Comment from Blaydon, Lauren

I am a current medical student and candidate for a masters of public health and I oppose this interim final rule because it does not provide sufficient evidence that excluding lawful permanent residents (LPRs) would meaningfully improve public health outcomes compared to existing disease control measures. The rule acknowledges that individuals infected with Ebola are not contagious during the incubation period and that screening, active monitoring, contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine are effective tools for preventing transmission. It also states that these measures remain appropriate for U.S. citizens returning from affected regions. However, the rule does not explain why the same public health interventions would be inadequate for LPRs with similar travel histories and exposure risks. Additionally, the rule's justification that LPRs may have stronger ties to foreign countries than U.S. citizens is speculative and not supported by epidemiologic evidence. Public health policies should be based on individual risk factors and exposure history rather than immigration status. Many lawful permanent residents have families, jobs, and long-term homes in the United States, and denying their reentry could impose significant hardships without demonstrating a corresponding public health benefit. I urge CDC and HHS to revise this rule and rely on evidence based public health measures like screening, monitoring, contact tracing, isolation, etc. that have been effective in controlling imported infectious diseases like ebola as established by both the CDC and the WHO.