Is the travel ban on South Africa a good idea?

[Tomconroy]

As usual, I've been reading a bit. Some people like Dr. Gottlieb think the travel ban is a bad idea. The argument seems to be that
1. They don't seem to work. Testing and quarantines might do as well.
2. The bans are punishing to tourist dependent countries.
3. When a new variant is discovered in a third world country, that country will hide the fact rather than engage in the admirable openess about the virus that South Africa has displayed. No country will want to pay the price that South Africa is about to pay.
The WHO is against it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/26/south-africa-slams-unjustified-travel-bans-omicron-coronavirus-variant

Now you can hit me with the poof button.

[marble falls]

1. Quarrantines are travel bans. Better a temporary ban than permenant mass graves.

[Shermann]

2. Temporary travel bans are part of the new reality

You put the brakes on when there is sufficient evidence of an oncoming threat. The sooner the better.

Doing the opposite of that in the name of fairness is counter-productive.

[stopdiggin]

18. on the other hand, this one seems to be

going into effect without a lot of evidence about anything (other than the fact that there is a new variant at play). If that is 'sufficient evidence' in and of itself - then so be it. But ...

[Ms. Toad]

24. Lemme see . . .

61 travelers from South Africa on Friday out of 600 arriving in a single country tested positive (>10%), at least 31 of who have Omicron..

Whether those travelers have Omicron or not, they should not have been traveling. Seems like a fair amount of evidence to me that (at a minimum), testing prior to boarding is not adequate.

That's travel to a single country.

[stopdiggin]

32. I knew this was going to get thrown out

there. And if the 10% positive is a true number for the country of S.Africa (or any population) then that certainly would qualify. But as you point out what this really points to is an utterly inadequate effort in testing and documentation - rather than anything that is unique to Omicron. (although the absence of solid data does not mean that the new variant is not quantifiable more or less threatening than Delta - just that we don't know yet) And - I'd be willing to bet at this point that the slipshod and inadequate testing that is illustrated in this incident - is fairly common to air travel in many parts of the globe (including the U.S.?), and is hardly something unique to this one (S.Africa) country.

We'll see how this plays out .. but (IMO, as of this moment), I see this as a political decision as much or more than a public health measure - and I'm not at all sure that a planeload of people from India, Brazil, or eastern Europe deplaning in JFK, doesn't present the same risk factor as one from the countries that we just blocked.

Stay tuned - as more information comes in, I might have an entirely different take on this come next week, or the month following.

[Ms. Toad]

35. 10% of any flight is a problem.

Whether it is Delta or Omicron. The US requires testing prior to boarding in a country other than the US. It ought to be a requirement for any flight (with lots of people in a closed space).

Each of those planes from India, Brazil, and eastern Europe require testing prior to boarding.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html

And I don't have a problem with barring travel completely from a country with a troublesome new variant (or imposing a 2-week quarantine once they arrive). We were far to slow to react twice now. Let's not repeat it agains. Next week and next month are way too long to wait to act.

[stopdiggin]

36. but the 'troublesome new variant' is not confined

to S.Africa - as is already amply illustrated. So - bar all flights?

[Ms. Toad]

37. The majority of cases are in South Africa and surrounding countries.

So yes, bar all flights, ramp up testing everywhere else, and contact trace like crazy for anyone coming from South Africa since the virus was identified.

If we move quickat this stage, we have a chance to do with this variant what we were unable to do with COVID, more generally, and the other earlier variants: Contain it.

The problem earlier was that no one took it seriously and it was too far spread to contain. This is not - yet - for a few days. If we wait, it will be.

[stopdiggin]

38. well, I sincerely hope what you envision

comes to pass - and we nip this little bugger firmly in the bud.

[Pachamama]

3. I think they are good idea - along with more being done

Nobody should be allowed to travel on an airplane unless fully vaccinated and tested.

Mandatory quarantine for at least 72 hours and further testing at destination.

Contact tracing.

I think it was also too soon to lift the travel restrictions for travel into the US by European and other nations.

Omicron is likely already in US for weeks now and spreading fast.

We need to hope Omicron is not a deadlier mutation.

[gab13by13]

4. Yes

[wryter2000]

5. If the new virus causes mild disease

Maybe we could risk having it here. It might wipe out delta.

