Pros And Cons Of Ebola

Ebola is a world issue at this point, as leaders of public health we have the responsibility to make an example of how to handle viral outbreaks. The current ban on visas to those who have been in west Africa is not the way to do this. While some believe that banning these people from entering Canada is the best way to protect our citizens, there are several arguments against the ban. Including that the bans gives incentive for countries to hide viral outbreaks, that this gives incentive for people to travel via les documented means in order to avoid these bans, that these people can not be tracked and helped if they are found to be infected, the several effects that disregarding the WHO, the experts leading world health, can have, and the unjustified reasons for implementation [1]. I will consider both sides.
By not allowing those who have been in EVD affected areas to enter Canada, it is highly unlikely for an infected person to enter.
This will seriously inhibit the amount of people who could carry EVD from entering Canada [3]. However, this could further influence other countries to hide viral outbreak, like SARS in China, or like Liberia. Not only could countries try to hide it, individual citizens could hide that they have been in the infected countries by using fake passports or traveling via undocumented means [3]. This will mean all carriers in Canada will be undocumented carriers, and since all undocumented carriers are threats to Canadian public health, then all carriers in Canada are threats to Canadian public health [4a]. It would be better to let them in, accepting that they are potential carriers so they do not have to hide
it.
An idea proposed to me [5] would be to keep a closer eye on people from those areas, this led me to my current suggested action. I suggest that Canada, like the US, should allow visas to those entering from countries at risk, with the requirement that they are tracked and are required to check in daily for 3 weeks, with repercussions if they fail to do so [2]. Another proposal [6] would be to take bloodwork from each person attempting to enter, however I do not recommend this as the amount of resources needed is not worth any potential benefit over my suggested solution.
These potential carries are not even as much as a threat as the government thinks it is: “Recognizing also that the introduction or spread of the disease would pose an imminent and severe risk to public health in Canada”. This may run true for third world nations that are not prepared for a viral outbreak like this, but in Canada, we have a public that trusts the government to give us proper information, proper medical staff, and the ability to keep a close eye on those who are potentially infected [4b].
It’s simply best to listen to the experts that know how events should be handled. similar to the parliament shootings, the republican government is acting in the way the angry public wants to [4c], not in the way the experts say it should be handled. Many of these citizens are too angry or scared of EVD to rationally think about how the crisis should be handled. For the parliament shootings, we ramped up security even though it was an outlying even, and now with EVD, we’re ramping up security again, with little effect, just because some people from this region have EVD, it doesn’t mean they all do [4d]. This is all done to look good in the public eye, people don’t want to take the time to read the facts and learn the effects of specific actions.