7 ms·

My 2 cents. All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive. I think we would

by rsj_hn 7y ago

My 2 cents. All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. That doesn't mean it's sufficient, but it's something positive. I think we would all like to see stronger social distancing rules domestically (in the US), but here the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues. It's not easy to pass a law giving the President this type of power and I suspect many in congress already rue passing the laws that gave the president power to suspend international travel. That's one of the prices of living in a federal government with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing right to assembly rather than in a place like China. For example, the CDC has issued social distancing guidelines but they are only guidelines not laws: Santa Clara county has said "no thank you we'll follow our own guidelines" instead, when the CDC asked to ban meetings of more than 250 but Santa Clara banned meetings of more than 1000, and just refused to change their target to the CDC recommendation. So the US simply lacks the tools that would allow the President to go on the air and announce "I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed and Disneyland must close." He can try to exert pressure, or rather have the CDC exert pressure, but these types of declarations are not going to happen in America.

KarlKemp 7y ago
OP's point wasn't "this is only going to have very limited effect", to which your reply "better than nothing" would be appropriate. Their point is that there's absolutely no effect of banning travel between two areas with similar prevalence, based on rather simple logic. Take two bags with mostly white and a similar number of red balls in them. Then, twenty times, grab one hand from each bag and empty it in the other. What's the expected change in number of red balls?
- T-hawk 7y ago
  There is an effect, because traveling itself creates chances for exposure. Anyone traveling on an airplane or train in close quarters, or passing through an airport or transit facility, can pick up or pass on an infection. By your last analogy, the red balls would have paint rubbed off them in the exchanges.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Yes, but then we should be canceling all flights in the US (we should be). Only canceling flights to Europe is a tiny fraction of what's actually necessary here.
    - simonh 7y ago
      It’s a matter of timing. Europe has higher concentrations of the virus than the US. The chances that a plane from Europe contains an infected individual are getting quite high. When the concentrations in the US get higher it will start to make sense to constrain travel more over there. Right now the chances a domestic flight contains an infected individual is quite low, but that won’t always be the case. Bear in mind the virus cannot be stopped, or contained at this point. All we can do is slow it down while also limiting the harm our countermeasures cause.
      - chimprich 7y ago
        It's not clear the US does have fewer proportions of actual cases, just fewer tested ones. Saying the virus cannot be stopped seems defeatist. China seems to have managed it locally, albeit with some very aggressive measures.
        simonh 7y ago
        It’s only a matter of time before it starts over there again, even if through back-propagation from other countries. Everyone’s talking as though China solved the problem. Incredible.
        chimprich 7y ago
        They don't need to solve the problem, just keep the infection rate slow enough to be controlled medically. And then keep everything locked down enough until we can get a vaccine produced. Admittedly, a gargantuan task, and I don't think it's going to happen anywhere else.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  This is false. Any reduction in travel is going to have a positive effect. The best situation is for people to reduce their exposure to other people and to stay at home. If they do need to be exposed to others, the best is for them to be exposed to the same set of people all the time, and not to different sets of people.
  - bratawurst 7y ago
    This seems not fully worked out. Assuming total travel is constrained, selectively limiting travel to particular areas concentrates travel in the remaining areas, which increases the average number of contacts between travelers, which violates your “reducing exposure to other people is best” rule of thumb. By your model, some reductions in travel ought to have a negative effect. Is that a fair corollary?
    - jddj 7y ago
      The pressure / desire to travel is also dropping sharply, though. Limiting all Schengen traffic is an extreme example, but it's not obvious that some level of restriction would necessarily produce a significant bottleneck effect (given that citizens are exempt).
    - dave_b 7y ago
      Why would you assume total travel is constrained? Restricting travel from Europe to US will just eliminate that portion of travel, not concentrate it in the US.
    - simonh 7y ago
      There’s no such thing as a fixed amount of travel, and constraining it on one way concentrates it in another. That makes no sense. Constraining travel will reduce travel, which will reduce interactions between people, which will reduce the spread of the virus. We know this empirically from previous outbreaks and countermeasures.
- Retric 7y ago
  First infections are not uniformly distributed. Second, by the nature of travel people get into close contact with more and more importantly different people than usual. 200 people sitting in an aircraft for 2 hours is inherently more risky than 200 people sitting in a theater for 2 hours as aircraft mix people from wider geographic areas. So, regardless of infection rates, this is beneficial for both Europe and the US at the same time. Multiple cities with hundreds of thousands of people in both the US and Europe are infection free right now. Extending that for even a few weeks is very useful.
- hnick 7y ago
