4 ms·

It stops new vectors. At this point the world is not trying to stop it spreading anymore, but slowing the rate of spread to not overwhelm healthcare.

ska 7y ago
Is external travel a significant input of new vectors compared to internal travel?
- hcarvalhoalves 7y ago
  It certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives so more easily accepted. It’s not the most effective but other factors have to be considered, including social unrest. It seems a sensible decision IMO
  - ska 7y ago
    That doesn't answer the "significant" part, I think. It's an easy decision for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't mean it has a significant impact.
    - hcarvalhoalves 7y ago
      Depending on how spread goes, it would be easier to ban internal travel after banning international travel than going 0 to 100% ban in one swoop. Don’t underestimate that the damage of social unrest can easily surpass the potential damage of the virus. Remember public policies deal with people with emotions, not robots.
      - ska 7y ago
        This would make more sense if the travel ban was bidirectional. But as you said, a lot depends on how things are progressing, which we don't actually know in the US due to poor monitoring. Which is why I said it's not clear if this is a step that will make any significant impact, although to your point it might work as theater either way.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    >it certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives it has quite a lot of significant costs, in particular on the airline industry and business travel which is smaller in number but pretty important. And given that community spread is going to be a far bigger issue this ban is nonsensical.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      Seems like many companies are already curtailing or banning business travel (especially international), so this might not be too much of a change.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ska 7y ago

Is external travel a significant input of new vectors compared to internal travel?

hcarvalhoalves 7y ago
It certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives so more easily accepted. It’s not the most effective but other factors have to be considered, including social unrest. It seems a sensible decision IMO
- ska 7y ago
  That doesn't answer the "significant" part, I think. It's an easy decision for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't mean it has a significant impact.
  - hcarvalhoalves 7y ago
    Depending on how spread goes, it would be easier to ban internal travel after banning international travel than going 0 to 100% ban in one swoop. Don’t underestimate that the damage of social unrest can easily surpass the potential damage of the virus. Remember public policies deal with people with emotions, not robots.
    - ska 7y ago
      This would make more sense if the travel ban was bidirectional. But as you said, a lot depends on how things are progressing, which we don't actually know in the US due to poor monitoring. Which is why I said it's not clear if this is a step that will make any significant impact, although to your point it might work as theater either way.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >it certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives it has quite a lot of significant costs, in particular on the airline industry and business travel which is smaller in number but pretty important. And given that community spread is going to be a far bigger issue this ban is nonsensical.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Seems like many companies are already curtailing or banning business travel (especially international), so this might not be too much of a change.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]