May 12, 2023

Travel Restrictions During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Were they effective?

Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the world as we know it has changed drastically. The arrival of the COVID-19 virus brought the world to its knees and left global leaders scrambling to figure out how to stop it in its tracks. One of the solutions that many countries across the world have employed is the introduction of travel restrictions. Much debate has ensued surrounding the role of travel restrictions and their effectiveness in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Countries around the world have different views of how to plan for and respond to disease outbreaks to stop their spread and, ultimately, save lives.

Examining the Coronavirus

Coronavirus, or COVID-19, is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. COVID-19 has varying effects on different people, and the majority of those infected experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without the need for medical intervention. Others, however, become very ill and require hospitalization. Globally, COVID-19 has taken many lives, with a global death toll of at least 6,308,310 people as of May 2022. The actual number may be as high as 15 million, measuring for excess deaths, since it is difficult to effectively capture and report every death from every part of the world.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Travel

Few industries have been as hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic as the travel and tourism industry. The tourism industry's global revenue dropped by an estimated 42 percent in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. This drop was largely due to the various travel restrictions countries across the world placed as a means to slow down the spread of the virus in their communities. According to research by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 96 percent of all destinations worldwide implemented some sort of travel restriction in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While countries have taken varying measures to restrict travel since the onset of the pandemic, the UNWTO has grouped the existing kinds of travel restrictions into four categories:

Destination-specific restrictions, whereby passengers who have visited or transited in a country with confirmed cases within a specified amount of time will not be allowed to transit or enter their destination country.
Closing of borders, in which a destination country closes all its borders to visitors who may wish to enter. This affects land, sea, and air travel.
Suspension of international flights, where flights in and out of a destination country are suspended.
Other measures, such as mandatory quarantine for international arrivals, invalidating visitor visas upon arrival to a destination country, restrictions on regional travel within a country, and mandatory negative COVID-19 test results for entry.

Starting in March 2020, countries globally implemented variations of the four categories of travel restrictions with the goals of preventing and stopping the spread of COVID-19 within their borders, with varying levels of success. As of April 6, 2020, 43 percent of all countries had partially or completely blocked their borders to visitors; 21 percent had implemented more targeted, destination-specific limitations, while 27 percent had halted some or all international flights. The remaining 9 percent were reliant on a variety of other restrictive measures, including visa limitations, in-country travel restrictions, and/or quarantines.

Lessons Learned

With the use of travel restrictions having been popularized across the globe by countries as a means to curb the reach of the coronavirus, we must ask ourselves, how effective is this tactic? Reports have shown that international travel restrictions are most successful during the early phases of a pandemic, before the disease spreads widely in the community, as they may aid in reducing the rate at which a disease spreads between regions. They are also particularly successful when a disease is localized regionally and easily detected, as Ebola was. Researchers have also found that these travel restrictions only help to prevent the spread of international cases when combined with physical distancing measures and other preventative directives, such as staying home when sick, wearing masks, washing hands, and giving handshake alternatives.

While we have seen some benefits to the implementation of travel restrictions, we cannot ignore the negative impacts that they have had. Prolonged travel restrictions have had a devastating effect on some local economies, especially those that are heavily reliant on travel. To understand the full impact of travel restrictions, let’s examine the pros and cons.

The Pros of Travel Restrictions

They Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19 in Areas Where It Is Not Yet Present

Travel restrictions have been proven in studies to have the capacity to halt the spread of a novel infectious disease in areas where it has not yet been transmitted. Australia implemented one of the world’s harshest travel restrictions in 2020, completely banning visitor entry for two years. According to a report by the Journal for Travel Medicine, Australia's travel restrictions against China were extremely effective, reducing incidents by 86 percent. However, the findings date from a time when the virus was mostly found in China and hence easier to isolate.

Reduction in Carbon Emissions

Travel accounts for 23 percent of worldwide carbon emissions, making it an important contributor to climate change. At the onset of the pandemic, non-essential travel was banned in several countries globally. Many airlines around the world canceled flights as a result, helping to limit the virus's spread. This significantly impacted the number of flights that took place. To illustrate, over 730,000 flights completed trips globally in the first full week of April 2019, compared to under 290,000 in 2020.

This significant drop in air traffic resulted in a temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Carbon Brief research, carbon dioxide emissions in New York reduced by 5-10 percent, whereas emissions in China decreased by 25 percent since the beginning of 2020. However, this is only a temporary benefit of travel restrictions. Since the lockdown was loosened, air pollution in China has already increased to former levels. As a result, travel restrictions will only provide long-term advantages if a reduction in travel persists into the future to keep carbon dioxide emissions low.

