You are suggesting I find the two options mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't say mutually exclusive, per se. But I am looking at a cost-benefits perspective. I honestly don't know which is more expensive, travel ban or preventative/screening/protocol training/etc. And I also don't how much money is available for this/how a country's budget works. But it seems like enforcing a travel ban would be really expensive and STILL people with the disease would get through. Would fewer? Probably... but fewer enough? Maybe?
So that is why I said perhaps the preventative/screening/protocol training/etc may be a better plan, bc if the disease is coming through either way, then why not spend that same money maximizing the preparation all the facilities receive to detect and deal with potential cases?
But I think you are saying that we can stop enough more cases of the disease getting through that the remaining few cases which might find their way through will be insignificant in comparison?
It is all so hypothetical, I have no hard numbers, and I'm not an expert.