Corona virus. We should have taken proper steps in the beginning?

[Need answers]

So the next time the SARs viruse shows up in China, Congress is to shut down all flights from Asia to the US? Shut down schools and shops? Install Martial law right away? No one will protest.

I doubt Martial law would be justified. We have shut down schools and shops and most people have not criticized that action. It was needed. The States are doing that. California, a democratic state shut down the whole state. No one is complaining about California. If they had done it in the beginning their outbreak might not have been as bad. That's my point in this thread. Its not all Trumps fault.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I doubt Martial law would be justified. We have shut down schools and shops and most people have not criticized that action. It was needed. The States are doing that. California, a democratic state shut down the whole state. No one is complaining about California. If they had done it in the beginning their outbreak might not have been as bad. That's my point in this thread. Its not all Trumps fault.

I agree. But some expect Trump to have done so months ago.

 

[Need answers]

I agree. But some expect Trump to have done so months ago.

Perhaps, but the states dont need to wait on Trump, they can do that themselves.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is ultimately no ones fault and we are all in this together.

 

[Yarddog]

Trump has been deeply criticized for not taking proper steps in the beginning of this crisis in order to contain the corona virus. But aren't we all to blame? What has congress or the states done to contain this virus in the beginning of this epidemic? China took drastic measures, they locked down 60 million people in order to stop the spread to the rest of the country. The state of California has finally done this, they locked down the state. But they didnt do it in the beginning. Should they have? If Trump should be criticized what about everyone else? And what has congress done in the beginning to contain this virus?

Much of this depends on the President declaring a National Emergency, which grants more authority to respond.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is not too late.

This model predicts the last day each state can act before the point of no return

 

[Need answers]

Much of this depends on the President declaring a National Emergency, which grants more authority to respond.

I believe he already did that weeks ago.

 

[Yarddog]

I believe he already did that weeks ago.

He did about a week ago.

 

[Need answers]

He did about a week ago.

The news article i read was dated a couple weeks ago.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Perhaps, but the states dont need to wait on Trump, they can do that themselves.

All true but they blame Trump nevertheless.

 

[Need answers]

All true but they blame Trump nevertheless.

Trump may have not shut down the country, but he did impose travel restrictions from China, something he was criticized for, critics pointed to the world health organization's recommendation that travel restrictions not be used. How can anyone criticize Trump for not shutting down the country, something that would ban all travel from all countries, while at the same time criticizing him for imposing travel restrictions from China?

 

[childeye 2]

Well they criticized actions taken by the United States, and Trump made those decisions so who are they criticizing?

I can't speak for Rep. Engel, but I do know it's not necessarily intended or meant as a personal criticism of anyone when someone says there's no proof of improvement in the public health outcomes from travel bans issued by countries worldwide.

"The United States and other countries around the world have put in place unprecedented travel restrictions in response to the virus," said Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel. "These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes, rather they tend to cause economic harm and to stoke racist and discriminatory responses to this epidemic."

Respectfully, I don't believe the sentences above indicate any criticism directed at Trump. Right away in the first sentence I can see that it's not the United States alone concerning the travel restrictions that Mr. Engel is talking about, but rather a global inclusion of all countries around the world who have also implemented travel restrictions of sorts. To take this as meant to be a personal attack, then all leaders of all these other countries must be included in the insinuation in regards to the characters of their persons.

These measures haven't improved public health outcomes? Dr Fauci disagrees. He's not partisan at all but sticks to facts.

The problem here is that if Rep. Engel was referring to stopping the spread as opposed to mitigating the spread, then Dr. Fauci would obviously be agreeing with Rep. Engel.​

​

For the listener, when Engel says "These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes", there are nuances to consider such as whether Engel is talking about stopping a contagion from spreading as opposed to slowing down the spread, or Engel could simply mean there's no proof the restrictions helped as far as we can tell.

This all happened quickly. The first restrictions happened on January 23 when China closed the Wuhan airport, shut down bus and train service, and banned private cars on the roads except for necessary services. In America, only one week later, the state department issued a level 4 travel advisory on Thursday January 30, which followed what I believe was a level 2 warning a few days earlier. The next morning on January 31, the three major airlines that provide service to China suspended all flights to and from China. And that evening came the announcement of the Whitehouse decision to put restrictions on certain people coming from China which would become effective on February 2 (the China travel ban). Since Engels statement came only a few days after the China travel ban even went into effect, it's more likely that Engel in his sentiment about seeing no improvement in outcomes, was generally speaking about the travel restrictions as a whole failing to stop the spread.

