# data[].attributes.body
Do you think Biden is way more cautious & worried about stopping spread of covid-19 than trump is? why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The first cases of a novel coronavirus were reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) in early January. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has become the worst health crisis facing the global community in more than a century. It has also taken a particular toll on the United States. Although the U.S. only represents 4% of the global population, as of early September, it accounts for 23% of all COVID-19 cases and 21% of all deaths, and ranks number one among high-income countries as measured by cases per capita. In addition, most states in the U.S. are considered " hotspots", with ongoing, widespread community transmission; shortages of testing and other needed supplies also continue. COVID-19 has significantly affected daily life in America, including the economy and school closures, and has emerged as an important factor in the 2020 Presidential election. Polling data indicate that a majority of voters disapprove of President Trump's handling of the outbreak and prefer Democratic candidate Joe Biden when it comes to tackling the pandemic. To gain a better understanding of how the candidates differ on their approach to addressing COVID-19, this document compares Trump's record with Biden's proposals. It starts with a broad overview of each candidate's approach, followed by a detailed, side-by-side comparison.

Donald Trump

To date, in place of a coordinated, national plan to scale-up and implement public health measures to control the spread of coronavirus, the Trump Administration has chosen to rest the main responsibility for the COVID-19 response with the states, with the federal government serving as " back-up" and " supplier of last resort." While this in part reflects federalism and the decentralized nature of U.S. public health, the lack of a national plan and strong federal guidelines have significantly contributed to a patchwork of policies, supplies, and outbreak trajectories across the country, and worsening community spread.

Early on, the President's initial response to the new outbreak was focused on sealing U.S. borders and preventing entry of the virus. President Trump moved to suspend entry from China on January 31, followed by others since. However, with community transmission already underway in the U.S., and challenges with screening arriving passengers, travel restrictions were not effective in curtailing spread in the U.S. Meanwhile, the federal government was slow in bolstering public health capacities, such as testing and contact tracing, at the time the virus began to circulate domestically. As cases and deaths escalated, the gulf between what was needed and what was available grew quickly.

By mid-March, facing growing case numbers and seeing what had happened in other countries, several U.S. state and local jurisdictions began implementing stay-at-home orders and other social distancing policies. After conflicting messages from the President, who minimized the threat of the virus, the White House issued federal social distancing guidelines on March 16 for a 15-day period. Soon after, the President began pushing toward reopening, tweeting on March 22, for example, that "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. At the end of the 15 day period, we will make a decision as to which way we want to go!" and saying he hoped the country would reopen by Easter, with " packed churches." The White House extended the social distancing period through the end of April, and issued reopening guidelines for states on April 16. Still, even before the end of April, the President began encouraging Governors to reopen, although key reopening metrics were not yet met in most places. The President has also pushed for schools to re-open in-person even though community transmission has remained high in many places, and is much higher than it was in other countries that moved to re-open in-person schooling.

There have been ongoing challenges with COVID-19 testing in particular. These started with an early, faulty test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that resulted in a significant delay in scaling-up testing as coronavirus spread quickly in the U.S. They have continued through to the present with ongoing shortages of critical testing supplies; significant delays in turn-around times for results; and shifting and sometimes confusing federal guidelines that have been reported to be subject to political pressure. Yet the President said in March that " Anybody that wants a test can get a test," and in May, "As far as Americans getting a test, they should all be able to get a test right now." More recently, while Administration officials have continued to say that anyone who needs a test could get one, they have acknowledged the need to reduce turn-around times and continue to work to increase testing capacity.

Throughout the pandemic, and even as cases and deaths increased, the President has downplayed the threat of COVID-19. For example:

On January 22, in response to a question about whether he was worried given the first report of known U.S. case, he said, "No. Not at all. And- we're- we have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It's-going to be just fine."

On February 2, "We pretty much shut it down coming in from China."

On February 25, "We have very few people with it."

On April 28, "But I think what happens is it's going to go away. This is going to go away."

On June 17, he said it was "fading away."

On July 19, "I think we're gonna be very good with the coronavirus. I think that at some point that's going to sort of just disappear. I hope."

On August 5, "It's going away. Like things go away. No question in my mind that it will go away, hopefully sooner rather than later."

