Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

asahi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#141

Post by mxcrossb »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #5

With all these provisions: if you've decided it would be a good idea to do, why not do it now? If it's a good idea now, it's going to be twice as good of an idea in three days. And it's going to be four times as good of an idea in six. Etc. Over and over again the organs of governments announce decisions that would be a good idea today that don't come into effect until a few days from now. Which means that the harm d…

> If it's a good idea now, it's going to be twice as good of an idea in three days.

If I had a crystal ball, six months ago we could’ve picked a good date. But that doesn’t mean I should have shut things down sixth months ago. We’re asking our governments to look ahead and make decisions.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#142

Post by hkmurakami »

I looked into additional entry ban countries since other posters here seemed to wonder about non-US countries.

"As of March 27th

Foreigners who have been in the following countries in the prior 14 days: Iceland, Ireland, [EDIT]Andorra, Italy, Iran, Estonia, Austria, Netherlands, San Marino, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Vatican, France, Belgium, Portugal, Malta, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg.

Additionally, Hubei and Zhejiang provinces in China, as well as holders of passports from these regions.

Also a bunch of regions in South Korea (大邱広域市，慶尚北道の清道郡，慶 山市，安東市，永 川市，漆谷 テ グ ケイシヨウホクドウ チヨ ンド キヨンサン アン ドン ヨンチヤン チ ルゴク 郡，義城郡，星州郡，軍威郡 ウィソン ソンジユ グンウィ)

And lastly, passengers on the Westerdam cruise ship.

Source: Japan Ministry of Justice -- http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001316538.pdf

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#143

Post by doubleunplussed »

arcturus17 wrote: post #67
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #47

Japan has had a low infection rate because of their strong mask-wearing culture. Western countries are experiencing higher rates of COVID-19 infections compared to Asian countries because of the West's aversion to wearing masks. Please help me spread this message http://www.maskssavelives.org/

Countries without "mask-wearing cultures" like Switzerland or Germany are doing exceptionally well compared to others in Europe. But above all, there's no scientific basis to what you're saying.

No they're not. They have high per-capita case numbers and no better success at slowing the growth rate than others.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#144

Post by jdkee »

I have been watching the Cuomo NYS briefings for the past two weeks. This is what leadership looks like. He fucked up early with the "we won't shut down the economy" bit but has come around. Similarly, Gov. Pritzker of Illinois has been on top of this, apart from his fuckup of allowing the primary elections to to go through putting people on top of each other to maintain a regular election cycle.

Mike DeWine has been the gold standard in kicking the primary election down the road. Elections should be held by mail-in ballot, I have been doing it in Illinois since 2004. Why Illinois decided to have a bunch of people crammed together in the Lincoln Park library last week boggles the mind and will be a stain on Pritzker's and Illinois otherwise reasoned response to this health emergency.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#145

Post by brigandish »

chrischen wrote: post #105
brigandish wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. You can supply the study for that too. From what I've read, and I've been reading as many as I can, it's not true. > verroq 4 minutes ago | parent | on: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as n... Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. > Even if somebody pulled d…

Less efficient face masks (e.g., surgical or medical) also decrease exposure to aerosols of droplet nuclei to a lesser (8–12 fold) degree than N95 masks (36), and they provide protection against larger droplets. We did not determine the type of mask worn by the passengers; presumably, individually acquired masks represented a mixture of N95 and other less efficient masks. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2396898…

Yes, I'm reading the actual study too. It proves nothing which is why they conclude with:

> We recommend a more compre- hensive intervention study to accurately estimate the pro- tective effect of face masks for preventing influenza virus transmission on long-distance flights.

accurately being the operative word.

> Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all.

I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission.

> Just because we can't completely eliminate Covid-19 doesn't mean that we shouldn't flatten the curve.

That's a poor comparison, of course we should flatten the curve using methods that are shown to be effective.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#146

Post by seanmcdirmid »

hkmurakami wrote: post #142

I looked into additional entry ban countries since other posters here seemed to wonder about non-US countries. "As of March 27th Foreigners who have been in the following countries in the prior 14 days: Iceland, Ireland, [EDIT]Andorra, Italy, Iran, Estonia, Austria, Netherlands, San Marino, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Vatican, France, Belgium, Portugal, Malta, Monaco, Lichtenstein,…

I’m a bit surprised they are letting people from China in at all. Wouldn’t a blanket ban like they are doing with the USA just be easier and more reliable to implement?

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#147

Post by hkmurakami »

drstewart wrote: post #92
tenpies wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen this mentioned, but I'm honestly now sure why Canadians think this. What special measures did Canada take early on? What makes Canada exceptional compared to the US who at least banned some flights? The only difference is that the media doesn't absolutely despise Trudeau, but we're effectively the same. The US is actually surpassing us in testing at this point and some of our most populous provinces have…

I don't really understand this either. As someone who's in Seattle, it seemed like BC lagged 2-3 days behind every action taken in Washington (e.g. closing schools). I keep seeing Canadians say their response was magnitudes better but I don't see why.

Even if BC lagged Washington by 2-3 days in Earth Time (so to speak), this likely translates into faster-than-Washington response with respect to where they were at on the virus incident growth curve.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#148

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

mxcrossb wrote: post #141
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #5

With all these provisions: if you've decided it would be a good idea to do, why not do it now? If it's a good idea now, it's going to be twice as good of an idea in three days. And it's going to be four times as good of an idea in six. Etc. Over and over again the organs of governments announce decisions that would be a good idea today that don't come into effect until a few days from now. Which means that the harm d…

> If it's a good idea now, it's going to be twice as good of an idea in three days. If I had a crystal ball, six months ago we could’ve picked a good date. But that doesn’t mean I should have shut things down sixth months ago. We’re asking our governments to look ahead and make decisions.

Shutting things down six months ago would have had no beneficial effect. Closing national borders globally in January would have had an extremely beneficial effect, in that domestic economies could have proceeded normally while China eradicated the infection. At the current point, there's really nothing to balance. Every extra day you're open is an extra several days you'll need to remain closed, and an extra 1.2-1.4x lives lost. Closing later is strictly worse than closing now.

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#149

Post by brigandish »

verroq wrote: post #133
brigandish wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this in parts which I always think looks aggressive but I assure you it's not. We're all concerned and want the best :) > that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise It may not be 100% ineffective for a single event, it needs to be effective over the entire period of use. Point 1, yes, sick people should wear masks. This is already known. Most people aren't sick. > 2. The mask prevents you from…

> Point 1, yes, sick people should wear masks. This is already known. Most people aren't sick. > Most people aren't sick. How do you know this given the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic.

I'm going by what is known now, or else how would I ever be able to comment on anything?

Re: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as next week

#150

Post by seanmcdirmid »

brigandish wrote: post #145
chrischen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less efficient face masks (e.g., surgical or medical) also decrease exposure to aerosols of droplet nuclei to a lesser (8–12 fold) degree than N95 masks (36), and they provide protection against larger droplets. We did not determine the type of mask worn by the passengers; presumably, individually acquired masks represented a mixture of N95 and other less efficient masks. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2396898…

Yes, I'm reading the actual study too. It proves nothing which is why they conclude with: > We recommend a more compre- hensive intervention study to accurately estimate the pro- tective effect of face masks for preventing influenza virus transmission on long-distance flights. accurately being the operative word. > Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all. I have…

> I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission.

Ironically, this is probably how we got into this mess in the first place, because some Chinese medicine cure prescribed eating wild bat meat.

Post reply on HN