^^

Virus Travel Bans Are Inevitable But Ineffective

Experts can't stop restrictions, but they can mitigate them.

BY MARA PILLINGER | FEBRUARY 23, 2020, 9:00 AM

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus epidemic “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC), more than 70 countries responded by imposing travel restrictions against China. Global health experts overwhelmingly decry travel and trade restrictions as bad policy and irresponsible violations of international law. Yet governments continue to implement them, even though scientific evidence—and economic self-interest—advises otherwise. If experts can’t reliably prevent such restrictions, they must take steps to mitigating their most harmful effects.

Travel and trade restrictions take various forms. With this coronavirus, governments are warning citizens not travel to China, and instructing those already there to leave; closing borders and banning flights; barring visitors who have recently been to China from entering the country; and implementing mandatory quarantines for returning residents. In past epidemics, governments have also imposed trade restrictions, such as bans on importing pork during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. Such restrictions are ineffective and economically costly for all sides. Initial estimates are that U.S. travel restrictions against China will cost the U.S. economy $10.3 billion. They also have more insidious downsides: incentivizing countries to conceal outbreaks, hindering response efforts, infringing on human rights, and fueling the spread of xenophobia.

In calmer times, governments recognize that trade and travel restrictions are highly problematic. In 2005, after the SARS epidemic, WHO member states adopted a revised International Health Regulations (IHR), the international legal framework that governs how countries prepare for and respond to outbreaks. A core purpose of the new framework is to “avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade” by empowering WHO to make recommendations about whether restrictions are necessary. Countries committed not to impose “more restrictive” measures than WHO recommends (without providing scientific justification).

Since then, WHO has declared six PHEICs, each time advising that trade and travel restrictions were unwarranted. Yet in half those cases—H1N1 in 2009, Ebola in 2014, and the ongoing coronavirus outbreak—countries ignored WHO’s recommendations and imposed large-scale restrictions anyway. (There were fewer restrictions imposed in response to 2019 Ebola epidemic, which has remained largely confined to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and none for Zika, which is transmitted by mosquitoes, or polio, which a vaccine can prevent.)

Unfortunately, governments’ behavior demonstrates that PHEIC declarations are more likely to provoke travel restrictions than to prevent them. (The restraint of the administration of then U.S. President Barack Obama during the 2014 Ebola epidemic stands out as a rare exception.) A principle of good leadership and public health practice is to meet people where they are. In this spirit, we need to recognize why policymakers keep opting for travel restrictions and why their reasoning might be difficult to overcome.

For one thing, the combination of common sense and fear generates strong public support for travel restrictions. Coronavirus travels in people, so in theory, anything that reduces the movement of people should help reduce the spread of the virus. In practice, travel restrictions prove ineffective because they are imposed too late or because people circumvent them. Perversely, the timing problem may simply drive policymakers to impose restrictions more quickly. And people frequently evade general immigration restrictions too, yet this does not persuade governments to dispense with visas or border checks.

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.

Efforts to prevent trade and travel restrictions often refer to governments’ obligation to comply with the IHR, a binding international treaty. But this argument misses key dynamics that strain the reach of the IHR. The first is the role of the private sector. During this coronavirus epidemic, the private sector has effectively imposed its own set of trade and travel restrictions. Numerous airlines have halted flights to China due to lack of demand or because pilots refuse to fly. Retailers such as Starbucks and Apple have closed their stores, while multinational firms have suspended employee travel. The repercussions of these measures will be every bit as severe—if not more so—as restrictions imposed by governments. Yet the private sector is not bound by the IHR. And as WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus acknowledged, “it will be very difficult” for WHO to convince companies to act against their perceived business interests.

Second, the IHR focus on international travel and travel restrictions. But during this coronavirus epidemic, the most significant travel bans have been imposed within China, by the Chinese government. China has quarantined over 50 million people, suspended interprovincial buses, closed tourist destinations, and ordered travel agencies to halt tours abroad. Macau’s casinos are dark. Hong Kong has closed most border crossings and is quarantining visitors from the mainland. The fact that China is implementing travel restrictions on its own citizens—and WHO is not challenging those restrictions—makes it difficult to convince policymakers in other countries not follow suit.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/23/vi ... effective/

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:54 pm wow,
how many others lie, conceal the truth..
or the goverment just flat out denies everything???

COVID-19 infected man conceals truth, national total hits 40

THAILAND: An elderly man has put 30 staff of B.Care Medical Center in Bangkok’s Sai Mai district at risk of contracting the novel coronavirus after denying he had travelled overseas.

He later admitted he had travelled to Japan and tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.

The management of the hospital stated today (Feb 26) that the man arrived at the facility on Sunday (Feb 23) with a cough and a fever. When questioned, he said he had not travelled abroad. He was initially diagnosed with pneumonia and was admitted.

The following morning a lung expert examined him and asked if he had taken an overseas trip. He again denied leaving the country.

Later in the morning, he admitted to travelling abroad. He was isolated and immediately given a COVID-19 test. The result showed that evening that he had contracted the disease.

https://www.thephuketnews.com/covid-19- ... 75ck7AWp20

Jeez, how many other people did he come into contact with in the 3 day gap before he admitted himself, and I didn't get the impression those thermal imaging scanners were even being actively manned or even watched when I went through the airport the other week.

It has been ORDERED to the medical community that there will be no cases of Covid19 reported in Cambodia! HE has ORDERED that they diagnose and report H1N1, or Swine flu, or anything else, but that there will be ZERO cases of Covid19 infections reported in Cambodia.

Right now Covid19 is EPIDEMIC in Cambodia. I know, because my wife is infected and the large school where she works is a Covid19 factory!

With morons running the show it is GUARANTEED that this will be a Pandemic across the entire world!

Big'n wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:05 pm It has been ORDERED to the medical community that there will be no cases of Covid19 reported in Cambodia! HE has ORDERED that they diagnose and report H1N1, or Swine flu, or anything else, but that there will be ZERO cases of Covid19 infections reported in Cambodia.

Right now Covid19 is EPIDEMIC in Cambodia. I know, because my wife is infected and the large school where she works is a Covid19 factory!

With morons running the show it is GUARANTEED that this will be a Pandemic across the entire world!

Perhaps you could call WHO please, BigN.
This is very important information.
Please hurry - surely you see the urgency.
And CNN and Interpol.
Quick!