Sometimes you have to wonder if anyone at the White House compares the prepared remarks to what’s happening in the news.
"In a globalized world,
threats as diverse as terrorism and pandemic disease cross borders at blinding speeds." -VP Biden
— VP Biden (Archived) (@VP44) October 2, 2014
Um … Joe, you might want to call your office. Your boss doesn’t seem to get that. ‘Good freaking grief’: Disbelief after WH deems Ebola-related travel restrictions unnecessary
Again, it’s more difficult to bring a piece of fruit from the Bahamas to the US than it is ebola from outbreak areas http://t.co/6WEjXjgF7I
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 2, 2014
White House: We don't need Ebola travel restrictions http://t.co/expnCClXHo
— Phx Ken (@PhxKen) October 2, 2014
@VP This is why it should not be business as usual on who we allow to enter our country via a airline flight.
— Jimmy Vegas (@jimmyvegas337) October 2, 2014
@VP Well… No shit, Sherlock… Aren't you the smart one…
— Milt Jowers (@BenReclused) October 2, 2014
At least some people in Washington are interested in getting ahead of the problem.
US Rep. Renee Ellmers and US Senate candidate Thom Tillis seek travel restrictions on countries with Ebola outbreaks http://t.co/zFyR5igSUv
— The News & Observer (@newsobserver) October 2, 2014
— Todd J. Gillman (@toddgillman) October 2, 2014
Unfortunately the “experts” disagree.
.@DrFriedenCDC: Isolating countries through travel restrictions would make it more diff to help control outbreak & put US at greater risk
— Ram Ramgopal (@RamCNN) October 2, 2014
— Dr. Robert R. Redfield (@CDCDirector) October 2, 2014
“Restricting” travel doesn’t have to mean completely isolating a country.