Do you really think it will be any different in the USA or Europe? Will the governments ban conventions? Close restaurants and bars? Shut down shopping malls? Or will instead, in the interest of "the economy" (ie, money) keep too light a hand on things.
Basically I don't expect the west to be able to react to this any better if it gets big. Their populations are uncontrollable (for mostly good reason) but in this particular case that feature will turn out to be bug.
> Do you really think it will be any different in the USA or Europe? Will the governments ban conventions? Close restaurants and bars? Shut down shopping malls?
Look at Italy right now.
> Or will instead, in the interest of "the economy" (ie, money) keep too light a hand on things.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with authoritarian states vs democracy. You'll find a ton of authoritarian states doing exactly the same. It's just a matter of who's the ruling class, and in most places in the world (100% of liberal democracies but also most authoritarian states), it's the business owners, so of course they will try and save their business before their people.
> Basically I don't expect the west to be able to react to this any better if it gets big. Their populations are uncontrollable (for mostly good reason) but in this particular case that feature will turn out to be bug.
Western people aren't uncontrollable. The one who are, are the one who are pissed of by their plutocratic governments and have lost all faith in them. I'm pretty convinced that Switzerland will be fine, and I'm not surprised Italy is in the same kind of shit than Iran.
I'm French, and we've been lucky so far, but I expect chaos when it's going to start. The government has long lost all political legitimity here, and people absolutely distrust them, so I don't think they will not peacefully comply to government attempt to limit the propagation.
Here's the thing with Italy. They're the first Western country to get a major outbreak. They're being told to do things and assuming that it will stop the virus. But the truth is, containment does not actually stop the virus. It simply slows it.
When or if this hits the US or elsewhere in Europe, and it becomes obvious that despite the quarantine in Italy, the virus still continued to spread, they will question the measures being taken. As time goes on, the West will become critical of government response and may be difficult to control.
In China when the government tells its citizens to do something, they just do it. They don't ask why. They don't deliberate on whether it's the correct choice. They simply follow the directions. In the West, everything is up for debate. People don't like to be told what to do.
> Here's the thing with Italy. They're the first Western country to get a major outbreak.
Here is the other thing with Italy: differently from other neighbor countries, they have been testing people without symptoms.
Numbers: until February the 24th, Italy performed ~8500 tests (mostly on people without symptoms, but that were in contact with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected patients), while UK did ~6500 (focused on people with influenza-like symptoms), Germany ~1000 and France ~500.
This is better from a safety point of view (you get to discover all problematic patients earlier and you can quarantine them before they spread the infection even more). But is makes "your stats look worse" (cit. The wire) because now you look like the epicenter of the infection.
Guess what? The testing method has now been changed ("aligned") to what the other countries are doing, so that the numbers do not look that much worse.
> In China when the government tells its citizens to do something, they just do it. They don't ask why. They don't deliberate on whether it's the correct choice. They simply follow the directions. In the West, everything is up for debate. People don't like to be told what to do.
Sigh, this is so cliché… I don't know where you're from, but the “west” as the unified entity you describe doesn't exist. When it comes to authority and how people comply with the rules, France and Germany are more different than China and the US.
Can't comment on France, and of course it's a generalization, but in Germany people love to follow the rules. Just watch how people cross the road without looking left or right, but obeying only the light. Sometimes other pedestrians will shout at you if you walk across the road when the light isn't green.
That isn't the experience in noticing here as a tourist in Berlin, where locals seem to cross against the light quite often. But yes, I realize Berlin is not the typical German experience.
I'd consider it suicidal to blindly trust the lights, no matter if as pedestrian or bcyclist. But then i'm bicycling since 40 years plus in different parts of .de, always wary of every other traffic :-)
Can speak of Hamburg for about 15 years now, and since maybe about 10 years i have the feeling that at least 50% of traffic participants are absolutely insane, again no matter which mode.
I don't like the way how you characterize Chinese people. The fact is that most of Chinese trust the government and believe collectively they are making the correct choice. Maybe we don't think the same way as you, it doesn't mean we don't think.
