Texas Ebola patient dies

[Zorba]

Ya know, even the National Enquirer occasionally gets it right. If you wish to debunk an article, it's better to debunk the article, not the wrapper it came in.

Here you go:

Number 1: "Travel bans in the wake of HIV/AIDS didn't stop the spread of the disease"

Travel ban to US was started in 1987, 18 years after HIV entered the US. As in way too late. Also it wasn't a ban on all people from affected countries, only on people with the disease. Considering HIV takes 6 months to show up, and they never did blood tests at customs, of course it was not effective.

Number 2: "Flight bans post-9/11 did not prevent a deadly and prolonged flu season"

First, there was no long term, targeted ban on flights. So the results, while interesting, are not representative of a full, specific, targeted ban of travel to certain infected locations. The also could not account for increased car travel, while air travel was done.

Second, Vox COMPLETELY misrepresents the findings. This is from the linked article's discussion section:

The alarming spread of the highly pathogenic avian influenza A (subtype H5N1) in both wild and domestic poultry in Southeast Asia and Europe [32,33], with probable human-to-human transmission [34,35], has intensified the debate over whether border control and travel restrictions could substantially impede the spatial spread of an emerging pandemic strain. Our results suggest that limiting domestic airline volume would have a measurable impact on the rate of spread of an influenza pandemic, and particularly on spread across regions. Because influenza pandemics have shown unusual spatial and demographic patterns as well as higher basic reproductive number due to lack of immunity, the relationship between air travel volume and domestic influenza spread may nonetheless be different in a pandemic scenario [36,37]. However, our finding that international travel influences the timing of epidemic influenza should apply directly to a pandemic scenario, where the objective will be to reduce the probability of strain introduction.

This is from the abstract (for skimmers):

Our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on the timing of influenza introduction, as well as an influence of domestic air travel on the rate of inter-regional influenza spread in the US. Pandemic preparedness strategies should account for a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions on influenza spread.

So right there, Vox looses all credibility. Might as well get your news and indepth reporting from crack.com or buzzfeed.

Number 3: "Travel restrictions didn't cut bird flu infections"

First, the title doesn't match the journal article at all. The article did simulations of a break out within the US, assuming bird flu had evolved to spread human to human. As in NOT EMPIRICAL.

Second, again VOX completely misrepresents the article.

If the nascent pandemic is not contained by timely intervention at its source (3, 4), international travel could carry pandemic viruses around the globe within weeks to months of the initiation of the outbreak, causing a worldwide public health emergency.

and

To model the introduction of pandemic influenza into the U.S., we assume that impenetrable borders are either prohibitively expensive or impossible to create, and that international air travel is the dominant mode of influenza introduction from outside the U.S. Consequently, a small random number of incubating individuals, equivalent to 0.04% of arriving international passengers, is introduced each day at each of 14 major international airports in the continental U.S. (see Table 6, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). The simulation covers 180 days, roughly the length of a U.S. influenza season. We assume that, because of the uncertainty in diagnosis of influenza infections and the sporadic nature of the early stages of an outbreak, a cumulative number of 10,000 symptomatic individuals nationwide is required to trigger a nationwide pandemic alert (see Supporting Text for a sensitivity analysis of various response delays, for selected intervention strategies).

Now the quote they used in the article (from the abstract, mind you, so I doubt Vox got past that page). Note the bold part, that is travel restriction within the US after an outbreak is detected within the US. We are talking about travel bans BEFORE the virus gets to the US, in a targeted, manner that is cost effective and easy to do.

Our simulations demonstrate that, in a highly mobile population, restricting travel after an outbreak is detected is likely to delay slightly the time course of the outbreak without impacting the eventual number ill.

I don't have time to research the other two examples right now, but considering the amount of BS in the first three, I don't have high hopes for next two. So my take away, is if it Fox or Vox it is bullshit.

Edit: It is really funny to me that people saying "Don't attack the source" are the same people that would be the first to identify a right-wing rag website.

