I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nat

I find that argument fundamentally flawed. Travel bans are momentarily painful and the unrest is localized. The world economy would feel the pain but most nations would be spared. Compare that to what might happen when this virus hits NYC. There will be a run on cash and groceries. People will stop commuting. Schools will close. Restaurants and shops will be empty. Now consider the same thing happening in Seoul, Berlin, London, San Francisco, etc. The economic impacts from this could be catastrophic. And the most ironic thing is that if this truly does get out of hand we will get travel bans. Nations will close their borders. People will willingly (and forcefully) stop traveling via boat or air. We'll circle back to needing travel bans and the only price we'll have paid is millions of lives and a global economic catastrophe. All so that we could avoid some minor short term economic pain.