In contrast Dr. Fauci is talking strictly about the China travel restrictions effective on February 2, and his words were precise saying that they intended to mitigate the spread not stop the spread. Additionally, the same was said by expert witnesses at the hearing on February 5 when they said that travel restrictions will not stop the spread but will slow it down, as will all the other steps taken such as closing schools and canceling public events, etc...

14,000 people traveled to the United States from China each day. We shouldn't impose restrictions on these people because its too late? Just let them come in and potentially cause the outbreak to be worse?

To me, this is a strawman argument. I haven't seen anybody criticize the restrictions other than to say that they won't stop the spread, or to remark that they are going to cause disruptions of various sorts. I've only seen Trump claiming democrats protested strongly and called him a racist for implementing the ban, but he gives no names when asked who these people are. If anyone says it's too late to impose restrictions, they more than likely mean the virus is already here. 300,000 people from China alone entered our country in January.

Its going to be hard to contain this outbreak if we allow 14,000 potentially infected Chinese to enter the US each day. It doesn't make sense? It actually makes lots of sense. Restricting 14,000 people traveling to the United States from China each day would surely diminish this outbreak.

It "probably doesn't make sense" given that the outbreak had already spread to several other countries by that point. "At this juncture, it's going to be very hard to contain the virus," Bera said.

I think you're misunderstanding what Bera is saying. If you look at the last line, he's talking about containing the contagion, which means stopping it from spreading in the USA. The semantics therefore clearly show he is saying that the China travel ban won't stop the virus from entering our country from other countries, which is why he says "it probably doesn't make sense". Look at the date. This was from a Politico article published Feb 4... In mid March Trump will issue a travel ban from Europe. This means that it took Trump more than a month to act on the loophole Bera had already correctly pointed out from the outset of the plan.

No one is calling these democrats racist though, or accusing them of racist agendas, or saying it "stokes racist and discriminatory responses."

It occurs to me that none of these democrats began their campaigns by saying, "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people".

 

[Yarddog]

The news article i read was dated a couple weeks ago.

He made the announcement on March 13th. If you have an article let's see it.

 

[Need answers]

I can't speak for Rep. Engel, but I do know it's not necessarily intended or meant as a personal criticism of anyone when someone says there's no proof of improvement in the public health outcomes from travel bans issued by countries worldwide.

"The United States and other countries around the world have put in place unprecedented travel restrictions in response to the virus," said Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel. "These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes, rather they tend to cause economic harm and to stoke racist and discriminatory responses to this epidemic."

Respectfully, I don't believe the sentences above indicate any criticism directed at Trump. Right away in the first sentence I can see that it's not the United States alone concerning the travel restrictions that Mr. Engel is talking about, but rather a global inclusion of all countries around the world who have also implemented travel restrictions of sorts. To take this as meant to be a personal attack, then all leaders of all these other countries must be included in the insinuation in regards to the characters of their persons.

The problem here is that if Rep. Engel was referring to stopping the spread as opposed to mitigating the spread, then Dr. Fauci would obviously be agreeing with Rep. Engel.​

For the listener, when Engel says "These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes", there are nuances to consider such as whether Engel is talking about stopping a contagion from spreading as opposed to slowing down the spread, or Engel could simply mean there's no proof the restrictions helped as far as we can tell.

This all happened quickly. The first restrictions happened on January 23 when China closed the Wuhan airport, shut down bus and train service, and banned private cars on the roads except for necessary services. In America, only one week later, the state department issued a level 4 travel advisory on Thursday January 30, which followed what I believe was a level 2 warning a few days earlier. The next morning on January 31, the three major airlines that provide service to China suspended all flights to and from China. And that evening came the announcement of the Whitehouse decision to put restrictions on certain people coming from China which would become effective on February 2 (the China travel ban). Since Engels statement came only a few days after the China travel ban even went into effect, it's more likely that Engel in his sentiment about seeing no improvement in outcomes, was generally speaking about the travel restrictions as a whole failing to stop the spread.