 

[fskimospy]

Zorba, you REALLY need to read those papers more closely. You're doing exactly what you accuse vox of doing.

Pretty ironic.

 

[Zorba]

Zorba, you REALLY need to read those papers more closely. You're doing exactly what you accuse vox of doing.

Pretty ironic.

This seems appropriate right here:

Haha, so when confronted with contrary evidence you fly into a rage, make a bunch of evidence-free assertions, and dismiss the results of a half-dozen or more empirical studies cited in the piece.

This is the last paragraph in the article from Number 2:

Although the mechanisms driving the seasonality of influenza epidemics are still not well understood, our findings do suggest that fluctuations in airline travel have an impact on large-scale spread of influenza. At the regional level, our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on influenza timing as well as an influence of domestic air travel on influenza spread in the US. However, for the global influenza pandemic widely believed to be inevitable [41], the efficacy of travel advisories, flight restrictions, or even complete flight bans as a control measure is still uncertain. Though our results suggest a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions, without early detection and immediate action, such measures may be ineffective at stemming the spread or mitigating the impact of an oncoming pandemic [42]. Furthermore, even with a significant travel ban, the rapid rate of influenza spread might still outpace the capability to manufacture and distribute large amounts of vaccine matched to the new variant [43]. Policy-makers will also need to consider and balance the social, constitutional, legal, economic, and logistic consequences of such quarantine measures [44,45].

So I guess they got their own conclusions wrong? Seriously?

They say they many be ineffective without early detection and immediate action: We still have the chance to do this with Ebola.

They say they many be ineffective due to the rapid rate of flu spread, this rapid spread and ease of spread is not the case with Ebola. So that removed those variables that were causing that uncertainty.

Please show me where in that article that it says travel bans are completely ineffective.

 

[Zorba]

As for Number 5, I think pretty much everyone agrees that airport screenings are going to be ineffective, which is why people are pushing for a ban. Haven't read the article, yet to see what their true conclusions are though.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Here you go:

Number 1: "Travel bans in the wake of HIV/AIDS didn't stop the spread of the disease"

Travel ban to US was started in 1987, 18 years after HIV entered the US. As in way too late. Also it wasn't a ban on all people from affected countries, only on people with the disease. Considering HIV takes 6 months to show up, and they never did blood tests at customs, of course it was not effective.

Number 2: "Flight bans post-9/11 did not prevent a deadly and prolonged flu season"

First, there was no long term, targeted ban on flights. So the results, while interesting, are not representative of a full, specific, targeted ban of travel to certain infected locations. The also could not account for increased car travel, while air travel was done.

Second, Vox COMPLETELY misrepresents the findings. This is from the linked article's discussion section:



This is from the abstract (for skimmers):



So right there, Vox looses all credibility. Might as well get your news and indepth reporting from crack.com or buzzfeed.

Number 3: "Travel restrictions didn't cut bird flu infections"

First, the title doesn't match the journal article at all. The article did simulations of a break out within the US, assuming bird flu had evolved to spread human to human. As in NOT EMPIRICAL.

Second, again VOX completely misrepresents the article.



and



Now the quote they used in the article (from the abstract, mind you, so I doubt Vox got past that page). Note the bold part, that is travel restriction within the US after an outbreak is detected within the US. We are talking about travel bans BEFORE the virus gets to the US, in a targeted, manner that is cost effective and easy to do.





I don't have time to research the other two examples right now, but considering the amount of BS in the first three, I don't have high hopes for next two. So my take away, is if it Fox or Vox it is bullshit.

Edit: It is really funny to me that people saying "Don't attack the source" are the same people that would be the first to identify a right-wing rag website.

That's sometimes a true statement. If, in this instance, it's being directed towards me, it's not.

And thanks for talking the time to present an argument against what was originally presented.

