Who prohibits ineffective travel?

Meanwhile, the English will lower the mask. The World Health Organization said international travel bans have proved ineffective. Follow DW for the latest news on coronavirus. Some evidence suggests that a travel ban may delay the arrival of an infectious disease in a country by days or weeks.

However, there is very little evidence to suggest that a travel ban will eliminate the risk of the disease crossing borders in the long term. The World Health Organization (WHO) has asked countries to lift or reduce travel restrictions due to COVID-19.Subscribe to our daily news digest. On the one hand, the combination of common sense and fear generates strong public support for travel restrictions. Coronavirus travels in people, so in theory, anything that slows people's movement should help reduce the spread of the virus.

In practice, travel restrictions are ineffective because they are imposed too late or because people avoid them. Perversely, the problem of time can lead policymakers to impose restrictions more quickly. And often people also evade general immigration restrictions, but this does not persuade governments to dispense with visas or border controls. The two UN agencies, the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have agreed to cooperate in the recovery of the tourism sector and call for the lifting of travel measures that continue to contribute to economic and social stress.

travel bans disrupt economies, communities and health care systems, but there is little evidence to suggest that they prevent the spread of disease. Those of us involved in disaster preparedness research and policy need to start thinking now about how to measure the effectiveness of emergency response measures, such as travel bans, to inform future response efforts. Under the new rules, travelers who have not received a booster shot can enter the country if it has been less than nine months since they received their last dose. Policymakers should explore whether these funds can be expanded or other funds created to directly compensate countries for losses incurred as a result of travel restrictions imposed contrary to the WHO recommendation.

When the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus epidemic “a public health emergency of international concern (ESPII), more than 70 countries responded by imposing travel restrictions against China. We found only a handful of model studies on Ebola and SARS, and nothing that evaluated the impact of a real ban after its implementation. The spread of the Omicron variant in Australia has caused the New Zealand government to postpone a plan to introduce quarantine-free travel between countries. Until more evidence is available, policymakers must be very careful in enforcing travel bans as a political solution to control the spread of diseases.

Speaking to journalists, Dr. Hans Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, said that flight bans did not work and were too late “because Omicron is already everywhere. WHO also urged countries not to require COVID-19 vaccination tests as the only way for travelers to enter, citing inequity in vaccine distribution. Countries should consider adjusting some measures, including testing and quarantine requirements, where appropriate, which place a financial burden on travelers, WHO said.

In recent days, a growing number of different countries have already begun to relax their travel rules around the world, aligning them with WHO recommendations for safe international mobility, after the latter stated that the travel restrictions imposed had not affected the spread of the virus. We urgently need more research in this area to understand whether travel bans and other control measures are really effective. During this coronavirus epidemic, the private sector has effectively imposed its own set of trade and travel restrictions.

Kayode Alhassan
Kayode Alhassan

Certified web nerd. Avid webaholic. Friendly pop culture practitioner. Avid bacon maven. Hardcore social media lover. Infuriatingly humble thinker.