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

181–190 of 222 posts

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

#181

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

jdkee wrote: post #175
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What counter examples can you cite as a better response to this issue? The ones I cited in the comment you replied to. China, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea. Like, I honestly can't think how Cuomo could do worse without actively trying to. He is observing the situation and doing all the obvious things any right-thinking person would, if they were totally unable to make any predictions, had no expert advisers, and w…

Apart from those examples cited: 1. Are relatively homogeneous populations, unlike say NYC. 2. Have a long term behavioural and a culture of wearing masks in public due to pollution and recent experiences of epidemics such as SARS or MERS. 3. Are relatively authoritarian societies unlike the free-wheeling freedoms that U.S. citizens experience. Why would you use them as counterexamples to what the U.S. population sho…

NY will probably end up being the most severely affected by this virus out of any state/province-level governing region in the entire world. We will cross 3k cases per million residents tonight and growth is still climbing. You are simply not going to be able to convince me that the guy in charge is doing a good job, no matter what kind of reasons you bring up r.e. homogeneous populations or whatever. That's post-hoc rationalization as far as I'm concerned. Results matter and that's all there is to it.

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

#182

Post by father_of_two »

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,…

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

Thanks for the list. Angola looks an outlier, though. Would it be Andorra instead?

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

#183

Post by monkeywork »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #165
jdkee wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is responding to the crisis in his state. He is: 1. Publicly acknowledging the factual state on the ground. 2. Explaining what his administration is doing to combat the crisis, including his asks from the Feds for his foreseeable needs. 3. Calling up retired healthcare workers to address a soon to be overtaxed medical situation. 4. Attempting to prevent panic as NY state and NYC are the U.S. epicenter of this emer…

> What counter examples can you cite as a better response to this issue? The ones I cited in the comment you replied to. China, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea. Like, I honestly can't think how Cuomo could do worse without actively trying to. He is observing the situation and doing all the obvious things any right-thinking person would, if they were totally unable to make any predictions, had no expert advisers, and w…

the only metric that seems to differentiate any country that has "done well" vs "done poorly" is how quickly they acted.

The actions overall follow the same trend - it's how quickly you took those actions and how sever you made them that matters.

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

#184

Post by robocat »

Retric wrote: post #86
briandear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the virus care about those groups? Either close the border or don’t. A family member can carry the virus end just as easily as a tourist. If the reasons for closing it are to prevent the spread, then having a bunch or exceptions defeats the purpose.

The virus is still quite rare in every country. Unchecked it has a growth factor of around 3 to 4 new infections per case but simply reducing the risk of infection by 80% is enough to eventually reduce the number of active infections as seen in South Korea and China. The question is mostly what vectors of infections to allow vs eliminate. And in that context banning travel from high risk areas is useful but not that…

But extroverted people that travel have a 3.14159265 times higher chance of catching the disease than those who don’t travel.

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

#185

Post by kylebenzle »

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…

You posted this late Saturday night (article is from Saturday afternoon), "next week" starts Sunday (they don't mean in 7 days), literally 1-2 hours away. What much faster do you want?

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

#186

Post by EE84M3i »

father_of_two wrote: post #182
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,…

> Foreigners who have been in the following countries in the prior 14 days: Iceland, Ireland, Angola, Italy, Iran, Estonia, Austria, Netherlands, San Marino, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Vatican, France, Belgium, Portugal, Malta, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg. Thanks for the list. Angola looks an outlier, though. Would it be Andorra instead?

Yes, it says "アンドラ公国" which is andora principality.

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

#187

Post by bamboozled »

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…

I’m going to say it’s not effect immediately because it was severely impact people who are already in transit ?

I also think that while the case rate is on the up there, people were being much more careful then in other countries and everyone was wearing masks. I think the mask and hand sanitiser thing helps.

Japan seems to be making a rather large number of masks domestically (tens of millions) and has secured 600 million already, so it’s a luxury they can afford it seems. Here is the source: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/covid-19/mask.html

Edit: I’m going to go out on a limb and say, it seems very probable that wearing a mask is helping stop the spread of the disease pretty dramatically. We will find out in later studies I guess

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

#188

Post by hkmurakami »

EE84M3i wrote: post #186
father_of_two wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Foreigners who have been in the following countries in the prior 14 days: Iceland, Ireland, Angola, Italy, Iran, Estonia, Austria, Netherlands, San Marino, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Vatican, France, Belgium, Portugal, Malta, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg. Thanks for the list. Angola looks an outlier, though. Would it be Andorra instead?

Yes, it says "アンドラ公国" which is andora principality.

Darn it I even looked it up but spelled it as "Andola" (Who'd have thought that I'd make a classic Japanese L-R mistake!) which didn't register a result on google.

Thanks for the correction!

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

#189

Post by chrischen »

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…

So why are hospitals making home-made masks or using surgical masks when tending to covid-19 patients?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22716618

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

#190

Post by chrischen »

brigandish wrote: post #114
chrischen wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if a mask doesn't protect a person sneezing into your face from transmitting the virus to you, that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise... and hospitals wouldn't be clamoring for them if they were ineffective ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-... ). With just a bit of common sense you can reason that masks absolutely do help prevent the spread of the virus: 1. A strong…

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…

> > 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.

I don't see the logical reasoning behind why it has to be effective over the entire period of use. The whole rational behind curve flattening is that we do as much as possible to reduce transmission. So being partially effective will still reduce the number of transmission and the chances of transmission.

Plus by normalizing mask usage more sick people will be encouraged to use masks because it is socially acceptable. A lot of people don't use masks even if they are sick because 1) lack of testing to confirm coronavirus and 2) embarrassment over using a mask because it is weird. It's easy for someone to decide to wear a mask or quarantine if they know they have Covid-19, but if they are just sick or mildly sick, or even asymptomatic, the decision to wear a mask or quarantine is much harder because they have to balance their other needs with the chances that they may just have the common cold.

> If you've worn one or watched people on the train in Japan or across Asia you'll know this isn't true at all. People are forever readjusting it.

Seeing as how there is a physical barrier over your mouth I don't see how you cannot use common sense to see that it is true. Not to mention my cited research study uses it as a potential reason why the masks were shown to be effective.

> They wear them for many reasons, and they're people so they're just as selfish as Americans or anyone else, and that's certainly my experience.

I guess this is a matter of opinion, so I can't really argue that you don't believe it.

Post reply on HN