The restrictions are simultaneously overly broad and yet narrowly tailored. I can't find any sensible justification for it.
If you're trying to draw a cordon sanitaire, then why leave out the busiest hub in the region? I don't see any indication that there's any intention to prevent people from the Europe getting to the US via indirect means (which includes Canada, Iceland, and it seems even the Azores).
And if you're not trying to draw a cordon sanitaire, why go to such an extreme measure? Banning entry of people who have visited afflicted regions in the recent past (as was done for China) is possible, so why not do that instead? Why ban cargo in addition, given that the coronavirus is thought to be unable to survive the week-long voyage without live hosts?
Furthermore, why include Ireland (an island nation so far relatively unaffected by coronavirus) in the ban, but not the UK (an island nation with greater connections to continental Europe, including a connecting tunnel, that is more heavily affected)?
If you're trying to draw a cordon sanitaire, then why leave out the busiest hub in the region? I don't see any indication that there's any intention to prevent people from the Europe getting to the US via indirect means (which includes Canada, Iceland, and it seems even the Azores).
And if you're not trying to draw a cordon sanitaire, why go to such an extreme measure? Banning entry of people who have visited afflicted regions in the recent past (as was done for China) is possible, so why not do that instead? Why ban cargo in addition, given that the coronavirus is thought to be unable to survive the week-long voyage without live hosts?
Furthermore, why include Ireland (an island nation so far relatively unaffected by coronavirus) in the ban, but not the UK (an island nation with greater connections to continental Europe, including a connecting tunnel, that is more heavily affected)?