Live data from Hacker News

Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

admin.ch

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#81
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately." It also requires ancient banking roots that enable it to sit on the largest 'pot of gold' in the world (1/3 of the entire world's foreign investment) and put the management surpluses into its treasury. And to add, much of that 'gold' was, and is, owned by…

You are probably being downvoted because the Swiss system of direct democracy: -has existed for much longer than Swiss banking being particularly significant -existed already when Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe Also, banking is only significant in a small part of Switzerland.

I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

It's really odd that someone would even bring that up.

Switzerland was the last country in the modern world to allow women to vote (1971) - and it was direct democracy that specifically blocked women from voting; a popular plebiscite in 1959 (obviously by men only) specifically prohibited women from enfranchisement. So much for popular progress? In Canada, women could vote in 1917. In Turkey, 1934. Finland, 1906. India, 1950.

The reason that Switzerland will be able to address the Coronavirus pandemic effectively will not be 'direct democracy', it will be wealth. Switzerland became wealthy largely due to a national economic strategy of banking secrecy, asset protection, and of course enabling evasion of taxation and other authorities. At almost 10% of the economy relative to assets under management, the banking sector in Switzerland is indeed substantially larger than other sectors relative to the sectors of other nations [1]. In the US it's 1%. Canada 2%.

Luxembourg, in the last 70-ish years, went from a backwater to even wealthier than Switzerland on a GDP/per-capita basis for similar reasons: it became a tax haven, a policy driven by no less than the outgoing EU Commission head JC Junker who was the PM of Lux. There is no real economy in Monaco, of course, but its high-income status is also derived from its special variation of tax haven. Even Irleand's massive economic renaissance in the last 20 years has largely been driven by asymmetrical tax benefits for large American tech corporations. And of course, Norway's sovereign wealth fund which owns 2% of all public stocks in the world is derived from another existential special economic bit: Oil.

When Corona hits, the 'rich' countries will be the safest (I think the US may possibly be an exception), and I think it will have little to do with their relative forms of government. Aside from their deep social ties to China, I think Singapore, for example, would be one of those ideal 'safe places'.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267352/size-of-the-banki...

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#82
post #79

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events? If you have an infected person at a I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact. More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

30km exclusion zone?

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#83
post #79

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events? If you have an infected person at a I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact. More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

This is more of a authority thing. All events over 1000+ people are now under the control of the "Bund", as in they decide if they take place or not. Cantons have the authority over smaller events and can individually decide to cancel or not.

They stated the closing borders would cause a shortage of doctors and staff which commute over the border every day.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#84
post #79

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events? If you have an infected person at a I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact. More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

The rational, and actually communicated suchly, was that they had to draw a line somewhere.

And it's not that smaller events automatically go forward, but that the cantons, where those events happen, together with the organizers need to perform a risk assessment and decide if the event can go forward.

> More effective might be barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

No it wouldn't for a variety of reasons. For starters, Switzerland is an extremely interconnected country and dependent on such connections. In addition It's part of the Schengen agreement and just shutting down all borders with its neighbors is legally, let alone logistically not feasible (and, IMO, not desirable).

Also, what do you do with citizens who have a legal right to return to the country at any time. Throw 'em all into quarantine camps?

I think that the governments reaction is heavy, but overall measured and reasonable.

But sure, as a Swiss citizen flying home from Bangkok tomorrow you may accuse me of being biased.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#85
post #79

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events? If you have an infected person at a I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact. More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

This is more of a authority thing. All events over 1000+ people are now under the control of the "Bund", as in they decide if they take place or not. Cantons have the authority over smaller events and can individually decide to cancel or not. They stated the closing borders would cause a shortage of doctors and staff which commute over the border every day.