The President has also given conflicting messages and conveyed misinformation about coronavirus and has sometimes been at odds with public health officials (including those in the government) and scientific evidence. For example:

He has touted the use of the drug, hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness, warnings of potential harms, and even after federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines recommended against its use.

He suggested that applying ultraviolet light to or inside the body, or injecting disinfectant, could combat coronavirus.

He has attributed rising COVID-19 cases to increased testing, despite the fact that this claim is not backed up by the data.

He has questioned the use of face masks, and given inconsistent messages about their use, even after CDC guidelines recommended them. It was only in July that he began to wear one in public at times and talk about their importance.

In pushing schools to re-open in person, he has said that children are "almost immune" and "don't have a problem," despite evidence to the contrary.

He called the FDA's issuance of an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma, a potential treatment for COVID-19, "historic" and a "breakthrough," even though the FDA itself said it "may be effective" and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel concluded that there were insufficient data to recommend either for or against it and at this time, it "should not be considered standard of care for the treatment of patients with COVID-19."

President Trump and White House officials often publicly disagreed with the recommendations being made by federal officials and public health scientists. The CDC, which in previous national public health emergencies was very much in the public eye, did not give press conferences. The President has also publicly criticized Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health since 1984, and generally not appeared in public with him recently, unlike earlier in the pandemic.

Even as the administration's primary strategy was to rely on states, it has taken a number of actions to address the pandemic. The President established a White House COVID-19 Task Force on January 27, even before the WHO had declared COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) (although leadership of the Task Force has shifted and its public-facing and internal activities have diminished). Three federal emergencies have been declared, enabling the authorization of funds and allowing the mobilization of resources and enhanced flexibilities to respond, as follows: HHS declared a public health emergency (PHE) on January 31 (renewed since then) and the President declared national emergencies under the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act, on March 13.

The President has also signed four emergency spending bills passed by Congress, which provide trillions to address COVID-19 and offer new flexibilities and relief for individuals, businesses, states, and localities. He has activated the use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to expand production, prioritize, and allocate supplies in the U.S., if needed, and this authority has been used in select cases. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided emergency use authorization for hundreds of tests and other devices and the CDC has issued more than 170 guidance documents on COVID-19. In addition, the U.S. has launched " Operation Warp Speed", a significant initiative to expedite research, development, and distribution of coronavirus vaccines. Finally, numerous other federal agencies have acted to help ease the burden of COVID-19, such as granting state Medicaid programs additional flexibilities, accelerating Medicare payments to hospitals and other health care providers, instituting new protections for nursing home residents, and issuing a strategy for "Accelerating Progress Towards Reducing COVID-19 Disparities and Achieving Health Equity."

These measures are taking place against the backdrop of other non-COVID-19 specific Administration actions that could significantly affect the response, such as a continued push before the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has provided millions of Americans with insurance coverage and expanded access to health care.

On the global front, two of the emergency spending bills included funding for other countries, and the Administration had already begun sending international assistance to countries in need before the bills were passed. Following a more general foreign policy approach of " America First", the Administration has chosen not to participate in several high-level international efforts to address COVID-19, has ended funding for the WHO, and has announced its intent to withdraw from WHO membership, actions that mark a significant departure from the role the U.S. has historically played, including its major role in combating the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

As part of his second term agenda, the President recently released the following goals for his proposal to "eradicate COVID-19":

"Develop a Vaccine by The End Of 2020."

"Return to Normal in 2021."

"Make All Critical Medicines and Supplies for Healthcare Workers in The United States."

"Refill Stockpiles and Prepare for Future Pandemics."

Joe Biden

Former VP Biden has outlined a number of proposals for how he would address the coronavirus pandemic as President. VP Biden was also part of the Obama Administration's response to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and 2016 Zika outbreak. During his tenure, the Obama Administration played a lead role in creating the "Global Health Security Agenda," a multilateral initiative that aims to serve as "a catalyst for progress toward the vision of attaining a world safe and secure from global health threats posed by infectious diseases." In addition, as follow-up to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, the Obama Administration established the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council (NSC) to lead the federal government's pandemic response (the Directorate was disbanded by the Trump Administration in 2018).

