If international travel bans won’t work, will local ones, such as people not leaving their homes if infected, or as in Italy whole villages and towns in lock-down?
Prompt Critical
4 years ago
Tom, this article is not as informed as your usual. The travel ban just instituted by the great President Trump does not apply to the EU as such. Actually it applies to the Schengen zone specifically. For example, Romania and Bulgaria are not included. This is logical, because there are not even any facilities for controlling movement of people between Schengen countries, but there are between Schengen and non-Schengen countries. For example, when I drive from Hungary to Romania, the border guards always check my passport. You say “…people wanting to flee to (or get home to!) the US are incentivised to fly to Heathrow first then home.” But actually, irrespective of the passport he holds, a person arriving in the USA from the UK (for example) will be asked whether he has been within the Schengen zone within the last two weeks. If he has, he can try lying, but if he is caught out, which could happen (the US Government has many means of information), he would immediately be clapped into jail, and quite right too.
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago
If Trump had not banned travel from Wuhan before anyone had even died from this virus in the US, many more would have died by now. And had both Obama and Trump not issued travel bans for obvious reasons from certain countries, there would probably have been more terror incidents in the US by now.
Travel bans most assuredly do work, and there will be a lot more of them going forward, because it will be the only way for some countries to survive.
Kevin Dillon
4 years ago
Reducing volumes of foreign, potentially flu-afflicted patients entering the U.S. makes (some) sense. Half- and three-quarters- measures is about all we have available to us (canceling all those big events … I think I saw most of those kids in New York bars last night). Incremental measures are O.K. Banning travel from China … come on, that had to have some beneficial effects. The clinical trial we can now never run: Serious travel bans, for the whole world, implemented on 2/1/20, and left in place for 6-to-8 weeks, that would have protected America significantly. This idea of, “well, it’s going to get us all eventually” … I just don’t buy that. “Social distancing” and canceling NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA, etc. “good! ” but banning (read: “limiting,” “constraining,” “slowing”) ” “meh,” that just doesn’t add up for me. And I remain pretty optimistic that we’ll get through this O.K.
James Smith
4 years ago
Have you now sent your memo to the rest of the world or was it just your dislike of Trump and your ideology that made you write this unscientific article? Every country other than China got their first cases from people crossing their borders with it. Even when a country has internal transmission of the virus it makes no sense to continue to bring in new cases of the virus.
If international travel bans won’t work, will local ones, such as people not leaving their homes if infected, or as in Italy whole villages and towns in lock-down?
Tom, this article is not as informed as your usual.
The travel ban just instituted by the great President Trump does not apply to the EU as such. Actually it applies to the Schengen zone specifically. For example, Romania and Bulgaria are not included. This is logical, because there are not even any facilities for controlling movement of people between Schengen countries, but there are between Schengen and non-Schengen countries. For example, when I drive from Hungary to Romania, the border guards always check my passport.
You say “…people wanting to flee to (or get home to!) the US are incentivised to fly to Heathrow first then home.” But actually, irrespective of the passport he holds, a person arriving in the USA from the UK (for example) will be asked whether he has been within the Schengen zone within the last two weeks. If he has, he can try lying, but if he is caught out, which could happen (the US Government has many means of information), he would immediately be clapped into jail, and quite right too.
If Trump had not banned travel from Wuhan before anyone had even died from this virus in the US, many more would have died by now. And had both Obama and Trump not issued travel bans for obvious reasons from certain countries, there would probably have been more terror incidents in the US by now.
Travel bans most assuredly do work, and there will be a lot more of them going forward, because it will be the only way for some countries to survive.
Reducing volumes of foreign, potentially flu-afflicted patients entering the U.S. makes (some) sense. Half- and three-quarters- measures is about all we have available to us (canceling all those big events … I think I saw most of those kids in New York bars last night). Incremental measures are O.K. Banning travel from China … come on, that had to have some beneficial effects. The clinical trial we can now never run: Serious travel bans, for the whole world, implemented on 2/1/20, and left in place for 6-to-8 weeks, that would have protected America significantly. This idea of, “well, it’s going to get us all eventually” … I just don’t buy that. “Social distancing” and canceling NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA, etc. “good! ” but banning (read: “limiting,” “constraining,” “slowing”) ” “meh,” that just doesn’t add up for me. And I remain pretty optimistic that we’ll get through this O.K.
Have you now sent your memo to the rest of the world or was it just your dislike of Trump and your ideology that made you write this unscientific article? Every country other than China got their first cases from people crossing their borders with it. Even when a country has internal transmission of the virus it makes no sense to continue to bring in new cases of the virus.