In contrast Dr. Fauci is talking strictly about the China travel restrictions effective on February 2, and his words were precise saying that they intended to mitigate the spread not stop the spread. Additionally, the same was said by expert witnesses at the hearing on February 5 when they said that travel restrictions will not stop the spread but will slow it down, as will all the other steps taken such as closing schools and canceling public events, etc...


To me, this is a strawman argument. I haven't seen anybody criticize the restrictions other than to say that they won't stop the spread, or to remark that they are going to cause disruptions of various sorts. I've only seen Trump claiming democrats protested strongly and called him a racist for implementing the ban, but he gives no names when asked who these people are. If anyone says it's too late to impose restrictions, they more than likely mean the virus is already here. 300,000 people from China alone entered our country in January.

It "probably doesn't make sense" given that the outbreak had already spread to several other countries by that point. "At this juncture, it's going to be very hard to contain the virus," Bera said.

I think you're misunderstanding what Bera is saying. If you look at the last line, he's talking about containing the contagion, which means stopping it from spreading in the USA. The semantics therefore clearly show he is saying that the China travel ban won't stop the virus from entering our country from other countries, which is why he says "it probably doesn't make sense". Look at the date. This was from a Politico article published Feb 4... In mid March Trump will issue a travel ban from Europe. This means that it took Trump more than a month to act on the loophole Bera had already correctly pointed out from the outset of the plan.


It occurs to me that none of these democrats began their campaigns by saying, "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people".

"The United States and other countries around the world have put in place unprecedented travel restrictions in response to the virus," said Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel. "These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes, rather they tend to cause economic harm and to stoke racist and discriminatory responses to this epidemic."

This statement by Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel is just flat out wrong. Its most likely quoting Who guidelines which are also wrong, especially wrong for this type of outbreak that is so highly contagious and spreads very quickly. How can Eliot L. Engel say that travel restrictions dont improve public health outcomes? It helps a lot by preventing people from being infected in the first place which is much better than trying to cure them afterward, especially when some wont be cured but will die, especially from this virus. Letting infected people into your country surely wont improve public outcomes. How does it cause economic harm? What causes economic harm is this outbreak. Diminishing that outbreak doesnt cause economic harm but allowing it to get out of control will hurt economies as we have seen in the world already. I honestly believe they are using Who guidelines that are absurd in this situation.

A day earlier, Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, who presided over the hearing, told Politico, "In our response we can't create prejudices and harbor anxieties toward one population." Bera told Politico the decision to impose travel restrictions "probably doesn't make sense" given that the outbreak had already spread to several other countries by that point. "At this juncture, it's going to be very hard to contain the virus," Bera said.

It doesn't make sense? It makes much sense. A you said, the purpose of travel restrictions is not to stop the outbreak but to minimize it. Imposing restrictions on any nation, not just China, minimizes the outbreak.

Im not gong to unpack the rest of your post. These comments made by democratic lawmakers are enough for me to dismiss as absurd.

 

[Need answers]

He made the announcement on March 13th. If you have an article let's see it.

I think i must have made a mistake.

 

[childeye 2]

This statement by Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel is just flat out wrong. Its most likely quoting Who guidelines which are also wrong, especially wrong for this type of outbreak that is so highly contagious and spreads very quickly. How can Eliot L. Engel say that travel restrictions dont improve public health outcomes?

He could be quoting WHO guidelines, that's true. Maybe you just answered your own question.

It helps a lot by preventing people from being infected in the first place which is much better than trying to cure them afterward, especially when some wont be cured but will die, especially from this virus. Letting infected people into your country surely wont improve public outcomes.

I'm sure the WHO knows that. If I may point out, you're thinking in absolutes rather than degrees between two absolutes. There are two narratives and we all will be splitting hairs concerning the best way to navigate between them. The Who guidelines must account for both narratives to be an objective view. The virus is already here and spreading. While letting more infected people in will only increase the rate of infection, stopping people from entering who are infected doesn't stop the virus that is already here and spreading exponentially. Mathematically speaking, when the infection rate has spread to a certain number within a country that is the same as other countries, a travel ban becomes useless. Nor can we stop travel indefinitely and never return to work or school. Hence travel bans and isolating ourselves are only temporary strategies for slowing the spread of the virus and trying to mitigate the effects.

How does it cause economic harm? What causes economic harm is this outbreak. Diminishing that outbreak doesnt cause economic harm but allowing it to get out of control will hurt economies as we have seen in the world already. I honestly believe they are using Who guidelines that are absurd in this situation.