Sure but if the border is sealed, then, if they contain any patients testing positive, there would be no need for those physicians. It’s a kind of a reverse catch-22.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#86
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss resident (but not Swiss citizen) here. I believe Switzerland is a very unique case in that the Swiss have a culture of local (ie. Canton and Commune) level decision making via direct democracy. You grow up wielding a certain power, and you know your decisions matter and will affect your everyday life. This ingrains a close relationship between the citizens and their representatives. What I'm trying to say is th…

Also, Switzerland is a small and rich country. The smaller the group, the less hierarchy you need. I think that Switzerland is at the size limit of what direct democracy can support. In fact, it is not fully direct. Wealth also helps. The richer you are, the more you can focus on your role in running the county and make informed decisions. That's because you have all your basic needs covered and don't really need to…

Swiss democracy and the Old Helvetic Confederacy precedes its modern wealth (early 20th century) by half a millennium (14th/15th centuries?).

The old leagues and communes of Graubünden, which had some semblance of communal voting based democracy, was happening in the 1200's or earlier, long before Swiss wealth.

What it takes is a way different culture than the modern American mindset.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#87
post #79

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events? If you have an infected person at a I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact. More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

The rational, and actually communicated suchly, was that they had to draw a line somewhere. And it's not that smaller events automatically go forward, but that the cantons, where those events happen, together with the organizers need to perform a risk assessment and decide if the event can go forward. > More effective might be barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be. No it wouldn't for a varie…

I’m pretty sure the agreement allows for temporary border controls in the event of serious emergencies.

For people en-route, yes quarantine upon arrival would be the right thing to do, in the least self quarantine at home with proper precautions.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#88
post #61

What do you think of travel the next 2-3 months? Should we avoid it? I was going to travel to Madrid end of March for fun from Krakow, should I delay this to May or even June?

In the next one to two months, your risk is mainly having shared a flight with someone who has coronavirus and being forced into 14 day quarantine.

Later, your chance of actually contracting coronavirus during the flight goes up. Your chance of contracting it in Madrid depends on the prevalence of the disease there relative to Krakow, and on the density of your social contacts in Madrid relative to Krakow. Generally, it would be easier to self-isolate at home, while tourism involves a lot of contacts.

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#89
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably being downvoted because the Swiss system of direct democracy: -has existed for much longer than Swiss banking being particularly significant -existed already when Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe Also, banking is only significant in a small part of Switzerland.

I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization. It's really odd that someone would even bring that up. Switzerland was the last country in the modern world to allow women to vot…

> I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

The thread you're commenting on so far has gone like this:

OP: "See a democracy can institute sweeping authoritarian-like bans, but with the will and blessing of the people"

Next: "I'm Swiss and it's because the government isn't our enemy, it is an extension of us"

You: "Nope it's because y'all are wealthy, that's the only reason y'all will survive!"

Grandparent: "uh dude the government system has been around longer than the wealth"

You: "I don't see why the government system matters, it's the money!"

The reason you're being downvoted is because you came into a conversation specifically about how the democracy of Switzerland is able to act quicky with a decree that could be viewed as an authoritarian-like policy, but with the implied general will (to use Rousseau's term for Sovereignty in political philosophy) of the people, and said "I don't see the effectiveness of this quick decisive action of democratic government, instead it's about the money they have!"

Re: Switzerland Federal Council bans large-scale events

#90
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiss resident (but not Swiss citizen) here. I believe Switzerland is a very unique case in that the Swiss have a culture of local (ie. Canton and Commune) level decision making via direct democracy. You grow up wielding a certain power, and you know your decisions matter and will affect your everyday life. This ingrains a close relationship between the citizens and their representatives. What I'm trying to say is th…

Also, Switzerland is a small and rich country. The smaller the group, the less hierarchy you need. I think that Switzerland is at the size limit of what direct democracy can support. In fact, it is not fully direct. Wealth also helps. The richer you are, the more you can focus on your role in running the county and make informed decisions. That's because you have all your basic needs covered and don't really need to…

Looking at the country's history, you will see that Switzerland isn't rich since a long time. The country is considered successful economically since around 1848[0]. But the confederation is known to have been formed around 1291 (that's the official date that is part of the national myth, the actual date could be slightly different).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Switzerland

Post reply on HN