4 ms·

Travel bans stop the health services from being overwhelmed with cases by an exponential spread within the population. The aim is not to stop infections, it is

Travel bans stop the health services from being overwhelmed with cases by an exponential spread within the population. The aim is not to stop infections, it is to slow the rate of infection, and there are several stages to the response so at some point tracing and containment isn't practical, but it's useful initially.

kmonsen 7y ago
All true, it is also to buy time to develop medicine. Every month we can push the worst cases into the future the more likely we have an efficient response.
- makmanalp 7y ago
  Also to spread out over time the amount of people needing medical help. Perhaps a city can't handle 10k new patients in a day but it could handle it over the course of 2 weeks.
asjw 7y ago
This is true in theory, but in Italy the virus arrived from a single German, and has spread through family contacts in a small province near Milan In theory Milan should be the city with more infected people (in proportion) due to the high number of travelers and residents, it is not Infection has spread brevi manu, travel bans have been implemented only starting from last Sunday (8th of March)
munificent 7y ago
Social distancing and sanitary practices are hugely important for this. It's not clear to me that large-scale travel bans are particularly helpful. A travel ban is about containment — keeping the number of cases in a region at absolute zero. Social distancing and other local behavior changes are about lowering the rate of infection and slowing the spread of disease in an area where it exists. The latter is clearly important because it lowers the number of people who simultaneously need medical services in any particular area. A travel ban can help that if successful and it medical resources are easily shunted from a region with zero infections to a region that has them. But once you've got a single patient zero in a region, the travel ban is fairly close to pointless. The disease is going to start spreading locally anyway. At the same time, the economic effects of a travel ban do affect the daily lives of lots of people. So I think it's reasonable to focus mostly on local measures and slowing the spread.
- Retric 7y ago
  Buying even 1 week can make a huge difference in the amount of preparation before a pandemic hits. Every extra day means more research into efficient and effective treatments, additional supplies, and even better public awareness. The China approach shutting everything done can further slow the spread, but at massively increased costs and long term risks of reinfection.
  - essayist 7y ago
    How did the Chinese approach increase "long term risks of reinfection"?
    - Retric 7y ago
      The risk of reinfection is based in part on the amount of immunity in a population. Without a vaccine the way a population gains immunity is surviving an infection. Unfortunately, even young healthy people are a significant risk of death so there are few good long term options.
  - nikofeyn 7y ago
    > The China approach shutting everything done can further slow the spread, but at massively increased costs and long term risks of reinfection. china did the things they needed to. if they didn't, the costs would be many magnitudes greater. it's clear that china's efficiency and response will not be able to be duplicated in the west.
- michaelt 7y ago
  There are things the state could do short of a travel ban, but beyond asking people to wash their hands. For example, there are lots of public gatherings that can't afford to stop voluntarily - or if they can, can't afford to pay their employees through such a closure. Tell cinemas to stop selling tickets for two months but keep paying their rent and staff and some will go bankrupt. A state that wanted cinemas closed could inject money (or motivation) to make it happen. Likewise with theatres, gyms, casinos, restaurants, music festivals and suchlike. Much less travel if there's nothing to travel to!

kmonsen 7y ago

All true, it is also to buy time to develop medicine. Every month we can push the worst cases into the future the more likely we have an efficient response.

makmanalp 7y ago
Also to spread out over time the amount of people needing medical help. Perhaps a city can't handle 10k new patients in a day but it could handle it over the course of 2 weeks.

asjw 7y ago

This is true in theory, but in Italy the virus arrived from a single German, and has spread through family contacts in a small province near Milan In theory Milan should be the city with more infected people (in proportion) due to the high number of travelers and residents, it is not Infection has spread brevi manu, travel bans have been implemented only starting from last Sunday (8th of March)

munificent 7y ago

Social distancing and sanitary practices are hugely important for this. It's not clear to me that large-scale travel bans are particularly helpful. A travel ban is about containment — keeping the number of cases in a region at absolute zero. Social distancing and other local behavior changes are about lowering the rate of infection and slowing the spread of disease in an area where it exists. The latter is clearly important because it lowers the number of people who simultaneously need medical services in any particular area. A travel ban can help that if successful and it medical resources are easily shunted from a region with zero infections to a region that has them. But once you've got a single patient zero in a region, the travel ban is fairly close to pointless. The disease is going to start spreading locally anyway. At the same time, the economic effects of a travel ban do affect the daily lives of lots of people. So I think it's reasonable to focus mostly on local measures and slowing the spread.

Retric 7y ago
Buying even 1 week can make a huge difference in the amount of preparation before a pandemic hits. Every extra day means more research into efficient and effective treatments, additional supplies, and even better public awareness. The China approach shutting everything done can further slow the spread, but at massively increased costs and long term risks of reinfection.
- essayist 7y ago
  How did the Chinese approach increase "long term risks of reinfection"?
  - Retric 7y ago
    The risk of reinfection is based in part on the amount of immunity in a population. Without a vaccine the way a population gains immunity is surviving an infection. Unfortunately, even young healthy people are a significant risk of death so there are few good long term options.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  > The China approach shutting everything done can further slow the spread, but at massively increased costs and long term risks of reinfection. china did the things they needed to. if they didn't, the costs would be many magnitudes greater. it's clear that china's efficiency and response will not be able to be duplicated in the west.
michaelt 7y ago
There are things the state could do short of a travel ban, but beyond asking people to wash their hands. For example, there are lots of public gatherings that can't afford to stop voluntarily - or if they can, can't afford to pay their employees through such a closure. Tell cinemas to stop selling tickets for two months but keep paying their rent and staff and some will go bankrupt. A state that wanted cinemas closed could inject money (or motivation) to make it happen. Likewise with theatres, gyms, casinos, restaurants, music festivals and suchlike. Much less travel if there's nothing to travel to!