My op-ed entitled “Travel bans can’t stop this pandemic” was published in The Hill. You can read it here.
An air #travelban isn't an effective way to stop #coronavirus transmission, @uwisye's @lauraalbertphd writes on @thehill.https://t.co/cutS5bJpAh#COVID19
— UW-Madison Engr (@UWMadEngr) March 18, 2020
The US airport situation is not being managed well.
— ✨Laura Albert✨ (@lauraalbertphd) March 15, 2020
Screening everyone very thoroughly only works if there are adequate resources to do the screening.
There aren't. And now there are long lines.https://t.co/iQnW16XuVa
This is extra dangerous in a pandemic when those waiting in line for #COVID19 screening get infected while waiting.
— ✨Laura Albert✨ (@lauraalbertphd) March 15, 2020
Instead of one infected traveler entering the US, you now have 10.
Allocating enough resources is critical.
— ✨Laura Albert✨ (@lauraalbertphd) March 15, 2020
Without enough resources, more infected travelers will enter the US by implementing under-funded screening methods aimed at keeping the infected travelers out, reversing the intended effect of the screening policies.
A better approach: do less screening, focusing resources on the riskiest travelers. For others, quickly collect information about travelers and disseminate information and keep the lines moving.
— ✨Laura Albert✨ (@lauraalbertphd) March 15, 2020
Punk Rock Operations Research 
March 15th, 2020 at 4:54 pm
A key approach to controlling a pandemic is to lower R_0. Limiting the number of people (and time) people are near each other clearly lowers R_0. It follows that crowded airport wait lines and long flights hurt R_0. Given early signs of overtaxed medical resources in parts of the world I would argue that the costs justify the benefits.
The structural difference between terrorrist attacts and pandemics is that the latter is a multiplicative process: it is nearly inconceivable that the number of attacks could increase by a factor of 200 in month (a daily 20% growth rate) but not for a pandemic.