4 ms·
Banning travel isn't a magic cure-all that guarantees zero cases, it just lowers the initial caseload. That's extremely important because exponential growth is
by knzhou 7y ago
Banning travel isn't a magic cure-all that guarantees zero cases, it just lowers the initial caseload. That's extremely important because exponential growth is extremely slow in the beginning -- it takes as long to go from 1 to 100 as 100 to 10,000. If banning travel reduces 100 starter cases to 1, you double the time you have.
- ska 7y agoProblem being, best information is there is no solid numbers on initial case load in the US, for structural reasons. So while your argument may be correct, it may be too late for this to make a difference (perhaps with equal likelihood, but we don't know.)
- knzhou 7y agoYeah, I'd agree with that. At this point it would help a tiny bit, but only because it slightly decreases links between people, like a social distancing measure does.
- kyleee 7y agoSome commenters on this post are having a hard time acknowledging this aspect. I think every little bit helps, this included
- logicchains 7y agoEvery little bit also has a cost, and it's possible for the cost to outweight the benefits, especially when a decision is made without even considering the cost.
- kyleee 7y agoTrue and fair point with which I agree. I don't know all the considerations that went into this decision but I lean towards supporting such plans that limit unnecessary chances for exposure
- anigbrowl 7y agoIt won't. Screening all arrivals is helpful, but just shutting down travel is going to end up creating a whole new class of problems.
- yellowapple 7y ago> it just lowers the initial caseload If it's done in time to prevent the bulk of that initial caseload, which is almost certainly not the case here.