EU condemns US travel ban

[Serial Chiller 8,044]

1 hour ago, Stanley Digaga said:

Yes there are but I don't think there is a more effective one : if you take it to the extreme and lock everyone in their home the virus won't spread.

Of course it's not a pleasing solution but with this kind of global threat you have to take drastic solutions.

I do agree with you that an exception must be made for people who are abroad their country and want to go back home.

It's not gonna work in the US. It worked in China because they did rigorous testing and contained the virus to specific hotspots using draconian measures - city wide lockdown and force quarantine.

The US has no idea of the true extent of the outbreak, because, guess what, not that many people have been tested. 

Also, Americans won't tolerate being force-quarantined like Chinese. The culture is totally different. They won't stay home because authority refuses to take extreme measures, because even if they do, people won't comply. That's American. 

And to be honest, what Trump is doing is literally not helping with anything. The US is a huge geographical landmass, and the virus has already been slipping in for months. 
 

[President Biden 5,898]

 We love you EU

 

 

I can’t believe he is taking advantage of this situation to instate travel bans. Next will be the Middle East. He’s going to use this “crisis” to become a literal dictator.

[Regina George 59,387]

1 minute ago, LateToCult said:

You’re literally changing the subject. I’m not saying he’s handled the situation well. I’m saying that this one decision of stopping travel to and from Europe is actually reasonable.  

I’m honestly too tired to argue about this. I didn’t change the subject. I only asked you because I had points to prove. Travel ban is not a good decision. Like I said, it may seem like a good decision but it’s really not. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

It’s just not a very good year for the EU is it? 

[LateToCult 41,843]

Just now, ReginaGeorge said:

I’m honestly too tired to argue about this. I didn’t change the subject. I only asked you because I had points to prove. Travel ban is not a good decision. Like I said, it may seem like a good decision but it’s really not. 

Y’all are so thick sometimes. The US wants to buy time so our hospitals don’t reach the point where they can’t treat patients who aren’t sick with the virus. We know it’s widespread. Why add even more spread coming from European travelers when we can do something about it?

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

I have highlighted the parts discussing the effectiveness of international travel restrictions:

FOR INFLUENZA:

Introduction: 

Travel restrictions were included in the WHO interim protocol: rapid operations to contain the initial emergence of pandemic influenza that was published in 2007 by the World Health Organization (WHO).1 However, as they would hamper global travel and trade, such restrictions are not recommended by WHO once the global spread of pandemic influenza is established.2,3 In 2009, some countries applied travel restrictions as one of several strategies to prevent the introduction of the influenza virus A(H1N1)pdm09 into their territories but the effectiveness of this approach has subsequently been questioned

Results: 

International travel restrictions  appeared to have limited effectiveness.

Low-level restrictions – i.e. restrictions of less than 70% – were the least effective in containing the spread of epidemics between countries. It was found that a 40% restriction of air travel would only delay the spread of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 from Mexico to other countries by less than 3 days.4 In a high transmissibility scenario, a 20% or even a 50% reduction in the volume of travellers would not have any significant impact on the global spread of influenza A(H5N1). In a meta-population model of pandemic influenza, based on the 1968–1969 influenza A(H3N2) pandemic virus it was predicted delays in the epidemic peak of 9 and 14 days with 50% and 90% restriction of air travel, respectively.

Discussion: 

The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9 (Box 2). The effect size varied according to the extent and timeliness of the restrictions, the size of the epidemic, strain transmissibility, the heterogeneity of the travel patterns, the geographical source and the urban density of international travel hubs. Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/

IN CONCLUSION: Travel bans have a very limited effectiveness, especially when the virus is already in most states in the US. 

 

 

 

 

[gaganime 18]

2 minutes ago, LateToCult said:

Y’all are so thick sometimes. The US wants to buy time so our hospitals don’t reach the point where they can’t treat patients who aren’t sick with the virus. We know it’s widespread. Why add even more spread coming from European travelers when we can do something about it?

Don't even bother with them.

These people will hate anything that has to do with Trump. Robots.

[gaganime 18]

4 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I have highlighted the parts discussing the effectiveness of international travel restrictions:

FOR INFLUENZA:

Introduction: 

Travel restrictions were included in the WHO interim protocol: rapid operations to contain the initial emergence of pandemic influenza that was published in 2007 by the World Health Organization (WHO).1 However, as they would hamper global travel and trade, such restrictions are not recommended by WHO once the global spread of pandemic influenza is established.2,3 In 2009, some countries applied travel restrictions as one of several strategies to prevent the introduction of the influenza virus A(H1N1)pdm09 into their territories but the effectiveness of this approach has subsequently been questioned

Results: 

International travel restrictions  appeared to have limited effectiveness.