VP Biden has put forth the following principles for his proposed response to COVID-19:

"Restoring trust, credibility, and common purpose".

"Mounting an effective national emergency response that saves lives, protects frontline workers, and minimizes the spread of COVID-19".

"Eliminating cost barriers for prevention of and care for COVID-19".

"Pursuing decisive economic measures to help hard-hit workers, families, and small businesses and to stabilize the American economy".

"Rallying the world to confront this crisis while laying the foundation for the future".

VP Biden's plan states that "The federal government must act swiftly and aggressively" and that "Public health emergencies require disciplined, trustworthy leadership grounded in science." His approach calls for the federal government, not the states, to assume primary responsibility for many aspects of the COVID-19 response, including for scaling up testing and contact tracing, providing and managing the distribution of critical supplies, and setting strong national standards. For example, VP Biden has said he would call on all Americans to wear masks and work with governors and mayors to mandate mask wearing. He would appoint a "Supply Commander" to oversee national supply chain of essential equipment, medications, protective gear, directing distribution of critical equipment as cases peak at different times in different states or territories, and make more aggressive use of the DPA to direct companies to produce needed supplies. Additionally, in recognition of the disproportionate toll COVID-19 has taken on racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S., VP Biden would establish a " COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force ".

VP Biden has also called for adopting measures that go beyond what have been passed by Congress or supported by the Administration to further extend fiscal relief to individuals, schools, and businesses, provide enhanced insurance coverage, support states in providing COVID-19 related services, and eliminate cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment. For example, VP Biden would reopen enrollment for marketplace plans and cover COBRA at 100% for those who lose their jobs and health insurance due to COVID-19. In addition, VP Biden would further expand paid leave for sick workers and those caring for family members, among others, due to COVID-19, and provide additional pay for frontline/essential workers. On vaccine pricing, he would authorize the federal government to approve the price of any COVID-19 vaccine developed with federal resources, in contrast to the Trump Administration, which has said it does not want to pursue price controls. On schools, a key difference between Biden and Trump is Biden's emphasis on the need to get the virus under control before reopening in-person education. More broadly, VP Biden proposes to expand and protect the ACA.

On the global front, VP Biden would "re-embrace international engagement," leadership, and cooperation. His platform states that "Even as we take urgent steps to minimize the spread of COVID-19 at home, we must also help lead the response to this crisis globally. In doing so, we will lay the groundwork for sustained global health security leadership into the future." He would act to restore the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the NSC and work to help create a Global Health Emergency Board to harmonize crisis response for vulnerable communities around the world. Finally, he would restore funding to and fully resource the WHO and reverse the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw from WHO membership.

Sources

Unless otherwise noted, the following are the primary sources for this side-by-side:

President Trump:

Vice President Biden:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first cases of a novel coronavirus were reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) in early January. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has become the worst health crisis facing the global community in more than a century. It has also taken a particular toll on the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can Biden’s plans to stop Covid-19 be more effective than Trump’s latest responses? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Can Biden’s plans to stop Covid-19 be more effective than Trump’s latest responses? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you believe the travel ban on the U.S has helped reduce covid-19 cases? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you believe the travel ban on the U.S has helped reduce covid-19 cases? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump has made a number of misleading statements about his decision on Jan. 31 to impose travel restrictions related to the novel coronavirus epidemic.

Trump has referred to the travel restrictions as a "travel ban." There isn't an outright ban, as there are exceptions, including for Americans and their family members.

Trump said he was "bold" in imposing travel restrictions even though "everybody said, it's too early, it's too soon" and "a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively" told him "don't do it." Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said the decision stemmed from "the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS."

Trump said Democrats "loudly criticized and protested" his announced travel restrictions, and that they "called me a racist because I made that decision." Trump is overstating Democratic opposition. None of the party's congressional leaders and none of the Democratic candidates running for president have directly criticized that decision, though at least two Democrats have.

Trump said the travel restrictions "saved a lot of lives" and reduced U.S. COVID-19 cases to "a very small number." But experts say there isn't enough data to make that determination. A study in the journal Science found the various travel limitations across the globe initially helped to slow the spread, but the number of cases worldwide rose anyway because the virus had already begun traveling undetected internationally.