I don't see anything wrong with the WHO guidelines. We're basically following them right now.

It doesn't make sense? It makes much sense. A you said, the purpose of travel restrictions is not to stop the outbreak but to minimize it. Imposing restrictions on any nation, not just China, minimizes the outbreak.

Yeah and Bera was meaning the same thing, it doesn't make sense, when the goal is stopping the contagion from entering the country, that restrictions would be placed on only one country, so long as infected people are still coming in from other countries. He qualified this in his statement. Or let me put it this way. Bera is indicating that it makes better sense to stop travel from all infected countries than just one.

 

[Need answers]

He could be quoting WHO guidelines, that's true. Maybe you just answered your own question.

I'm sure the WHO knows that. If I may point out, you're thinking in absolutes rather than degrees between two absolutes. There are two narratives and we all will be splitting hairs concerning the best way to navigate between them. The Who guidelines must account for both narratives to be an objective view. The virus is already here and spreading. While letting more infected people in will only increase the rate of infection, stopping people from entering who are infected doesn't stop the virus that is already here and spreading exponentially. Mathematically speaking, when the infection rate has spread to a certain number within a country that is the same as other countries, a travel ban becomes useless. Nor can we stop travel indefinitely and never return to work or school. Hence travel bans and isolating ourselves are only temporary strategies for slowing the spread of the virus and trying to mitigate the effects.

I don't see anything wrong with the WHO guidelines. We're basically following them right now.
Yeah and Bera was meaning the same thing, it doesn't make sense, when the goal is stopping the contagion from entering the country, that restrictions would be placed on only one country, so long as infected people are still coming in from other countries. He qualified this in his statement. Or let me put it this way. Bera is indicating that it makes better sense to stop travel from all infected countries than just one.

I'm sure the WHO knows that

Im not so sure they know, i havent seen evidence that they do, but if you have please post it, i'll gladly look at it. Restricting travel during this epidemic is essential to slowing its spread. Thats the goal. We cant have hospitals overwhelmed. Thats why many countries have imposed such restrictions, and why states in the Us are shutting down. I believe that the Who guidelines are not suitable for this particular epidemic. Many countries and Us states must also believe that otherwise they would follow Who guidelines but they are not.

If I may point out, you're thinking in absolutes rather than degrees between two absolutes. There are two narratives and we all will be splitting hairs concerning the best way to navigate between them. The Who guidelines must account for both narratives to be an objective view.

But do the Who guidelines account for both narratives? So far i have not seen evidence that they do. Concerning this particular epidemic i believe that we cannot effectively or objectively use both narratives. So far from what i have seen its Who that is using absolutes. Where are the degrees between absolutes in these Who guidelines?

The virus is already here and spreading

Yes very true. However allowing more infected people into the country will only make that problem even worse. If anything we need more isolation, not more travel.

stopping people from entering who are infected doesn't stop the virus that is already here and spreading exponentially

No one has suggested otherwise, not me and not Trump or his team. That's kind of a straw man argument. The fact is that restricting Travel has reduced potential Us virus outbreak. As Dr Dr Fauci has said, travel restrictions have absolutely done good and has minimized the US outbreak. There is a Doctor in South Korea who asked the government on 6 different occasions to restrict travel from China, but they just ignored the health care official. We see how that worked out. The South Korean government was more worried about freedom than protecting their nation from this epidemic, according to quotes that i heard from them.

Mathematically speaking, when the infection rate has spread to a certain number within a country that is the same as other countries, a travel ban becomes useless.

Thats not true or relevant for two reasons. First, we didn't wait until the virus was already sweeping over the whole country before imposing travel restrictions, although it might have helped to do it even sooner than we did. The world is learning from this horrible experience. Everyone around the world made mistakes. The next time we have such an epidemic i hope we are more prepared. Second, a travel ban is not useless, especially after the epidemic has swept through a country because isolation is critical, and allowing people to huddle together onto Jets is not a good idea. Also, travel restrictions slow the spread of the virus, so they are not useless in any situation. Who guidelines haven't been effective in addressing that issues at all.

Nor can we stop travel indefinitely and never return to work or school. Hence travel bans and isolating ourselves are only temporary strategies for slowing the spread of the virus and trying to mitigate the effects.