Positive environmental impact

Travel restrictions have resulted in a significant drop in tourist numbers, which has had positive effects on the environment, especially in tourist hot spots. This is obvious in Thailand, where a drop in tourist numbers has increased the population of endangered leatherback sea turtles. Leatherback turtles are the world's largest turtles but are critically endangered in Thailand. Turtles have a hard time finding quiet, dark spots to lay their eggs when the beaches are crowded with tourists, which has caused their population to dwindle. Additionally, tourists frequently leave plastic behind, which can entangle turtles or cause them to choke on the waste. However, since the coronavirus pandemic, 11 turtle nests have been discovered since November of last year, the most in two decades.

The Cons of Travel Restrictions

Damages Economies

Inefficient and prolonged travel restrictions have created a substantial loss of tourist income, ultimately damaging the global economy. It is the third-largest export category, and in 2019 accounted for 7 percent of global trade. For some countries, it can represent over 20 percent of their GDP, with jobs in the tourism industry representing one out of every ten jobs and providing a living for many millions across the world. COVID-19 and the travel restrictions that have ensued have brought the tourism industry in tourism-dependent countries like Barbados and Seychelles to a standstill. In July 2020, the authorities reopened their island countries to international tourists after successfully stopping the local spread of the virus. Nonetheless, arrivals in August 2020 were nearly 90 percent lower than in previous years, squeezing a crucial source of government revenue.

Can Be Discriminatory Against Certain Countries and Populations

In November 2021, South Africa and Botswana reported the discovery of a new coronavirus subtype in their country, later called Omicron. While the World Health Organization (WHO) commended South Africa and Botswana on adhering to international health laws and contacting WHO as soon as the omicron variation was discovered, many countries responded by enacting travel bans on arrivals from southern African countries - South Africa, Lesotho, Eswatini, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. Only two of the countries, South Africa and Botswana had confirmed cases at the time, and after a week, news surfaced that Europe had confirmed cases before South Africa had discovered the variation.

The eight southern African countries were stigmatized for exchanging information, and they paid a high economic and societal price for doing so. This event will almost certainly harm future behavior in other countries and disincentivize them from sharing information about future diseases of concern.

Short Term Solution When Implemented in Silos

Travel restrictions are unlikely to be effective in preventing the spread of coronaviruses unless countries can entirely close their borders to all travelers. More than 63 percent of travel restrictions were found to be ineffective in a recent global study published in the journal of Communications Physics, partly because they were uncoordinated, created out of self-interest, or applied at the wrong time in the wrong places. To ensure the effectiveness of travel restrictions, countries need to work together in creating policies to restrict travel. Operating in silos makes the travel restrictions less effective as there is no common approach to curbing the spread of the coronavirus.

The Verdict

Travel restrictions have had many benefits in the fight against COVID-19 including helping slow the spread of COVID-19 in areas where it is not yet present, reducing carbon emissions from travel, as well as creating a positive environmental impact through decreased travel. However, it has had negative effects such as damaging economies by stalling the travel industry and discriminating against certain populations. Ultimately, while they have had some impact on curbing the spread of the virus, travel restrictions are a short-term solution when implemented in silos or without any other protective measures.

< Older Post Newer Post >

Is Canada Really in a Recession?

December 23, 2023

Context A CBC News article discussed the possibility of the Canadian economy heading into a recession, or whether the country has already passed that threshold. The article discussed this possibility based on slowed growth, high inflation, and the Bank of Canada’s continued interest rate hikes. Analysis A recession is a significant reduction in economic activity that occurs over a length of time, usually months or years. One of the most accepted definitions of a recession comes from the economist Julius Shiskin in 1974, who identified the threshold to an economic recession as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP, although economists often argue about the comprehensiveness of this measure. The causes of a recession can be quite complicated and have many contributing factors. Some common examples include a sudden economic shock such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, excessive debt, asset bubbles, inflation, deflation, or large technological changes. One major factor influencing the probability of an economic recession includes rising interest rates from the Bank of Canada, which has implemented the highest hike in the shortest amount of time in all of the bank’s history, raising the rate over eight times since 2022. The Bank of Canada increased interest rates in order to curb inflation since rising interest rates discourage taking on debt and spending. This further encourages companies to lower prices or slow inflation to increase demand. Currently, the Bank of Canada is keeping at the 5.0 percent rate but has said that further hikes are not off the table as inflation may continue to exceed acceptable rates. Increases in interest rates can certainly contribute to or precede a recession. In fact, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates three times to slow inflation since the 1960s and all three times this action led to an economic recession. Current fears of a looming economic depression are also not unique to Canada, as following the COVID-19 pandemic, the global inflation rate increased to 8.73 percent in 2021. This was due to supply chain issues, as well as the effect of the Russia-Ukraine War creating rising food and energy prices, as well as general fiscal instability. A majority of the World Economic Forum’s lead economists agreed earlier this year that we could see the beginning of a global recession starting in 2023, which would certainly affect the Canadian economy. The article also discusses the Canadian economy’s slowed economic growth, as the GDP has stagnated in the second quarter of this year. However, it suggests other factors may explain the decrease, including striking port workers in British Columbia, and the resulting negative effect on economic activity. An RBC report mentions how on a per-person GDP basis, there has already been a decline for four straight quarters despite a surge in population growth, and concludes overall predictions for GDP growth do not look promising despite local factors including Canadian wildfires and strikes. They also point to a 0.5 percent increase in the unemployment rate over the past few months, which has historically tended to indicate a looming recession.