Azar declared a public health emergency for the novel coronavirus on Jan. 31, and announced the travel restrictions to and from China, effective Feb. 2. On Feb. 29, Trump expanded those travel restrictions to Iran. Trump has repeatedly boasted that his decision to impose the travel restrictions was bold and worked. But his rhetoric has sometimes stretched the facts.

A Travel 'Ban'?

For starters, health experts say Trump was wrong to refer to the travel restrictions as a "travel ban," as he did in a telephone interview on March 4 with Fox News' Sean Hannity. During a town hall on March 5, Trump said he "closed down the borders to China and to other areas that are very badly affected." That's not accurate.

As Azar explained when he announced the travel restrictions on Jan. 31, the policy prohibits non-U.S. citizens, other than the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, who have traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the U.S.

At a , White House Ebola response coordinator under the Obama administration, took issue with the characterization of the travel restrictions as a travel "ban." House subcommittee hearing on the coronavirus on Feb. 5, Ron Klain

"We don't have a travel ban," Klain said. "We have a travel Band-Aid right now. First, before it was imposed, 300,000 people came here from China in the previous month. So, the horse is out of the barn."

"There's no restriction on Americans going back and forth," Klain said. "There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay? So, unless we think that the color of the passport someone carries is a meaningful public health restriction, we have not placed a meaningful public health restriction."

Indeed, on Jan. 24, a week before the travel restrictions, the CDC confirmed two cases of the novel coronavirus in the U.S. from people who had returned from Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began.

Furthermore, Klain said, the import of goods from China is exempt from the travel restrictions, "and, of course, the people who fly the planes and drive the boats that bring those goods from China. We couldn't ban that activity. We vitally need that. Ninety percent of the antibiotics in this country come from China. All kinds of vital medical supplies ... we will use to treat people. So, travel bans ... that's not what we're imposing, that's not what exists."

As part of the travel restrictions, Azar announced that any U.S. citizen returning to the U.S. who had been in Hubei Province in China in the previous 14 days would be subject to mandatory quarantine and health screening. U.S. citizens returning from mainland China outside Hubei Province were ordered to undergo health screenings and "up to 14 days of monitored self-quarantine to ensure they've not contracted the virus and do not pose a public health risk," Azar said.

At the time the restrictions were announced, there were only six confirmed cases of the novel virus in the U.S. The outbreak, which began in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019, has now spread to more than 70 countries, including the U.S. According to a Johns Hopkins University case tracker and a New York Times database, as of March 6, more than 250 people in the U.S. have been infected with the new disease, known as COVID-19, and at least 14 have died.

Did Trump Buck the Experts?

Trump has repeatedly said that his decision to impose the travel restrictions on Jan. 31 was made despite objections from most of the experts on containing the spread of infectious disease.

"But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that," Trump said on March 4.

Asked by Hannity the same day about his rationale at the time he made the decision, Trump said, "I would say everybody said, it's too early, it's too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don't do it."

Trump repeated this claim at his town hall in Scranton on March 5, saying that as soon as he heard that China had a problem with the coronavirus, he asked how many people the U.S. had coming in from China. "Nobody but me asked that question," Trump said. Trump added that his decision to impose the travel restrictions was made "against the advice of almost everybody."

Everybody? Not according to Azar, who said it was the "uniform" recommendation of experts in his department.

"The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental," Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. "These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS."

The World Health Organization cautioned against the overuse of travel restrictions, but stopped short of saying that Trump's decision in the U.S. - or anyone else's in other countries - was inappropriate.

"[W]e reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions inconsistent with the International Health Regulations," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told its executive board. "Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit. So far, 22 countries have reported such restrictions to WHO. Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves."

As we said, three experts called by Democrats at a House subcommittee hearing on Feb. 5 questioned the decision. Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, was one of them.

Nuzzo, Feb. 5: [W]e need to seriously reexamine the current policy of banning travel from China and quarantining returning travelers. All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders. These measures may exacerbate the epidemic's social and economic tolls and can make us less safe. Simply put, this virus is spreading too quickly and too silently, and our surveillance is too limited for us to truly know which countries have active transmission and which don't. The virus could enter the U.S. from other parts of the world not on our restricted list, and it may already be circulating here.

