President Trump's Travel Ban Did Nothing

1. 89

   crankaliciousposted 4 years ago

   President Trump has convinced his followers that he took swift, decisive action to stop the Coronavirus from spreading by banning travel from China.
   
   Unfortunately, this turns out not to be true. Hundreds of thousands of people flew in directly from China in January and 40,000 flew in from China after the so-called "ban".
   
   Further, there were no procedures put into place to test incoming passengers, allowing them easily into the United States.
   
   https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/c … tions.html
   
   https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-trump … ce0b3.html
   
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … china-ban/
   
   https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ … e-further/
   
   https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 … hts-china/

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How many of those coming in AFTER the ban were American citizens, diplomats, scientists working on the virus, etc.?
      
      Beyond that, how can you tell that dropping the incoming travel from perhaps hundreds of thousands (fleeing China, perhaps) to a fraction of the number did no good?  Isn't it like claiming that the stay at home and social distancing did no good because some people went to spring break, church and other events?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I'm sure it had some positive effect, like preventing the virus from spreading as quickly. The point is, it wasn't really a ban. I kind of click-baited that forum title. I could have made it more specific. Travel went from about 400,000 in the month of January to 40,000 in the month of February, so it must have done something.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            A "clickbait" title? You? No, say it ain't so.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 89

               crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Gets people to read. Isn’t the more important point how many people came into the country from China during the so-called ban?

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but didn't you already answer that—400,000 to 40,000? One-tenth of the usual number?.
                  
                  And didn't Wilderness already point out who was the majority of that 40,000—returning U.S. citizens?
                  
                  So, just what was it that you wanted people to read?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm always amazed by how everything Trump does and says seems to be excused by his supporters. He's touted his ban as some great move, but it really wasn't a ban and quite a number of people from China were still allowed in. Now he's also blamed China, even after he praised President Xi for being so transparent and doing such a good job.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Stick with the point of your "clickbait" title crankalicious.
                        
                        So far, in this thread I haven't seen comments defending Trump, only comments disputing your title's assertion.
                        
                        Even your own comments belie the title. (400,000 down to 40.000, a 90% reduction). Are you defending Trump?
                        
                        Do you believe a 90%, (using your numbers), reduction is "nothing"? And do you think those U.S. citizens in your "quite a number of people" should not have been allowed to return home?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           The point is really that Trump has been playing this up as a "ban". It wasn't really a ban. He's been emphasizing how many lives it saved. It's possible it saved some, but what is certain is that had the people entering the U.S. been tested, it could have worked quite well. But because those support service and the logistics of them had been overlooked and ignored, the ban had little effectiveness other than to let infected people from the epicenter of the virus into the U.S without tracking them or quarantining them or limiting their movements in any way.

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              I see that Wilderness has already answered as I would, so I won't just rewrite his points.
                              
                              It seems that your original claim that the ban did nothing has now been shown to be at least  94% better than nothing—by your own comments.
                              
                              Now it appears you want to focus on the 'yeah buts . . . : yeah but, what about flights from x and y, yeah but, what about the lack of testing at airports, etc. etc.
                              
                              Have at it crankalicious.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 GA,
                                 
                                 I've actually come closer to thinking it did nothing than when I originally wrote the headline. The decisive action really would have been wide scale testing of anyone entering the country coupled with travel restrictions.
                                 
                                 If you're arguing that allowing 400,000 infected people into the country is worse than allowing 40,000 infected people, then I agree. But even allowing in 4,000 infected people without testing them would result in massive infections given the overall lack of testing.
                                 
                                 Again, the point is that when you malign, manipulate, and degrade the infrastructure that supports responding to such crises, instituting a ban is basically useless.
                                 
                                 But it really wasn't a ban anyway. More like a bandaid on a gaping wound.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    Then you really let the country down by failing to provide 40,000 effective test kits, along with accommodations to put them up in a quarantined area until test results were back.  Why would you do that?

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 90

                                    GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    It appears you are saying that, yes, 400.000 is worse than 40,000, but, because that 400,000 wasn't reduced to 0, then reducing it by 90% did nothing.
                                    
