Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could have stopped it completely with total travel bans but the WHO advised against it because it could be damaging to the world economy. Why is the WHO concerned about the economy? Well I have no idea. And is this virus going pandemic going to be more or less economically painful than the travel bans might have been? My guess would be we will feel significantly more pain from a pandemic.
> "Why is the WHO concerned about the economy?" Don't you see that this is always a tradeoff? If the economy tanks, people lose their jobs, which could result in a lot more social unrest than if a virus spreads around the world. I think it's tough to contain a virus like that with such a long incubation time. But the early efforts might have slowed the virus down somewhat at first, giving us more time to develop vacc…
There's not actually any wise balance and other mumbo-jumbo fart-heads in the WTO like to spew out, if under no circumstance do you ban travelling or take any meaningful action.
It's just words for the idiots to feel secure while all it really matters is economic growth.
I'd love to be proven otherwise, but then, under what circumstances would WTO advice a full ban on travel to/from China?
Perhaps never?
There you have it.
Just words after the fact, rationalizing inaction to two year olds -- "there's nothing to worry about", "the chinese are taking outstanding measures", "maybe there's something to worry about, but mah economy", "perhaps its too late to contain this"