  Apart from the other two replies, the corollary of your point is that travel from a lower incidence area to a higher incidence area actually reduces the risk in the latter. But this is clearly false because population density is another important factor for contact between people.
modriano 7y ago
> ... the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues. I don't know how strong that actually is. Over the past few years, we've seen some Trump work the courts pretty consistently. Even if his administration is doing something explicitly unconstitutional, running something all the way to the Supreme Court can take 6 to 18 months, during which time the unconstitutional order would stand (if not stayed early on).
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Banning public gatherings is really something that should be done on the municipal level, maybe the state level. The federal government should not have the power to disrupt every day life from thousands of miles away.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Exactly. And blanket policies are almost always terrible. Local communities have different constraints and different environments. There's no reason to believe that Fargo, North Dakota should have to respond to this in the same way that New York City does.
  - graeme 7y ago
    A virus spreads just as easily in a crowded room in Fargo as it does in NYC. China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong King all slowed the curve, and have rules governing their whole country.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Singapore and Taiwan are basically cities, very dense. China is a Communist country with all kinds of totalitarian policies. South Korean cases are still climbing at more than 100 a day. You can't tell precisely what the growth curve has been because there's going to be a higher bias when they ramp up testing in many countries. At any rate, no, a town that has 50 people per square mile should not be forced to respond in the same way as some city with 50,000 people per square mile. In the meantime, the people of Fargo have all the relevant information and their local officials can make calls as needed to suit their demands.
      - magicroot75 7y ago
        The rule "no gatherings over 250 people" isn't a blanket rule. It will impact cities more than rural places. The flexibility is already built into the schema.
- 7y ago
FireBeyond 7y ago
> I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed The NBA just suspended their season "until further notice".
- dave_b 7y ago
  Right and it wasn't the president's decision. Not sure what your point is.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    "An observation of something that was presently occurring that had some relevance to the discussion".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- monksy 7y ago
  During the Blackhawks game, the announces claim that the official NHL stance is unclear and they will be making an announcement tomorrow. They had 21k in attendance at the game tonight.
AlexCoventry 7y ago
> even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications Isn't there an obvious compelling state interest?
- koenigdavidmj 7y ago
  The hurdle would then be that it’s the feds’ responsibility to prove that this is the smallest infringement that would accomplish the government’s intention.
- snickerbockers 7y ago
  There's always a "compelling state interest" when it comes to violating the bill of rights.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    Counter-example: "You may not print that--the President doesn't like dad jokes."
- will4274 7y ago
  Strict scrutiny requires not only a compelling state interest but that the restriction be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means that satisfies the purpose. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny .
logicchains 7y ago
>All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. All travel is essential to somebody. All restrictions on movement also have a cost, and any analysis that only looks at the benefits of something without looking at the costs cannot hope to be correct.
- logicchains 7y ago
  I'm curious to the downvoters, do you generally believe it's a good idea to make public policy decisions without considering the downsides? It's like people who want to ban encryption because it could marginally increase the number of terrorists caught.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    Of course we should consider the downsides when we make public policy decisions. In fact, if we weren't, we wouldn't be making decisions at all but merely reacting. But we can consider the downsides and decide that we want to restrict travel. I don't actually need to go visit my rellies. I want to, but I don't have to. On the other hand, if I go on a voluntary trip, I probably have to return home because I can't really afford a hotel indefinitely into the future. So it's obvious to me that there is some distinction between necessary and nice to have. I genuinely have been underwhelmed by the reaction to this disease through much of the world. It is necessary in a constitutional democracy to react sometimes to maintain the trust of the voters - or they might say "A democracy is fine when things are going well, but when the chips are down we need a strong leader who can make the decisions we need". Saying "those entertainment business can't open during this outbreak", "keep your tables at least a metre apart" and "don't travel" are reasonable reactions in this circumstance. And we need democratic leaders so that they can know when it's gone on for too long and they have to accept we can't stop it - something a "strong leader" can't tell.
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  > All travel is essential to somebody I travelled to starbucks today. I’d hardly consider that essential.
alexilliamson 7y ago
Something I've never been clear on... what can and can't be banned through executive order?
- awayfromhomenow 7y ago
  executive orders are SUPPOSED to only be directives to the Executive Branch on how to conduct operations. Unfortunately this power has been abused by past Presidents. Executive Orders have no force of law.