 

[werepossum]

Here you go:

Number 1: "Travel bans in the wake of HIV/AIDS didn't stop the spread of the disease"

Travel ban to US was started in 1987, 18 years after HIV entered the US. As in way too late. Also it wasn't a ban on all people from affected countries, only on people with the disease. Considering HIV takes 6 months to show up, and they never did blood tests at customs, of course it was not effective.

Number 2: "Flight bans post-9/11 did not prevent a deadly and prolonged flu season"

First, there was no long term, targeted ban on flights. So the results, while interesting, are not representative of a full, specific, targeted ban of travel to certain infected locations. The also could not account for increased car travel, while air travel was done.

Second, Vox COMPLETELY misrepresents the findings. This is from the linked article's discussion section:

This is from the abstract (for skimmers):

So right there, Vox looses all credibility. Might as well get your news and indepth reporting from crack.com or buzzfeed.

Number 3: "Travel restrictions didn't cut bird flu infections"

First, the title doesn't match the journal article at all. The article did simulations of a break out within the US, assuming bird flu had evolved to spread human to human. As in NOT EMPIRICAL.

Second, again VOX completely misrepresents the article.

and

Now the quote they used in the article (from the abstract, mind you, so I doubt Vox got past that page). Note the bold part, that is travel restriction within the US after an outbreak is detected within the US. We are talking about travel bans BEFORE the virus gets to the US, in a targeted, manner that is cost effective and easy to do.

I don't have time to research the other two examples right now, but considering the amount of BS in the first three, I don't have high hopes for next two. So my take away, is if it Fox or Vox it is bullshit.

Edit: It is really funny to me that people saying "Don't attack the source" are the same people that would be the first to identify a right-wing rag website.

Thank you.

Zorba, you REALLY need to read those papers more closely. You're doing exactly what you accuse vox of doing.

Pretty ironic.

Dude, you are simply too much.

One of Vox's "studies" "proving" that travel bans don't help control disease outbreaks is freakin' 9-11. Hey, no shit, a 72 hour ban on commercial air travel did not yield a season without flu. In an amazingly wild coincidence, that was not its purpose, nor would any sane person imagine that it might. Another is based solely on models. Well, my model says that Ebolla is transmitted solely because of women not being topless in public - because that fits my agenda.

This seems appropriate right here:



This is the last paragraph in the article from Number 2:



So I guess they got their own conclusions wrong? Seriously?

They say they many be ineffective without early detection and immediate action: We still have the chance to do this with Ebola.

They say they many be ineffective due to the rapid rate of flu spread, this rapid spread and ease of spread is not the case with Ebola. So that removed those variables that were causing that uncertainty.

Please show me where in that article that it says travel bans are completely ineffective.

lol +1

I especially like where they tell us with authority that travel bans are far too expensive right before they present the only real solution - going to Africa and stopping the epidemic. Because clearly, stopping a widespread epidemic of an environmentally endemic disease among a very backward population of millions is the freakin' epitome of an affordable adventure.

 

[fskimospy]

This seems appropriate right here:



This is the last paragraph in the article from Number 2:



So I guess they got their own conclusions wrong? Seriously?

They say they many be ineffective without early detection and immediate action: We still have the chance to do this with Ebola.

They say they many be ineffective due to the rapid rate of flu spread, this rapid spread and ease of spread is not the case with Ebola. So that removed those variables that were causing that uncertainty.

Please show me where in that article that it says travel bans are completely ineffective.

Did you read your own bolding? This is impressive self ownage.

There is no early detection, none of the caveats you bolded apply here.

Vox was right, you just didn't spend the time to educate yourself. You convinced werepossum to continue on with his path of righteous ignorance.

It is pretty funny to watch him latch on to any lifeline though. What a dumbass.

 

[fskimospy]

LMAO Let's take a look at the "more in-depth reporting" on issues, shall we?

On the page you linked, the #1 read story is "Renee Zellweger's new look reveals the pernicious demands we make of all women". Again, this is the #1 read story on Vox.

The #2 read story is "China no longer has a stranglehold on the world's supply of rare earth metals". That one I'll grant you is a good story, but it's a rehash of the CFR story.

