So seeing as how international travel helped spread coronavirus in the first place, obviously the most practical measure would've been to cut off the disease at the source.

 

But I'm wondering... if instead of an outright ban, international travellers were met with a tunnel directly from the airplane to a series of quarantine rooms; with one entrance from the tunnel, and one exit into the rest of society; and no access to the exit until one has gone through a 14-day quarantine, then a first hermetically sealed door, gotten tested for it, tested negative, then a second hermetically sealed door and then out into society; would that have been just as effective in spreading the disease in the first place? If so, does that mean those who failed to implement this policy should be ignored on what to do about future pandemics or no?

 

Because we tried the "self-isolate when you come back" thing, and because of a few reckless scumbags who didn't actually DO that, hundreds of thousands of people are dead. We'll need something more foolproof next time.

How big of a facility will you need?

In the US in FY2017, more than 300,000 international travelers passed through customs each day

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How big of a facility will you need?

In the US in FY2017, more than 300,000 international travelers passed through customs each day

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017

 

Why not suspend travel until adequate facilities are built?

2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Why not suspend travel until adequate facilities are built?

Money.