Nogle, Xinyi Dist. breaking the CDC quarantine rule

[DrinkDaddy2020]

Don’t be lazy. If you are going to make an argument you need to bring proof. We need stats and data here, not old wives tales.

[Shui]

I am sorry, but you are writing so ridiculous stuff, so following this I will not respond any longer: The 14 day quarantine of course is based on science and if you are not able to find the website of the Taiwanese CDC, then this speaks for itself. They report on every single case in Taiwan in detail. Just go and read it.

[DrinkDaddy2020]

@nnnnnnnnnnnn

“Please look at the stats before engaging in such nonsense.”…
I think you mean ‘Please look at THESE stats’.

“Per the study linked below”… This ‘study’ seems to have been conducted over less than two months at a single Canadian airport. Hasn’t even been peer reviewed - I wouldn’t even call it scientific.

It’s a study conducted by McMaster University and the University of Toronto School of Public Health. They wouldn’t attach their names to it if it wasn’t a legitimate study.

[DrinkDaddy2020]

Not really:

Options to Reduce Quarantine for Contacts of Persons with SARS-CoV-2

The CDC’s study aligns with the McMaster/UofT one I posted earlier.

[RBE]

@DrinkDaddy2020

You shouldn’t break the law, but you should understand that the 14 day quarantine requirement is not based in science but rather a deterrent for people to travel. It should be a test on arrival, a 5 day quarantine, then another test upon departure.

Well when you become the head of the CECC, you can change the rules. Until then, the policies that are in place now haven’t let us down. Obviously, there are some concerns about recent events, but the CECC is adjusting its policies accordingly, which is what you’d hope for.

[DrinkDaddy2020]

It’s ultimately a political position, they have to contend with the Taiwanese national characteristics, as Shinpei Goto put it, of being "money-grubbing, vain and afraid of death.”

[TroubleWithTribbles]

@DrinkDaddy2020

question is legality versus morality.

You shouldn’t break the law, but you should understand that the 14 day quarantine requirement is not based in science but rather a deterrent for people to travel. It should be a test on arrival, a 5 day quarantine, then another test upon departure.

There were still 5 positives out of 5000+ positives at day 14. Probably fine in the US, where that would be a drop in the bucket, but that does not seem to be the standard Taiwan is shooting for. Also, the McMaster study has not been peer reviewed yet.

[the_bear]

And a marry Christmas to you too.

[DrinkDaddy2020]

@TroubleWithTribbles

There were still 5 positives out of 5000+ positives at day 14.

Link to the report. Saying someone is positive doesn’t mean that they are a spreader. They could have trace amounts of it in the system.

[DrinkDaddy2020]

Thanks sir~~~~

It’s tough work defending against the legions that are showing symptoms of Sanchong Syndrome.

[nnnnnnnnnnnn]

@DrinkDaddy2020

It’s ultimately a political position, they have to contend with the Taiwanese national characteristics, as Shinpei Goto put it, of being "money-grubbing, vain and afraid of death.”

You’re quoting a Japanese colonialist from almost 100 year ago? Is that the best you can do? Sounds about as relevant as the Canadian unreviewed ‘study’.

[TroubleWithTribbles]

Don’t get me wrong. I hope studies like this will lead to shorter quarantines. The results are encouraging, but hardly definitive, especially since it is an interim analysis and not published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a single sample and, although the sample is good size, the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the day 14 probability is about 0.2%. All in all, not enough to warrant breaking quarantine.

[finley]

@TroubleWithTribbles

There were still 5 positives out of 5000+ positives at day 14.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, I think DD’s point is that:

(a) The behaviour of these travellers is completely unacceptable. They should have obeyed the rules, especially since they’re not particularly onerous rules.
(b) but in all probability, no harm has been done in this particular instance.

The quarantine rule is based on this (general expert opinion):

• The median incubation period from infection with SARS-CoV-2 to onset of symptoms is approximately 5 days.
• 97.5% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 will exhibit symptoms by 11.5 days.
• Monitoring people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 for 14 days for development of symptoms should be sufficient to identify 99% of cases or more.

So 5 days is a particularly dangerous time to go out and about … if you’ve been exposed to the virus. So they shouldn’t have done it. OTOH, the overwhelming majority of asymptomatic cases aren’t “spreaders”. So if they felt OK at day 5, chances are they either (a) don’t have it or (b) didn’t infect anyone else. But somebody really ought to be keeping an eye on them now.

[Shui]

@finley

The behaviour of these travellers is completely unacceptable. They should have obeyed the rules, especially since they’re not particularly onerous rules.

I unfortunately have not seen DrinkDaddy2020 say this anywhere and I have strong doubts that this is his opinion. On the contrary, as far as I remember, he actually posted advice on how to illegally circumvent quarantine rules not so long ago in a different post which was then rightly removed by the moderators.

[finley]

I was basing my comment on this:

“You shouldn’t break the law, but you should understand that the 14 day quarantine requirement is not based in science but rather a deterrent for people to travel.”

But reading through it again, you’re right, he does seem to stray towards the position that quarantining is a load of nonsense

[OrangeOrganics]

Have u ever been to Taiwan? I think you are too sensitive for living in Asia.

Taiwan works like this, “people dont do bad things publicly because they are scared of being on 爆料公社 or Apple Daily”. In the pandemic, this type of shame culture keeps us safe

[OrangeOrganics]

他說台灣人愛錢,愛面子,怕死.

That translation is unnecessarily negative