Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 418
Loc: St. Petersburg, Florida
Originally Posted By: bws48
Assuming that to be true, it was by pure, dumb luck.
The number of potential exposures if he had been "contagious" and made the same trip through the same airports, with the wait times describe in the article, is astounding. The numbers of people exposed, and then exposed by them simply "blow up" as my mathematically inclined friends say.
******* I think that the boarding of international airlines need to be our first line of defense: I don't think we can afford to wait until a passenger has passed through the system of several airports and catch them at the end of the journey and find they are (possibly) contagious. Passengers need to be screened at the start, and if there is any possibility of exposure, denied boarding until medically cleared: even if it takes the 21 days incubation period to be sure.
Dumb luck is always important, but boarding precautions have already been instituted. Please see the Exit Screening Protocol at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/ebola-outbreak-communication-resources that has been sent to (and according to several sources implemented by) the governments and airlines involved.
Temperatures are being taken before boarding and passengers are refused boarding. Luck has nothing to do with it. There is no evidence reported that the virus is airborne, so even if there were contagion, the number of possible contacts is still manageable.
Respectfully,
Jerry
Edited by JerryFountain (10/02/1401:20 PM) Edit Reason: clarity
WARNING & DISCLAIMER:
SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted
on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please
review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this
site.