I'll grant you that neither of us know enough to really be certain about the costs. I was going with my gut, and my estimation was probably absurdly low because I hadn't considered the impact on trade. However, I still think that the cost of allowing a disease to spread without even trying to slow it down is going to be higher. I did a bit of googling, and the closest thing I could find was the following paper, of which I know nothing of the authors or the website it's found on. The gist is that travel restrictions buy time in pandemics that can be used to research vaccines or educate the populous/prepare supplies to further limit the inevitable spread.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/p...-restrictions/
The interesting tidbit:
Obviously it has to be taken with a grain of salt, because flu spreads easier but is far less likely to kill you unless you have AIDs or some other immune issues, compared to a fetus getting microcephaly.Finally, in deciding to adopt a policy, one must compare benefits to costs. The cost to the U.S. economy of international air passenger travel restrictions is minimal: on the order of 0.8% of gross national product. Since the benefit of travel restrictions can be substantial while their costs are minimal, their dismissal as an aid in dealing with a global pandemic seems premature.
XI Wiki