Low-level restrictions – i.e. restrictions of less than 70% – were the least effective in containing the spread of epidemics between countries. It was found that a 40% restriction of air travel would only delay the spread of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 from Mexico to other countries by less than 3 days.4 In a high transmissibility scenario, a 20% or even a 50% reduction in the volume of travellers would not have any significant impact on the global spread of influenza A(H5N1). In a meta-population model of pandemic influenza, based on the 1968–1969 influenza A(H3N2) pandemic virus it was predicted delays in the epidemic peak of 9 and 14 days with 50% and 90% restriction of air travel, respectively.

Discussion: 

The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9 (Box 2). The effect size varied according to the extent and timeliness of the restrictions, the size of the epidemic, strain transmissibility, the heterogeneity of the travel patterns, the geographical source and the urban density of international travel hubs. Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/

IN CONCLUSION: Travel bans have a very limited effectiveness, especially when the virus is already in most states in the US. 

 

 

 

 

Says WHO, the organization that refused to call this a pandemic months prior?

They can save it. Their credibility has taken a huge hit from all of this.

Any travel, international, national, or local restrictions can and will slow down the virus.

Honestly if WHO declared this as a pandemic months back, maybe international travel bans would've actually been more effective.

 

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

Just now, gaganime said:

Says WHO, the organization that refused to call this a pandemic months prior?

They can save it. Their credibility has taken a huge hit from all of this.

Any travel, international, national, or local restrictions can and will slow down the virus.

Honestly if WHO declared this as a pandemic months back, hey maybe international travel bans would've actually been more effective.

 

An outbreak has to meet certain criteria to be classified as a pandemic. 

I can't at the level of ignorance of people not accepting scientific studies. 

Anyway, this ban will do nearly NOTHING. What the US should be doing is making more test kits and we should be starting to quarantine areas of the country. 

[VertigoRogue 267]

4 minutes ago, gaganime said:

Don't even bother with them.

These people will hate anything that has to do with Trump. Robots.

Wow okay could you please read the following reply by Morphine Prince.

 

every time we serve you the facts that this this is ineffective, stupid and causes widespread panic you attack us without showing any receipts. Please give me sources hunty that will prove this is good or that trump thinks about his country and the people. Show me the receipts hunty i am so excited to see them

[Serial Chiller 8,044]

21 minutes ago, LateToCult said:

It literally will. The goal isn’t to stop the spread it’s to slow it down. 

If you’re not seeing the biggest problem with the virus in the US right now is not the virus coming in it’s that it’s already there and they DO NOT KNOW WHERE IT IS. 

The priority is to get the test kits out to people who have recent travel history/exposure with cases, for free, and not charging thousands of dollars for a test and turning down everyone who’s not literally dying. 

[VertigoRogue 267]

4 minutes ago, gaganime said:

Says WHO, the organization that refused to call this a pandemic months prior?

They can save it. Their credibility has taken a huge hit from all of this.

Any travel, international, national, or local restrictions can and will slow down the virus.

Honestly if WHO declared this as a pandemic months back, maybe international travel bans would've actually been more effective.

 

The word Pandemic is extremely dangerous to use, it causes chaos and keeps governments from preparing adequately for the impact. You should thank them for not using that word earlier

[gaganime 18]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

An outbreak has to meet certain criteria to be classified as a pandemic. 

I can't at the level of ignorance of people not accepting scientific studies. 

Anyway, this ban will do nearly NOTHING. What the US should be doing is making more test kits and we should be starting to quarantine areas of the country. 

Of course it is a completely different criteria from an outbreak to a pandemic. My main point was that they should've stressed the virility of this virus, instead of sweeping it under the rug and telling everyone that things were 'under control'.

People saw this happening a mile away, and now people who listened to WHO are panicking.

I'll agree on one thing though. It's important to produce test kits and focus more nationally rather than internationally, now that the virus has a foothold in the area. 

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

Found an article talking about why politicians do this:

Modeling studies show that travel restrictions might slow, but cannot prevent, an epidemic.

 However, policymakers may well decide that slowing it is better than not slowing it. (Even the authors of one such study demonstrating that the Hubei quarantine is unlikely to be effective are unwilling to give up on travel restrictions entirely. They conclude by advising that to “possibly succeed, substantial, even draconian measures that limit population mobility should be seriously and immediately considered.”)

Another reason policymakers gravitate towards travel restrictions is the lack of politically viable alternatives. In the face of a pandemic threat, governments are under substantial pressure. They must be seen to take proactive, robust steps to protect their citizens or else they pay a price. From a public-health standpoint, encouraging people to wash their hands and cough into their elbows is good policy. But politically, it’s insufficient to instill public confidence in health authorities; more dramatic action is needed. This kind of security theater can be dangerous—but the absence of security theater can be dangerous too. Apparent inaction (or insufficient action) erodes trust in public health authorities, which undermines response efforts. Pragmatically, policymakers may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/23/virus-travel-bans-are-inevitable-but-ineffective/

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

Let's all relax and take a sigh with Trump and say "ok".