Outdoor markets are common in the Netherlands. Cities have large, open spaces set aside for them and many people do their normal food shopping there. They are also particularly well suited to the pandemic since outdoor transmission is much less efficient than indoor and so they have stayed open.
Germany does not have the same tradition of outdoor markets, but does have seasonal Christmas markets. The German government cancelled them this year so, naturally, Germans near the Dutch border have been piling into buses and descending on the Dutch markets, spreading the virus amongst themselves and the Netherlands and then bringing it back to Germany.
The Schengen agreement makes banning travel between Germany and the Netherlands about as difficult as banning travel between American states and, while you can close international borders to foreign travel, you cannot prevent your own residents from leaving. Thus, just as the Dutch government can only ask politely that people don't go skiing in France and Italy this year, the German government can only ask politely that people stay away from the Dutch markets.
Domestically, the only thing you can really do to curb travel is to ask people to stay put, like California is doing, because it is unworkable to ban people from visiting outside of tepid measures like curbing short-stay rentals and hotels, politely asking people to quarantine or, as France has done, shut down all the ski resorts. Even these tepid measures have to be adopted everywhere to work; if New York shuts down bars, but New Jersey doesn't, you end up with the Dutch market problem. And that has been the result of all the color codes and regional lock-downs and disparate policies between states writ large. (That is why federal coordination and guidelines, which are also lacking in the EU, are so important.)
I think there is merit to the argument that small countries with small borders like New Zealand are the only ones that can effectively control the influx of people. And domestic travel restrictions are unworkable in any reasonably free country unless a pandemic is so bad that people stay home on their own volition.
Travel bans: I saw a nice simulation where the effect of separating the population in many "islands" led to a much slower spread. But the important thing is not to do this exclusively at national borders.
For a two week period around Xmas, the Italians forbid the crossing of regional borders (there are twenty regions in total like Sicily and Lombardy averaging 3m inhabitants; in addition, they split one region into two).
Hey Matt, I wanted to share some additional context with you I think is missing in some of the reporting about the issue now, including yours here.
So the older evidence on travel restrictions — which showed they don't generally work — that we drew on in the earlier stories was based on the kinds of targeted travel restrictions people imagined and tried in the past (like the temp screening at airports, visa restrictions, etc).
The total restrictions now in place in many countries you point to -- with pre-screening, border closures, airport screening, strict quarantining, fines -- are unprecedented. Even at the start of the pandemic, I don't think anyone imagined countries would follow China and impose such restrictions and all at the same time. If for example countries had locked down during Sars1 the way we saw Vietnam or NZ or China locking down now, the evidence might have looked quite different. But that seemed unimaginable a year ago. And what we knew of the restrictions of the past was that they could be harmful (to economies, or even smaller things like hampering the ability of aid workers/supplies to get into troubled places.)
Perhaps we should have imagined these scenarios -- the broad border closures around the world. But it truly seemed unfathomable. As the co-author on one of travel bans pieces you point to, Steven Hoffman, noted recently, "No one in public health ever thought that the world would be willing to impose health interventions like total border closures that cost the global economy $400 billion each month. We have a hard time raising $400 million for HIV or polio eradication."
So absent a sound national travel restriction policy is it immoral, dangerous, reckless, to fly this holiday season IF you’ll be staying ONLY with those already within your bubble? It seems clear being on a plane itself is relatively safe if we all wear masks, etc. but what about the airport? No good studies on this just curious what people think.
The plane itself is safe, but the airport definitely isn't, especially if you have to stand in a security line. I've read reports of people dying after flights when they sat next to someone coughing at the gate for a minute.
The importance of travel restrictions seems to depend a *lot* on the context. What fraction of people in the relevant communities are traveling across the border in question? How effective can the travel restriction be made? How much higher or lower are the case counts in the community on the other side? Are there other measures in place that are changing the spread of the virus on this side of the border?
