National parks, leisure areas, beaches, schools ,
forestry bureau controlled areas, universities , most dorms , restaurants, playgrounds, many trails. No group sports or recreation activities. No classes. No concerts. No public games. No foreigners allowed enter except for residents .
Ah, OK, sounds about par for the course.
Nevertheless, Iâm not a fan of the snitch-on-your-neighbours approach to infection control.
So you think thereâs no difference between spying on people because of their political views and making sure everyone follows the laws regarding the control of a pandemic?
Btw, the fine if you got caught by the Stasi could easily be execution or a life in prison for you and your family. I also donât remember that Taiwan is planning to execute people for not following lockdown restriction. But correct me if I am wrong.
2 Likes
Gotcha. That doesnât really restrict movement though. That just restricts activities. To me, a real lockdown restricts movement.
1 Like
Extracurricular activities are not classes though.
When the laws regarding the control of a pandemic are (a) unconstitutional and (b) unlikely to do any good, yes. As I said, this sort of thing has all sorts of unintended consequences. Trust is a critical public good, and a society that loses it can quickly degenerate into backwardness.
Thin end of the wedge. Fines for breaking silly rules are substantial and will probably be increased. Again, itâs counterproductive: it erodes trust in the State. When laws will only be followed when backed up by force, itâs usually because people disagree with those laws (or at least disagree with some aspect of them).
I invite you to consider the inherent absurdity of protecting people against their will.
I call it lockdown lite. Locking kids out of schools is a huge thing for parents .
Nevertheless our movements are highy restricted right now .Which is the general idea.
Although I donât agree with closing outdoor recreational areas ! That to me is pretty dumb and mostly unnecessary if measures are thought through.
6 Likes
But lockdown does not involve stopping online classes anyway.
Of course. As I said above, severe restriction of movement constitutes a lockdown to me.
2 Likes
100% dumb.
2 Likes
Ah, the typical argument âItâs against the constitutionâ.
Letâs take a look at the Constitution:
Article 23
All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare.
I am not a lawyer (maybe you are - not sure), but I would interpret that article that in case of a situation like the current one, those restrictions are actually constitutional!
Yeah, I know. Stupid laws requiring people to wear seat belts, helmets and stuffâŚ
Maybe you can consider the option that these regulations also exist to protect hospitals from being overwhelmed and elderly citizens from catching the disease.
6 Likes
How to say youâre American without saying youâre American:
Yes, because we all know itâs absurd to force people to wear helmets and to use seatbelts against their will.
6 Likes
Actually, it is quite absurd.
1 Like
I might be wrong, but I thought @finley is British rather than American. I remember noticing that he spells certain words correctly.
So perhaps he wasnât saying that.
6 Likes
320 + 7 = 327 + 166 backdated = 493 and unfortunately 21 more deaths.
5 Likes
Hereâs to hoping theyâll announce level 4 today
1 Like
As a resident of Banqiao, Iâve been a little concerned to see weâre constantly second only to Wanhua, but this population density map seems to suggest a possible factor involved. However, the population numbers in this map are from 2009 and the latest population number listed for Banqiao is from 2016. Are there any more up to date numbers anywhere?
fat chance
3 Likes
The general principle invoked is that the response to exceptional circumstances must be (a) proportional to the threat and (b) demonstrably effective.
Clauses such as these do not grant carte blanche for governments to do whatever they please just by declaring an âemergencyâ.
This discussion relates to European law, and is therefore not directly applicable, but since Taiwan advertises itself as a free society and a democracy, similar considerations arise:
lsaa011.pdf (search for this on google and then click the top search result - it does a watermarked download, so I canât link directly).
If you fall off a motorcycle, then the obvious intervention that prevents death (and undue load on A&E) is to wear a crash-helmet. Itâs not the only intervention - you could perhaps make all roads out of marshmallow - but it certainly offers the best cost/benefit tradeoff. Another possibility would be to charge helmetless squids the full cost of their medical treatment, which would be harsh but fair; thatâs the way itâs actually done in some countries.
This sort of reasoning does not work with lockdowns. I wonât rehash the details all over again, but they generally involve a lot of costs and few benefits, and they are not the only way of âsaving livesâ. This business about âall the old people will dieâ is patent nonsense. Itâs true that old people represent almost the entire death toll, but nowhere on the planet has there been a geriatric apocalypse, lockdowns or no. Iâm tired of people repeating it. Itâs false.
- Sweden had 13500 deaths in the 65+ agegroup out of approximately 2.1 million, i.e., 0.64% of that age cohort.
- Japan, the figure is about 10,000 out of 36 million, or 0.03%.
- South Korea had about 1500 deaths in the older cohort, ie., a very small percentage.
The UK, in contrast, which did aggressive lockdowns, lost about 100,000 older people out of 8.7 million, or 1.15%. So in the absence of any additional information about âno lockdownâ conditions (few countries were brave enough to try it), it looks like lockdowns cause additional deaths compared to more directed alternatives. Which means - at best - they donât meet the test for either proportionality or effectiveness.
1 Like
At least it didnât really spike on Friday as predicted by Ko. Can we sue the government for ârecklessâ endangerment? Due the actions they took before it started.