Essay Example: Coronavirus Travel Restrictions Are the Wrong Approach

The outbreak of COVID-19 caused most countries to institute lockdowns and ban travel at both local and international levels. This is due to the nature of the disease and how it spreads. The reason for the travel bans both locally and internationally is to reduce the spread of the disease and finally eliminate it. However, some discussions have developed; this was the not best idea as other interventions could be used. One, Dr. Goel, says that the outbreaks of viruses are the new phenomenon as it has happened in the past lie the2003 SARS in Canada. This paper aims to argue against the opinion of Dr. Vivek Goel, 2020, who says that the travel bans have limited the effectiveness of managing the coronavirus and has brought some bid drawbacks.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The first flow presented in this document is the claim that travel bans are too late to measure of controlling the outbreak of pandemic viruses. Goel says that instead of the travel bans, more resources should be invested in public health to control the actions that are given to work, based on evidence (Goel). There is some fault in this statement since the aim of the lockdown is to minimize further spread. The consideration is that the symptoms show after fourteen days, so it may be hard to determine the hose with the disease. The corona-virus at hand is very tragic in that it has a short incubation and weakens the immunity in less than a month. Therefore, travel bans would serve to minimize the spread as other interventions are used.

The lockdown, which was affected in Wuhan, has tremendously reduced the cases and recording almost zero, even in Hubei. The reason for this being that a lockdown was instituted. In this, local travels were affected, and the results are precise. This means that even lockdowns o international trips would also be useful in controlling the diseases and reducing the levels. Goel also presents that studies f past events show that travel bans do not protect against outbreaks. This may be true to some extent, depending on the nature of the spread of the disease. COVID-19 is spread through contact with infected persons in terms of their fluid. This means that people have to be separated from one another. And travel bans boost the distancing by limiting the spread of the disease to new countries. Furthermore, it limits further spread to the countries which have already banned.

The lives of people are more important than economic development. Goel, 2020, says that travel bans have a severe impact on the economy as it brings to the economy. He gives an example of the tourism company losing about $11 million. The lives of people are more important than the economic development of the country. This owes to the fact that the COVID-19 affects mostly weak immunities and the older adults, whose resistance may not be strong enough to fight the virus-an example of why the travels in necessary are Italy. The disease arrived due to travelers from China who spread the viruses. More than 10 thousand people have died with a few weak. This is more tragic than having an economic loss of about $11 million. Europe is one of the countries which did not institute travel bans and now are recording the highest cases. Therefore, the travel ban is necessary.

The last argument against the travel bans serves to convey the seriousness of the situation and issue, and not spread fear and stigma. This is because so many people are ignorant, and the government needs to take measures to ensure that this ignorance is reduced. This explains why, in some countries, there is a total lockdown to keep people at home. The aim is not to make people fear but rather, signal them on being more cautious, and those who want to be careless have to be supported through the bans. Some of the countries are very vulnerable like third world countries and may not have the efficiency of screening its people. Therefore, travel bans would be necessary. The claims are that there will be a little public health benefit for the stigma and fear. The cases report that person-person spread of the disease is the cause of the vast numbers, and that is why lockdown is instituted. If lockdowns are positively responding, then even traveling should be banned until it is proved that it is no longer as dangerous.

In conclusion, the travel bans on COVID-19 was very necessary because it is spread from person to person and the contamination of services. The long incubation period of the disease, about fourteen days, renders the risk of travelers having the illness but testing positive once they have stayed in their destination for some Tim and start spreading it. The concerns of Goel are on economic benefits that are being inhibited. He fails to understand that the lives of people at stake are of much more important than the economy.