The cases that are mentioned in support of travel restrictions are all cases where there is a large discrepancy in the case counts on the two sides of the border, and where the travel restriction can be made very effective. But other than the case of travel restrictions from China in January, I don't think any of the US cases have a large discrepancy in case counts on the two sides of the border. (Even the case of the "seeding" of local outbreaks around the country by New York emigrants don't seem that clear to me, given that there were already many well-established outbreaks outside of New York by that time - at most it might have bought a few weeks before those same communities got seeded by spread from New Orleans, or Detroit, or Albany GA, or any of the other outbreaks.)
Listened to the Rogan Podcast. You mentioned Vietnamese Crawfish restaurants and how one day one of those restaurants will open in Ho Chi Min City. Here's the thing, the banh mi is a perfect example of this. Is Vietnamese food on a French Baguette.
1. Why did Trump go mostly unpunished for his clownish management of COVID? (He did win 47% of the vote)
2. Why did the Spanish flu have such a small impact on historical memory both immediately afterward and in the longer term?
I think that what connects them is a general social psychological tendency regarding epidemics to think, well, this is bad, but there's not much you can do, so just endure it and then move on when you can.
People got scared early and deserted restaurants, bars, etc before official restrictions were put in place. They stayed really scared for a few weeks. And then, well, they got used to the idea of a contagious virus existing amongst us and decided there was generally not a whole bunch you could do about it. (OK, most people did wear masks.) And the "not much you can do about it" extended to Trump as well, no matter his crazy antics. And so we wait for it to go away, because it mutates or otherwise burns itself out, or there's a successful vaccine.
But blame Trump? Not really. It's just a thing that happened.
And once it's over, it will be over. I find all these premature articles about how COVID will "permanently change X" to be off target. I know what COVID will permanently change: nothing. We'll be like Americans in the 1920s, perfectly happy to get back to normal life, even to party a bit more. It was a bad thing for a while but it didn't actually *mean* anything. It came, we suffered, we endured, it's gone, and now let's forget it.
And for Trump? In the longer run regarding COVID, he may be remembered (if at all) much more for Operation Warp Speed than all that crap we endured from him. Unfair, but that's life.
(1) I think he was punished. I'm convinced he would have won the election.
(2) I think there will be so many lasting impacts here. I own a small restaurant services business - chemical fire suppression. Our book was down 25% by July from locations that had already permanently closed. We have another 10-15% past due on inspection who have temporarily closed or can't afford the inspection fee. We think Chicago will end up losing 40% of restaurants. Then too you have all the job market disruption from an accelerated physical to digital transformation (e.g., KAR took out 30% of their workforce by shutting down physical auctions, insurance companies are eliminating field adjusters, eMedicine is real trouble for doctors).
I wish you success with your restaurant business and I *am* concerned about the impact of the recession on small businesses. But we've had recessions before and they haven't transformed the country. We'll return to the natural path of economic growth sooner or later (I suspect sooner).
As for your first point, Herbert Hoover was elected President in 1928 with 58% of the vote. In 1932, he received 40% of the vote. Trump won 46% of the vote in 2016. This year he got 47% of the vote.
I think the American people know how to punish a President if they really want to.
1. Why did Trump go mostly unpunished for his clownish management of COVID? (He did win 47% of the vote)
2. Why did the Spanish flu have such a small impact on historical memory both immediately afterward and in the longer term?
I think that what connects them is a general social psychological tendency regarding epidemics to think, well, this is bad, but there's not much you can do, so just endure it and then move on when you can.
People got scared early and deserted restaurants, bars, etc before official restrictions were put in place. They stayed really scared for a few weeks. And then, well, they got used to the idea of a contagious virus existing amongst us and decided there was generally not a whole bunch you could do about it. (OK, most people did wear masks.) And the "not much you can do about it" extended to Trump as well, no matter his crazy antics. And so we wait for it to go away, because it mutates or otherwise burns itself out, or there's a successful vaccine.