But waiting to resume regular activities is necessary at this moment. And no one has suggested that we should never lift travel bans, these are only temporary measures, as you yourself admit, so again you seem to be using a straw man argument.

I don't see anything wrong with the WHO guidelines. We're basically following them right now.

We are not using Who guidelines. They recommend not restricting travel but we have not used their guidelines nor are many other countries. If you cant see a problem with Who guidelines yet then maybe you are not being objective?

Yeah and Bera was meaning the same thing, it doesn't make sense, when the goal is stopping the contagion from entering the country, that restrictions would be placed on only one country

Who guidelines never mentions it that i know of. Also, we have imposed travel restrictions on other countries as well. The goal is not to stop it but to slow it down. Imposing restrictions on some countries would slow it down. Imposing restrictions on all countries would slow it down as well, although who does have a good point that we shouldn't restrict commerce, and we haven't. This epidemic itself however has hurt the economies though, but im not sure any guidelines can address that problem.

Bera is indicating that it makes better sense to stop travel from all infected countries than just one.

Well those are not his exact words and i would have to go back and see what Bera said, but this is a long post and im not going to. I agree with what your interpretation of Bera's words is saying, but it still makes sense to restrict travel to only some countries at the very least, because it is still effective in slowing down rapid spread of the virus.

 

[childeye 2]

Im not so sure they know, i havent seen evidence that they do, but if you have please post it, i'll gladly look at it. Restricting travel during this epidemic is essential to slowing its spread. Thats the goal. We cant have hospitals overwhelmed. Thats why many countries have imposed such restrictions, and why states in the Us are shutting down. I believe that the Who guidelines are not suitable for this particular epidemic. Many countries and Us states must also believe that otherwise they would follow Who guidelines but they are not.

But do the Who guidelines account for both narratives? So far i have not seen evidence that they do. Concerning this particular epidemic i believe that we cannot effectively or objectively use both narratives. So far from what i have seen its Who that is using absolutes. Where are the degrees between absolutes in these Who guidelines?

Yes very true. However allowing more infected people into the country will only make that problem even worse. If anything we need more isolation, not more travel.

No one has suggested otherwise, not me and not Trump or his team. That's kind of a straw man argument. The fact is that restricting Travel has reduced potential Us virus outbreak. As Dr Dr Fauci has said, travel restrictions have absolutely done good and has minimized the US outbreak. There is a Doctor in South Korea who asked the government on 6 different occasions to restrict travel from China, but they just ignored the health care official. We see how that worked out. The South Korean government was more worried about freedom than protecting their nation from this epidemic, according to quotes that i heard from them.

Thats not true or relevant for two reasons. First, we didn't wait until the virus was already sweeping over the whole country before imposing travel restrictions, although it might have helped to do it even sooner than we did. The world is learning from this horrible experience. Everyone around the world made mistakes. The next time we have such an epidemic i hope we are more prepared. Second, a travel ban is not useless especially after the epidemic has swept through a country because isolation is critical, and allowing people to huddle together onto Jets is not a good idea. Who guidelines haven't been effective in addressing that issues at all.

But waiting to resume regular activities is necessary at this moment. And no one has suggested that we should never lift travel bans, these are only temporary measures, as you yourself admit, so again you seem to be using a straw man argument.

We are not using Who guidelines. They recommend not restricting travel but we have not used their guidelines nor are many other countries. If you cant see a problem with Who guidelines yet then maybe you are not being objective?

Who guidelines never mentions it that i know of. Also, we have imposed travel restrictions on other countries as well. The goal is not to stop it but to slow it down. Imposing restrictions on some countries would slow it down. Imposing restrictions on all countries would slow it down as well, although who does have a good point that we shouldn't restrict commerce, and we haven't. This epidemic itself however has hurt the economies though, but im not sure any guidelines can address that problem.

Well those are not his exact words and i would have to go back and see what Bera said, but this is a long post and im not going to. I agree with what your interpretation of Bera's words is saying, but it still makes sense to restrict travel to only some countries at the very least, because it is still effective in slowing down rapid spread of the virus.

The current WHO guidelines on covid-19 will not recommend travel restrictions because it's a sensitive political issue which the WHO needs to desperately avoid getting mixed up in.

