Ray, I have been thinking about yours posts, they are really good and I think this conversation is really helpful. So again my thanks for chiming in.
The current administration has certainly dropped the ball in multiple ways but there are others who are really trying and in some cases fighting against the current administration. That said, we should leave that out of the conversation.
Not sure the burning house is a good analogy but I do get your point. If one is going to get sick one wants to get sick where they feel most comfortable. For those of us in first world countries that is home. I will address the Dept of State and airlines below.
I would agree more often people make these judgements lacking a good understanding. However, I think there is a large body of people on this board who have traveled extensively who do have a good idea of the issues. One reason I wanted to start the discussion so that others could perhaps learn because at the end of the day we are each responsible for our actions.
Risk assessment involves contingencies. If Davey Jones comes a calling one wants to have contingencies. There are some contingencies that one can not really plan for when traveling. For instance, a major earthquake that shuts down a region. And I believe that is really the issue here. I will say one could not plan for the travel restrictions to be put into place so quickly. But on the other hand it was not a matter of if, but when the virus was going hit.
Here would be my analogy, it has been raining hard for weeks and one travels across a tenuous bridge that is the sole route in and out. The bridge has always been reasonably reliable but an extra ordinary amount of rain falls way up stream, comes down, and it gives way. One is now stuck. Who is responsible when one are in no immediate danger only inconvenienced? Should the county build a replacement immediately (airline in your case), should the national guard airlift one out (US Government in your case). Who is responsible? At the end of the day, one made the decision to travel down the road, no one forced them.
I can understand the Embassy not having good information as it was a rapidly changing situation, and I do find it odd that they sent a plane to pickup a sport ball team (connections perhaps??). Not sure what to think that some airlines would travel but others not. I would like to hear their reasoning before saying more.
Finally, when one is in the public eye whether by choice or not, one gets judged. Like it or not! Not always easy and why I greatly appreciate you chiming in.
I don't find your analogy as apples to apples.