The Obama administration is on the defensive for not placing new restrictions on flights from West Africa, as fears grow in the U.S. about a domestic outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus.
But senior administration officials and defenders of the practice counter that there is a clear downside to banning flights from the heart of the Ebola crisis. They say a travel prohibition is unnecessary, counterproductive, needlessly isolationist and ignores how the disease is transmitted.
“Right now, we believe those types of steps actually impede the response,” Lisa Monaco, the White House’s homeland security adviser, told reporters.
In essence, the White House claims that travel restrictions would limit their ability to root out the disease altogether, thus making Americans less safe. Critics argue that banning commercial flights, for example, would not have any effect on the anti-Ebola campaign and would provide a buffer from an infected person who either tries to conceal their symptoms or has yet to develop them.
Some analysts suggested that the administration should at least consider revising the rules for people traveling to the United States from West Africa.
“I think it’s a difficult issue in that you don’t want to cut these countries off completely, which could interfere with the Africa outbreak response and, in the longer run, perhaps prolong the outbreak and put the U.S. more at risk,” said Jesse Goodman, a former top scientist at the Food and Drug Administration and now a professor at Georgetown University.
“However, I think CDC and others should be carefully examining what happened to see if screening can be further strengthened and how travel that is nonessential can be further discouraged and reduced,” he added.
The public face of the administration’s Ebola response made clear that they would not reverse course on this controversial practice.
“One strategy that won’t stop this epidemic is isolating affected countries or sealing borders,” wrote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Tom Frieden in an op-ed for the Financial Times. “When countries are isolated, it is harder to get medical supplies and personnel deployed to stop the spread of Ebola. And even when governments restrict travel and trade, people in affected countries still find a way to move and it is even harder to track them systematically.”
Since Ebola can spread only through bodily fluids and after symptoms are visible, those capable of passing the disease should be stopped before they ever get on an airplane, the White House argues.
Yet, a growing chorus of conservative critics say the Obama administration should place heightened scrutiny on travelers to the U.S. from West Africa in the wake of the first Ebola diagnosis on American soil.
They point out that neighboring African nations have already suspended flights from the nations most affected by Ebola.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and other prominent Republicans have turned the lack of travel restrictions into a political issue a month ahead of November’s midterms, adding another unpredictable element to many competitive contests.
“How exactly would stopping the entry of people potentially carrying the Ebola virus be counterproductive?” Jindal wrote on Twitter. “This seems to be an obvious step to protect public health in the United States.”
The fewer people who make it into the United States from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, they argue, limits the possibility of additional Americans contracting a disease with a death rate of roughly 50 percent in recent months.
“It’s insane that they won’t even consider limiting flights,” added a House GOP aide who focuses on security issues. “They look too prideful to change their position — and it’s dangerous.”
Frieden, though, insists that such reasoning is just wrong.
“Involuntary quarantine and isolation of communities and regions within countries will also backfire,” he wrote. “Restricting travel or trade to and from a community makes it harder to control in the isolated area, eventually putting the rest of the country at even greater risk. Isolating communities also increases people’s distrust of government, making them less likely to cooperate to help stop the spread of Ebola.”
And administration officials argue that screening techniques in place have prevented “dozens and dozens” of people showing Ebola-like symptoms from getting on airplanes in West Africa.
As Liberian national Thomas Eric Duncan proved, however, it’s entirely possible to get on an airplane bound for the United States and then show Ebola symptoms after entering the country. The first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States did not disclose on forms his contact with disease victims in Liberia, officials there said, and made it all the way to Dallas before showing sickness.
“This is negligence,” said the House GOP aide of the White House’s current strategy.
When asked if he thought the lack of travel restrictions would influence the 2014 midterms, the veteran Capitol Hill hand replied: “I certainly hope not. Because if it does, it means something has gone terribly wrong.”
