[markdown]

> To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.

Why would you need a study to tell you that if nobody with covid travels to a country, that country remains covid-free? Perhaps you are unaware, but there are countries on this planet that covid hasn't gotten to, and those countries have travel bans.

[Robotbeat]

Yup, this is such a huge pet peeve of mine. Throwing away science in the name of empiricism. What I mean by that is that science is about understanding the world by being able to make certain empirically verified models (mathematical usually), and then using the validated models (such as the germ theory of disease) to predict what the results would be even if we haven’t already measured that exact thing.

Like, because of an experiment done on Wednesday, a piece of meat kept carefully covered with metal is not going to sprout maggots and flies. Because maggots and flies are caused by flies laying eggs. That same piece of knowledge can then be used to predict with decent certainty that you’re still not going to sprout maggots and flies if you cover it with glass instead of metal and do it on a Tuesday.

Germ theory of diseases says if you quarantine travel, you can prevent (or reduce probability of) novel COVID diseases sprouting up in your country. Because the disease is caused by germs carried by infected people during the few weeks they’re contagious. You don’t need an exact study to prove that, although it’d certainly be nice.

Seriously. Empiricism is great. Using a kind of mindless empiricism (“models don’t tell you anything, so unless every situation is measured, you have no idea”) to throw doubt on science is not.

[titzer]

The same applies to "lockdowns don't work." That is obviously complete BS considering there are plenty of examples of lockdowns that did work (e.g. the Aug 2020 lockdown of Victoria, NZ lockdowns, Taiwan, South Korea). But lockdowns can fail easily with noncompliance and inability to effectively quarantine the infected.

It's like saying boats don't work after trying to build one out of grocery bags or untreated plywood. Yeah, crappy boats are going to have leaks. Lockdowns are hard; it's not something we really practice (and worse, there are malicious defectors who want lockdowns to fail). A lot of people, we have learned, are selfish and unwilling or unable to make any sacrifice, even in the face of severe collective consequences, and worse, will sabotage efforts either for political gain or just the sheer pleasure of watching everyone else fail (and die!). I really don't know how we can expect global society to continue given how craven some people are.

[timr]

At this point, that list comprises North Korea, Turkmenistan, and a collection of microscopic islands in the South Pacific.

At least some of those are lying.

[GekkePrutser]

While true, it only provides protection during the duration of the travel ban. And at the same time gives the population zero exposure to the virus and no chance to build up antibodies. So when it does hit, it will be like day 1.

So it's perpetually locking you into travel bans to be effective, which is in itself very harmful to a country in today's world.

It only works if everyone did it and you succeed in killing the virus. Right now that is no longer possible because the animal kingdom will keep it alive.

[markdown]

Well that's obvious. No country plans to remain isolated forever; only until a significant population has been vaccinated. Fiji are opening up to the world on December first now that 90% of the eligible population are vaccinated. New Zealand will remain closed until April because their vaccination was delayed by letting less developed nations get first dibs to the vaccine.

[scotty79]

What about truck drivers?