|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On November 17 2020 10:11 LegalLord wrote:
Great work, China!
Remarkable how bad the US is doing on that metric, though. Not surprised since the US dropped the ball in every way imaginable, but still noteworthy.
Especially bad considering the recorded outcomes and the alleged levels of preparation.
+ Show Spoiler +
The index rated China 47th and Vietnam 73rd (specifically for epidemics/pandemics).
www.ghsindex.org
When combining the purported preparedness, failures for policy to follow the science (rather than politics), and reported cases/deaths, it paints a picture of utter failure in the US at the national, state, and local level imo.
EDIT: The UK at #1 and Brazil at #9 also stand out as notable.
|
Those numbers on feelings of researchers in the US are pretty much what I'd expect. I have heard third-hand rumblings in the US that, at least at a state level, part of the reason you don't see a lot of policies with actual scientists' names attached is because policymakers have a habit of specifically consulting researchers then ignoring their contributions (or, worse, cherrypicking and deforming the recommendations to the point of unrecognizability).
|
In Belgium we will get the vaccine for free, but it won't be mandatory. Government decided that yesterday.
I plan to get mine. Since I'm a 'lower priority' case others will have had it for months, I feel safe enough to get it at that point.
I'll be following the news closely with regards to side effects though, a bit less confident in this vaccine than in my yearly flu shot due to the rushed nature of it.
|
On November 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Bit dated now, but they did a survey of some scientists around the world to ask basically if their governments were acting on the science they all claimed to be listening to. Show nested quote + A survey by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, asked some 25,000 researchers in May and June whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their covid-19 strategy.
![[image loading]](https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/884/90/sites/default/files/20201107_WOC147_0.png) www.economist.com
This is interesting, but I wonder how much it is biased by (1) general trust in government, and (2) overall impact of Covid on the country. Of course, it's a bit of a chicken-egg story, as governments who follow medical advice on a medical emergency are reinforcing the fact that they are trustworthy, while governments going full Bolsonaro on this are reinforcing the fact that they are untrustworthy.
However, I find Spain quite surprising, as the federal government (state level is a bit more chaotic) appears to be following the medical advice pretty closely. I guess a lot comes down to quite a few decisions at state level, where they have really dropped the ball: Madrid being a bunch of cunts who don't care about anybody as long as "their economy" isn't touched, the various ill-fated attempts to salvage the summer tourism season, such as forcing face masks, but not really staying on-message about social distancing for a lot of the summer. Mistakes were clearly made, and I guess worst of all was right at the start, when stupid shit like the Atalanta-Valencia football match and a mass march for Women's day were allowed, but I'm not sure anybody (outside of China) really understood yet what we were dealing with. Even with all this, I still wonder why they are lower than Sweden, whose government quite explicitly flew in the face of all medical advice in a weird bid for herd immunity.
E: oh wait, I thought the article was from November, but the survey was from June? That's *before* the tourism season, so then I understand Spain's position even less. The lockdown was pretty clearly exactly what the medical advisors were saying to do.
|
On November 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Bit dated now, but they did a survey of some scientists around the world to ask basically if their governments were acting on the science they all claimed to be listening to. Show nested quote + A survey by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, asked some 25,000 researchers in May and June whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their covid-19 strategy.
www.economist.com
I'm shocked that even 20% of the U.S. scientists felt that their policymakers took them seriously... I suppose they chose to mostly ignore the President and Congressional Republicans, when answering this survey question.
|
On November 17 2020 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Bit dated now, but they did a survey of some scientists around the world to ask basically if their governments were acting on the science they all claimed to be listening to. A survey by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, asked some 25,000 researchers in May and June whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their covid-19 strategy.
www.economist.com I'm shocked that even 20% of the U.S. scientists felt that their policymakers took them seriously... I suppose they chose to mostly ignore the President and Congressional Republicans, when answering this survey question.
Or they are these republican paid climate "scientists" that desperately try to come up with reasons why global warming isn't real, or isn't a problem.
|
The Chinese approach was brutal, but it worked. It worked in Europe too until summer when travel between member states was unrestricted. I doubt you can enter China without the mandatory quarantine, so they needed a single lockdown without infection sources from outside the country. Had Austria demanded not to allow other countries in, we'd be good just like China most likely. People will be less obedient on successive lockdowns I believe, and for the most part, we were very disciplined during the first one.
