PCR 'Whistleblowers'?

Jeffrey Barrett (The Wellcome Sanger Institute) makes a serious point about the evolution of the Covid19 omicron variant story. He points out that the convention of putting PCR data online at the earliest opportunity, is highly desirable but relatively new. The convention, which shares science with an expert community, also appears to be the only way of dealing with such fast-moving areas. The traditional method of submitting the data for review to a scientific journal and waiting for review (and possible confirmation), is just too slow. Barrett worries that the South African scientists, who flagged up the existence of omicron within hours, may come to regret their actions. He feels that the 'knee-jerk' placing of South Africa on travel ban lists (and the economic damage caused to the country) may cause other scientists (especially if they are government funded?) to think twice before adding their data (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/28/scientists-sharing-omicron-date-were-heroic-lets-ensure-they-dont-regret-it). It is certainly true that notifying the world of the existence of the omicron variant was commendably fast (within about 72 hours). It was weeks, before information on the delta variant, was widely disseminated! Interconnected foreign travel is now, however, extremely fast. In spite of early warning, the omicron variant appeared within days in many areas of the globe. Perhaps we have to accept that no travel ban, however quickly it is brought in by politicians, will entirely curtail viral variant transmission? Maintaining the speed of information flow is, perhaps, more important than simply 'locking the stable door'? Without having the information, scientists in Europe and elsewhere wouldn't be looking for omicron.