But blame Trump? Not really. It's just a thing that happened.
And once it's over, it will be over. I find all these premature articles about how COVID will "permanently change X" to be off target. I know what COVID will permanently change: nothing. We'll be like Americans in the 1920s, perfectly happy to get back to normal life, even to party a bit more. It was a bad thing for a while but it didn't actually *mean* anything. It came, we suffered, we endured, it's gone, and now let's forget it.
And for Trump? In the longer run regarding COVID, he may be remembered (if at all) much more for Operation Warp Speed than all that crap we endured from him. Unfair, but that's life.
The full travel lockdown strategy seems too economically devastating / morally unfair / xenophobic when the disease is an epidemic that has a single hotspot, but reasonable & potentially more effective when it's already everywhere. IF New Zealand had just banned all travel from China & Europe, it would likely have been overwhelmed with the virus. It's banning all movement that seems effective but impractical outside of global pandemic situations.
I guess part of this makes me wonder about how this experience with the plague in India hardened into fact. Was it academics? Public health officials? Journalists? Some combination?
One piece of a speculation which floats through my head is that the educated class tends to have a very cosmopolitan outlook, so I wonder if there was some confirmation bias happening here: travel restrictions cut against cosmopolitan ideals, so maybe some folks were too quick to accept the received “wisdom” on travel restrictions?
The City of Chicago actually had a centralized quarantine facility from March until June or July and then shut it down. It was also extremely underused when it was open. Just absolute incompetence at every level of government.
Sam can you pass along the information on this? I vaguely recall something. Was it shut down because it wasn't utilized? Too expensive? I'm easily persuaded by city incompetence but I don't know if its fair to blame them for this particular case.
The one I know of was at the Hotel Julian but I'm having trouble finding any news stories or information about it other than that it existed. I heard from friends that it was severely underused when it did exist. Not sure if that's because they didn't do enough to publicize it or didn't tell the people giving out information to communicate it to people who tested positive or what.
FWIW, I had, at the beginning, been rather happy with the Mayor and Gov's efforts (I'm in Chicago so this is why I care). But as time has gone on, I've found most of the Mayor's efforts just not really enough. A benchmark of 4,500 tests a day in a city of 3 million is just pathetic. As is the set up of city testing sites that require a car, run MWF from 10-4 only, etc.. And then her attitude with the schools' teachers union, the fact that it still isn't legal to walk on the beaches or use the playgrounds. Her chief health officer has steadily depreciated the goodwill we had for her at the beginning...
There were internal borders setup in Western Australia. My cousin, who lives 3 hours out of Perth was unable to return home for 3 months! Obviously, we love our freedoms a little too much in the United States but an outrageous virus calls for draconian measures. We should have halted all interstate travel, closed international borders (even for citizens) and kept restaurants open for only take away. All this nonsense with outdoor seating surely makes people feel good, but it just exacerbated the problem. We should have had stricter curfews and we could have potentially done better.
Obviously, comparing to countries like Australia and NZ is apples and oranges. Population of USA is 300m more than Australia for almost the same size land mass. People in the US (especially cities like NYC) live on top of each other where maybe 200 people share the same staircase or elevator. As bad as trump did with this, it was bound to be much worse in America compared to these others countries.
This is a very much too narrow criticism. A policy of restricting entry without being part of a systematic strategy to test and isolate asymptomatic infected people would be a very limited value.
Border controls, travel restrictions and quarantines for travelers work. Mongolia understands this. As of yesterday, they have reported 819 *total* cases and 0 deaths in a population of 3.3 million in a country that shares a 4600 km border with China.
Do travel restrictions work? Maybe its a little of an unsettled question.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/12/do-international-travel-restrictions-halt-the-spread-of-pandemics/
Outdoor markets are common in the Netherlands. Cities have large, open spaces set aside for them and many people do their normal food shopping there. They are also particularly well suited to the pandemic since outdoor transmission is much less efficient than indoor and so they have stayed open.