I wonder if tourism and domestic consumption income in that time was worth this new lockdown, financially, and which country (as in, their travelers) was mostly responsible for the new surge in infections, if it isn't just the increased testing feigning that (which imo is more likely).
Is the government stupid or dishonest? Probably both, and also incapable of making the right decisions because EU law doesn't allow to isolate your country properly until Germany declares you a red no-go-zone and bullies you into another lockdown. The whole story about EU members retaining their sovereignty increasingly displays cracks and it's regrettable that we can't be like Switzerland.
|
On November 17 2020 20:23 Vivax wrote:
The Chinese approach was brutal, but it worked. It worked in Europe too until summer when travel between member states was unrestricted. I doubt you can enter China without the mandatory quarantine, so they needed a single lockdown without infection sources from outside the country. Had Austria demanded not to allow other countries in, we'd be good just like China most likely. People will be less obedient on successive lockdowns I believe, and for the most part, we were very disciplined during the first one.
I wonder if tourism and domestic consumption income in that time was worth this new lockdown, financially, and which country (as in, their travelers) was mostly responsible for the new surge in infections, if it isn't just the increased testing feigning that (which imo is more likely).
Is the government stupid or dishonest? Probably both, and also incapable of making the right decisions because EU law doesn't allow to isolate your country properly until Germany declares you a red no-go-zone and bullies you into another lockdown. The whole story about EU members retaining their sovereignty increasingly displays cracks and it's regrettable that we can't be like Switzerland.
Huh? Why are you blaming the EU? Every country was totally capable of declaring it an emergency and shutting the borders. There was definitely political pressure not to do so early on, but Spain and France shut their borders without any EU go-ahead. Austria could have, but didn't. Don't let them tell you it was the EU that forbade them, or that it's Germany's fault that you are now in lockdown. All of that is policy set by your government, not at an EU level.
Just as Spain was pissed at the Germans and the Brits for imposing quarantines for tourists returning from the Balearic islands, you have every right to be pissed at Germany for imposing quarantines for returning tourists from Austria... but it is nothing to do with the EU. It is simply Germany setting internal rules.
|
On November 17 2020 20:23 Vivax wrote:
The Chinese approach was brutal, but it worked. It worked in Europe too until summer when travel between member states was unrestricted. I doubt you can enter China without the mandatory quarantine, so they needed a single lockdown without infection sources from outside the country. Had Austria demanded not to allow other countries in, we'd be good just like China most likely. People will be less obedient on successive lockdowns I believe, and for the most part, we were very disciplined during the first one.
I wonder if tourism and domestic consumption income in that time was worth this new lockdown, financially, and which country (as in, their travelers) was mostly responsible for the new surge in infections, if it isn't just the increased testing feigning that (which imo is more likely).
Is the government stupid or dishonest? Probably both, and also incapable of making the right decisions because EU law doesn't allow to isolate your country properly until Germany declares you a red no-go-zone and bullies you into another lockdown. The whole story about EU members retaining their sovereignty increasingly displays cracks and it's regrettable that we can't be like Switzerland. I get you hate the EU but doesn't mean you need to spout BS.
Austria could have closed all their borders if they wanted to. Belgium closed its borders to the Netherlands for a period of time.
Stop accepting politicians just pointing to someone else as the problem rather then themselves.
|
1. Healthcare first, then elderly, then try to distribute to people with high interaction levels with others where social distancing is difficult such as teachers, then everyone else.
Disagree. Well, partially. Definitely healthcare workers first - then we disagree. Yes, elderly have the highest chance of dying of the disease, but they don't have the highest chance of contracting/spreading the disease.
Healthcare workers first, then people working in public space (including store clerks, bus drivers etc), then "working folks". It sounds harsh, but i'd get society and economy back up running as soon as possible - the elderly can wait that extra few weeks/month.
This isn't about emotion or morality - this is about protecting the future of the country. The harsh reality is that elderly don't contribute much, whereas bleeding the coffers dry, leading to potential cuts in health care, welfare, state aid etc pp would have a long lasting effect to future generations (and the elderly as well). Asking the elderly to stay put for a while longer while the country gets back on track (and btw, i'd put myself in the same group - i'm not elderly, but i don't need a vaccine immediately - i have arranged myself) isn't too much to ask, imo.