The #3 read story is "Kathy Bates's accent is the strangest on TV. So we asked a linguist to place it.".

The #4 read story is "Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)". Spoiler alert, the real threats to Americans are your own furniture, guns, climate change of course, and from another story, soda.

The #5 read story is "“Water is available two hours a day only”: what an ISIS-run city looks like". Again, a good read, but an hour ago #5 was "What research says about cats: they're selfish, unfeeling, environmentally harmful creatures".

So evidently "more in-depth reporting" on issues means tossing the occasional serious story into the E News offal our lefty readers demand.

And seriously, dude, I know being a humorless dick is an important part of your personality, but if you don't learn to distinguish mockery from rage you'll always be known as that guy who is always being mocked and never realizes it.

Repeating your own stupidity is pretty much your shtick. You aren't fooling anyone.

I've seen you rage against a worldwide progressive conspiracy so many times it's not funny. When people tell you things that make you sad you get mad. Instead of thinking you might be wrong you invent a conspiracy. Don't blame the rest of us for your insecurity.

 

[werepossum]

Repeating your own stupidity is pretty much your shtick. You aren't fooling anyone.

I've seen you rage against a worldwide progressive conspiracy so many times it's not funny. When people tell you things that make you sad you get mad. Instead of thinking you might be wrong you invent a conspiracy. Don't blame the rest of us for your insecurity.

Yeah, here I am raging against an imaginary conspiracy when I could be raging against a REAL conspiracy - the Wall Street Journal!

Did you read your own link or process what it means? The democrats aren't trying to vote new internet taxes, they just aren't voting for a pointless bill that would do nothing to prevent future taxes. (Any majority that could pass a new tax could repeal that law)

McOwned is an idiot, but you just got duped yet again by the WSJ.

Absolutely no one believes you won't be lining up early to vote for Hilary "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" Clinton, dude, so you have zero room to deride others about conspiracies. In the mean time, you'll just have to be content with being told that theoretical models are "empirical studies".

Hey, maybe you can use 9-11's failure to cure cancer as proof that all medicine needs to be part of government!

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, here I am raging against an imaginary conspiracy when I could be raging against a REAL conspiracy - the Wall Street Journal!



Absolutely no one believes you won't be lining up early to vote for Hilary "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" Clinton, dude, so you have zero room to deride others about conspiracies. In the mean time, you'll just have to be content with being told that theoretical models are "empirical studies".

Hey, maybe you can use 9-11's failure to cure cancer as proof that all medicine needs to be part of government!

You are such a fucking clown.

Rage more.

 

[werepossum]

You are such a fucking clown.

Rage more.

Mockery, dude. No rage. Rage would imply something substantial about which I should be enraged. Instead I'm laughing my ass off at your amusing antics. Didn't you see my laughing emoticon?

But hey, my apologies for keeping you from reading about the important empirical studies on Renee Zellweger's new look or geographically locating Kathy Bates' horrible movie accent. Can't get that kind of in-depth, issues-oriented journalism at rags like the Wall Street Journal. You simply can't convince such a partisan GOP mouthpiece of the importance of today's crucial issues, like the selfishness and environmental damage of the common house cat.

I literally could not make this up.

 

[Zorba]

Did you read your own bolding? This is impressive self ownage.

There is no early detection, none of the caveats you bolded apply here.

Vox was right, you just didn't spend the time to educate yourself. You convinced werepossum to continue on with his path of righteous ignorance.

It is pretty funny to watch him latch on to any lifeline though. What a dumbass.

Early detection of the disease. Do we not know there is correctly a local outbreak of Ebola, that is relatively concentrated in a far away land? Of the small outbreak here, it seems like we found it early, before it spread. Obviously it is you who is having an issue understanding research literature.

Again, the article is freely available, please show us all where it says all travel bans are completely ineffective. Then tell me how the easily communicated flu is a perfect analog to Ebola. Especially when one of the factors decreasing the effectiveness of travel bans was found to be the rate of spread.