                                    Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that if you can't reach perfection, why bother?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       GA,
                                       
                                       Go read the links and draw your own conclusions.
                                       
                                       Among my conclusions is that any "ban" wasn't a ban at all because people could have flown from China to another location before flying into the U.S.
                                       
                                       Another conclusion is that while the basic idea of a ban is a good one, without testing, tracking, and quarantining, 40,000 potentially infected individuals running loose might be worse than 400,000 tested, tracked, and quarantined individuals. Logistics matters. Planning matters. Coordination matters.
                                       
                                       I think it's a reasonable argument to suggest that perhaps nothing much would have worked given our lack of testing capabilities. It sucks that we're one of the countries that did so poorly responding to this, but we're certainly in a lot of good company.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          If a single Chinese national flew into Mexico and snuck across the border at night, there would be no ban.  Is that what you're saying?  That a ban is 100%, total and complete compliance no matter what circumstances, and if it is not reached then there was no ban?

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                             I think I covered what I meant. If you want to give me a bunch of different hypothetical situations, I can try to answer them.
                                             
                                             But to answer your question, if only one Chinese national got into the country another way, then the ban would be effective.

                                             report
                                       2. 90

                                          GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          I see the point you are making, but I don't agree with it.
                                          
                                          It still sounds like you saying that if you can't reach perfection, why bother?
                                          
                                          Do you feel the same way about Obamacare; it wasn't perfect so it was irrelevant and it didn't do anything?
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                             No, I'm not saying if you can't reach perfection, don't bother. That couldn't possibly be a tenable position for government.
                                             
                                             I'm partly saying that "ban" has a specific meaning. I'm saying that decisive action is not decisive if it isn't accompanied by appropriate logistical considerations
                                             
                                             I'm saying the idea of a travel ban was a good one.
                                             
                                             I'm saying that anyone who wanted to get to the U.S. under the ban could have travelled here.

                                             report
                        2. 89

                           crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           60% of those on the flights were not American citizens.
                           
                           The "ban" did not apply to flights from Hong Kong or Macau.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              While we all know China's answer, do the people of Hong Kong and Macau consider themselves "Chinese"?  For purposes of the ban, our government does not seem to do so, and there is considerable debate about it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 Is that a defense? If you were Chinese and needed to get out of the country to the U.S., you just fly out of Hong Kong, right, if flights were banned from other parts of the country?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    Is it your claim that Hong Kong is actually China?  And that the ban included it as such?
                                    
                                    As far as fleeing Chinese, we didn't ban travel from other nearby, bordering, countries either.  Not sure what that has to do with much of anything, unless you're now saying that it did nothing because we still allowed international travel (don't think you are).
                                    
                                    In any event, and no matter how you slice it, it is most reasonable to think that a 94% reduction in travel from the infected part of the world (China, at that point) did nothing to slow the growth in our country.  The reasoning used to deny that goes right over my head.  Not following the logic of the statement at all, not even a tiny bit.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hong Kong is part of China. It's an SAR, but has been part of China ever since being turned over by the British.
                                       
                                       The larger point is that anyone with a brain who was "banned" from traveling from other parts of China could just have flown to Hong Kong and travelled here or really anywhere else that didn't ban travel from China.
                                       
                                       The point is, the ban was ineffective because there was no testing to support its intent.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          What would testing have done?  With a 94% reduction in travel, meaning a 94% reduction in infected people entering and spreading the disease, would testing have really changed the result that much?  I mean, if 5% are infected, and we already lost some 20,000 infected travelers, would have finding an additional 1200 have made the difference between "ineffective" and "effective"?  Always assuming that tests were available (they weren't) and they could have caught every one of the 24,000X5% that were infected?
                                          
                                          What would you do with foreign nationals that were infected?  Quarantine them in a city without any other actions?  Where?  I seem to recall Hawaii refusing to allow possibly infected people off a cruise ship (including US citizens) - which city would you have put them in?  Think Cuomo would have welcomed them into NYC?

                                          report
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Are you really saying that we should have denied entry to returning Americans?
            
            Easy to claim that 40,000 Chinese entered the country after the ban - quite another to prove it.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Had they been tested upon re-entry, things might have been very different. Trump has been touting his "ban" and it was such a great move. In fact, it probably did very little without the support services required to make such a thing effective.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Truly, it seems like you're just wanting to bash Trump (again), and (again) without any reasonable cause.
                  
