Should Ebola Response Include W. Africa Travel Ban?
The opposition to the banning of travel from W. Africa to the U.S.A, hinges on the following idea:
Banning travel from A (W. Africa) to C (USA) is incorrect because persons leaving A (W. Africa) could go to B (a nation other than the USA that is not in W. Africa) and then from B to C, thereby circumventing the travel ban.
Regardless of whether or not a W. African travel ban should be implemented, this argument contains logical mistakes.
1. Even if travelers could circumvent a travel-ban by stopping at B before going to C, the travel-ban could still significantly improve the infection situation in the USA.
2. If B bans travel from A to B, it would not be possible for persons to travel from A to B and then from B to C.
3. Government & the private sector are capable of keeping track regarding which individuals travel from A to B, and then attempt to travel from B to C.
The pros of not implementing a W. African travel ban have to be balanced against the cons. A laundry list of the cons does not suffice.
Banning travel from A (W. Africa) to C (USA) is incorrect because persons leaving A (W. Africa) could go to B (a nation other than the USA that is not in W. Africa) and then from B to C, thereby circumventing the travel ban.
Regardless of whether or not a W. African travel ban should be implemented, this argument contains logical mistakes.
1. Even if travelers could circumvent a travel-ban by stopping at B before going to C, the travel-ban could still significantly improve the infection situation in the USA.
2. If B bans travel from A to B, it would not be possible for persons to travel from A to B and then from B to C.
3. Government & the private sector are capable of keeping track regarding which individuals travel from A to B, and then attempt to travel from B to C.
The pros of not implementing a W. African travel ban have to be balanced against the cons. A laundry list of the cons does not suffice.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home