[DFW]

6. Short to medium term, unfortunately yes

It will give pharma research some breathing time to develop a vaccine, if it is deemed necessary to have a new one, and if not. it give the medical community the time time to determine how to handle it if a new vaccine will not be developed.

Of course, it is showing up all around the world already, indicating that action should have been taken two weeks ago.

[at140]

7. Bad idea! Why not a covid test instead upon landing?

My daughter was on a tour in South Africa, and her return flight to London got cancelled.
I was climbing the walls, but got best news this morning, that she just landed in USA.
She was able to snag a flight at triple the normal cost.

[viva la]

9. Oh, good.

It's a bargain in the long run.

Friends of mine got stuck in NZ at the start (March 2020) and spent thousands on hotels and meals and missed work until they were finally allowed to return. (They were on a cruise that had some cases.)

[stopdiggin]

19. and what sort of testing

and/or quarantine are in place on this end of her flight?

[at140]

21. Her flight from S.A. landed in Boston,

and she is on the next flight to Atlanta. Probably will pay through the nose for an expensive
covid test at the airport before allowed to exit without quarantine.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Traveling in a flying tin can with COVID - especially a very infectious new variant

is irresponsible.

Keep the variant where it is. DO NOT spread it to all of those on the flight who will then disperse it to the winds as everyone on the flight carries it to their ultimate end destination.

[at140]

40. This new varient from S.A. is LESS infectious than Delta variant

and causing milder symptoms, from what I am reading.

[Ms. Toad]

42. No. It is MORE infectious.

Last edited Sat Dec 4, 2021, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

The analysis, presented at a scientific conference Friday, suggests the omicron variant is highly transmissible and also more capable of evading the immune system than delta.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/11/30/1059859253/why-omicron-variant-spreads-so-quickly-infectious-mutations

Underscoring increasing concerns about Omicron, scientists in South Africa said on Friday that the newest coronavirus variant appeared to spread more than twice as quickly as Delta, which had been considered the most contagious version of the virus.

Omicron’s rapid spread results from a combination of contagiousness and an ability to dodge the body’s immune defenses, the researchers said. But the contribution of each factor is not yet certain.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/health/coronavirus-omicron-vaccines-contagiousness.html

It is too early to tell - but so far the symptoms appear milder. (Which is consistent with the evolution of viruses.)

ETA: Early, more refined, data suggests it is dramatically more severe in children under 5.

The “highly transmissible” Omicron variant of coronavirus ripping through South Africa is putting disproportionately large numbers of children under 5 years old in hospitals, a top South African government medical adviser said Friday.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/omicron-variant-puttings-huge-numbers-of-kids-under-5-years-old-in-hospital-in-south-africa

[LisaL]

29. Test upon landing is only going to show whether someone is positive at that particular moment.

They could still be infected and not yet testing positive.

[madville]

34. Like the 500+ people that tested negative on the Amsterdam flights

There were 60 positive people on those flights, yet the 500+ other people were allowed to make their connections or exit the airport after testing negative. It takes 3-5 days to test positive after exposure so their negative tests upon exiting the airplane are meaningless if they were exposed. I'm coming to the conclusion that the partial travel restrictions and testing then release for those exposed are mainly just theatre at this point.

[at140]

41. Why is testing positive always a bad thing?

I bet we all will test positive to a variety of viruses which are ubiquitously floating around.
Influenza, common cold, and a bunch of other viruses are always present.
In my opinion getting a mild dose of any virus is USUALLY more beneficial than harmful,
because the body then creates anti-bodies for it, and that helps when a bigger load of virus is ingested.
Majority of people testing positive for covid virus for example, never get symptomatically sick.
And those who get mild symptoms usually recover.

Another misconception going around is that vaccines protect you from infections!
How can this be? Vaccines never build a valve in nose to filter out virus material.
Only purpose of vaccines is to create additional anti-bodies, which can fight the virus after it has come in and started infection. My guess is this mis-conception has formed because most vaccinated people do not get sick enough to show symptoms. They can ingest the virus, get infected, but the anti-bodies kill it off before any symptoms show up. The vaccine did not stop infection, it merely stopped one from getting seriously sick.

[Lasher]

8. Israel will ban Travelers from all other countries for 14 days

This makes sense to me, since Omicron is probably widely dispersed already.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. No.

