Now that is truly funny. Um, no it certainly is not. Expert or not, substantiate the claim and don't just keep drumming the same old non-scientific guesswork. Your attitude and statement is something that is/and has been used by despots and tyrants.
We don't have to believe unsubstantiated nonsense just b/c someone who is an "expert" or a bonafide expert says so. Especially when they hold the claim for reasons that are far outside of scientific substance. If they want to say it's their opinion, why that's fine and dandy. Is has no substance with scientific or any otherwise substantial rationale. If you want credibility for your OPINION, you had better be able to back it up, expert or not.
Every single time I have seen a expert in either law or medicine or anything else, I have ALWAYS asked for rational support, evidence, and a logical basis for the particular expert's opinion or position. This is only reasonable. Only an autocrat or a person who drinks the KoolAid of an autocrat or someone who is an arrogant egomaniac would be offended by others that ask for support for their positions--even as the other person pays to actually seek their advice. Articulate it and back it up, or just keep walking--and so will I--that is to the next expert. The days of people being OK to be talked down to b/c they must genuflect to someone with MD or PhD behind their names is ending in many areas, thank God. To expert others to follow along with zip for substantial rationale is medieval. Remember those days? Yes, those in power loved it when people couldn't read.
Listen, if a person is truly expert in their field, they should not be afraid to expound upon and support any questions that are genuine.
Oh BTW, you mention Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Yes, well didn't they put in travel restrictions and controls?????? Oh, but it's OK that Nigeria and Sierra Leone and others have placed travel bans--and it has helped to seriously cut down on the spread of the disease.
They "believe" it would fetter the goal? Well, exactly how so? Getting back into our country after once having left is, again, NEVER an absolute. The same mechanisms that help them to return now could still be employed. There is nothing to stop humanitarian, medical, or military aid. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than what already is risky business without a travel ban. Arrangements are arrangements. Anyone that was going to help before Ebola in American would be no less stymied to go and return.
Why should or would they be?
It is the same if they left a month ago, and it would be so if there were a non-essential ban into America of people from the hot zones with visas.
Let's see; why would medical, humanitarian and military help not be ESSENTIAL people anyway?????
So, this would mean that they in fact are NOT held to the restriction, and I'd go further than that. I'd say that our country would have an absolute responsibility to ensure they get the best medical help at home, if they need it, and their return arrangements would necessitate being expedited and not stymied.
Now, should they also be isolated for the relevant time period upon return? And that is the kind of thing that would make people think twice before going to help--other than the inherent risks of exposure to the disease and the ever-present reality that once you leave your homeland,
regardless of any promises, there is never a guarantee to get back in when you want; b/c GUESS WHAT? The USA isn't sovereign OVER ALL LANDS and all untoward situations.
So, if anything, people that have been working in the hot zones and needing to be isolated for the 21 to whatever (I have read of changes in the time-frame of late.) might be in jeopardy with their employer. That's the kind of thing that stops people from helping outside of this country. I mean most people aren't independently wealthy and cannot afford to take a month or more off to be a part of humanitarian or medical aid in other countries. It would be great if they could; but it's not reality for many doctors and nurses and medics and other healthcare personnel. So add to that the possible need for 21-42 day quarantine. Come on. That would be the real story as to why more feet on the ground from America is a problem. Beyond that and in most cases, however, if proper arrangements and priority was given to these folks, they'd get back home. Should they then be quarantined--and if so, how many folks could afford to be away from their jobs for that long???
All the other nonsense about not getting home is constant
subterfuge, and it just utterly illogical rhetoric. In the reality of action, it's just lunacy.
I'll be glad to support the so called "expert" opinion when they supply some substantial support. Until then, many of us Americans will continue to call it what it is: lunacy