Ebola crisis: 'huge disruption' expected at Heathrow as screening begins

[webfact]

Ebola crisis: 'huge disruption' expected at Heathrow as screening begins
Experts have warned that enhanced screening is unlikely to stop Ebola arriving in Britain and will bring 'huge disruption' to travellers
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

LONDON: -- Ebola screening will begin at Heathrow airport on Tuesday amid claims it will cause ‘huge disruption’ to travellers and do little to stop the disease.

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, announced that passengers arriving on major routes from Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia would face temperature checks and questions about their movements.

Last week Public Health England ruled out such measures claiming it would impact ‘huge numbers of low risk people.’

But, addressing the House of Commons, Mr Hunt said that advice from medical experts had changed and warned that Ebola would be in Britain by Christmas.

Enhanced screening will also be implemented at Gatwick and Eurostar Terminals next week.

Mr Hunt said that 89 per cent of people travelling to Britain from the affected region would be checked, but admitted one in 10 taking indirect routes would slip through screening.

He told MPs it was "likely" that Ebola will be seen in the UK and a "handful" of cases could be confirmed in the next three months.

"This Government's first priority is the safety of the British people,” he said.

However health experts questioned whether the enhanced screening would prevent the disease.

Dr Ron Behrens, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the benefit of airport screening would be "very small", while there would be disruption to "large numbers of people".

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11160038/Ebola-crisis-huge-disruption-expected-at-Heathrow-as-screening-begins.html

-- The Telegraph 2014-10-14

[zydeco]

The "screening" will not screen anyone non-symptomatic, as was Ebola Man in Dallas. He would have gone through any screening without delay. What is needed is to deny visas for anyone from West Africa. THAT would be effective, cost little, and certainly save lives. But it would also be discriminatory, and, of course, as we all see, now, it is better in the Western world to have your hospitals, cities, and very lives disrupted and destroyed rather than discriminate against sainted West Africans.

[zydeco]

Please, Thailand, before it's too late, stop issuing visas or allowing Africans into Thailand until ebola burns itself out. The worst that can happen is that you'll inconvenience some Nigerian credit card scammers and drug runners.

[Scott]

The problem isn't people who are from West Africa; the problem is people who have been to West Africa. Simply denying visas will not necessarily be an effective method of controlling the situation.

[Pomthai]

Surely these checks / screening should be carried out before the plane is boarded in the high risk source zone, not after the fact after potential carriers have been sharing a cabin with 200plus people.

Why can't there be a travel ban or strictly controlled movements from all affected areas now? This in no place for the politically correct / freedoms mob.

As the article says, Ebola will be in the UK by Christmas. It might not be if all travelers from affected areas were properly screened or prevented form traveling at all until proven clear.

[zydeco]

The problem isn't people who are from West Africa; the problem is people who have been to West Africa. Simply denying visas will not necessarily be an effective method of controlling the situation.

It certainly would have meant that the ebola cases in Dallas would not have happened. "Screening" and questionnaires are about as ineffective as things can get. Stop it at the source. Quarantine.

[Scott]

You will have to have the countries involved police their own borders. They might not be willing to do that. Some of those countries are already coping with big problems. They may not be able to or willing to quarantine people inside those countries.

[Scott]

The problem isn't people who are from West Africa; the problem is people who have been to West Africa. Simply denying visas will not necessarily be an effective method of controlling the situation.

It certainly would have meant that the ebola cases in Dallas would not have happened. "Screening" and questionnaires are about as ineffective as things can get. Stop it at the source. Quarantine.

This topic is about the UK's efforts to control the disease.

If you have a UK national who has been in the area and arrives at Heathrow, are you suggesting they be turned away?

[zydeco]

You will have to have the countries involved police their own borders. They might not be willing to do that. Some of those countries are already coping with big problems. They not be able to or willing to quarantine people inside those countries.

I'll bet that their neighbors will be all too willing to police the common borders with ebola countries. If not, they will become an ebola country themself.

[Chicog]

The "screening" will not screen anyone non-symptomatic, as was Ebola Man in Dallas. He would have gone through any screening without delay. What is needed is to deny visas for anyone from West Africa. THAT would be effective, cost little, and certainly save lives. But it would also be discriminatory, and, of course, as we all see, now, it is better in the Western world to have your hospitals, cities, and very lives disrupted and destroyed rather than discriminate against sainted West Africans.

Better to have them in the open where you can screen them and treat them, rather than have them infecting their way across the world trying to get into a container from Calais or boat across the Rio Grande.

If you start blocking them from travelling, you will create panic in those countries, and people will start running for the borders. It is nothing more than a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction.

Better to manage it and not destabilise the hot zone.

