For anyone thinking of glibly and irrelevantly pointing out the ineffective nature of TSA checkpoints, this is rather a more limited and intelligent program:<p>"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."
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.<p>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).<p>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).
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...<p>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.<p>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).<p>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.
So basically, the only reason to do this—acknowledged by researchers after <i>more</i> 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!<p>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 <i>ourselves</i> to stop, reconsider and perhaps avoid acting poorly in a knee-jerk reaction.<p>(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 <i>within</i> our own government.)
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.<p>Long term maybe it's finger print scanning, blood, saliva.
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.
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?
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.
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.<p>I am getting sick of these submissions merely intended to scrape votes which have no value whatsoever.
Of course it will -- there is no terrorism any more, after all.<p>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.