3 ms·
Of course the WHO and South African government oppose travel bans. That doesn't mean imposing those bans isn't in other countries' best interest. Taking a risk-
by tfehring 5y ago
Of course the WHO and South African government oppose travel bans. That doesn't mean imposing those bans isn't in other countries' best interest. Taking a risk-averse approach in a highly risky and uncertain situation isn't inconsistent with the WHO's recommendation to take a "risk-based and scientific approach."
I'm not saying that restricting travel is necessarily the right approach (though it probably is), but nothing in your comment really strikes me as compelling evidence that it's the wrong approach.
- ogogmad 5y agoI didn't say it was the wrong approach. I'm actually exasperated by what the WHO and South Africa are saying. They're saying we're not supposed to exercise any precaution until they've waited two days to decide whether to impose a lockdown against a variant which has (with current knowledge) a high chance of evading previously acquired immunity. The variant is highly transmissible, and infections can grow rapidly in that period. This might lead to a reckoning for the WHO. > Taking a risk-averse approach in a highly risky and uncertain situation isn't inconsistent with the WHO's recommendation to take a "risk-based and scientific approach." South Africa interpreted the WHO's statements as being against imposing travel bans. The first sentence of your comment implies you agree that that's what they meant. It's either that, or the WHO's statements are meaningless verbiage. This looks like the events of early 2020 repeating.