Germany does not have the same tradition of outdoor markets, but does have seasonal Christmas markets. The German government cancelled them this year so, naturally, Germans near the Dutch border have been piling into buses and descending on the Dutch markets, spreading the virus amongst themselves and the Netherlands and then bringing it back to Germany.
The Schengen agreement makes banning travel between Germany and the Netherlands about as difficult as banning travel between American states and, while you can close international borders to foreign travel, you cannot prevent your own residents from leaving. Thus, just as the Dutch government can only ask politely that people don't go skiing in France and Italy this year, the German government can only ask politely that people stay away from the Dutch markets.
Domestically, the only thing you can really do to curb travel is to ask people to stay put, like California is doing, because it is unworkable to ban people from visiting outside of tepid measures like curbing short-stay rentals and hotels, politely asking people to quarantine or, as France has done, shut down all the ski resorts. Even these tepid measures have to be adopted everywhere to work; if New York shuts down bars, but New Jersey doesn't, you end up with the Dutch market problem. And that has been the result of all the color codes and regional lock-downs and disparate policies between states writ large. (That is why federal coordination and guidelines, which are also lacking in the EU, are so important.)
I think there is merit to the argument that small countries with small borders like New Zealand are the only ones that can effectively control the influx of people. And domestic travel restrictions are unworkable in any reasonably free country unless a pandemic is so bad that people stay home on their own volition.
Travel bans: I saw a nice simulation where the effect of separating the population in many "islands" led to a much slower spread. But the important thing is not to do this exclusively at national borders.
For a two week period around Xmas, the Italians forbid the crossing of regional borders (there are twenty regions in total like Sicily and Lombardy averaging 3m inhabitants; in addition, they split one region into two).
Hey Matt, I wanted to share some additional context with you I think is missing in some of the reporting about the issue now, including yours here.
So the older evidence on travel restrictions — which showed they don't generally work — that we drew on in the earlier stories was based on the kinds of targeted travel restrictions people imagined and tried in the past (like the temp screening at airports, visa restrictions, etc).
The total restrictions now in place in many countries you point to -- with pre-screening, border closures, airport screening, strict quarantining, fines -- are unprecedented. Even at the start of the pandemic, I don't think anyone imagined countries would follow China and impose such restrictions and all at the same time. If for example countries had locked down during Sars1 the way we saw Vietnam or NZ or China locking down now, the evidence might have looked quite different. But that seemed unimaginable a year ago. And what we knew of the restrictions of the past was that they could be harmful (to economies, or even smaller things like hampering the ability of aid workers/supplies to get into troubled places.)
Perhaps we should have imagined these scenarios -- the broad border closures around the world. But it truly seemed unfathomable. As the co-author on one of travel bans pieces you point to, Steven Hoffman, noted recently, "No one in public health ever thought that the world would be willing to impose health interventions like total border closures that cost the global economy $400 billion each month. We have a hard time raising $400 million for HIV or polio eradication."
It's also worth noting there's a debate about the legality of the overly broad restrictions being used now: https://brill.com/view/journals/iolr/aop/article-10.1163-15723747-2020023/article-10.1163-15723747-2020023.xml?language=en And we don't yet know the impact of them. They probably worked to shut out the virus and keep it from spreading -- especially because so many countries did them at once and they were so severe -- but we still need to understand their full impact.
So absent a sound national travel restriction policy is it immoral, dangerous, reckless, to fly this holiday season IF you’ll be staying ONLY with those already within your bubble? It seems clear being on a plane itself is relatively safe if we all wear masks, etc. but what about the airport? No good studies on this just curious what people think.
The plane itself is safe, but the airport definitely isn't, especially if you have to stand in a security line. I've read reports of people dying after flights when they sat next to someone coughing at the gate for a minute.
The importance of travel restrictions seems to depend a *lot* on the context. What fraction of people in the relevant communities are traveling across the border in question? How effective can the travel restriction be made? How much higher or lower are the case counts in the community on the other side? Are there other measures in place that are changing the spread of the virus on this side of the border?