[zydeco]

The "screening" will not screen anyone non-symptomatic, as was Ebola Man in Dallas. He would have gone through any screening without delay. What is needed is to deny visas for anyone from West Africa. THAT would be effective, cost little, and certainly save lives. But it would also be discriminatory, and, of course, as we all see, now, it is better in the Western world to have your hospitals, cities, and very lives disrupted and destroyed rather than discriminate against sainted West Africans.

Better to have them in the open where you can screen them and treat them, rather than have them infecting their way across the world trying to get into a container from Calais or boat across the Rio Grande.

If you start blocking them from travelling, you will create panic in those countries, and people will start running for the borders. It is nothing more than a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction.

Better to manage it and not destabilise the hot zone.

Nowhere in West Africa qualifies as stable. As far as containers go, there is nothing from West Africa that is so desperately needed in either Europe or America that a three week quarantine at sea will not solve. By then, any ebola outbreak on board will have taken care of itself.

[VMOMMO]

If I want to take a cat or a dog to the UK, it has to stay in quarantine for 6 months just in case it has rabies (even though it was vaccinated). It seems to me a quarantine for a super deadly contagious disease might be a good idea...

BTW, in Hong Kong they screen every passenger for fevers. No delays and no inconvenience other than you have to take off your hat

[Credo]

The "screening" will not screen anyone non-symptomatic, as was Ebola Man in Dallas. He would have gone through any screening without delay. What is needed is to deny visas for anyone from West Africa. THAT would be effective, cost little, and certainly save lives. But it would also be discriminatory, and, of course, as we all see, now, it is better in the Western world to have your hospitals, cities, and very lives disrupted and destroyed rather than discriminate against sainted West Africans.

Better to have them in the open where you can screen them and treat them, rather than have them infecting their way across the world trying to get into a container from Calais or boat across the Rio Grande.

If you start blocking them from travelling, you will create panic in those countries, and people will start running for the borders. It is nothing more than a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction.

Better to manage it and not destabilise the hot zone.

Nowhere in West Africa qualifies as stable. As far as containers go, there is nothing from West Africa that is so desperately needed in either Europe or America that a three week quarantine at sea will not solve. By then, any ebola outbreak on board will have taken care of itself.

So you think that a boat can be held at sea and if it has ebola, then the people on the ship will be denied medical treatment? Best of luck at treating people at sea on a container ship.

[bkkcanuck8]

If I want to take a cat or a dog to the UK, it has to stay in quarantine for 6 months just in case it has rabies (even though it was vaccinated). It seems to me a quarantine for a super deadly contagious disease might be a good idea...

BTW, in Hong Kong they screen every passenger for fevers. No delays and no inconvenience other than you have to take off your hat

HK has more experience in things like this, and thus are not as complacent as the US is. HK was a hot-zone for SARS and of course an ongoing problem with outbreaks of bird flu from time to time.

As far as quarantining entire countries, it would be the equivalent of killing the rats during the plague. Illegal smuggling is a massive industry - drugs, weapons, people, whatever makes money..... if they have not been able to stop that industry .... how would they be able to control millions of fleeing terrified people after the complete collapse of countries in central africa. I always think it ironic that many of the same people that would argue legalizing drugs is the only way to go because you cannot stop it, but when they are scared they expect the government to do what they said they believe the government is unable to do.

All airports should be screening using thermal imaging for fevers. They should be placed on entrance through security, and they should be placed where people are entering through immigration. They should enact laws that forces the air industry to allow people to change their flights and not forfeit the price of the ticket.... it incentivizes people to lie. They have ignored it because most viruses that travel are no more than inconveniences.... but this is the perfect time to take stock and make those changes.

Edited October 14, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[RubbaJohnny]

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

[zydeco]

If I want to take a cat or a dog to the UK, it has to stay in quarantine for 6 months just in case it has rabies (even though it was vaccinated). It seems to me a quarantine for a super deadly contagious disease might be a good idea...

BTW, in Hong Kong they screen every passenger for fevers. No delays and no inconvenience other than you have to take off your hat

HK has more experience in things like this, and thus are not as complacent as the US is. HK was a hot-zone for SARS and of course an ongoing problem with outbreaks of bird flu from time to time.

As far as quarantining entire countries, it would be the equivalent of killing the rats during the plague. Illegal smuggling is a massive industry - drugs, weapons, people, whatever makes money..... if they have not been able to stop that industry .... how would they be able to control millions of fleeing terrified people after the complete collapse of countries in central africa. I always think it ironic that many of the same people that would argue legalizing drugs is the only way to go because you cannot stop it, but when they are scared they expect the government to do what they said they believe the government is unable to do.

All airports should be screening using thermal imaging for fevers. They should be placed on entrance through security, and they should be placed where people are entering through immigration. They should enact laws that forces the air industry to allow people to change their flights and not forfeit the price of the ticket.... it incentivizes people to lie. They have ignored it because most viruses that travel are no more than inconveniences.... but this is the perfect time to take stock and make those changes.

