Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

(In the USA) Is this going to accomplish anything?

The virus is already here and has been spreading out-of-control for quite a while now. The only reason the numbers are still so low here is the incredibly low number of tests being done.



It stops new vectors. At this point the world is not trying to stop it spreading anymore, but slowing the rate of spread to not overwhelm healthcare.


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 certainly helps, it’s easier to control, and has a smaller impact on most people’s lives

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.


Seems like many companies are already curtailing or banning business travel (especially international), so this might not be too much of a change.


That doesn't answer the "significant" part, I think. It's an easy decision for the reasons you mention, but that doesn't mean it has a significant impact.


Depending on how spread goes, it would be easier to ban internal travel after banning international travel than going 0 to 100% ban in one swoop. Don’t underestimate that the damage of social unrest can easily surpass the potential damage of the virus. Remember public policies deal with people with emotions, not robots.


This would make more sense if the travel ban was bidirectional. But as you said, a lot depends on how things are progressing, which we don't actually know in the US due to poor monitoring. Which is why I said it's not clear if this is a step that will make any significant impact, although to your point it might work as theater either way.


A little, not a lot. On the very pessimistic side, it will at least convince all the casual travelers who go "ooo look at the cheap airfare! I'm sure I'll be fine" from booking/traveling. Overall this will have a very chilling effect on travel, even to non-targeted regions.

However, we do already have the virus in the USA. So it's not suddenly going to go away because of this proclamation.


it will at least convince all the casual travelers who go "ooo look at the cheap airfare! I'm sure I'll be fine" from booking/traveling

I don't think it'll have such an effect on Americans since they are exempt from the ban. But now they're guaranteed to have more room to stretch out on the plane.

But you know what would have such an effect? If the government just came out and said "We strongly recommend that you cease all non-essential overseas air travel, including vacations"


No! This will do nothing. How are people on HN asking this? You all know math, right?!

The healthcare system is at risk of being overwhelmed by an exponential function. That means, to a first approximation, nothing matters except the last doubling.

Discussion questions: How does this policy, implemented now, affect the time span of the last doubling of COVID cases in the US? Does it do fuck all? Why, or why not?


Deaths are also much lower in the US.


Only vs. China, Iran and Italy. We're within a factor of two (that is, about 5-6 days) of everyone else. A 5-6 day head start is not enough window to save ourselves with a travel ban.

And just like Italy went from "contained" to a country-wide lockdown in the space of a week, so will we at this point. Those tens of thousands of cases are incubating right now and will emerge in the coming days.

This travel ban does nothing.


>Only vs. China, Iran and Italy.

What are you on about? We have fewer deaths than far more countries than that (France and Spain for instance) and per capita we are doing even better.

The US has fewer deaths than the following countries per capita:

Italy, Iran, China, S. Korea, Spain, France, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Albania, Lebanon, Netherlands, Belgium, Panama, Ireland, Iraq, Bulgaria, Japan, Australia, UK

Country Population and coronavirus numbers can be pulled here:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/


>> Only vs. China, Iran and Italy.

> What are you on about? We have fewer deaths than far more countries than that

You edited out the second sentence. The full quote is:

Only vs. China, Iran and Italy. We're within a factor of two (that is, about 5-6 days) of everyone else.

which is accurate.


Again not even close, France for instance has a death rate 10x ours per capita, that's gonna take way more than 5-6 days.

The statement is inaccurate any way you slice it. Why use incomplete information when more is available?


He didn't say per capita.

The statement was accurate. It may not be a useful metric, but it was an accurate one.


> He didn't say per capita.

But it's also not the case when looking only at absolute numbers either. I would also argue that per capita is implied because it's the only way you can really make that comparison.


The lack of testing must be depressing the death numbers here too.


I’m not sure this is true, as the deaths from coronavirus are distinguishable based on their clinical features, as I understand it (e.g., the chest X-ray of a COVID-19 patient is readily identifiable)


Nobody is giving chest x-rays to older people here who have died, apparently of pneumonia.


I'm not a clinician, but getting to the diagnosis of pneumonia usually involves imaging, as I understand it:

https://www.aafp.org/afp/2011/0601/p1299.html


We're kinda going around in circles here.

In order to not significantly undercount the number of coronavirus deaths attributed to other causes in the US, there would need to be wide-spread testing here... which there isn't.

Imaging (by the way, you're referencing tests on live patients not dead ones) could be used as another kind of coronavirus test, though an extremely inefficient one, so probably is essentially un-used. Anyway, for pneumonia I believe we're talking about x-rays which is poor at distinguishing coronavirus (see link). Not to mention all of this is brand new. So approximately zero Radiologists are trained and using radiology in a clinical setting to diagnose coronavirus in people who have apparently died of pneumonia.


No. We need internal controls and a national emergency declared.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: