[kalimus]

Sometimes people do need to sacrifice some of the freedom they have for the common good. Not for a percieved good, but an actual measurable good. In this case, I would likely support a temporary travel ban. Something like Ebola, like you said, absolutely needs to be contained and dealt with before it becomes unstoppable. Unfortunately, that relies on people look past their own selfishness and doing the right thing. Maybe it's not to that point yet, but I think it's an option that needs to be seriously considered.

As far as what travel ban, I think it's appropriate to ban travel to other countries (at least the ones that have ebola cases), but I feel it's also our responsibility to prevent our own citizens from spreading this to a country that isn't having these problems. It would be wildly irresponsible to enable the spread of this virus to populations where it hasn't made it to. For the city of Dallas, I think that's a little more difficult to address. No matter what decision is made, it could end up disasterous. Going to the extreme and just shutting down in and out for Dallas would prevent it from leaving, but piss off everyone else (possibly needlessly if it is contained in the hospitals). On the other hand, assuming that nothing needs to be done because there are few cases and allowing it to spread can turn it into a country wide problem very quickly.

The best option, although inconvenient, would be to set up screening stations and isolation areas around the hospital. Allow the population to get screened and sent on their way, and not allow them around either of those areas for the next 3-6 weeks or so to try and head the virus off.

That said, it's possible the virus will be contained in the hospital and none of this will be necessary at all.