The cases that are mentioned in support of travel restrictions are all cases where there is a large discrepancy in the case counts on the two sides of the border, and where the travel restriction can be made very effective. But other than the case of travel restrictions from China in January, I don't think any of the US cases have a large discrepancy in case counts on the two sides of the border. (Even the case of the "seeding" of local outbreaks around the country by New York emigrants don't seem that clear to me, given that there were already many well-established outbreaks outside of New York by that time - at most it might have bought a few weeks before those same communities got seeded by spread from New Orleans, or Detroit, or Albany GA, or any of the other outbreaks.)
Listened to the Rogan Podcast. You mentioned Vietnamese Crawfish restaurants and how one day one of those restaurants will open in Ho Chi Min City. Here's the thing, the banh mi is a perfect example of this. Is Vietnamese food on a French Baguette.
I have two closely connected questions:
1. Why did Trump go mostly unpunished for his clownish management of COVID? (He did win 47% of the vote)
2. Why did the Spanish flu have such a small impact on historical memory both immediately afterward and in the longer term?
I think that what connects them is a general social psychological tendency regarding epidemics to think, well, this is bad, but there's not much you can do, so just endure it and then move on when you can.
People got scared early and deserted restaurants, bars, etc before official restrictions were put in place. They stayed really scared for a few weeks. And then, well, they got used to the idea of a contagious virus existing amongst us and decided there was generally not a whole bunch you could do about it. (OK, most people did wear masks.) And the "not much you can do about it" extended to Trump as well, no matter his crazy antics. And so we wait for it to go away, because it mutates or otherwise burns itself out, or there's a successful vaccine.
But blame Trump? Not really. It's just a thing that happened.
And once it's over, it will be over. I find all these premature articles about how COVID will "permanently change X" to be off target. I know what COVID will permanently change: nothing. We'll be like Americans in the 1920s, perfectly happy to get back to normal life, even to party a bit more. It was a bad thing for a while but it didn't actually *mean* anything. It came, we suffered, we endured, it's gone, and now let's forget it.
And for Trump? In the longer run regarding COVID, he may be remembered (if at all) much more for Operation Warp Speed than all that crap we endured from him. Unfair, but that's life.
Two thoughts here:
(1) I think he was punished. I'm convinced he would have won the election.
(2) I think there will be so many lasting impacts here. I own a small restaurant services business - chemical fire suppression. Our book was down 25% by July from locations that had already permanently closed. We have another 10-15% past due on inspection who have temporarily closed or can't afford the inspection fee. We think Chicago will end up losing 40% of restaurants. Then too you have all the job market disruption from an accelerated physical to digital transformation (e.g., KAR took out 30% of their workforce by shutting down physical auctions, insurance companies are eliminating field adjusters, eMedicine is real trouble for doctors).
I wish you success with your restaurant business and I *am* concerned about the impact of the recession on small businesses. But we've had recessions before and they haven't transformed the country. We'll return to the natural path of economic growth sooner or later (I suspect sooner).
As for your first point, Herbert Hoover was elected President in 1928 with 58% of the vote. In 1932, he received 40% of the vote. Trump won 46% of the vote in 2016. This year he got 47% of the vote.
I think the American people know how to punish a President if they really want to.
I have two closely connected questions:
1. Why did Trump go mostly unpunished for his clownish management of COVID? (He did win 47% of the vote)
2. Why did the Spanish flu have such a small impact on historical memory both immediately afterward and in the longer term?
I think that what connects them is a general social psychological tendency regarding epidemics to think, well, this is bad, but there's not much you can do, so just endure it and then move on when you can.
