International COVID-19 Megathread

[Lord Halifax]

That's not true. Everybody in East Asia wears a mask. As said above, East Asian countries managed to contain the virus wearing masks... but also through the use of big data. The Chinese could feel entitled to tell us their model of authoritarian capitalism and massive digital surveillance is superior

Considering that they failed to contain the pandemic in the first place, they'd be wrong.

The pandemic originated there and ultimately China was able to contain it with less casualties than Italy right now. Also, China is not the only country in East Asia. Hong Kong, Singapore or South Korea have contained the pandemic. The latter is a demcratic country, but it has resorted to big data in a way we can't do in Europe due to privacy concerns. And all of them manufacture masks, while we have a shortage thanks to offshore capitalism. East Asians have a culture that is less individualist and a mindset more prone to accept government control through big data. I don't want a police state based on digital surveillance, so the fact East Asia is being more succesful than the West causes me some concern. If the West does not address the root causes that lead to failure, it won't prevail

Could you elaborate on how they've used big data?

[Lord Halifax]

I think the long term plan will probably be to ease the restrictions to a point allowing the economy to start to recover once the rate of infection starts to slow but effectively place the vulnerable (who are overwhelmingly economically inactive) in a state of almost permanent lockdown until there is a vaccine. The steps being taken now are being taken to not overwhelm healthcare systems completely. Unfortunately if the virus is something that has high rates of re-infection or becomes annual then I suspect the most physically vulnerable will be quarantined until there is a vaccine.

It is horrific to force this on people. It is less horrific than the virus decimating that group and that uncomfortable balance will have to be struck.

I disagree. If you only have a few years left to live being held in quarantine for most of that time is much worse than dying of Corona. Maybe you can quarantine younger people from high risk groups (after all if they on average have 30-40 years left to live you'll "only" be robbing them of maybe 2.5-3% of their remaining life-span), but doing it to people simply because they're old is extremely cruel.

[Lord Halifax]

I think the long term plan will probably be to ease the restrictions to a point allowing the economy to start to recover once the rate of infection starts to slow but effectively place the vulnerable (who are overwhelmingly economically inactive) in a state of almost permanent lockdown until there is a vaccine. The steps being taken now are being taken to not overwhelm healthcare systems completely. Unfortunately if the virus is something that has high rates of re-infection or becomes annual then I suspect the most physically vulnerable will be quarantined until there is a vaccine.

It is horrific to force this on people. It is less horrific than the virus decimating that group and that uncomfortable balance will have to be struck.

I disagree. If you only have a few years left to live being held in quarantine for most of that time is much worse than dying of Corona. Maybe you can quarantine younger people from high risk groups (after all if they on average have 30-40 years left to live you'll "only" be robbing them of maybe 2.5-3% of their remaining life-span), but doing it to people simply because they're old is extremely cruel.

How would that logistically work. Give free mobility to those high risk groups (who can often have limited or need assisted mobility anyway) but quarantine everyone else? Can you explain?

Quarantine young and middle aged people from high risk groups (respiratory diseases etc.) and let those who are "close to death" do what they want at their own risk (no access to treatment if they get the virus).

Ftr I would prefer no one was quarantined beyond two months, I don't believe it's something the state should be able to force people to do for longer than a few months, if the pandemic drags out beyond that the right to freedom of movement should trump disease prevention and we'll just have to accept some people can't get treated.

[Lord Halifax]

BoJo has tested positive.

[Lord Halifax]

World's leading tennis player is an anti-vaxxer: "Personally I am opposed to vaccination and I wouldn't want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel".

Hopefully this will end his career.

[Lord Halifax]

Some good news from Italy: Silvio Berlusconi has tested positive.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/sep/02/coronavirus-live-news-us-wont-cooperate-with-who-vaccine-china-uk-trump-brazil-cases-near-4m

[Lord Halifax]

Liechtenstein has been experiencing one of the worst outbreaks in Europe, with cases just starting to decline from a peak over 1000 per 100k over 14 days. By all accounts, it should have been put on Switzerland's quarantine list, except that the country relies on Switzerland for its border and customs controls, parts of its justice system, over half of its workforce, and perhaps most importantly, it relies on Swiss hospitals as an integral part of its own healthcare system. All of which clearly makes closing the border completely impossible as doing so would essentially cause the country to completely cease to function.

Begs the question as to why exactly we don't just stop pretending and revoke it's pseudo-"independent" status once and for all.

Does the Swiss constitution allow a canton to be a monarchy?

[Lord Halifax]

Liechtenstein has been experiencing one of the worst outbreaks in Europe, with cases just starting to decline from a peak over 1000 per 100k over 14 days. By all accounts, it should have been put on Switzerland's quarantine list, except that the country relies on Switzerland for its border and customs controls, parts of its justice system, over half of its workforce, and perhaps most importantly, it relies on Swiss hospitals as an integral part of its own healthcare system. All of which clearly makes closing the border completely impossible as doing so would essentially cause the country to completely cease to function.

Begs the question as to why exactly we don't just stop pretending and revoke it's pseudo-"independent" status once and for all.

Does the Swiss constitution allow a canton to be a monarchy?

Nope, and there is even a precedent, Neuchâtel was a principality with the King of Prussia as head of state until the revolution and constitution of 1848. A coup d'état to restore the monarchy failed in 1856 which led to a final acceptance of the 1848 constitution with the Swiss confederation as guarantor of its status as a republic.

So as of the 1848 constitution, it is effectively impossible for any Swiss canton to have a royal family.

Then I don't see how their "pseudo-independence" could be ended since being a monarchy is Liechtenstein's whole raison d'être and backed by nearly all of the population.