 

[werepossum]

Early detection of the disease. Do we not know there is correctly a local outbreak of Ebola, that is relatively concentrated in a far away land? Of the small outbreak here, it seems like we found it early, before it spread. Obviously it is you who is having an issue understanding research literature.

Again, the article is freely available, please show us all where it says all travel bans are completely ineffective. Then tell me how the easily communicated flu is a perfect analog to Ebola. Especially when one of the factors decreasing the effectiveness of travel bans was found to be the rate of spread.

Naw, he enjoys perfect understanding of research literature, for it always says exactly what he needs it to say at the moment.

I'd add more snarkiness, but frankly that's all the time I can spare from reading the gripping empirical study on how "Taylor Swift scored a #1 hit in Canada with 8 seconds of white noise".

 

[Zorba]

You are such a fucking clown.

Rage more.

Also for you Confirmation Bias.

It is sad, I used to think you were one of the more logical posters on here, but I am starting to think you took a hard ideological turn somewhere.

 

[Zorba]

Naw, he enjoys perfect understanding of research literature, for it always says exactly what he needs it to say at the moment.

I'd add more snarkiness, but frankly that's all the time I can spare from reading the gripping empirical study on how "Taylor Swift scored a #1 hit in Canada with 8 seconds of white noise".

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Early detection of the disease. Do we not know there is correctly a local outbreak of Ebola, that is relatively concentrated in a far away land? Of the small outbreak here, it seems like we found it early, before it spread. Obviously it is you who is having an issue understanding research literature.

Again, the article is freely available, please show us all where it says all travel bans are completely ineffective. Then tell me how the easily communicated flu is a perfect analog to Ebola. Especially when one of the factors decreasing the effectiveness of travel bans was found to be the rate of spread.

We actually don't know any of those things.

As for the rate of spread, that's self explanatory.

 

[Zorba]

We actually don't know any of those things.

As for the rate of spread, that's self explanatory.

We do know there are not active outbreaks going on in other locations. The article linked in number 3 talks about needs a certain number of patient zero before the outbreak would take hold, of course also with the Flu not Ebola. So although there may already be one or two patient zeros in the US or India, there likely isn't enough to start a massive outbreak, yet.

It helps that Ebola doesn't spread until symptoms show up, unlike HIV or Hep C. So we don't have a patient zero infecting 50 other people before they have any idea they are sick.

 

[fskimospy]

We do know there are not active outbreaks going on in other locations. The article linked in number 3 talks about needs a certain number of patient zero before the outbreak would take hold, of course also with the Flu not Ebola. So although there may already be one or two patient zeros in the US or India, there likely isn't enough to start a massive outbreak, yet.

It helps that Ebola doesn't spread until symptoms show up, unlike HIV or Hep C. So we don't have a patient zero infecting 50 other people before they have any idea they are sick.

So basically you're saying vox was right.

 

[fskimospy]

Naw, he enjoys perfect understanding of research literature, for it always says exactly what he needs it to say at the moment.

I'd add more snarkiness, but frankly that's all the time I can spare from reading the gripping empirical study on how "Taylor Swift scored a #1 hit in Canada with 8 seconds of white noise".

Haha, RAGE.

people tell you things you don't like so they are liars and communists.

I'm sure you're a treasure at thanksgiving.

 

[werepossum]

Haha, RAGE.

people tell you things you don't like so they are liars and communists.

I'm sure you're a treasure at thanksgiving.

Nope, mockery again. Man, you suck at that.

And yes, of course I'm a treasure at Thanksgiving. Although being sadly afflicted with HDS, I doubt you'd much enjoy me.

I'm also the foamy liberal in our office. THAT ought to break your mind.

Although we have hired an open Obama supporter. Mostly for observation, but also for his AutoCAD skills.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, mockery again. Man, you suck at that.

And yes, of course I'm a treasure at Thanksgiving. Although being sadly afflicted with HDS, I doubt you'd much enjoy me.