by rsj_hn 7y ago

KarlKemp 7y ago

OP's point wasn't "this is only going to have very limited effect", to which your reply "better than nothing" would be appropriate. Their point is that there's absolutely no effect of banning travel between two areas with similar prevalence, based on rather simple logic. Take two bags with mostly white and a similar number of red balls in them. Then, twenty times, grab one hand from each bag and empty it in the other. What's the expected change in number of red balls?

T-hawk 7y ago
There is an effect, because traveling itself creates chances for exposure. Anyone traveling on an airplane or train in close quarters, or passing through an airport or transit facility, can pick up or pass on an infection. By your last analogy, the red balls would have paint rubbed off them in the exchanges.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Yes, but then we should be canceling all flights in the US (we should be). Only canceling flights to Europe is a tiny fraction of what's actually necessary here.
  - simonh 7y ago
    It’s a matter of timing. Europe has higher concentrations of the virus than the US. The chances that a plane from Europe contains an infected individual are getting quite high. When the concentrations in the US get higher it will start to make sense to constrain travel more over there. Right now the chances a domestic flight contains an infected individual is quite low, but that won’t always be the case. Bear in mind the virus cannot be stopped, or contained at this point. All we can do is slow it down while also limiting the harm our countermeasures cause.
    - chimprich 7y ago
      It's not clear the US does have fewer proportions of actual cases, just fewer tested ones. Saying the virus cannot be stopped seems defeatist. China seems to have managed it locally, albeit with some very aggressive measures.
      - simonh 7y ago
        It’s only a matter of time before it starts over there again, even if through back-propagation from other countries. Everyone’s talking as though China solved the problem. Incredible.
        chimprich 7y ago
        They don't need to solve the problem, just keep the infection rate slow enough to be controlled medically. And then keep everything locked down enough until we can get a vaccine produced. Admittedly, a gargantuan task, and I don't think it's going to happen anywhere else.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rsj_hn 7y ago
This is false. Any reduction in travel is going to have a positive effect. The best situation is for people to reduce their exposure to other people and to stay at home. If they do need to be exposed to others, the best is for them to be exposed to the same set of people all the time, and not to different sets of people.
- bratawurst 7y ago
  This seems not fully worked out. Assuming total travel is constrained, selectively limiting travel to particular areas concentrates travel in the remaining areas, which increases the average number of contacts between travelers, which violates your “reducing exposure to other people is best” rule of thumb. By your model, some reductions in travel ought to have a negative effect. Is that a fair corollary?
  - jddj 7y ago
    The pressure / desire to travel is also dropping sharply, though. Limiting all Schengen traffic is an extreme example, but it's not obvious that some level of restriction would necessarily produce a significant bottleneck effect (given that citizens are exempt).
  - dave_b 7y ago
    Why would you assume total travel is constrained? Restricting travel from Europe to US will just eliminate that portion of travel, not concentrate it in the US.
  - simonh 7y ago
    There’s no such thing as a fixed amount of travel, and constraining it on one way concentrates it in another. That makes no sense. Constraining travel will reduce travel, which will reduce interactions between people, which will reduce the spread of the virus. We know this empirically from previous outbreaks and countermeasures.
Retric 7y ago
First infections are not uniformly distributed. Second, by the nature of travel people get into close contact with more and more importantly different people than usual. 200 people sitting in an aircraft for 2 hours is inherently more risky than 200 people sitting in a theater for 2 hours as aircraft mix people from wider geographic areas. So, regardless of infection rates, this is beneficial for both Europe and the US at the same time. Multiple cities with hundreds of thousands of people in both the US and Europe are infection free right now. Extending that for even a few weeks is very useful.
hnick 7y ago
Apart from the other two replies, the corollary of your point is that travel from a lower incidence area to a higher incidence area actually reduces the risk in the latter. But this is clearly false because population density is another important factor for contact between people.

modriano 7y ago

> ... the US has a problem as it granted the President broad discretionary powers to suspend international travel but not domestic gatherings, which can't be banned via executive order and even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications as well as federalism issues. I don't know how strong that actually is. Over the past few years, we've seen some Trump work the courts pretty consistently. Even if his administration is doing something explicitly unconstitutional, running something all the way to the Supreme Court can take 6 to 18 months, during which time the unconstitutional order would stand (if not stayed early on).

