I'm curious to the downvoters, do you generally believe it's a good idea to make public policy decisions without considering the downsides? It's like people who want to ban encryption because it could marginally increase the number of terrorists caught.
Of course we should consider the downsides when we make public policy decisions. In fact, if we weren't, we wouldn't be making decisions at all but merely reacting.
But we can consider the downsides and decide that we want to restrict travel.
I don't actually need to go visit my rellies. I want to, but I don't have to. On the other hand, if I go on a voluntary trip, I probably have to return home because I can't really afford a hotel indefinitely into the future.
So it's obvious to me that there is some distinction between necessary and nice to have.
I genuinely have been underwhelmed by the reaction to this disease through much of the world. It is necessary in a constitutional democracy to react sometimes to maintain the trust of the voters - or they might say "A democracy is fine when things are going well, but when the chips are down we need a strong leader who can make the decisions we need". Saying "those entertainment business can't open during this outbreak", "keep your tables at least a metre apart" and "don't travel" are reasonable reactions in this circumstance. And we need democratic leaders so that they can know when it's gone on for too long and they have to accept we can't stop it - something a "strong leader" can't tell.
