3 ms·

You can't nail people's door shut in the US with them inside, which happened in Wuhan. You also can't unilaterally and swiftly implement extreme lockdown measur

You can't nail people's door shut in the US with them inside, which happened in Wuhan. You also can't unilaterally and swiftly implement extreme lockdown measures that would be required, only China can move that quickly with its one party dictatorship. So it's not a valid comparison being made here.

sudosysgen 6y ago
No, but you can legally stick a policeman outside and prevent them from leaving, which is functionally identical. You can also legally take them into a complex and prevent them from leaving until they test negative, as has already been done for other infactions in the US. The executive branch in the US also has the authority to rapidly execute such measures, and has done so historically.
- hnracer 6y ago
  It is functionally identical but completely theoretical and not achievable in practice. There's no way you can achieve that level of homogeneous control in a large democracy with states that have heterogeneous beliefs and political values, which is what you have when a democracy is sufficiently large. If New York was isolated totally and completely self governed, you have a hope of achieving what NZ achieves. Even a country as small as Australia is evidence of this thesis. They can get it under control in one state but a cluster pops up in another and it becomes a never ending game of whack a mole. If Australia was only Sydney, covid would be a distant memory. If Australia, population of 25 million, can't eliminate it, then trying to do so in a democracy with 300 million is a pipe dream.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    You've moved from saying that NZ's policies couldn't be implemented in other countries because they wouldn't be effective to saying that NZ's policies couldn't be implemented in other countries because other countries refused to implement NZ's policies. The first is meaningful, the second is tautological.

sudosysgen 6y ago

No, but you can legally stick a policeman outside and prevent them from leaving, which is functionally identical. You can also legally take them into a complex and prevent them from leaving until they test negative, as has already been done for other infactions in the US. The executive branch in the US also has the authority to rapidly execute such measures, and has done so historically.

hnracer 6y ago
It is functionally identical but completely theoretical and not achievable in practice. There's no way you can achieve that level of homogeneous control in a large democracy with states that have heterogeneous beliefs and political values, which is what you have when a democracy is sufficiently large. If New York was isolated totally and completely self governed, you have a hope of achieving what NZ achieves. Even a country as small as Australia is evidence of this thesis. They can get it under control in one state but a cluster pops up in another and it becomes a never ending game of whack a mole. If Australia was only Sydney, covid would be a distant memory. If Australia, population of 25 million, can't eliminate it, then trying to do so in a democracy with 300 million is a pipe dream.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  You've moved from saying that NZ's policies couldn't be implemented in other countries because they wouldn't be effective to saying that NZ's policies couldn't be implemented in other countries because other countries refused to implement NZ's policies. The first is meaningful, the second is tautological.