COVID-19 travel restrictions and the International Health Regulations – Call for an open debate on easing of travel restrictions

Abstract

COVID-19 travel restrictions and the International Health Regulations -Call for an open debate on easing of travel restrictionsThe COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has made national governments worldwide to mandate several generic infection control measures such as physical distancing, self-isolation, and closure of non-essential shops, restaurants schools, among others. Some models suggest physical distancing would have to persist for 3 months to mitigate the peak effects on health systems and could be required on an intermittent basis for 12 to 18 months (Flaxman et al., 2020).Apart from these control measures travel restrictions during the early phase of the China outbreak were useful to confine it to Wuhan, the major source of the outbreak (Kraemer et al., 2020) although ultimately these measures did not prevent the spread of COVID-19 to other regions of China. The global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 has clearly been associated with regional and international travel which has contributed to the pandemic (Candido et al., 2020). To limit cross-border spread, both regionally and globally, many countries have swiftly adopted sweeping measures, including full lockdowns of shops, companies, shutting down airports, imposing travel restrictions and completely sealing their borders, to contain transmission (Gostin and Wiley, 2020). The grounding of international travel as part of the global response to prevent spread has caused profound disruption of travel and trade and has threatened the survival of many airlines, travel companies, and associated businesses.Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but have a significant economic and social impact. Since the WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020, and as of 8th April, 2020, 180 countries have reported to WHO additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic in relation to travel to and from China or other countries, ranging from denial of entry of passengers, visa restrictions or quarantine for returning travellers (WHO, 2020a). To re-start the world economy again it will be important to ease travel restrictions as soon as possible. Whilst travel restriction measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, since they allow countries time to implement effective preparedness measures based on careful risk assessment, they should be based on a reasoned scientific evaluation of the

The HIV and SARS-CoV-2 Parallel in Dentistry from the Perspectives of the Oral Health Care Team

“…Unlike COVID-19, the AIDS era did not cause a global collapse and lockdowns, as the diseases have very different transmissibility pathways, via respiratory droplets ( Zhu et al 2020 ) and bodily fluids ( Shaw and Hunder 2012 ), respectively. Although transmission seems to be heightened by a potential airborne transmission route relevant for the spread of SARS-CoV-2 ( Setti et al 2020 ), travel bans and restrictions have been widely criticized ( Petersen et al 2020 ), given that they failed to effectively affect the epidemic’s trajectory ( Chinazzi et al 2020 ) when used at random without careful risk assessment ( Devi 2020 ). However, unlike the travel bans for individuals who are COVID-19 positive that are being lifted <4 mo after the initial outbreak, >40 countries still impose travel restrictions on those living with HIV almost 4 decades after the first cases were reported in North America ( UNAIDS 2019 ).…”

Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Change National Security and Healthcare in the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Disease?

“…While travel restriction measures may be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, they should be based on a reasoned scientific evaluation of the available evidence on their possible effectiveness. 21 Mentioned restrictions result in significant socioeconomic implications. 22 They impaired trade, agriculture, petroleum and oil industry, manufacturing, finance hospitality, tourism, aviation, real estate, as well as the entertainment industry and education.…”

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2: implications for blood safety and sufficiency

“…Blood centres in these countries can implement a deferral, either for donors returning from countries assessed as high risk for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or, given that most countries are now affected by SARS‐CoV‐2, all donors returning from overseas. As the epidemic progresses in a particular geographical region with sustained widespread local transmission, travel‐related deferrals will be less effective in mitigating transfusion‐transmission risk, especially if government closes the borders to overseas travellers and imposes a period of isolation for returning citizens [147]. A deferral for donors infected with or potentially exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2 can be implemented to further reduce any potential transfusion‐transmission risk.…”