[Takket]

11. they have pros and cons

they are a good idea from the standpoint of trying to cut the virus off where it is most prevalent. but on the other hand by the time we ID variants, experience has taught us they are already everywhere.

what i'm trying to say is they can likely delay hotspots from erupting in the USA, but eventually they will get here anyway. But we might buy the vaccine manufactures precious weeks to respond.

[msfiddlestix]

12. In a Word? Yes, absolutely.

Tourists are the super spreaders. Costing LIVES and destabilizing communities/societies/economies/governance/national security

etc. etc. etc.

[at140]

22. Back in the era of the black plague

people were not very mobile, did not travel much, yet a huge chunk of population died from the plague.

[msfiddlestix]

28. You would be surprised then to learn of the migration via trading routes and ships

originating in China/Eurasia/India/Europe/Middle east via trading routes,

Here's the link on a very informative summary on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_migration

don't forget to scroll down to the eventual outbreak in Europe.

they didn't have automobiles and trains, they had ships a plenty and profited mightily.

[Tomconroy]

13. I appreciate all of the civil responses.

[Pobeka]

14. It's a bad idea. It's too late. Here's why I think so.

In the scenario where omicron really is much more contagious:

By the time they have enough individuals showing up with the new variant, and they have sequenced it, and named it -- there has already been travel by infected individuals. Since it is so much more contagious, it has already spread through airports etc, and travel bans on one country or region are pretty pointless, this variant is already seeded in just about everywhere. (In this scenario it's a safe bet it's already resident in the USA, and is spreading here).

[at140]

23. Although there is a ray of sunshine...

In south Africa, very few vaxxed are sick. I hear only 4 and they have only mild symptoms.

[beaglelover]

15. Bad idea. By the time a travel ban is implemented many people from the banned country have

already traveled to another country that does not have a ban and from there they can fly anywhere. Better to require a negative covid test before allowing entry to the USA.

[Tomconroy]

17. There's an article just up in the NYT saying the same thing.

My worry is that poor countries will try to hide a variant outbreak rather than share information. Because we learned about this early we actually are in decent shape about this one even if it amounts to something
The drug companies are already all over this and will have a booster out with amazing speed, it there is a need.

[cadoman]

16. I don't think it is, but I trust Biden and he trusts the experts so

..there are probably some factors that makes this travel ban a good idea that we wouldn't be able to understand without an accredited education on the subject matter.

[stopdiggin]

20. I think all three points are correct

and I think this country would get a much bigger benefit out of a really robust (and enforced) implementation of testing and quarantine following arrival (both U.S. citizens and foreign)

The 'buying time' argument might have some validity - but is (IMO) largely negated by the public's refusal to implement policy (TX, FL, et.al.) - and the fact somewhere around 30% (or greater) of the U.S. population will refuse a new vaccine option even if hurriedly developed. In short - why should we be penalizing S.Africa (or any other jurisdiction) - when the U.S. won't take any concrete measures within it's own borders to protect itself?

[myohmy2]

26. yes...

...in the short run...

...buys time so we can figure out what we're up against and prepare...

...in the long run, what's ever out there will be everywhere...

...that new mean Corona-Trump-Virus wants us bad...

...

[RobinA]

27. I Think It's

theater at this point. COVID is everywhere. This variant, that variant. Work on getting everyone vaccinated and work on better vaccines.

[róisín_dubh]

30. No for the three points you suggest.

It’s everywhere already whether we know it or not.
Global South countries are overwhelmingly banned while others not.
PCR tests prior to departure and in a regimen after arrival (with quarantine). I am traveling to England next week for work and to see my partner. I’m triple vaxxed and still mask up.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed, but we are guaranteed nothing on this earth. I will do what I can within reason to protect myself and others.

[Silent3]

31. Seems to always be too little too late, not effective

In the beginning of COVID these travel bans might have made more sense, to slow down the spread while we geared up to confront the pandemic.

But we (in the US) squandered that time. Now we know exactly what to do to prevent the spread of COVID -- we just don't do enough of what we know we need to do anyway, and travel bans aren't going to help that, especially if we're always closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

[KentuckyWoman]

33. It is already too late.

By the time anyone knows they have a problem it is already everywhere. Just a matter odd time.

Locals can quarantine. If the whole world stopped moving and every one of however many billion people stayed home, then it stops. That is not realistically possible.

[rockfordfile]

39. good idea. hopefully it slows down the spread.