Just as Spain was pissed at the Germans and the Brits for imposing quarantines for tourists returning from the Balearic islands, you have every right to be pissed at Germany for imposing quarantines for returning tourists from Austria... but it is nothing to do with the EU. It is simply Germany setting internal rules.
While technically true, i'm not entirely sure why you'd be pissed at a country for trying to curb a virus in a pandemic. It's not like Austria isn't and wasn't doing that either.
Probably both, and also incapable of making the right decisions because EU law doesn't allow to isolate your country properly
Pure bullshit. Stop listening to facebook news.
|
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here.
|
On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here.
Pure bullshit. Stop listening to facebook news.
I view FB as nothing more than a global chatroom and I'm mostly pro-EU. The anti-EU starts with centralized regulations that chip away at the capability of individual states to affront their particular problems in the way they see fit. There's a progredient tendency to create a one-size-fits-all legislation that is often detached from the reality of underrepresented states (which is something the US should be familiar with).
Meant to attach this to above post sorry for dp
|
On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here. Please do enlighten us when it changed from Schengen preventing countries from closing their borders and there now being exemptions?
|
Usually the EU gives out regulation that the member states translate into their own laws and can be tailored - to a certain degree - according to the respective government's taste.
The ingredients and rough menue are provided by the EU, but each Chef can spin it their own way.
|
On November 17 2020 21:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here. Please do enlighten us when it changed from Schengen preventing countries from closing their borders and there now being exemptions?
If you recall, Italy was the hotspot at the beginning of the pandemic and at the time the official tendency was to downplay the severity. The regulation wasn't in place that allowed a country to issue travel restrictions that would violate Schengen before the WHO declared it a pandemic after suckling their thumbs for several weeks.
|
On November 17 2020 21:38 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 21:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here. Please do enlighten us when it changed from Schengen preventing countries from closing their borders and there now being exemptions? If you recall, Italy was the hotspot at the beginning of the pandemic and at the time the official tendency was to downplay the severity. The regulation wasn't in place that allowed a country to issue travel restrictions that would violate Schengen before the WHO declared it a pandemic after suckling their thumbs for several weeks. Except that certain countries had already used the clause in the Schegen Border Code that allows a country to close their borders to other Schengen countries in case of a threat to public policy or internal security back in 2016 with the refugee crisis.
So again. I call Bullshit.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02016R0399-20190611
Title 3, Chapter 2. Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders
|
On November 17 2020 20:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Bit dated now, but they did a survey of some scientists around the world to ask basically if their governments were acting on the science they all claimed to be listening to. A survey by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, asked some 25,000 researchers in May and June whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their covid-19 strategy.
www.economist.com I'm shocked that even 20% of the U.S. scientists felt that their policymakers took them seriously... I suppose they chose to mostly ignore the President and Congressional Republicans, when answering this survey question.
They might be refering to local politicians (mayors and governors) that acted correctly. It's the same story in Brazil: the central government went full denial, but that doesn't mean that states acted in disregard to scientific consensus. Frontiers didn't consider this nuance important enough to bake into the question, it seems.
|
On November 17 2020 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 21:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 21:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here. Please do enlighten us when it changed from Schengen preventing countries from closing their borders and there now being exemptions? If you recall, Italy was the hotspot at the beginning of the pandemic and at the time the official tendency was to downplay the severity. The regulation wasn't in place that allowed a country to issue travel restrictions that would violate Schengen before the WHO declared it a pandemic after suckling their thumbs for several weeks. Except that certain countries had already used the clause in the Schegen Border Code that allows a country to close their borders to other Schengen countries in case of a threat to public policy or internal security back in 2016 with the refugee crisis. So again. I call Bullshit. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02016R0399-20190611Title 3, Chapter 2. Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders
You don't need to call bullshit. It just means that the source who is in public health administration of Rome was wrong in telling me they can't close the borders because of Schengen when I asked why they still didn't back in February.
|
On November 17 2020 22:18 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2020 21:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 21:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2020 21:15 Vivax wrote:
While I probably jumped the gun on saying Germany is responsible for the new lockdown here, it was Schengen that initially prevented countries from closing their borders. But yes, now it's subject to exemptions.