I don't claim medical expertise, but just how accurate is thermal imaging for fevers? Not only technically but what about the variance in people's "normal" temperatures. I know for example that my "normal" temp usually ranges anywhere from 96.9 to 97.6 Fahrenheit. If I get a temp of around 99, I KNOW I'm running a low grade fever, although a hospital nurse, not to mention an airport screener, would dismiss it as normal and within range.

[bkkcanuck8]

If I want to take a cat or a dog to the UK, it has to stay in quarantine for 6 months just in case it has rabies (even though it was vaccinated). It seems to me a quarantine for a super deadly contagious disease might be a good idea...

BTW, in Hong Kong they screen every passenger for fevers. No delays and no inconvenience other than you have to take off your hat

HK has more experience in things like this, and thus are not as complacent as the US is. HK was a hot-zone for SARS and of course an ongoing problem with outbreaks of bird flu from time to time.

As far as quarantining entire countries, it would be the equivalent of killing the rats during the plague. Illegal smuggling is a massive industry - drugs, weapons, people, whatever makes money..... if they have not been able to stop that industry .... how would they be able to control millions of fleeing terrified people after the complete collapse of countries in central africa. I always think it ironic that many of the same people that would argue legalizing drugs is the only way to go because you cannot stop it, but when they are scared they expect the government to do what they said they believe the government is unable to do.

All airports should be screening using thermal imaging for fevers. They should be placed on entrance through security, and they should be placed where people are entering through immigration. They should enact laws that forces the air industry to allow people to change their flights and not forfeit the price of the ticket.... it incentivizes people to lie. They have ignored it because most viruses that travel are no more than inconveniences.... but this is the perfect time to take stock and make those changes.

I don't claim medical expertise, but just how accurate is thermal imaging for fevers? Not only technically but what about the variance in people's "normal" temperatures. I know for example that my "normal" temp usually ranges anywhere from 96.9 to 97.6 Fahrenheit. If I get a temp of around 99, I KNOW I'm running a low grade fever, although a hospital nurse, not to mention an airport screener, would dismiss it as normal and within range.

It is more accurate than asking people if they feel sick. There would be false positives, and there would be people that are not symptomatic getting through. A temperature of 99 would require secondary medical exam and airport security would pull you aside and send you to the medical examinations area at the airport. In this case they would check your passport, and if you visited an infected area and you have a low grade temperature you would be quarantined in the medical area at the airport under observation. If you are released, an entry in your passport would indicate the details of the quarantine etc.

Long term it is about changing people's behaviour so they don't travel when they are sick.

[bkkcanuck8]

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

1. You would not have a navy large enough to enforce a continental quarantine.

2. The border area between Europe and Africa & Middle East and Africa is already fairly porous (like US / Mexico)

3. Eradicating the entire population of the infected area would not have as devastating impact than quarantining all of Africa (of which only a few countries have a problem with ebola, and one successfully controlled the outbreak there).

[VMOMMO]

Quarantine doesn't mean they cannot leave or go somewhere, it means they get to stay somewhere secure for 21 days before they can be admitted anywhere. It is far more feasible to do that than wait until Ebola Man #2 and #3 have gone to a big city and ridden the busses and subways while sick, infecting people who cannot be tracked and have no knowledge that they were exposed. It also isn't the whole continent, it is three countries where it is completely out of control.

[bkkcanuck8]

I did not read it that way, the post quoted below seemed was made in response to saying borders are very porous and even country border regions such as Mexico / US cannot shut down illegal smuggling. Pushing people out of legal travel channels forces them into illegal travel channels which are much more problematic to monitor.

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

[zydeco]

The problem isn't people who are from West Africa; the problem is people who have been to West Africa. Simply denying visas will not necessarily be an effective method of controlling the situation.

It certainly would have meant that the ebola cases in Dallas would not have happened. "Screening" and questionnaires are about as ineffective as things can get. Stop it at the source. Quarantine.

This topic is about the UK's efforts to control the disease.

If you have a UK national who has been in the area and arrives at Heathrow, are you suggesting they be turned away?

Just now saw this. At this point, anyone who travels into these areas knows exactly what they are getting into. If they are a UK national or a US national, I would hope that those respective countries would hold them in quarantine until they proved they were not infected. After all, as a US citizen there are already country's I am not allowed to enter unless I have approval from a congressional committee, no less, such as Cuba. Does it make sense to make it harder to enter and return from Cuba than it does from the ebola zone?

[JDGRUEN]

The problem isn't people who are from West Africa; the problem is people who have been to West Africa. Simply denying visas will not necessarily be an effective method of controlling the situation.