> But the truth is, containment does not actually stop the virus. It simply slows it
Isn't slowing it the best we can hope for? I mean, I'd rather the pandemic slowly take its course so that there's maximum chance a ventilator will be available if I need one when I get it in six months time. If everyone gets it on the same day.....
>containment does not actually stop the virus. It simply slows it
If containment slows the virus then it might be wise to slow the virus if any of the following is true:
1. You expect to develop some treatment for it.
2. You think a slowly growing group of infected will allow you to study the infected and possibly discover a treatment (related to 1 but not exactly the same)
3. The virus is not expected to be a problem in the summer.
4. A slowly spreading virus means that you can better ramp up your facilities to take care of the infected. (related to 1 and 2)
Is it scaling up now? I live in Kazakhstan, we have huge border with China and a lot of people going through Kazakhstan transiting to other countries. I don't really see any scaling. I don't even see proper reporting, apparently we have no ill people. It sounds stupid and unrealistic, so nobody believe that, but officials say so. I'm prepared to get this virus soon enough, it seems inevitable. I'm young, so probably I'll survive, but I can't say the same about my parents. It's a stupid situation, really.
Due to lack of need. Creating vaccines for the common human strains of corrona virus would be spending a lot of effort to stop the common cold (possibly including a flu like seaaonal vaccine).
Work on SARS resulted in cadidate vaccines, but was abonded before human trials because of succsefull containment.
Work on MERS resulted in a vaccine that is currently showing succsess in humans.
Work on SARS-COVID-2 is starting from those, and already has canditate vaccines based on modifying ones we know showed signs of success against other corona virus.
Maybe this will turn out to be another HIV, where a virus proves ellusive, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that.
That's a hypothesis why young children aren't affected by COVID-19, maybe they had more exposure to related viruses due to school. Currently, no reported death for children; but mortality rate is significantly higher for 50+.
There was once a vaccine for the common cold. However it only covered a couple of the 300+ different common colds and so it made no statistical difference.
>In China when the government tells its citizens to do something, they just do it. They don't ask why. They don't deliberate on whether it's the correct choice. They simply follow the directions. In the West, everything is up for debate. People don't like to be told what to do.
>In China when the government tells its citizens to do >something, they just do it. They don't ask why. They don't >deliberate on whether it's the correct choice. They simply >follow the directions. In the West, everything is up for >debate. People don't like to be told what to do.
No, they do not. Chinas propaganda machine just tells you they do. That is why china- even with all its measures couldnt clamp down. Behind the waver thin authoritarian theater presented lurks the same chaos as in africa and india.
No matter where you were in the developed world, the majority in 1932 (though not necessarily the majority of the elites) would have held similar views or views that were even further away from yours. The US, for instance, had just recently passed an immigration law that was explicitly racist in design, which wasn't repealed until 1965, and even then the proponents of the replacement legislation had to lie through their teeth claiming it would not alter the demographics of the country. England similarly was cracking down on immigration during that period.
>The fact that millions of people are still racists nowadays doesn't mean we should accept that either.
You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.
>Hopefully, Nazis will be defeated in the long run, but it looks quite far ahead of us unfortunately.
What does that even mean? There are no Nazis today. There's a tiny smattering of people that go around playing dress-up, probably mostly undercover government agents or informants, but the NSDAP is a defunct political organization.
> You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.
Interestingly enough, this argument works equally well for immigrants. Some fascists have no problem with the idea of a civil war in that context though…
It is a whole lot easier to expel immigrants than it is to expel a large chunk of the native population, but yes you are correct. Everything I have said applies equally well to immigrants, though immigrants will tend to have fewer expectations about being treated equally.
> > The fact that millions of people are still racists nowadays doesn't mean we should accept that either.
> You do have to share a country with them, and may rely on them some day to save your skin, so it would probably be a good idea for you to treat them like equals, unless you're looking for a civil war.
