In early March, a handful of states and the District of Columbia declared states of emergency.
But while the federal government has been helping states combat the virus, the governors of most of the states have been reluctant to put any restrictions on the transmission of the disease.
A new federal rule would allow states to ban travel to the U.S. from Zika-infected areas.
That has some scientists concerned, as the virus is known to cause severe neurological and behavioral impairments and even death.
But the proposal is a far cry from banning travel altogether.
It would apply only to countries in the Americas, and it would not apply to any international flights.
This is the same reasoning behind the new travel ban that has been blocked by the courts in the U,S.
Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.
It’s a risky move.
There’s no clear scientific evidence linking Zika to a brain disease or a severe mental impairment, and the proposal would require that the states meet a set of criteria that include providing “detailed data on the incidence and transmission of Zika and other vector-borne diseases in the affected regions.”
A ban on travel to affected areas could mean millions of dollars in lost federal funding and create a dangerous precedent for states that have to choose between their citizens and the threat of Zika.
But for some states, this is just the price of doing business.
“The states would have to do a really good job of getting it right, and we have to get this done,” said Michael Osterholm, who is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease and Global Health at George Washington University and a senior research scientist in the department of epidemiology at the National Institutes of Health.
“I’m not going to do it because I’m scared of the Zika threat.
But the states should be careful because this could set a dangerous precedence.”
States are not allowed to ban international travel to regions with Zika-related deaths, but they have the authority to ban travelers who come into contact with the virus in the continental U.P. That means any international travel would have the potential to have consequences.
A state could ban travel, and that could result in a travel ban, if a person in that state has a confirmed Zika infection and has symptoms similar to those of the virus.
If a person is infected, he or she may have to return to the affected region.
But states are not legally required to do this.
Even if the state has limited travel restrictions, the federal rule doesn’t specify a timeframe for when travel bans would be in effect.
The rule doesn´t say when travel restrictions will end, but the Federal Aviation Administration, which has the authority under the Aviation Act of 1958 to ban all flights in the nation, has said that the ban will end in 60 days.
This means that states can decide to stop traveling, but it won’t be immediately clear whether the states will be able to do so.
The U.K. is one of only a handful that has implemented travel bans on its own, but many others are considering them.
Many of the measures taken by the U:nary a plan to reinstate travel restrictions have been blocked in court, and many of the countries have been forced to reinstitute travel restrictions because of travel bans.
In fact, there are a handful more that have introduced restrictions.
There is a risk that states could have to stop their flights in some cases, because of the threat to local economies.
A ban would also put pressure on states to get rid of the travel bans as quickly as possible, which could lead to even more travelers arriving in the country.
If the travel ban is not immediately reinstated, there could be shortages of supplies.
That could make it harder for businesses to get supplies.
And because there are many travel routes, it could lead people to travel more, further complicating travel.
A ban could also be dangerous for people with weakened immune systems, because if they become infected, they could develop an immune response that could trigger a response from the virus that could cause the body to shut down and damage organs, causing organ failure.
A travel ban could have the opposite effect: If people who are vulnerable to Zika are allowed to travel, they may be exposed to the virus at a higher risk of becoming infected.
For many scientists, the debate about whether to ban Zika and travel to those areas is not just a matter of politics.
It’s also a matter about whether there is enough evidence to support bans.
The idea of banning travel to an area with a Zika-like outbreak has been around for years.
But a ban that took effect today, in the absence of scientific evidence, may have been a mistake, according to Osterheim.
In fact, many experts believe that the federal ban would be an even bigger mistake than the travel restrictions proposed by states.
Instead of doing a thorough risk analysis before instituting travel bans, some experts are now arguing that the U.,