
US Will Screen Air Passengers for Signs of Ebola. Will It Work? - cyphersanctus
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/ebola-screen-air/
======
devindotcom
For anyone thinking of glibly and irrelevantly pointing out the ineffective
nature of TSA checkpoints, this is rather a more limited and intelligent
program:

"At the five US airports that receive most passengers from the three countries
where Ebola is circulating, passengers will be singled out on the basis of
their travel records; interviewed by means of a questionnaire; and have their
temperature taken, to see if they have a fever."

~~~
dublinben
It's just as much security theater as TSA checkpoints. IR thermometers are
pretty inaccurate[0] and not good at catching Ebola.[1] You can also just pop
and Ibuprofen an lie your way through.[2]

[0][http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/25/why-
fever-s...](http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/25/why-fever-
screening-at-airport/)

[1][https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/theres-
really-...](https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/theres-really-no-
way-screen-ebola-airports/90413/)

[2][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/ebola-airport-
scree...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/03/ebola-airport-
screening_n_5925948.html)

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "You can also just pop and Ibuprofen and lie your way through"

Why would anyone do that?

~~~
pasbesoin
To indulge in a bit of perhaps undeserved paranoia: What were/are the messages
coming from the treatment and outcome of the patient in Texas?

On the one hand, a highly fatal disease and typical, systemic mishandling. On
the other, an indication that travelling to the U.S. won't save you.

I have no evidence that the latter message was deliberately manufactured
(implying all sorts of terrible things). But I'm certain there were and are
people in positions of authority thinking about this.

~~~
maxerickson
A citizen of one of the countries where there is an outbreak would need a US
visa to even get on the plane.

I was thinking about that the other day; taking the need for a visa into
account, it's unlikely the deceased patient in Texas traveled to the U.S. in
response to exposure.

~~~
pasbesoin
From the reporting I've read and heard, it's fairly conclusively known that he
did not.

He helped a neighbor thought to be suffering complications from pregnancy --
she was in her 7th month -- getting a cab and perhaps also accompanying her to
the hospital or care center; I don't recall the details on the latter part.

The general population will not be making a rush over, on airplanes. But a
subset who is eligible and capable might.

Personally, from the reporting, it seems to me that the man in Texas was a
good samaritan and deserving of whatever help the U.S. might be able to
provide. I further consider the threatened prosecution (by Liberia, and now I
read perhaps also by others) not only unkind but counter-productive -- in
general, I gather, such actions force further underground and prompt people to
hide potentially threatening symptoms and conditions.

------
NearAP
Screening for temperatures is a good first step but since a person might not
be symptomatic at the time the temperature is being taken, temperature taking
won't be enough.

I think the Government should go further and embark on enlightenment
campaigns. These campaigns would involve listing the symptoms of Ebola,
advising people who exhibit such symptoms to visit the nearest hospital,
explaining in very clear terms how people can contact Ebola (there is a
shocking amount of misinformation about how Ebola is contracted out there) and
also listing some of the basic ways people can help prevent the spread of the
disease (like washing of hands with sanitizers).

Basically, borrow a leaf from what the Nigerian Government did which brought
Ebola to a halt after a Liberian brought Ebola to Lagos, a city whose
population is more than the entire population of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra
Leone combined (those are the 3 countries hardest hit by Ebola).

~~~
Someone1234
Honestly that sounds like a very constructive suggestion. However it might be
a little bit too early for it given the few cases outside of Africa.

There's a thin line between sewing panic and providing the public with
constructive information. If they released that kind of stuff right now,
people would become super paranoid and expect an outbreak any day.

You'd see people going to the hospital with every single flu, cold, or similar
that they have.

~~~
crpatino
It is very likely that thousands of people are going to die this year alone,
because the elected officers that are supposed to protect them are more
concerned with "preventing panics" than with implementing actual measures to
contain and stop the epidemic.

We already have forced the moronic security theater of airport security to
"protect" against a bunch of yahoos using box cutters as weapons. How worse
could it get, anyways?

------
Someone1234
It will work in the same way the TSA works: It will make people FEEL like the
government is taking action. Which is really what it aims to do and nothing
more...

Aside from that it will likely pick up more false positives than it will
actual Ebola cases (e.g. common flu, someone getting too hot after running
from the aircraft with a heavy bag to beat the queues, etc), Ebola can go
asymptomatic for over a week within which time it will be undetectable.

Keep in mind that several African states are already checking people as they
leave. So for this US measure to work someone would have to go from
asymptomatic to symptomatic within the time it takes from flying out of an
Ebola infected area and arriving at their destination (e.g. 12 hr period).

I already feel bad for all of the people who will be incorrectly quarantined
under this scheme just because they have regular flue. They will be caught up
in a state overreaction similar to "shoe inspections" and "no liquids above
150mm" nonsense of the past ten years.