People got scared early and deserted restaurants, bars, etc before official restrictions were put in place. They stayed really scared for a few weeks. And then, well, they got used to the idea of a contagious virus existing amongst us and decided there was generally not a whole bunch you could do about it. (OK, most people did wear masks.) And the "not much you can do about it" extended to Trump as well, no matter his crazy antics. And so we wait for it to go away, because it mutates or otherwise burns itself out, or there's a successful vaccine.
But blame Trump? Not really. It's just a thing that happened.
And once it's over, it will be over. I find all these premature articles about how COVID will "permanently change X" to be off target. I know what COVID will permanently change: nothing. We'll be like Americans in the 1920s, perfectly happy to get back to normal life, even to party a bit more. It was a bad thing for a while but it didn't actually *mean* anything. It came, we suffered, we endured, it's gone, and now let's forget it.
And for Trump? In the longer run regarding COVID, he may be remembered (if at all) much more for Operation Warp Speed than all that crap we endured from him. Unfair, but that's life.
The full travel lockdown strategy seems too economically devastating / morally unfair / xenophobic when the disease is an epidemic that has a single hotspot, but reasonable & potentially more effective when it's already everywhere. IF New Zealand had just banned all travel from China & Europe, it would likely have been overwhelmed with the virus. It's banning all movement that seems effective but impractical outside of global pandemic situations.
Great article, interesting and provocative.
I guess part of this makes me wonder about how this experience with the plague in India hardened into fact. Was it academics? Public health officials? Journalists? Some combination?
One piece of a speculation which floats through my head is that the educated class tends to have a very cosmopolitan outlook, so I wonder if there was some confirmation bias happening here: travel restrictions cut against cosmopolitan ideals, so maybe some folks were too quick to accept the received “wisdom” on travel restrictions?
The City of Chicago actually had a centralized quarantine facility from March until June or July and then shut it down. It was also extremely underused when it was open. Just absolute incompetence at every level of government.
Sam can you pass along the information on this? I vaguely recall something. Was it shut down because it wasn't utilized? Too expensive? I'm easily persuaded by city incompetence but I don't know if its fair to blame them for this particular case.
The one I know of was at the Hotel Julian but I'm having trouble finding any news stories or information about it other than that it existed. I heard from friends that it was severely underused when it did exist. Not sure if that's because they didn't do enough to publicize it or didn't tell the people giving out information to communicate it to people who tested positive or what.
FWIW, I had, at the beginning, been rather happy with the Mayor and Gov's efforts (I'm in Chicago so this is why I care). But as time has gone on, I've found most of the Mayor's efforts just not really enough. A benchmark of 4,500 tests a day in a city of 3 million is just pathetic. As is the set up of city testing sites that require a car, run MWF from 10-4 only, etc.. And then her attitude with the schools' teachers union, the fact that it still isn't legal to walk on the beaches or use the playgrounds. Her chief health officer has steadily depreciated the goodwill we had for her at the beginning...
There were internal borders setup in Western Australia. My cousin, who lives 3 hours out of Perth was unable to return home for 3 months! Obviously, we love our freedoms a little too much in the United States but an outrageous virus calls for draconian measures. We should have halted all interstate travel, closed international borders (even for citizens) and kept restaurants open for only take away. All this nonsense with outdoor seating surely makes people feel good, but it just exacerbated the problem. We should have had stricter curfews and we could have potentially done better.
Obviously, comparing to countries like Australia and NZ is apples and oranges. Population of USA is 300m more than Australia for almost the same size land mass. People in the US (especially cities like NYC) live on top of each other where maybe 200 people share the same staircase or elevator. As bad as trump did with this, it was bound to be much worse in America compared to these others countries.
I was literally counting down the days until you went on Rogan's podcast. Awesome!
This is a very much too narrow criticism. A policy of restricting entry without being part of a systematic strategy to test and isolate asymptomatic infected people would be a very limited value.
Border controls, travel restrictions and quarantines for travelers work. Mongolia understands this. As of yesterday, they have reported 819 *total* cases and 0 deaths in a population of 3.3 million in a country that shares a 4600 km border with China.