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

Banning public gatherings is really something that should be done on the municipal level, maybe the state level. The federal government should not have the power to disrupt every day life from thousands of miles away.

chrisco255 7y ago
Exactly. And blanket policies are almost always terrible. Local communities have different constraints and different environments. There's no reason to believe that Fargo, North Dakota should have to respond to this in the same way that New York City does.
- graeme 7y ago
  A virus spreads just as easily in a crowded room in Fargo as it does in NYC. China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong King all slowed the curve, and have rules governing their whole country.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Singapore and Taiwan are basically cities, very dense. China is a Communist country with all kinds of totalitarian policies. South Korean cases are still climbing at more than 100 a day. You can't tell precisely what the growth curve has been because there's going to be a higher bias when they ramp up testing in many countries. At any rate, no, a town that has 50 people per square mile should not be forced to respond in the same way as some city with 50,000 people per square mile. In the meantime, the people of Fargo have all the relevant information and their local officials can make calls as needed to suit their demands.
    - magicroot75 7y ago
      The rule "no gatherings over 250 people" isn't a blanket rule. It will impact cities more than rural places. The flexibility is already built into the schema.
7y ago

FireBeyond 7y ago

> I'm declaring that the MLB season needs to be delayed The NBA just suspended their season "until further notice".

dave_b 7y ago
Right and it wasn't the president's decision. Not sure what your point is.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  "An observation of something that was presently occurring that had some relevance to the discussion".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
monksy 7y ago
During the Blackhawks game, the announces claim that the official NHL stance is unclear and they will be making an announcement tomorrow. They had 21k in attendance at the game tonight.

AlexCoventry 7y ago

> even if congress were to pass a law banning such gatherings, there would be first amendment implications Isn't there an obvious compelling state interest?

koenigdavidmj 7y ago
The hurdle would then be that it’s the feds’ responsibility to prove that this is the smallest infringement that would accomplish the government’s intention.
snickerbockers 7y ago
There's always a "compelling state interest" when it comes to violating the bill of rights.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Counter-example: "You may not print that--the President doesn't like dad jokes."
will4274 7y ago
Strict scrutiny requires not only a compelling state interest but that the restriction be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means that satisfies the purpose. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny .

logicchains 7y ago

>All reductions in (non-essential) travel are good in a pandemic. All travel is essential to somebody. All restrictions on movement also have a cost, and any analysis that only looks at the benefits of something without looking at the costs cannot hope to be correct.

logicchains 7y ago
I'm curious to the downvoters, do you generally believe it's a good idea to make public policy decisions without considering the downsides? It's like people who want to ban encryption because it could marginally increase the number of terrorists caught.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  Of course we should consider the downsides when we make public policy decisions. In fact, if we weren't, we wouldn't be making decisions at all but merely reacting. But we can consider the downsides and decide that we want to restrict travel. I don't actually need to go visit my rellies. I want to, but I don't have to. On the other hand, if I go on a voluntary trip, I probably have to return home because I can't really afford a hotel indefinitely into the future. So it's obvious to me that there is some distinction between necessary and nice to have. I genuinely have been underwhelmed by the reaction to this disease through much of the world. It is necessary in a constitutional democracy to react sometimes to maintain the trust of the voters - or they might say "A democracy is fine when things are going well, but when the chips are down we need a strong leader who can make the decisions we need". Saying "those entertainment business can't open during this outbreak", "keep your tables at least a metre apart" and "don't travel" are reasonable reactions in this circumstance. And we need democratic leaders so that they can know when it's gone on for too long and they have to accept we can't stop it - something a "strong leader" can't tell.
alasdair_ 7y ago
> All travel is essential to somebody I travelled to starbucks today. I’d hardly consider that essential.

alexilliamson 7y ago

Something I've never been clear on... what can and can't be banned through executive order?

awayfromhomenow 7y ago
executive orders are SUPPOSED to only be directives to the Executive Branch on how to conduct operations. Unfortunately this power has been abused by past Presidents. Executive Orders have no force of law.