So far the strategy apparently is
lockdown, lift restrictions, open borders and lower testing, increase testing, then lockdown again. Rinse repeat. Sustainable or fair towards your population? Definitely nice if you own hotels here. Please do enlighten us when it changed from Schengen preventing countries from closing their borders and there now being exemptions? If you recall, Italy was the hotspot at the beginning of the pandemic and at the time the official tendency was to downplay the severity. The regulation wasn't in place that allowed a country to issue travel restrictions that would violate Schengen before the WHO declared it a pandemic after suckling their thumbs for several weeks. Except that certain countries had already used the clause in the Schegen Border Code that allows a country to close their borders to other Schengen countries in case of a threat to public policy or internal security back in 2016 with the refugee crisis. So again. I call Bullshit. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02016R0399-20190611Title 3, Chapter 2. Temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders You don't need to call bullshit. It just means that the source who is in public health administration of Rome was wrong in telling me they can't close the borders because of Schengen when I asked why they still didn't back in February.
There is a big difference between "it isn't allowed" and politicians (locally) and at an EU level claiming that there is no need to invoke an emergency protocol and hamper free trade just for a small virus. That was, after all, the initial stance by pretty much *everybody* in Europe. That it was the Chinese who couldn't deal properly with a little cold, and just like SARS (or MERS) it'd stay a local problem and we'd just go on doing what we were doing without much interruption. Then Italy got wrecked, and people said: well, they're Italians, what can you expect. They'll get it under control eventually, anyway, it's carnival, lets party!
And then it exploded all over Europe and borders closed. There was never any rule saying Austria couldn't close its borders if it designated the Covid epidemic an emergency. Austria just chose not to do that (as did everybody else, Austria wasn't alone here). If your political contact is telling you "Schengen disallows it", they are wrong. They are right that Schengen doesn't allow you to close your border just willy nilly. But if there was political will to declare the situation an emergency (as there was for the 2016 migrant crisis), they could, and would be allowed to close the border.
|
On November 17 2020 20:56 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +1. Healthcare first, then elderly, then try to distribute to people with high interaction levels with others where social distancing is difficult such as teachers, then everyone else.
Disagree. Well, partially. Definitely healthcare workers first - then we disagree. Yes, elderly have the highest chance of dying of the disease, but they don't have the highest chance of contracting/spreading the disease. Healthcare workers first, then people working in public space (including store clerks, bus drivers etc), then "working folks". It sounds harsh, but i'd get society and economy back up running as soon as possible - the elderly can wait that extra few weeks/month. This isn't about emotion or morality - this is about protecting the future of the country. The harsh reality is that elderly don't contribute much, whereas bleeding the coffers dry, leading to potential cuts in health care, welfare, state aid etc pp would have a long lasting effect to future generations (and the elderly as well). Asking the elderly to stay put for a while longer while the country gets back on track (and btw, i'd put myself in the same group - i'm not elderly, but i don't need a vaccine immediately - i have arranged myself) isn't too much to ask, imo. Show nested quote +Just as Spain was pissed at the Germans and the Brits for imposing quarantines for tourists returning from the Balearic islands, you have every right to be pissed at Germany for imposing quarantines for returning tourists from Austria... but it is nothing to do with the EU. It is simply Germany setting internal rules.
While technically true, i'm not entirely sure why you'd be pissed at a country for trying to curb a virus in a pandemic. It's not like Austria isn't and wasn't doing that either. Show nested quote +Probably both, and also incapable of making the right decisions because EU law doesn't allow to isolate your country properly Pure bullshit. Stop listening to facebook news.
I don't think Germany is in the wrong. And I, personally, am happy they shut down tourism when they did, and imho Spain should never have opened in the first place. The only thing I think was wrong is the Canary Islands policy, which is pretty much Covid free. They are keeping it that way with extensive testing and quarantining, and imho no quarantine should be required when returning (on a direct flight...). The same applied in the summer. But the Balearic islands were never even nearly as clear, and had German and English (and Spanish) drunks partying like it was 1999 before even the state of emergency was lifted.
That said, Spain was obviously not happy about being treated like a leper colony by other countries, even though we obviously are. And I have no doubt Austria is unhappy with the same treatment. Even if it makes sense, it doesnt mean the lepers are happy about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://assets.weforum.org/editor/responsive_large_webp_x4QweWrmMyvsFmTTMtZvzIHGl-e9nR2Mn_4aZ50TpNM.webp)