See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism". Cause I don't think it's real healthy for a population to just accept racism because, well, you gotta share a country with them.
Would you say this if you believed there was an actual possibility that, one day the target of their racism would be you?
Just imagine that you're living in your country, born there etc, but the brewing racist population happens to not include your particular ethnic group, and it may not be right now, but there is really no reason why they would not continue being racists, well you know, they per definition don't like sharing a country with anyone.
Everywhere in the world and history where such a situation occurred, it happened with some amount of tension and suffering (ranging from economic inequality to holocaust).
I can only imagine someone saying "well they may be racist but you gotta share a country with them" if they were certain to expect to come out on top, given such tensions.
There will also be groups that come out on the bottom, badly. But apparently it doesn't matter if you treat them as equals and share a country with them?
> There are no Nazis today. There's a tiny smattering of people that go around playing dress-up, probably mostly undercover government agents or informants, but the NSDAP is a defunct political organization.
While you are technically correct about the NSDAP ...
>See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism".
Does stamping out racism to you involve preventing people from freely and equally participating in the political process? By which I mean being able to utilize the same means to advocate for their interests and political beliefs as any other law-abiding group would be - able to gather in public spaces without fear of physical retaliation, able to utilize the services of major companies that provide electronic resources like payment processing and social media communication and other internet services, and things of that nature.
>Would you say this if you believed there was an actual possibility that, one day the target of their racism would be you?
Yes, I would still say what I have said.
>Just imagine that you're living in your country, born there etc, but the brewing racist population happens to not include your particular ethnic group
Certainly I would not want to share a country with people that thought that way about me. You must be able to rely on your countrymen in times of serious crisis, and obviously I could not rely on those people. I would advocate for physically removing them if I believed that they posed an existential threat to people of my ethnicity and if I believed that such a removal would be feasible. If it was not feasible due to their numbers or influence or whatever I would get out of there for my own safety.
What I would not want under any circumstances is for them to remain in my country but be prevented from advocating for their perceived interests in the same way that everyone else is able, or in other words for them to see that the interests of others are being openly and plainly put ahead of their own perceived interests - if they are not themselves able to advocate for their perceived interests, why should they trust anyone else to further their interests for them, least of all people that are preventing them from advocating for those interests? That is a recipe for civil war, and that is the outcome I would most seek to avoid if I believed they were too powerful to be physically removed.
>but there is really no reason why they would not continue being racists
How many people are you talking about? Enough to influence the outcomes of a democratic government?
>Everywhere in the world and history where such a situation occurred, it happened with some amount of tension and suffering (ranging from economic inequality to holocaust).
What do you think that telling certain people that they can't advocate for their interests using the same means as everyone else is going to do to tensions?
The big issue with your reasoning: racism isn't an opinion, it's a crime. You're talking about freedom, but for good reason you wouldn't give the jihadists the rights you're claiming.
Neither fascists nor Muslim terrorists deserve those rights. And if you say it's not comparable, please reminds that for the past 12 months, there has been more terror attacks committed by white racists than Muslim jihadists in Western countries.
>The big issue with your reasoning: racism isn't an opinion, it's a crime.
Some manifestations of it are in some jurisdictions. How is that an issue with my reasoning?
>You're talking about freedom, but for good reason you wouldn't give the jihadists the rights you're claiming. Neither fascists nor Muslim terrorists deserve those rights.
Do you want a civil war against these "fascists"?
>And if you say it's not comparable, please reminds that for the past 12 months, there has been more terror attacks committed by white racists than Muslim jihadists in Western countries.
How many white racists do you think there are in Western countries?
Ideally, we put ourselves into a situation where it's not a matter of 'giving rights', but removing the ability to remove the ability for people to communicate from people.
What's he supposed to do? He went out of his way to put it in the polite way for you. Unless you want to go into complete incomprehensibility, it's a "rock and a hard place" situation.
Personally, I'd prefer such comments not to be made in a euphemistic way and just speak plainly. If you have concerns (valid or not) with immigrants not following the native culture and social norms then say that.