The U.S. was a target of travel bans and quarantines during the 2009 flu pandemic. It didn't work to stop the spread, and it hurt our country. I am concerned that by our singling out China for travel bans, we are effectively penalizing it for reporting cases. This may diminish its willingness to further share data and chill other countries' willingness to be transparent about their own outbreaks. Travel bans and quarantines will make us less safe if they divert attention and resources from higher priority disease mitigation approaches that we know are needed to respond to cases within the United States.

... We often see, when we have emerging disease outbreaks, our first instinct is to try to lock down travel to prevent the introduction of virus to our country. And that is a completely understandable instinct. I have never seen instances in which that has worked when we are talking about a virus at this scale.

Respiratory viruses like this one, unlike others-they just move quickly. They are hard to spot because they look like many other diseases. It's very difficult to interrupt them at borders. You would need to have complete surveillance in order to do that. And we simply don't have that.

During the hearing, Dr. Jennifer Bouey, chair of China policy studies at the Rand Corporation, agreed saying that the policy to restrict travel "doesn't help that much in this-the current situation."

But according to Paul Offit, chair of vaccinology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, those kinds of opinions were in the minority at the time the president made his decision.

"I don't know anyone who thought the travel restrictions were a bad idea early on," Offit told us in a phone interview.

When a virus like that is restricted to one location, as it appeared to be early on, travel restrictions can lessen the odds of it spreading to this country, Offit said. Over time, however, and as cases began to be identified in the U.S., travel restrictions make much less of a difference, he said.

Epidemiologists and former U.S. health officials told that the initial travel restrictions were valid and "likely helped to slow the spread of the virus. The problem, they say, is that once it was clear that the virus was within our borders officials did not pivot quickly enough to changing circumstances."

Democratic Criticism

Trump has repeatedly claimed that Democrats have "loudly criticized and protested" his imposition of the travel restrictions, and have called the decision "racist." But while leading Democrats have been outspoken in their criticism of the president's overall response to the epidemic, very few have criticized his decision to impose limited travel restrictions.

"I took a lot of heat," Trump said during a Feb. 27 press conference. "I mean, some people called me racist because I made a decision so early. And we had never done that as a country before, let alone early. So it was a, you know, bold decision. It turned out to be a good decision. But I was criticized by the Democrats. They called me a racist because I made that decision, if you can believe that one."

At a rally in South Carolina the following day, Trump said Democrats "loudly criticized and protested" his decision.

"But, anyway - but we've done an incredible job because we closed early," Trump said in a meeting with African American leaders on Feb. 28. "And actually, the Democrats said I was a racist. Not from black-people standpoint, but from Asian-people standpoint, from Chinese-people standpoint. They said I was a racist because I closed our country to people coming in from certain areas. They called me a racist."

We reached out to the Trump campaign and asked for names, but we did not get a response. We scoured news clips and could find only a couple instances of elected Democrats criticizing the president's action to restrict travel.

In the House subcommittee hearing on Feb. 5 that we referenced earlier, several witnesses called by the Democrats expressed concerns about the travel restrictions and warned they could do more harm than good.

And at least one Democrat agreed.

"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."

A day earlier, Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, who presided over the hearing, told , "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.

But the Democratic leaders in Congress have simply not mentioned Trump's travel restrictions.

In a Feb. 25 tweet, Trump claimed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer "didn't like my early travel closings." Trump's comment appears to be based on a fabricated tweet that circulated widely on Facebook.

Schumer has been critical of the Trump administration's response to the spread of the novel coronavirus. But he hasn't mentioned the travel restrictions in that criticism.

In Trump's Fox News interview on March 4, host Sean Hannity said former vice president and current Democratic challenger Joe Biden "accused the president of being xenophobic, while he was trying to protect the health of the American people."

On the day Trump imposed the travel restrictions, Biden did criticize Trump for his "record of hysteria and xenophobia," but it is unclear whether Biden was referring to Trump's travel restrictions, or Trump's overall qualifications to deal with the epidemic.

"We have right now a crisis with the coronavirus, emanating from China," Biden said on Jan. 31 at a campaign event in Iowa. "A national emergency worldwide alerts. The American people need to have a president who they can trust what he says about it, that he is going to act rationally about it. In moments like this, this is where the credibility of the president is most needed, as he explains what we should and should not do. This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria and xenophobia - hysterical xenophobia - and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science."

