This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

Because my opponent is advocating a strategy I will need to know a few details as to its implementation. For example, where would these screenings would be done? Airports? Border crossings? In which country is testing done? What kind of tests? How aggressive is this plan going to be?I will be arguing that current screening practices are sufficient. And that the best method of solving the Ebola crisis would be to not focus on more screening, but to invest more resources into battling Ebola within the effected African countries. This is what would be best and most effective for all peoples. However for this round I will attack the feasibility of the resolution.Logistics of the Operation:The reason why I ask for these details is because the logistics of what Pro calls for will play a vital role in the effectiveness of this "aggressive" plan. If we are to set up screening facilities at all major airports and border crossings in the West and infected African countries a serious question arises. Do we even have enough trained medical personal and technology to staff these facilities? Sure western countries may have enough for themselves. But the African countries in question certainly do not. This is not just an issue of money; we would have to send even more aid in the form of workers to Africa than we already do. Do we have enough staff to run efficiently facilities in both Western countries AND Africa? Given the seriousness of Ebola it would require volunteers to serve, and those are in relatively short supply.Screening is it Worth it? [1]Now on to the idea of screening itself, is it effective and detecting and stopping the spread of Ebola? The answer in short is not really. During the incubation stage Ebola is undetectable; it does not cause fever or any conspicuous symptoms. A healthy looking person could be screened, board a plane and travel to another country and no one would know the person was carrying Ebola. I"m not saying that screening and testing should not be done, but if they are currently not so effective then I question how much an even greater investment would pay off. After all, this is a utilitarian debate, if the resources can be better spent elsewhere other than aggressive screening and quarantines then I win.What makes screening even trickier is we must know from which flights and countries should be screened. The BBC reports "There are very few direct flights out of the three [West African] countries and therefore most travelers have to pick up a connecting flight," says Khan. "So in order to ensure a country picked up the passengers that originated from one of the West African countries, they would need to screen all international travelers." That sees the number of airports where screening would be required go up from 15 to 1,238 and the number of passengers that would need to be screened rises to nearly 363 million. As a result airports would have to scan 2,512 passengers for every one that has had potential exposure to the Ebola virus."When referring back to the logistics of the proposed operation, is it possible to screen 363 million people in an orderly and timely manner? Is all the time and money worth it?If you continue reading the article it goes on to mention a different outbreak, SARS. "They [Canadian officials] introduced thermal scanners, which are supposed to detect those with a raised temperature. Almost 500,000 went through those scanners of whom 95 were thought to have a raised temperature... but on investigation none of them had a fever. " Overall, of more than a million people screened, not one case of Sars was found. The cost of this exercise was 17m Canadian dollars ($15m)," says Mabey." 15 million dollars spent with no results. Those resources could have been spent elsewhere.Furthermore there is a possibility an infected person seeing the greater scrutiny will find another way to travel, perhaps by illegally crossing a border into a neighboring country, thus rendering screening pointless.All in all increased screening does not seem to produce substantial results, and at best alleviates fear of spread. However this is a utilitarian debate, we seek physical results, not comfort. Impact on the Economy:Pro states that increased measures may cost more time and waiting, but that it's worth it. I would argue such pointless waiting is indeed not worth it, and is overall hurtful. Today we live in a global economy, the Ebola crisis has already drastically damaged the economies of West Africa causing food shortages and even worse poverty than before [2]. These conditions encourage the spread of Ebola. By increasing the restriction of movement this further harms the country's economy.Final Thoughts:My opponents main point in his very brief Round One Statement was that increased screening would keep the US and other countries Ebola free. I would say that it's nonsense as my previous points address. But more importantly under the current status quo there have only been 20 cases of Ebola outside of Africa [2]. How much more Ebola free can a country get? Would expending the vast amount of resources Pro calls for make us more safe when we already are extremely well protected and prepared for Ebola in the West? I say no it would not.[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...