On the utility/futility of travel bans during epidemics. I know people are probably tired of hearing about coronavirus by now, but I've seen so many (stupid) people comment on the use of travel bans that I couldn't restrain myself. The "expert" opinion that travel bans do not
work in containing respiratory epidemics such as the coronavirus is actually true, but incomplete. They are actually 100% correct in that these are generally post-facto barn door closures and that initial diagnoses means that it has already spread elsewhere undiagnosed.
The first diagnoses of the coronavirus was made in China on December 27, 2019 and now there is testing evidence of it already having arrived in Italy by November and the US early December. Travel bans in and of themselves do not prevent epidemics, it merely delays spread, slowing
down the formation of new travel hotspots. However, and this is a big but, travel bans are ineffective only using the "mitigation" strategy adopted by most of the West. They are effective, and indeed essential for the "elimination" strategy pursued by several other countries who
were able to contain the spread of coronavirus to tiny numbers. Travel restrictions need to be paired with active suppression efforts. if the extra time bought by travel bans is simply wasted by doing jack shit, as opposed to what Australia/NZ/SK/Vietnam/China, etc were all doing
then whining about instituting an earlier or later travel ban is irrelevant and missing the point entirely on what they can and can't do. It's a useful tool, but only one part of the other tools that are also needed. If you don't pair them with mandatory quarantines, its useless.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
