But doesn't that require the notion that infection rates are higher in the excluded place? Given the US's incredible failure to test widely, I am not seeing why flights from Sweden or Ireland are any more dangerous than flights from Seattle at this point.
Flights seem like fertile grounds for spread of the virus, so that may be reasonable. Obviously disruptive, but keeping people out of airports and planes should help flatten the curve to some extent
> I am not seeing why flights from Sweden or Ireland are any more dangerous than flights from Seattle at this point.
I'd favor grounding most flights at this point. However, the reason to restrict people from eg Sweden or Ireland or anywhere, is because those people in Seattle are our people (legally, citizenship-wise), which are the ones we should be concerning ourselves with and attempting to control/restrict/observe/test/treat. The US is about to enter mass quarantine, as numerous other countries are. It's better if people from other countries stay outside of the US / stay in their own countries.
And further, it's dramatically better to only have to deal with our own people as a vector, not foreign persons. It's obvious that the fewer people that are infected within the US, the better.
You seem to be imagining some sort of net inward migration, but I don't see any evidence for that. I do agree that general travel restrictions make sense, but I again don't see why Europe in specific matters here.