                  The ban (and yes, it was a ban - I asked before how many were American citizens, but you never answered) resulted in a 90% drop in visitors.  A drop that you are assuming, without any evidence whatsoever, did nothing to slow the spread of the virus; in reality it would seem more appropriate to assume that a 90% drop in infected travelers did slow the spread.
                  
                  So...just another "Bash Trump" thread, with the same complete lack of reason.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     How is there a lack of reason? There was no testing of those individuals who entered the U.S. from China? Please read the links.
                     
                     60% of the 40,000 were not American citizens.
                     
                     Trump has touted the "ban" as being this huge, important decision. In reality, it was, like most of his decisions, made without any consideration of how to actually insure that it would be effective because there was no logistical support or consideration and nobody was tested so that they could be quarantined. From one article:
                     
                     “I was surprised at how lax the whole process was,” said Andrew Wu, 31, who landed at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Beijing on March 10. “The guy I spoke to read down a list of questions, and he didn’t seem interested in checking out anything.”
                     
                     The idea was a good one. The execution negated any effectiveness. Completely logical.
                     
                     Mr. Trump issued his first travel restrictions related to the virus on Jan. 31, one day after the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a global health emergency. In a presidential proclamation, he barred foreign nationals from entering the country if they had been in China during the prior two weeks. The order exempted American citizens, green-card holders and their noncitizen relatives — exceptions roundly recognized as necessary to allow residents to return home and prevent families from being separated. It did not apply to flights from Hong Kong and Macau.
                     
                     Notice that last sentence.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Your entire post is dedicated to the idea that a 90% reduction in travel accomplished nothing.  I have to call that a "lack of reason". 
                        
                        You also claim it did nothing because there was no test available to test the incoming people.  Again, a lack of reason, as you cannot back that statement up (that it accomplished nothing).
                        
                        I note that you are now down to 24,000 non-US citizens coming in - that makes it a 94% reduction, still accomplishing nothing.  You haven't said who those people were - scientists working on the virus, WHO or UN members, politicians working with us, people passing through, etc. - just assume that they were none of the above and that the ban applied to them.  Again, a lack of reason.
                        
                        You're also completely ignoring the fact that he was condemned world wide for the action...which was then repeated by other countries as the seriousness became apparent.  Countries that also accomplished "nothing" by doing the same thing?

                        replyreport
   2. 61

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That isn't what I've heard Dr. Fauci say on interviews.

      replyreport
2. 78

   emgeposted 4 years ago

   I completely agree with the statement that President Trump's travel ban didn't serve the purpose at all. Thousand of Chinese flew in bringing the virus with them. It was a criminal act by China and sadly 25000 Americans have died. The problem lies not entirely with Trump but with  the previous  presidents who established close social relation with Chinese in the hope of bolstering the economy. You can't build an economy on quick sand . Once this virus is over it will be nteresting to see how Trump will collar the Chinese

   replyreport
   1. 89

      crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I do agree with the sentiment here. China is a bad actor in the world. However, Trump was pretty quick to praise President Xi and how he was dealing with the virus. Now he's blaming China. Which one is it?
      
      The reasons for our relationship with China are complicated and partially rely on one big thing: Americans love cheap goods. That said, pretty much all politicians, Dems and Republicans, have had a hand in how we approached China. There are very few differences between them over the years. This is one area I have praised President Trump, for trying to recognize China as a bad actor. However, he seems to go back and forth on that, like in his praise for the Chinese response to the virus.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

   Apparently Ivanka and Jerrod don't follow their own advice as they traveled by car to New Jersey to celebrate Passover. Of course, the Secret Service had to travel with them and their 3 children which puts them at risk as well.
   
   "Don't do like I do, just do what I say to do." Reminds me of Ivanka's using an unsecured phone for govt business. Didn't Hillary get lambasted for the same thing?  DOH!

   replyreport
   1. 89

      crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      When they behave like that, it's no wonder people hate them so much. There's nothing worse than rich people talking up rules for others and not thinking it applies to them.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

   "Anyone who wants a test can get one." Not true when he said it, and not true now. Spin that for me, Trump enablers!

   replyreport
5. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   

   replyreport