371–380 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure the CDC is the most credible source at this point
>most credible source Which would you say is the most credible source then?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you've never been outside of a city in Europe and never been to a city in the US? Urban population in the EU in 2018 is 76% while 82% for the same year in the US according to The World Bank.
Your stat does nothing to counter the OPs argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Travel bans alone will not flatten out peak infections that are going to overload our existing healthcare infrastructure that already run at near maximum capacity during regular, non-epidemic periods. There is a lot more leadership across government (federal, state, local), private industry, and independent individuals could be doing to proactively reduce transference and even stomp out significant portions of infect…
When you say "take a well calculated hit" do you mean "let a ton of people die?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outbound flights are going to get a hell of a lot more expensive if all the planes have to return to the US empty.
Nah, all planes are just going to be routed through a non-European destination en route back. The Azores are about to be very popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is external travel a significant input of new vectors compared to internal travel?
It certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives so more easily accepted. It’s not the most effective but other factors have to be considered, including social unrest. It seems a sensible decision IMO
it has quite a lot of significant costs, in particular on the airline industry and business travel which is smaller in number but pretty important. And given that community spread is going to be a far bigger issue this ban is nonsensical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you've never been outside of a city in Europe and never been to a city in the US? Urban population in the EU in 2018 is 76% while 82% for the same year in the US according to The World Bank.
> and never been to a city in the US? Have you? Most of the US urban population in the US fits the points of the OP: - Very few people use public transportation regularly (they use cars, in the cities, yes) - Most people have private back yards (the infamous "American suburbs", where 50% of Americans live, count towards the urban population you mention) - Many more meals are take-out or drive-thru - More Americans us…
Regardless of the ability of people to travel to the UK or Canada and get here (which people have done for a long time with other nations we don't take kindly to) it's absolutely going to reduce the number of people who will travel across the pond. Which is the goal, reduce infection rates. My concern is how economies are going to respond to the US being cut off from Continental ports for a month, which as far as I c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. I will update my numbers. If you have other sources to show that any of my other numbers are off, I am open to adjusting them. I have a feeling the totals at the end will still be alarming.
But they don't literally expect 20-60% - that's if no mitigation happens.
Important updates: a) This does not apply to US citizens or their family members[1]. b) This does not apply to cargo[2]. It appears that the President misspoke regarding point 2. [1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/11/homeland-security-acting... . [2] https://twitter.com/AnaSwanson/status/1237921160500830208
Misspoke? It was a prepared statement read off a teleprompter. Please don't excuse it like a slip of the tongue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false. Any reduction in travel is going to have a positive effect. The best situation is for people to reduce their exposure to other people and to stay at home. If they do need to be exposed to others, the best is for them to be exposed to the same set of people all the time, and not to different sets of people.
This seems not fully worked out. Assuming total travel is constrained, selectively limiting travel to particular areas concentrates travel in the remaining areas, which increases the average number of contacts between travelers, which violates your “reducing exposure to other people is best” rule of thumb. By your model, some reductions in travel ought to have a negative effect. Is that a fair corollary?
Limiting all Schengen traffic is an extreme example, but it's not obvious that some level of restriction would necessarily produce a significant bottleneck effect (given that citizens are exempt).