Ebola: Something Doesn't Square

"Che qualcosa che non quadra."

The Italians have a nice phrase for something that smells fishy. "There is something that doesn't square". So it is in my mind about the Ebola crisis. Here is what puzzles me.

We have been hearing for some time now about the terrible health crisis in West Africa. Thousands of people have been infected, have died, and are still dying. We see the images on TV. It is horrible and heart-rending. The president is marshaling American forces to send aid to West Africa (Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone and one or two others.) In fact, he has sent 3,000 US military personnel to West Africa to help build hospitals and provide other aid and expertise that presumably the locals don't have. That's all well and good. After all, we are a compassionate people, and if we can help stop a deadly epidemic, why wouldn't we? It's what we do.

Comes now a Liberian man named Thomas Duncan, arriving in Dallas on flights from Monrovia and Brussels. After a few days, he reports to a hospital feeling sick. He is given anti-biotics and sent home. He gets worse and is eventually diagnosed with Ebola. And what do our government leaders including Thomas Frieden, the director of the Center for Disease Control tell us?

Nothing to worry about.

OK. I understand that Ebola is not airborne and is transmitted through physical contact involving bodily fluids. But if that is the reason there is nothing to worry about here (Remember AIDS?) why is there so much to worry about in Africa? We still don't know the extent of physical contact this man had with his family members in Dallas before he was diagnosed. Was not AIDS originally thought to be introduced by a sexually active gay guy from overseas who flew to the US and infected others here?

I know some reader(s) will chime in and say that Africans are not well-educated, refuse to take normal precautions, we have the means to deal with these things that Africa doesn't, and all that. I don't really want to go into all that because, frankly, the closest I have been to Africa is Cairo (N. Africa).

But here is a point: If there is a deadly virus going on in a certain part of the world, is it unreasonable to stop travel to the US from those countries? Logistically, it would be tricky. Even though you can stop issuing visas in those countries, what about travelers who make stop overs in Europe (I understand there are no direct flights between the US and Africa.) What about Liberians who actually reside in Europe? Customs officers at airports are going to have to scrutinize passports and ask several questions of these particular travelers.

But forget the logistics. Would it be justified to ban such travel until such time as the virus is eradicated?

"But Fousesquawk, that would be racist because you are talking about Africans who are black. It's racial profiling."

Please. East Africans, Central Africans, Southern Africans and Northern Africans are not restricted. It is only from the affected countries and only temporary.

"But, we are a welcoming country with open borders, we....."



"Give me your tired, huddled, and infected masses....."


Actually, we require a visa (from most countries), and we have the sovereign right to admit or deny admission to whomever we choose, just like every other sovereign country. ( I know that may come as a shock to you UC Santa Cruz History of Consciousness and Community Studies majors.)

No matter how Ebola is transmitted, if this is such a big deal in Africa requiring immediate support from the US, then it is a public safety issue here. It seems there should be a public discussion of this question. Let our leaders explain to us why we shouldn't temporally restrict travel from these particular countries in West Africa.