Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his son Sen.
Rand Paul (R-Ky.), both doctors, disagree on whether or not the
U.S. should institute a travel ban on countries affected by
Ebola.
The younger Paul, who has
criticized the Obama administration for “downplaying how
transmittable” Ebola is, last week said that “a temporary hiatus on
flights … ought to be considered” and that it’s “only reasonable.”
In another media appearance he reiterated, “A temporary suspension
of flights should be definitely considered.”
His father
doesn’t agree. “Right now I would say a travel ban is
politically motivated more than something done for medical
purposes,” he said today on NewsMax TV. Paul explained his
view:
You’ve got to put it in perspective. We’re talking about one
person that’s died, and we want to close down the world travel
system. …Over 500 people still die from tuberculosis every year, so you
have a much greater chance of getting tuberculosis by flying an
airplane, but you don’t put a ban on everybody who has a cough to
get on an airplane. …Right now the flu season started, you know how many people are
liable to die? Tens of thousands. Actually the estimate is between
3,000 and 49,000 people die every year from the flu, so if you
really want to do good for the world let’s ban all people who have
a cold because they might have the flu.
Nevertheless, Paul did defend his son against criticism from
Democratic National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who accused
Rand of “politicizing” Ebola. Ron said Rand’s “medical opinion
[was] expressed in sincerity.”
Read Reason‘s Shikha Dalmia’s
explanation of why a travel ban would not be
effective.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1FtJxZw
via IFTTT