Well, looking at this sub-thread, I've just watched you keep your cool while pasabagi throws insults at you. So I would hope their behaviour would be more likely to result in bans.
The way people in a society think influences the character of that society, obviously. Do you disagree with that?
If people in some society like the way their society is, more or less, why should they want to import a whole bunch of people that think very differently from them, who will make their society very different in a way that they are not interested in it becoming? How would that benefit them?
It's a really fundamental tradition of french society, going back to the revolution (or even before) that you can think how you like. If you dislike this foundational principle, then you cannot say you like French society 'how it is'. You are in effect saying you would like to change probably its most fundamental rule.
I don't know if you're using this argument to convince the 'normies', and actually you don't like brown people because they frighten you, or if you actually believe it. People often believe in self-contradictory things, but then again, people with unwarranted self-regard often think they can convince other people with obvious nonsense. Perhaps a bit of both?
>It's a really fundamental tradition of french society, going back to the revolution (or even before) that you can think how you like.
That doesn't mean you have to want people who happen to think very differently to come in. You can like the fact that people in your country are free to think how they like, and also like the fact that most of them happen to like to think certain ways.
>people with unwarranted self-regard often think they can convince other people with obvious nonsense.
Perhaps you should consider that it does make sense, and you simply don't want to understand it. I don't think you're intellectually incapable of understanding it.
Yeah, but that goes against the rules. In civilized conversation, your only choice is to use incomprehensible euphemisms. He did a really great job - there is no kind of dog-whistle or outright strange language ("the urban crowd"). Perhaps he could have wrote 'normal french', but that's honestly a minor gripe.
You really have no choice but to phrase yourself in a way that's only recognizable to the in-crowd. Even here, with the polite expression, he is catching flak.
Personally, I don't discuss politics in real life anymore. Risks are too great. Just the Internet, where on some forums (not this one), you can be honest about what you think.
The point is that if doctors had been free to investigate and alert the existence of the disease very early on, it might have been contained to a small number of cases right from the start, and never gained any traction in the population in the first place.
The first few weeks of an outbreak are absolutely crucial, and the Chinese authorities actively obstructed efforts to address the issue in that period precisely because of their authoritarian system.
Well from what we've seen in Japan and South Korea, that seems to be far from guaranteed. Those countries had all the warnings they needed, and knew much more about the virus than the earlier days, yet they still failed to contain the initially small outbreaks.
How can they have all the warnings they needed if China didn't give them the right info from the start ? That 27 days incubation period got a lot of people infected and becoming carriers. It's like, China had a relatively well defined outbreak center while other countries started with a wide spread invisible web of carriers.
>How can they have all the warnings they needed if China didn't give them the right info from the start
So what country gave China info from the start? Japan and SK had a lot more info with regard to the disease (human to human transmission, asymptotic transmission, 14 days incubation period, hell even the RNA sequence was done on the virus) than what China had at the beginning.
I don't understand your statement. WHO didn't hid any information from China, neither other countries did. What kind of info could they have given to China when they didn't even know there was an outbreak (much less when China didn't even want to acknowledge it) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_ou...
Having more info once contaminated people got reported doesn't change the fact that weeks went by with potential carriers spreading everywhere unchecked.
maybe not all. but from the moment china admitted they had an outbreak. maybe a more wary country would...ban all non-local travelers from china , quarantine all locals travelling from china, stop all flights to-and-from china, revoke all visas of chinese people...etc
Also China could have prevented people leaving, but by allowing infected people to leave they ensure that China does not need to fight it in isolation, and is not impacted more than other countries, ie. crab mentality
When you have an initial outbreak, you have a single original source of the incident and no possibility of people outside the area bringing in additional sources of the virus, because the virus hasn't spread outside the area yet. If you contain it locally, you have contained it completely, full stop.