Denying visas to residents of the Ebola stricken countries of West Africa ... Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia would stop most of the problem...

For those other people - other Africans and people from around the world... As we all know our passport contains our travel history -- so anyone having a relatively recent travel history in one of those three countries above would have to be singled out and taken to isolated areas and given an examination and thoroughly discuss their travel history to a greater extent. These 'other' people just may have to go into isolation for up to 25 days depending on their last date of being in the Ebola Hot Spot countries and other information derived in the interview...

Yes - it is serious - yes it would more than inconvenience some people... but otherwise the U.K. would have a repeat of Dallas TX, USA... Where now we have a dead African man - dead from Ebola, an Ebola infected nurse who took care of him while wearing a bio-hazard suit, and her boyfriend who has been hospitalized with Ebola Symptoms .

So - Ask the question - Who is being inconvenienced here ? People who are exposed, develop symptoms and develop the Ebola disease are far more than inconvenienced.

We either want to stop the disease or we bow to political correctness - we cannot do both.

In addition - travelers to these West African Ebola afflicted countries should be warned - upon their return they may be made to undergo a long isolation quarantine before being allowed to fully enter the country..

Playing around with Ebola is what has gotten where we are now... We have to get serious and non PC.

[JDGRUEN]

I did not read it that way, the post quoted below seemed was made in response to saying borders are very porous and even country border regions such as Mexico / US cannot shut down illegal smuggling. Pushing people out of legal travel channels forces them into illegal travel channels which are much more problematic to monitor.

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

Theory ... lots of theories

[bkkcanuck8]

I did not read it that way, the post quoted below seemed was made in response to saying borders are very porous and even country border regions such as Mexico / US cannot shut down illegal smuggling. Pushing people out of legal travel channels forces them into illegal travel channels which are much more problematic to monitor.

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

Theory ... lots of theories

Observation..... People will find a way when they are desperate, criminals will find a way when there is money to be made. People often say that it is so easy to to shut down a border - but it is not. Some of Canada's richest families made their fortunes in the smuggling business during prohibition.... and the need for alcohol is less than that than the need for life.

[JDGRUEN]

Quarantine you wouldnt need to screen if you stop flights, bar ships crew from disembarkation etc

1. You would not have a navy large enough to enforce a continental quarantine.

2. The border area between Europe and Africa & Middle East and Africa is already fairly porous (like US / Mexico)

3. Eradicating the entire population of the infected area would not have as devastating impact than quarantining all of Africa (of which only a few countries have a problem with ebola, and one successfully controlled the outbreak there).

Exaggeration and red herrings abound..

[Chicog]

Nowhere in West Africa qualifies as stable. As far as containers go, there is nothing from West Africa that is so desperately needed in either Europe or America that a three week quarantine at sea will not solve. By then, any ebola outbreak on board will have taken care of itself.

What about the other airports in Africa. Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them?

And what about people flying to other hubs from Africa.

Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them as well?

May as well just advocate blocking all international air passenger traffic into America.

Good luck with that.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Chicog

[Chicog]

Well..that leaves the nuke option as the only alternative

But in the movie they used Fuel/Air bombs, I'm sure they are better for the environment.

[zydeco]

Nowhere in West Africa qualifies as stable. As far as containers go, there is nothing from West Africa that is so desperately needed in either Europe or America that a three week quarantine at sea will not solve. By then, any ebola outbreak on board will have taken care of itself.

What about the other airports in Africa. Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them?

And what about people flying to other hubs from Africa.

Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them as well?

May as well just advocate blocking all international air passenger traffic into America.

Good luck with that.

I really don't understand your difficulty with this proposal. Almost every nation's (perhaps every nation's) citizens in Africa require a visa to enter the US. Perhaps the entry to the UK is more porous for Africans. If they don't have visa, however, it doesn't matter where they board an airplane, they are not allowed entry. If African countries refuse to follow proper visa procedures, then you do prohibit them from flying to the UK, the US, or anywhere else. Similarly, if they descend into widespread chaos, you don't allow their planes to fly into American, European, or Asian air space.

[JDGRUEN]

Nowhere in West Africa qualifies as stable. As far as containers go, there is nothing from West Africa that is so desperately needed in either Europe or America that a three week quarantine at sea will not solve. By then, any ebola outbreak on board will have taken care of itself.

What about the other airports in Africa. Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them?

And what about people flying to other hubs from Africa.

Do you advocate blocking traffic from all of them as well?

May as well just advocate blocking all international air passenger traffic into America.

Good luck with that.

Deny entrance VISAs to West Africans of the Ebola ridden countries... - Immigration I/Os spot them and they are denied and they go back .. or most importantly - they never leave West Africa because NO VISA.

[Scott]

This topic is about Heathrow airport and the UK.