------
tikhonj
So basically, the only reason to do this—acknowledged by researchers after
_more_ ambitious programs of this kind—is to reassure the public. It's
theater, meant to calm irrational, emotional concerns. Unlike the TSA, people
aren't even pretending otherwise!

To me, this is a great illustration of why we need strong, consistent rights
and limitations on government action: it's not just a check on government
abuse, or abuse by certain minority movements or even malicious abuse by the
majority—it's also a check against popular emotional responses like this. It's
a way of forcing _ourselves_ to stop, reconsider and perhaps avoid acting
poorly in a knee-jerk reaction.

(Also, thinking about it, it's a solid committment strategy: if these rights
and restrictions are clear and unambiguous, we can use that when negotiating
both with other countries and _within_ our own government.)

~~~
thathonkey
In the United States, a public hysteria would likely do more damage than the
virus itself so this is a good idea even if it is just security theatre. I've
heard that phrase uttered several times in this thread already. Do you guys
all read the same libertarian blog or something?

It's about to be flu season. They don't want hospitals to be overcrowded with
paranoid patients because that means if somebody actually does have the virus
they're less likely to get the proper attention. Etc. Not to mention all the
people suffering from other problems. Such a strain on our healthcare system
must be avoided at all costs.

This is a good thing, even if it is just a jumping off point.

~~~
tikhonj
No need for a blog, I can think for myself, thanks.

The fact that this policy is intrusive, expensive and yet demonstrably
irrational (at least on the part of the public) is pretty self-evident. The
idea that we need some method, whether legal or social or both, to control
irrational responses like this is a pretty a pretty natural conclusion after
that.

Perhaps the idea that the government should not react due to irrational
popular pressure is somehow libertarian, but really, it seems pretty non-
ideological. Not wanting intrusions and restrictions on individuals just
because a bunch of people are overly panicky is very reasonable.

~~~
thathonkey
Intrusive: Depends on how sensitive you are about stuff like this. They're
only going to be screening flights from the worst hit West African countries.
It's a temperature check before you get on the flight, and another one after.
We've had way more intrusive security measures in place for EVERY person
flying in the past (and present).

Expensive: More expensive than not doing it, sure. There's only about ~150
people entering the U.S. daily from the Liberia+Sierra Leone+Guinea. The
screens will be performed using digital thermometers. The cost should be
relatively low.

Demonstrably Irrational: It's not really irrational to take the potential for
public hysteria surrounding this issue very seriously. If people believe that
we're just letting at-risk people travel freely between W. Africa and the
United States then things are going to get very nasty the moment Patient 1
shows up (P0 died a few days ago). CDC (Frieden) admits that the checks might
make people feel safer but the real focus needs to be on containment in
Africa. Everything else is going to be a half measure by comparison.

------
tindrlabs
So what's the long term policy / law that will come out of Ebola testing via
the TSA? Since these activities never go away they just become unquestionable
policy.

Long term maybe it's finger print scanning, blood, saliva.

~~~
maxerickson
This is CBP and CDC, not TSA.

~~~
tindrlabs
Yeah but what's three more letters?

~~~
maxerickson
Those agencies both have wider mandates, so they won't want to continue to
expend resources on pointless screening. Much of the criticism of the TSA is
rooted in the fact that it exists to expend resources on screening (maybe with
some arguing about whether 'pointless' belongs in the statement).

------
jonifico
It could be a good measurement, at least airport management (and government,
sure) is doing something to avoid it. Whether people take responsibility or
not is a completely different ball game.

------
stonemetal
Of course it won't work. It wouldn't have prevented the incident it is a
reaction to. Why would anyone think it would prevent any future incident
similar to the first one?

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
Yes it will work. Partial success has benefits. So if you miss 3% or even 50%,
you're making less work for those who have to contain those who get through.

------
pearjuice
Am I the only one who wants a Betteridge's-law-filter on HN? Simply ban all
submissions which are not "Ask HN" with a question mark at the end.

I am getting sick of these submissions merely intended to scrape votes which
have no value whatsoever.

~~~
Istof
That would make sense most of the time. Do you want them to filter words like
"maybe" and "perhaps" too? I think there is enough censoring on HN already.

------
Vivtek
Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all.

Real answer: this is nothing more than security theater. The effective way to
fight disease would be health care, and that's the one measure the United
States will never take to fight any disease.

~~~
worklogin
>The effective way to fight disease would be health care, and that's the one
measure the United States will never take to fight any disease.

What are you trying to say? That the US doesn't do health research? That the
US doesn't have the best medical care in the world? That we haven't yet
invented the magical cure to Ebola and shipped it to West Africa? Or are you
trying to politicize a virus discussion into something about insurance?

~~~
bitJericho
In what way does the US have the best medical care in the world?

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-
healthca...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-
ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/)

~~~
refurb
In this way, among others....

[http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596](http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596)

~~~
warfangle
I wonder if the study includes those who died of cancer but were never
diagnosed?

