5 ms·

There are legitimate arguments that travel restrictions are counterproductive, so you should argue against those, not against some perceived double standard tha

by knzhou 6y ago

There are legitimate arguments that travel restrictions are counterproductive, so you should argue against those, not against some perceived double standard that doesn't actually exist.

missosoup 6y ago
> travel restrictions are counterproductive That's a very strong and very stupid claim. The fact that WHO made the same claim and the fact that it's disputed by most actual experts around the world, hence ongoing travel restrictions, is a pretty good example of why there can't ever be one arbiter of 'truth' in a free society.
- throwaway77654 6y ago
  Italy was one of the first countries to ban travel from China. South Korea never banned travel.
- La1n 6y ago
  >That's a very strong and very stupid claim. Alright, show us some peer reviewed studies, preferably a meta-analysis, that shows it's stupid. edit:sp
rglullis 6y ago
Do you see the asymetry here? It makes no sense to "argue" for travel restrictions after the genie is out of the bottle. There is no "going back" to a restricted state. If they had started with the strong restrictions and then loosened it up after more information/debate/evidence of safety, then things would be better. But instead they let it go and claimed that "absence of evidence" is the same as "evidence of absence". Completely irresponsible. This is why the WHO's response to it is so infuriating.
- knzhou 6y ago
  There are constant new outbreaks, at the rate of several per year. (If you want to try to keep up, see here: https://promedmail.org/ https://promedmail.org/ ) The vast majority fizzle out, and for the rest, travel restrictions are not often useful or necessary. Recent examples of this include SARS, MERS, swine flu, Zika, several hemorrhagic fevers, and resurgences of diseases like measles and plague. If the WHO responded to all of these with a call for a global travel ban, travel would never be allowed.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    > responded to all of these with a call for a global travel ban No. There is no call for a "global travel ban". Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying? The call is (or better, it was, now is too late) for a restriction of mobility in the place of an outbreak, until they either "fizzle out" or are controlled/understood/resolved by development of treatment and/or vaccine. If an outbreak is likely to "fizzle out", then the restriction will be for a short time and localized to the source and chances of spreading around the globe is reduced. And in case the outbreak is highly contagious like this one, an early and swift restriction would prevent the pandemic in the first place, or at the very least slow down things as much as possible to avoid exponential explosion of cases. THAT IS THE KEY POINT! The WHO should be asking for an early local lockdown so that we wouldn't have to act later in a global one.

by knzhou 6y ago

There are legitimate arguments that travel restrictions are counterproductive, so you should argue against those, not against some perceived double standard that doesn't actually exist.

missosoup 6y ago

> travel restrictions are counterproductive That's a very strong and very stupid claim. The fact that WHO made the same claim and the fact that it's disputed by most actual experts around the world, hence ongoing travel restrictions, is a pretty good example of why there can't ever be one arbiter of 'truth' in a free society.

throwaway77654 6y ago
Italy was one of the first countries to ban travel from China. South Korea never banned travel.
La1n 6y ago
>That's a very strong and very stupid claim. Alright, show us some peer reviewed studies, preferably a meta-analysis, that shows it's stupid. edit:sp

rglullis 6y ago

Do you see the asymetry here? It makes no sense to "argue" for travel restrictions after the genie is out of the bottle. There is no "going back" to a restricted state. If they had started with the strong restrictions and then loosened it up after more information/debate/evidence of safety, then things would be better. But instead they let it go and claimed that "absence of evidence" is the same as "evidence of absence". Completely irresponsible. This is why the WHO's response to it is so infuriating.

knzhou 6y ago
There are constant new outbreaks, at the rate of several per year. (If you want to try to keep up, see here: https://promedmail.org/ https://promedmail.org/ ) The vast majority fizzle out, and for the rest, travel restrictions are not often useful or necessary. Recent examples of this include SARS, MERS, swine flu, Zika, several hemorrhagic fevers, and resurgences of diseases like measles and plague. If the WHO responded to all of these with a call for a global travel ban, travel would never be allowed.
- rglullis 6y ago
  > responded to all of these with a call for a global travel ban No. There is no call for a "global travel ban". Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying? The call is (or better, it was, now is too late) for a restriction of mobility in the place of an outbreak, until they either "fizzle out" or are controlled/understood/resolved by development of treatment and/or vaccine. If an outbreak is likely to "fizzle out", then the restriction will be for a short time and localized to the source and chances of spreading around the globe is reduced. And in case the outbreak is highly contagious like this one, an early and swift restriction would prevent the pandemic in the first place, or at the very least slow down things as much as possible to avoid exponential explosion of cases. THAT IS THE KEY POINT! The WHO should be asking for an early local lockdown so that we wouldn't have to act later in a global one.