In an op-ed published several days prior in , Biden similarly argued: "The possibility of a pandemic is a challenge Donald Trump is unqualified to handle as president." Biden wrote that he recalled "how Trump sought to stoke fear and stigma during the 2014 Ebola epidemic." Trump, Biden wrote, " railed against the evidence-based response our administration put in place - which quelled the crisis and saved hundreds of thousands of lives - in favor of reactionary travel bans that would only have made things worse."

Although Democratic leaders and Democratic presidential candidates have been highly critical of Trump's response to the coronavirus, we couldn't find any examples of them directly and clearly criticizing the travel restrictions.

In a Feb. 4 letter to Trump, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey, chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Rose DeLauro, chair of one of the subcommittees, wrote that they "strongly support" the president's decision to declare a public health emergency in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak, and they specifically cited the administration's actions to impose "significant travel restrictions."

Have Travel Restrictions 'Saved a Lot of Lives'?

Trump said his "bold" decision has since been vindicated, that it has " saved a lot of lives " and that because of his decision "that's why we have a very small number of people that we have to really worry about."

At a press conference on Feb. 29 attended by Trump, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, praised "the original decision that was made by the president" to impose travel restrictions to and from China.

"We prevented travel from China to the United States," said Fauci, who has worked for multiple administrations. "If we had not done that, we would have had many, many more cases right here that we would have to be dealing with."

But not everyone agrees.

Nuzzo, the senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said there's no evidence, at least, that the travel restrictions have saved lives or reduced the number of cases in the U.S.

"We have not seen any evidence that shows the travel restrictions stopped or slowed down transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19," Nuzzo told us via email. "It is possible that it did, but there is no evidence to show this. Rather there are a number of reasons to believe that this may very well not be the case."

Chiefly, she said, that's because "we weren't seriously looking for cases in the US."

"If you had mild infection, you were not tested," Nuzzo said. "If you had viral pneumonia not requiring oxygen but had not been to Wuhan, you wouldn't have been tested."

"Prior to the US travel restrictions, China began suspending outbound flights," Nuzzo said. "Airlines also began canceling flights due to low travel volume. Then, the US implemented travel restrictions, which further reduced travel from China. The exception was Americans who were returning home from China. These folks were subject to quarantine upon return. A number of cases were found among these individuals. If you only test travelers from China and you greatly reduce the number of travelers coming from China, then you would be likely to not find many cases.

"But it doesn't mean the virus hadn't entered the US prior to travel restrictions," Nuzzo said, as data now suggests occurred in Washington state.

Also, she said other countries, including Japan, Singapore and Korea, had a significant number of coronavirus cases, but they weren't subject to travel restrictions. The U.S. "would likely not have picked it up" if travelers coming to the U.S. from those countries "because we weren't using these other countries as criteria for testing."

A modeling study published in magazine on March 6, "The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak," concluded that, "In areas affected by the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), travel restrictions will only modestly impact the spread of the outbreak," according to a press release for the study.

"Based on the study's results, the authors say the greatest benefit to mitigating the epidemic will come from public health interventions and behavioral changes that achieve a considerable reduction in the disease transmissibility - factors like early detection, isolation, and handwashing," according to the press release.

The authors concluded that travel restrictions introduced by the Chinese government in Wuhan in Jan. 23 and the halting of airline flights to and from China starting in early February at first slowed the spread of the disease to the rest of the world. Even still, a large number of individuals exposed to the virus had been traveling internationally without being detected and, the authors note, the number of imported cases around the world went up in a matter of weeks.

"Moving forward we expect that travel restrictions to COVID-19 affected areas will have modest effects, and that transmission-reduction interventions will provide the greatest benefit to mitigate the epidemic," the authors wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Facts on Trump's Travel Restrictions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump has made a number of misleading statements about his decision on Jan. 31 to impose travel restrictions related to the novel coronavirus epidemic. Trump has referred to the travel restrictions as a "travel ban." There isn't an outright ban, as there are exceptions, including for Americans and their family members.