Share on PinterestThis is why experts say travel bans put in place to protect against COVID-19 are not as effective as they could be. Jacob Lund / Getty Images
- Experts say travel bans may not be as effective in slowing the spread of COVID-19 as we hope they are.
- Travel bans have other shortcomings as well, including their harm to people’s lives and the economy.
- Experts say travel bans may not make much of a difference if not implemented at the right time.
November 2021, President Joe Biden issued a so-called “travel ban” in connection with the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.
this Presidential Declaration restricts the entry of non-US citizens who have stayed in eight countries in southern Africa:
- the Republic of Botswana
- the Kingdom of Eswatini
- the Kingdom of Lesotho
- the Republic of Malawi
- the Republic of Mozambique
- the Republic of Namibia
- the Republic of South Africa
- the Republic of Zimbabwe
Travel bans during the COVID-19 pandemic were controversial, some claimed racism how they are implemented. the current travel ban is no exception – it has been criticized as an unfair punishment for the countries involved.
Besides, there was ask about whether travel bans even work.
How effective are travel bans, what are their shortcomings and are they worthwhile despite these problems?
We asked Daniel Tisch, PhDwho specializes in public health at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Medicine, and Susan Hassig, DrPH, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the Tulane School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, to weigh up.
Tisch said travel bans have the potential to prevent a new communicable disease from being introduced into an area where it has not yet been transmitted.
“Travel restrictions are unlikely to be fully effective in preventing the introduction of a communicable disease,” he said. “But there is evidence that in some situations they can slow the introduction and spread of transmission for a period of time.”
But travel bans don’t work in all situations, he said.
“Travel restrictions combined with a comprehensive public health strategy are most likely to be successful, especially in places that can maintain tighter entry controls like Australia and New Zealand,” said Tisch.
Tisch said admitting a select group like citizens could defeat the purpose of the ban if there is no adequate testing, quarantine or disease surveillance after entry.
In addition, inadequate surveillance of the disease at the population level before the travel ban is implemented could create a false sense of security if the disease is already locally circulating, he noted.
Regarding travel bans for COVID-19, Hassig was even more pessimistic about their effectiveness, saying she felt they weren’t working.
“This virus moves quickly and asymptomatically,” she explained. “So if we stop our travel from one or more areas, the virus will not be prevented from entering a place / country.”
“And with COVID-19, we’ve seen time and time again that the bans are introduced too late after the virus is already at the banned location,” she added.
As a result, travel bans are not as effective as we’d like them to be.
Aside from travel bans not helping the way we’d like them to, there are other issues with it, according to the health experts we spoke to.
“Travel bans disrupt people’s lives, social interactions and the economy,” said Tisch.
“They can also be seen as discriminatory by singling out selected countries / regions / populations,” he added. “The fact that Omicron was first reported in South Africa does not mean that it originated there or was not already circulating in other countries and regions of the world.”
Tisch noted that travel bans are rarely extended to all areas where the disease has been identified, which can lead to discrimination and marginalization of groups.
In addition, local authorities can be penalized for being proactive about public health needs, which prevents them from conducting public health research and communicating and collaborating with other nations.
“We have far better ways of containing infections,” added Hassig, “but these measures require more effort from the location that imposed the ban.”
Hassig suggests that steps like screening arriving people regardless of their origin, testing before travel, quarantine on arrival, and retesting 3-5 days after arrival would be more effective than travel bans.
“Honestly, I see the travel bans as ‘pandemic theater’, much like the street hygiene scenes at the start of the pandemic and the use of plexiglass barriers outside of healthcare and in places like supermarket checkouts,” she said.
“They are ‘tangible’ actions that may appear, but do little to actually prevent infection / transmission,” she added.
When asked whether travel bans are worthwhile despite their shortcomings, Hassig answered with a clear “no”.
But Tisch was a little more careful.
“The answer depends on the context and the situation in a particular place and time,” he said, pointing out that “success depends on timing.”
“In cases where a communicable disease (or variant) is already circulating, a travel ban to prevent the introduction of the disease or variant will not be effective and the impact on slowing transmission will depend on many epidemiological considerations,” added he added.