I'm also the foamy liberal in our office. THAT ought to break your mind.

Although we have hired an open Obama supporter. Mostly for observation, but also for his AutoCAD skills.

Why would you think any of those things would bother me?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Amber Vinson declared virus free and Nina Pham's condition has been upgraded to good.

So, the 'end of the world' has claimed one victim in the United States and he caught it in another country.

 

[Zorba]

So basically you're saying vox was right.

Man, I am not sure I've seen logic this bad since the last TexasHiker thread I read.

Vox completely misrepresented the articles, in order to make the claim that travel bans don't work. The articles did talk about the limitations of travels bans, but most of those limitations do not apply as of today in the fight against Ebola. The articles also talked about how travel bans, applied correctly, could slow or limit the spread of a disease, even one that spreads as rapidly and easily as the Flu.

You went off on werepossum about attack the source instead of the content. Now that I have posted data, from your own source, that doesn't agree with your ideology, you don't like that either.

I will also leave this right here, which is based on a new article about airport screenings, which Vox also claimed were useless. I haven't read the actual research piece, just the news piece so it may be misrepresented as well: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/If-no-checks-more-Ebola-cases-might-leave-Africa-5836727.php

 

[fskimospy]

Here you go:

Number 1: "Travel bans in the wake of HIV/AIDS didn't stop the spread of the disease"

Travel ban to US was started in 1987, 18 years after HIV entered the US. As in way too late. Also it wasn't a ban on all people from affected countries, only on people with the disease. Considering HIV takes 6 months to show up, and they never did blood tests at customs, of course it was not effective.

The study examined more than the US, in fact it examined 186 countries. Complaining about the US is irrelevant.

That's your first misrepresentation of the findings.

Number 2: "Flight bans post-9/11 did not prevent a deadly and prolonged flu season"

First, there was no long term, targeted ban on flights. So the results, while interesting, are not representative of a full, specific, targeted ban of travel to certain infected locations. The also could not account for increased car travel, while air travel was done.

This is the one where you seem to at least partially accept the findings of the literature. This is good!

Second, Vox COMPLETELY misrepresents the findings. This is from the linked article's discussion section:

It's ironic that you are complaining about Vox misrepresenting the findings when you are completely misrepresenting the findings here. (or not understanding them). In fact, Vox completely correctly represents it.

Your quote:

Although the mechanisms driving the seasonality of influenza epidemics are still not well understood, our findings do suggest that fluctuations in airline travel have an impact on large-scale spread of influenza. At the regional level, our results suggest an important influence of international air travel on influenza timing as well as an influence of domestic air travel on influenza spread in the US. However, for the global influenza pandemic widely believed to be inevitable [41], the efficacy of travel advisories, flight restrictions, or even complete flight bans as a control measure is still uncertain. Though our results suggest a possible benefit of airline travel restrictions, without early detection and immediate action, such measures may be ineffective at stemming the spread or mitigating the impact of an oncoming pandemic [42]. Furthermore, even with a significant travel ban, the rapid rate of influenza spread might still outpace the capability to manufacture and distribute large amounts of vaccine matched to the new variant [43]. Policy-makers will also need to consider and balance the social, constitutional, legal, economic, and logistic consequences of such quarantine measures [44,45].

It effects WHEN the disease shows up, not IF the disease shows up. If your argument is that your only goal is for Ebola to show up a few weeks or months later then I guess you have a point. I hardly see how that's what we're talking about though.

Not to mention that they said they have no evidence that a travel ban actually helps.

This is from the abstract (for skimmers):

So right there, Vox looses all credibility. Might as well get your news and indepth reporting from crack.com or buzzfeed.

It's funny that you think your inability to read an abstract impugns someone else's credibility. What they wrote captures the abstract's findings quite well.

Number 3: "Travel restrictions didn't cut bird flu infections"

First, the title doesn't match the journal article at all. The article did simulations of a break out within the US, assuming bird flu had evolved to spread human to human. As in NOT EMPIRICAL.