Ottawa Mayor and Lansdowne Park

December 21, 2023

Context The City of Ottawa Mayor, Mark Sutcliff released a statement about a revised plan for the redevelopment of Lansdowne, an urban public park containing historic landmarks and commercial venues. The project includes the demolition of a sports arena complex, stadium stands, and the building of a new event center, residential units, and retail space. Despite suggesting the new plan has addressed the concerns of residents, many issues remain. Analysis The City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) have been in partnership to develop Lansdowne since 2012 and finished an original redevelopment of the park back in 2014. A few years later in 2019, the financial sustainability of the park came to the city council’s attention, and in 2020 the partnership was extended another 10 years with direction to develop a new plan to revitalize Lansdowne. Consultation with community members started in 2020, with the original concept released last year in 2022, and a revised version released this month. Community feedback was acquired through various platforms including public information sessions, an open email for feedback, and public surveys. A summary report of that feedback was published on October 6th, which highlighted the six most common themes of community residents’ concerns. The first concern was related to the size and number of the multiple high-rise apartments which were designed to exceed 30 floors. In the new plan , they have removed one of the three planned buildings, with fewer total units in each, and only one tower with the potential to be built at 40 stories. Residents were also concerned about the loss of greenspace due to the new event center construction. Many people suggested they wanted that greenspace allocated elsewhere, or alternatively, an accessible greenspace roof on the event center. Although in the original plan the city had conceptualized a greenspace rooftop on the event center, this was scrapped in the new plan as it was deemed too expensive to maintain. Respondents wanted a restriction of vehicles to the premises to promote pedestrian safety, a concern that has existed since Lansdowne was first renovated back in 2014. They also wanted more public transportation infrastructure to and from the park, whether that is the local city buses, trains, or cycling infrastructure to reduce congestion on connecting roads. Relatedly, residents also desired more accessible public use space from washrooms to water fountains to usable and free space for people to occupy. The new plan has reduced the number of parking spaces for the residential buildings to meet the Bylaw limit of 0.4 spaces per unit, down from 739 to 336 spaces, while they added 36 new spaces for the event center. In terms of accessible public space, the new plan includes 27,000 square feet of space originally earmarked for the third residential building, now available for an unspecified “public realm.” Residents also wanted more local and less corporate or big-box businesses, to reflect the unique local community better. The new plan does suggest the amount of retail space has been reduced from 108,000 square feet to 49,000 square feet but does not directly address the desire to attract smaller, local businesses. Finally, there was also a concern about financial transparency of how the project is being funded and the resulting impact on the City. The Federation of Citizens Association (FCA) which represents over 70 community groups voted unanimously to oppose the new plan, which comes with a very costly price tag of $419 million, increased from $332 million of the first plan. They cite that the debt comes at a time when the transit system is facing major issues, and the city is struggling with a housing affordability crisis.

Danielle Smith - Conflict of Interest

December 20, 2023

Context Newly elected Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith has defended her cabinet which is coming under fire over conflict-of-interest concerns. Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz’s husband, Cole Schulz , may be lobbying the government in the areas that the Minister works in. Cole Schulz's firm is working on removing the protection of a threatened caribou range to make room for the oil and gas industry – which has raised concerns over who has Minister Schulz’s ear. Analysis The company that Cole Schulz is a partner with, Garrison Strategies, was hired by the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada and is working to influence the government on the issuing of reclamation certificates for oil and gas sites. The lobbyists are working to gain more access to protected caribou habitats to expand the oil and gas industry. They are hoping to “ address the moratorium on tenure in caribou regions ” which would effectively give them better access to land and investments. The Little Smoky and A La Peche herds in northwest Alberta were protected by a moratorium in 2013 which stopped the granting of new energy leases in this area. At the time, 95 percent of the herd’s range was heavily damaged. Phillip Meintzer of the Alberta Wilderness Association found that though records show that Garrison didn’t contact Environment and Protected Areas directly, the firm’s causes are “ too close for comfort ”. Meintzer also notes that as Garrison works on opening the protected caribou land for Alberta Energy, Environment and Protected Areas should be working on a protection plan for the federally and provincially designated threatened animal . Minister Schulz is working closely with the ethics commissioner, however, Danielle Smith confirmed that “ the ethics commissioner has looked at it, given guidance and there’s no violation [of the Conflicts of Interest Act]”. Cole Schulz also indicated that his firm wasn’t aware that Minister Schulz breached the Act at any time. Meintzer suggests that this situation “ calls for a further look ” from a third party. Sources https://globalnews.ca/news/9988998/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-rebecca-schulz/