people would have to pass them in order to be issued tickets to travel. Also, it would give people more of an incentive to find out if they're infected while Ebola is easier to cure.


rocktivity