[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: With the exception of China, where the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in late 2019, all countries closed their borders to international travel before introducing national restrictions.
This made sense during the initial phase of the pandemic, when countries tried to isolate themselves from a rapidly spreading virus.
Since then, countries that have managed to control community transmission have eased domestic restrictions at a faster rate than international ones.
Even in countries that continue to struggle to contain community spread, restrictions on national movements are not as strict as those on international movements.
READ: Comment: It seems that the containment of the new coronavirus is not as effective as we expected
READ: Comment: Do you want to travel again? You don’t have to worry about sitting on an airplane
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS EACH TIME MORE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY
Policy asymmetry is no longer justified in the treatment of national and international movements, and its reduction could generate economic benefits without significantly increasing health risks.
Currently, most countries do not allow round-trip travel, except for citizens and select groups, such as diplomats. Countries like Australia and the Philippines even restrict travel abroad.
This is incompatible with the national trend to move from general to specific measures.
Countries that have controlled community transmission, such as China, have developed “green lanes” with countries with similar infection rates to allow the travel of select groups, such as businessmen. In most cases, testing and quarantine are required.
READ: Comment: Here’s how Singapore can take the reins to safely open travel bubbles
39 Chinese tourists flew to Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport from Shanghai on Tuesday night to be welcomed by staff in full protective gear. (Photo: AFP / Brochure)
Even for countries trying to eliminate the virus, these border restrictions seem extreme. In theory, as long as the ability to test and quarantine exists, it is not necessary to restrict travel to any particular group or country.
But given the uncertainty and the risk of default, countries are more prepared to open up to groups with lower infection rates. These visitors are also more likely to practice social distancing, which reduces the likelihood of problems arising after arrival.
COUNTRIES MUST MOVE BEYOND THE GREEN LANES
For countries trying to balance health risks with economic considerations, political action on the international front is overdue.
Countries must go beyond selective easing, such as greenways, if they are to revive industries severely affected by prolonged international restrictions. Removing restrictions without removing or reducing quarantine requirements can still deter nonessential travel.
Singapore and Hong Kong are creating a travel bubble that allows pleasure travel with testing but without quarantine. Thailand is considering experimenting with shorter quarantine periods.
READ: Comment: As Singapore gradually opens its borders, we must be aware of a second wave of COVID-19
As national measures move from trying to eliminate risks to managing them, border policy should catch up.
Technology related to testing and tracing has produced alternatives to quarantine.
The risk reduction effect of quarantine could be approximated by rapid and repeated testing protocols and close monitoring of movement. If these measures are applied throughout the entire visit, the health risks may be slightly different compared to quarantine.
READ: Comment: The systematic tests Singapore needs to ditch circuit breakers for good
LISTEN: Rethinking the Role of Domestic Airlines and Saving Singapore Airlines
The fact that both testing and quarantine are necessary for most border crossings, but not for domestic movements, suggests an anomaly that may skew risks.
By encouraging domestic tourism, which does not require testing or quarantine, to make up for the shortfall in international arrivals, for whom quarantine is generally required, health risks could increase beyond those associated with the removal of international restrictions to achieve the same economic impact.
NOT ABOUT THE INFECTION RATES OF OTHER COUNTRIES
Countries with significant rates of community transmission also face the greatest economic challenges.
Residents wearing masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus cross a flooded road from Typhoon Molave in Pampanga province, in the northern Philippines, Monday, October 26, 2020 (Photo: AP / Aaron Favila).
The same principle of opening up to countries with lower infection rates to balance economic and health concerns applies here as well, but only if their health systems are not under stress.
These countries also have the most people who have recovered from the virus, the closest we can get to vaccination today.
This group may be the least risky to move within or across borders, despite the uncertainty surrounding the duration of acquired immunity.
As their numbers increase, this group could make up part of the shortfall in travel demand to countries with lower but still high infection rates, as they may be less risk averse due to their state of recovery.
READ: Comment: To help us travel safer with COVID-19, airports need new checkpoint technology
READ: Comment: Why the Singapore-Indonesia reciprocal green lane is necessary
If their low-risk profile is mutually recognized and travel without quarantine is allowed, this could provide a necessary boost to countries facing twin crises involving health and the economy.
THE POLITICS OF FEAR
Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea have seen new waves of infection after relaxing national restrictions but maintaining international ones.
Not all countries in this situation have reintroduced domestic restrictions, although it is often assumed that this subsequent wave will further delay any international easing. Again, the openness becomes the victim simply because it may have contributed to the problem in the past.
Passengers wearing masks queue to enter the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Paranaque, Metro Manila, amid fears of the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the Philippines, March 18, 2020. REUTERS / Eloisa Lopez
What is driving the asymmetry between national and international restrictions? It is mainly political.
Politicians fear that voters will judge an increase in infections due to easing of border restrictions more harshly than one due to domestic easing.
A highly contagious health pandemic originating abroad greatly fuels the temptation to turn inward and retreat behind borders to minimize risks. Facilitated by bias and inertia, succumbing to this temptation is understandable but suboptimal.
While keeping borders closed reduces health risks, it comes at a high price. After nearly a year of living with the virus with no end in sight, most countries are finding that they need to find a new balance between health and economic risks.
READ: Comment: To facilitate regional air travel again, ASEAN needs to harmonize standards
READ: Comment: What Singapore Tourist Vouchers Are Really About
Once countries decide on the desired balance, a mix of national and border policies becomes critical to achieving the balance.
Inconsistencies between policies can generate costs without compensating benefits. It is time to reduce the asymmetry that exists between internal and border policies, as places like Singapore and Hong Kong are beginning to do.
Going forward, continued improvements in testing and tracing mean that measures at the border could be further relaxed to stimulate economic activity without significantly increasing health risks.
This seems necessary as the world moves towards a new indeterminate normality.
CHECK THIS: Our comprehensive coverage of the coronavirus outbreak and its developments
Download our app or subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on the coronavirus outbreak: https://cna.asia/telegram
Jayant Menon is Visiting Principal Investigator at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. This comment was previously posted on the East Asian Forum.