But otherwise, when not under pressure they would generally say something like they don't recommend too harsh of restrictions for extended periods that may hurt international commerce and strain relations unless there is strong scientific evidence for doing so. And then they would add that it's up to a country's government to make that decision and they would request that government send them the scientific data before the WHO would make a recommendation.

Typically, the WHO wants the governments to be the ones to tell their citizens not to travel somewhere.

One other thing, I wasn't engaging in any strawman argument as in meaning to suggest that anyone suggested that we should never come out from isolation. I was just describing the absolute of one of two opposing narratives.

 

[Need answers]

The current WHO guidelines on covid-19 will not recommend travel restrictions because it's a sensitive political issue which the WHO needs to desperately avoid getting mixed up in.

But otherwise, when not under pressure they would generally say something like they don't recommend too harsh of restrictions for extended periods that may hurt international commerce and strain relations unless there is strong scientific evidence for doing so. And then they would add that it's up to a country's government to make that decision and they would request that government send them the scientific data before the WHO would make a recommendation.

Typically, the WHO wants the governments to be the ones to tell their citizens not to travel somewhere.

One other thing, I wasn't engaging in any strawman argument as in meaning to suggest that anyone suggested that we should never come out from isolation. I was just describing the absolute of one of two opposing narratives.

The current WHO guidelines on covid-19 will not recommend travel restrictions because it's a sensitive political issue which the WHO needs to desperately avoid getting mixed up in.

Why then did democrats who testified before congress bring up Who travel restriction guidelines, if its not their position on the corona virus?

But otherwise, when not under pressure they would generally say something like they don't recommend too harsh of restrictions for extended periods that may hurt international commerce and strain relations unless there is strong scientific evidence for doing so.

Thats not what i heard democrats say. They referred to Who guidelines on travel restrictions. Also, the language you just used doesnt sound like what democrats referred to. So im not sure that is an accurate representation of their guidelines.

unless there is strong scientific evidence for doing so

It doesnt take a scientist to see that travel restrictions are necessary and effective in this corona virus epidemic.

And then they would add that it's up to a country's government to make that decision

Typically, the WHO wants the governments to be the ones to tell their citizens not to travel somewhere.

I do believe that is their position yes.

 

[childeye 2]

Why then did democrats who testified before congress bring up Who travel restriction guidelines, if its not their position on the corona virus?

I would like to ask you to try and be more precise with your articulation so that I don't have to point out the false premises in your questions that you probably don't see or intend to be there. The Democrats didn't bring up WHO travel restriction guidelines, and when I say that, I mean three things.
1)Only one Democrat (person), Engel is probably who you are referring to, and not every Democrat.
2)We (You, I, everyone except Engel) do not know whether Engel is quoting or alluding to WHO guidelines on Covid-19. We're making an educated guess since it sounds like he is.
3) No Democrat/Democrats testified before Congress.
Having shown you the problem I see in your question, perhaps you can understand from my perspective why such a question worded as such is not even answerable. However, since your point is probably to convey that this appears to be Engel's position, let me say that I would agree that it does sound as if he's read or listened to the WHO official covid-19 position on the issue. We can't know for certain but they are similar.

That's not what I heard democrats say. They referred to Who guidelines on travel restrictions.

Respectfully we all need to not reason upon false premises. Any such reasoning will end in a contradiction and make us liars when we assert it's true. If in fact you saw or heard all or some Democrats formally announce they were quoting the WHO recommendations and also that that is there position as well, then you would not have said this in post#254 "Its most likely quoting Who guidelines which are also wrong"...

Also, the language you just used doesn't sound like what democrats referred to. So im not sure that is an accurate representation of their guidelines.

The language I used was an attempt to portray a neutral diplomatic position, which is why I used phrases that are noncommittal such as, "generally say something like" and "that may hurt". Also I provided a caveat such as "unless there is"...

You will hear official spokespersons for the WHO use this type of language when answering questions about travel restrictions during their live streamed press conferences. But the greater issue I am pointing to is that there are political minefields that need to be traversed for any internationally funded organization such as WHO. I am conveying to you that, with some insight into the political sides of an issue, you'll have to read between the lines to see why their online written recommendations are probably not ever going to say they are recommending travel bans to or for any country.

It doesnt take a scientist to see that travel restrictions are necessary and effective in this corona virus epidemic.

For the sake of politics it matters that facts can be shown to back up any theory or premise. The WHO has to be sure their image is not tainted by politics.