4 ms·
Yes, there is always a threshold proportional to the inconvenience caused. If you are fine with any inconvenience, then the number one life saving thing is bann
by YetAnotherNick 5y ago
Yes, there is always a threshold proportional to the inconvenience caused. If you are fine with any inconvenience, then the number one life saving thing is banning travelling.
- Retric 5y agoTravel bans are only effective if each area has different rates of infection. Without that bans are simply another form of social distancing, shutting down airports being roughly equivalent to shutting down movie theaters.
- bluGill 5y agoThat isn't quite right. Even with same infection rates travel bans limit the ability of virus mutations to escape. However for a travel ban to work it needs to be applied strongly and for a long time. If you wait until a new variant is found worth watching closely it is too late as it is already across the ban and will spread on both sides. The US needs a travel ban that covers cities (MSA?) to really be good. I have no idea how you would pull that off. (both constitutionally and logistically seem impossible)
- Retric 5y agoLogistics is also an issue at the national level. In practice travel bans aren’t completely effective so novel variants like Omicron will slip through national level travel bans outside of tiny island nations. That isn’t to say slowing things down is useless, nor that quarantines are completely ineffective. It’s just that travel bans tend to have gaps and with a disease it only takes one.