The situation for other countries is completely different. Someone could fly into Japan right now from anywhere in the world carrying the contagion at any time. It was brought into Japan by multiple carriers at different times and different places. You can contain one incoming source, and three more will spring up. It's a completely different problem.
No you don't, there is 27 days incubation factor which means 27 days before the initial outbreak for things to spread and no possible way to do anything about that. Then you have whatever time for doctors to identify that this is something new and a big deal, again time that things can spread without your ability to control it.
Ok, which part did China mislead people? China told the world the virus can be transmitted asymptomatically, can be transmitted human to human, with a 14 days incubation period, and provided all the clinical data.
It misled people by hiding the extent of the problem, by harassing and prosecuting doctors who were raising awareness. Their first response was to suppress warnings.
It doesn't looks so. Chinese scientist did research and found that virus was originated outside of Wuhan. It just became wide spread in Wuhan.
IMHO, it's from Koltsovo.
There was an explosion at a virology lab in Koltsovo in September last year. There were no reported infections as a result and no apparent cases of Coronavirus or anything like it in the area or any established link with Wuhan, but apparently actual evidence isn't required for some people to come to all sorts of conclusions.
The idea that we are in possession of special knowledge or rare insights is very compelling. This is especially true if we often find ourselves disbelieved or shown to be wrong on a regular basis, because it creates a justification for being marginalised. Ok those people might be clever, but I know things they don't so I'm still special. As a result people will consciously seek out unlikely connections or speculative ideas and latch on to them to try to get ahead of the pack.
> The idea that we are in possession of special knowledge or rare insights is very compelling.
There's also evidence that people with lower levels of schooling particularly like conspiracy because it allows them to make sense of a chaotic world. Instead of feeling powerless and hopeless, they have a truth not even the smart and powerful have.
It is of course not true, but therein lies the appeal.
This is not a special knowledge. Just Google it: Vector, Koltsevo, 16.09.2019. Moreover, even if outbreak will be traced back to Koltsevo (because it's only one bio-laboratory which had this virus), explosion will be used as excuse.
It gets even weaker, Harbin is the opposite end of China from Wuhan and has the second lowest levels of the disease of all the regions in China, beaten only by Tibet. But if it was spread to tourists through the population in Koltsovo, how come there isn't a significant outbreak in Koltsovo? How many Chinese tourists were given the special tour of a blown up virology lab?
I don't know. I need list of passengers from Koltsevo to Wuhan to make conclusion. I cannot get it. IF this is incidental, I will suspect a student with asymptomatic infection.
The Milan fashion show was basically cancelled and whole cities in Italy have been cordoned off under the threat of military action if the quarantine isn't followed.
>Will the governments ban conventions? Close restaurants and bars? Shut down shopping malls?
I've had a dig around the BBC News website and despite Italy being the lead story, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51638095, quarantine and control of population movement doesn't get any 'column inches' - all they do say is borders aren't closing.
I'd guess the UK government have told them not to report quarantine in order to keep the UK population calmer.
> Do you really think it will be any different in the USA or Europe? Will the governments ban conventions? Close restaurants and bars? Shut down shopping malls?
You are poorly informed. The Italian government did precisely that this weekend.
Just wait until it happens on a massive scale, and does not appear to be stopping the spread of the virus. People in the West are going to be tough to keep on lockdown. The entire purpose of lockdowns and quarantines at this point seem to be delaying until a vaccine is ready.
This will be hard for the average person to understand, and people think much more critically in the West.
>People in the West are going to be tough to keep on lockdown
Historically they haven't been proven particularly tough to lock down, stir up by authoritarians (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc), be surveilled, sold lies, and so on...
As for those "obedient" Chinese, they got this authoritarian party they have today by doing a whole revolution thing first...
It's very easy to lock people down. have you ever been in New York before a declared snow day? How about Houston just before a big hurricane? Absolute ghost towns.
People are actually eager to be told to stay home and not go to work. They don't have to be forced. Especially if it's for their safety.
Many parts of China have been on lockdown for over 4 weeks now. Hundreds of millions of people have still not returned to work. I am not sure a lockdown of this scale will be accepted in other countries.