Based on previous flu data. ie: empirical. You are correct though, they should have said that travel restrictions don't cut ANY flu infections instead of just the bird flu. Was your argument that their headline wasn't strong enough against travel bans?

Second, again VOX completely misrepresents the article.

No, they got it right. You just didn't read the article.

Now the quote they used in the article (from the abstract, mind you, so I doubt Vox got past that page). Note the bold part, that is travel restriction within the US after an outbreak is detected within the US. We are talking about travel bans BEFORE the virus gets to the US, in a targeted, manner that is cost effective and easy to do.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here.

I don't have time to research the other two examples right now, but considering the amount of BS in the first three, I don't have high hopes for next two. So my take away, is if it Fox or Vox it is bullshit.

I would strongly suggest you go back and actually read the other articles again along with the Vox piece. They actually covered all three quite correctly, and the overall takeaway is that travel bans delay the arrival of an epidemic illness, they do not prevent it.

It's funny that in your attempt to make them look bad you just made yourself look bad.

Edit: It is really funny to me that people saying "Don't attack the source" are the same people that would be the first to identify a right-wing rag website.

I don't care if he attacks the source, I told him to look at the studies contained in the article. Vox's actual commentary is irrelevant to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Man, I am not sure I've seen logic this bad since the last TexasHiker thread I read.

Vox completely misrepresented the articles, in order to make the claim that travel bans don't work. The articles did talk about the limitations of travels bans, but most of those limitations do not apply as of today in the fight against Ebola. The articles also talked about how travel bans, applied correctly, could slow or limit the spread of a disease, even one that spreads as rapidly and easily as the Flu.

You went off on werepossum about attack the source instead of the content. Now that I have posted data, from your own source, that doesn't agree with your ideology, you don't like that either.

I will also leave this right here, which is based on a new article about airport screenings, which Vox also claimed were useless. I haven't read the actual research piece, just the news piece so it may be misrepresented as well: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/If-no-checks-more-Ebola-cases-might-leave-Africa-5836727.php

Exit screening for people displaying symptoms and travel bans are two entirely different things.

Also, you are once again misrepresenting what Vox wrote. Considering your attempts to attack them for misrepresenting things, this is ironic.

The vox article: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/3/6891297/why-airport-testing-wont-stop-ebola-from-coming-to-the-us

Patients are already being screened for symptoms before they reach the US

But what about patients who do have symptoms and are contagious?

Travelers are already getting screened when they depart from the three major Ebola-affected countries: Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Airport staff take their temperatures and ask them whether they are feeling ill and if they have had any contact with people who could be infected with Ebola. If they do have a fever or other symptoms, they aren't supposed to board their flights until they have been tested to make sure they're not infected. On an October 2 press call, CDC Director Tom Frieden confirmed that a number of travelers have been prevented from boarding their flights because they had fevers or were otherwise judged to be Ebola risks.

That system isn't perfect, of course. Passengers might not admit to symptoms or to their history of contact with Ebola patients. They might not even know if they've had contact with Ebola patients. Duncan's case is instructive about that issue: he went through exit screening in Liberia but he apparently didn't indicate on the screening form that he may have been exposed to Ebola. It's not clear whether Duncan knew he had been exposed — the AP reports that he might have contracted the disease when he helped carry his sick neighbor to a taxi, but apparently Duncan and the woman's family believed that her abdominal pain was due to pregnancy complications, not Ebola.

However, testing on arrival in the US would have the same weaknesses as testing before departure. Duncan still had no fever when he arrived in the US. There is no reason to believe that he would have responded differently on landing to the same questions he was asked before departing. US airport testing wouldn't have prevented him from entering the country.

One of the main paragraphs is how people are already being screened for symptoms in the way your article describes before they get to the US. At no point do they say those screenings are useless, they say that duplicating them here isn't helpful.

So in addition to suggesting that you actually read the academic articles you're talking about, I would suggest you actually read the online articles you are attempting to critique. Shades of Texashiker, indeed.