Yeah exactly. It's one thing to board up the windows for a day or two, a completely different story to do it for a month+. People get restless and impatient. They start working each other up about perceived ineffectiveness of the lockdown.
Why yes; cities / counties in Italy are on lockdown, a hotel in Tenerife is quarantined, the biggest mobile conference, Mobile World Conference in Barcelona was cancelled (a move which will affect the sector for months / years), etc.
I'm not sure if you just haven't heard of these things or if you're intentionally ignoring them to make a point.
this is childish. "the economy" is the thing that makes everything you have, and the food you eat and medicines you need. there's very good reason to not just turn it all off.
By now we know much more about the virus and the threat is evident so the situation is not really comparable to the start of the outbreak.
I guess a lot of "what if it started in another country" scenarios can be debated, ranging from "another government wouldn't cover up the real situation so the virus would be quickly contained" to "western governments wouldn't have the balls to quickly enact proper quarantine measures so the virus would spread much more quickly" but is it really productive? At this point these debates are pure speculation.
I the 21st century we should be able to do better then speculate and have a clear idea of what the proper response is to a virus like this or any other.
Did it ever occur to you that if there is open / reliable information about the disease people might choose not to go out and/or engage in these conferences? The whole reason all of these cancellations are happening in the first place (MWC, etc) is because rational actors have decided (without government intervention and even with incomplete information) that the risks are too great.
Honestly my main concern in the United States is the complete and utter panic that will be caused by something that is only marginally less dangerous than getting in one's car to go to work each morning.
A government concerned with "not screwing up" can at times take drastic "emergency" measures with an overly cautious basis (at best) and with malintent (at worst), and we should be skeptical and continue to push for reasons for any actions. I don't see how this turns out to be a bug. They can have more impact on peoples actions with a press conference presenting skewed data than with any sort of attempt at straight-up bans or enforced quarantines.
> Honestly my main concern in the United States is the complete and utter panic that will be caused by something that is only marginally less dangerous than getting in one's car to go to work each morning.
If the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 2% as feared, that is dramatically more dangerous than getting in your car every morning.
The flu kills somewhere around 20-30k Americans every year. The common flu has a fatality rate of around .1%. So for something that is potentially 20 times as deadly, we're looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths. By contrast, car accidents only kill around 35k Americans per year.
Absolutely. It's scary as hell in that context and I likely was typing that trying to cope with the reality.
I'm really hoping we get more data on this so we can figure out what's happening. With the lack of testing / confirmation and light symptoms it must be impossible for our science community to track things right now.
In no way is this refuting or at least commenting on the original post.
> [..] played down the threat, lied, covered up to save face, imprisoned whistleblowers, and refused to let international experts in.
Diverting a sensitive topic to a false-equivalence seems to be a go-to tactic of those in favor of China (Chinese government to be precise, the actual Chinese people are the biggest victims here).
I would have had to go to a convention/trade show in Paris next week, but luckily it got postponed for two months. So far people are getting more cautious.
Between the two standard criticisms "too little, too late" and "unnecessary panic" there is very little margin, especially in public opinion.
Here in Germany, people are starting to stock up on supplies, which is reasonable unless they completely plunder the supermarkets. Otherwise, it's all wait-and-see over here. Of course it doesn't help that Europe is also in the midst of flu season...
I'm guessing most countries have laws allowing the authorities to forcibly quarantine people if they feel they are at risk of spreading disease, and similar laws for limiting public activity. Certainly they do for shutting schools and other public buildings.
Institutions in developed countries are far better equipped to deal with this level of crisis than China has been. Australia, where I'm from, has had infections since mid Jan but has been able to effectively quarantine people and prevent community transmission thus far.
#/media/File:Meandros_flag.svg){kind=link}
Basically I don't expect the west to be able to react to this any better if it gets big. Their populations are uncontrollable (for mostly good reason) but in this particular case that feature will turn out to be bug.