9 ms·

What's the alternative, really? Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? That said, I agree with you. Then again the host cit

What's the alternative, really? Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? That said, I agree with you. Then again the host city always pulls the shit end of the stick when organizing such an event.

latch 6y ago
Sunk cost fallacy
h0nd 6y ago
Maybe it would be an option to NOT treat every foreigner as a possible threat, but as a welcomed guest to visit Japan and the Olympic games. edit: I am surprised to see YC attracting people supporting discrimination.
- SonicTheSith 6y ago
  You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. So all 'guests' would need to go into quarantine for 5 days just to make sure that there is no infection. Who is going to house them? Is it feasable to have large numbers of foreigners quarantined in Japan? Will they follow the rules? Will they were a mask? Looking at the news and the rule bending rule breaking that is happening in the west regarding the pandemic gives litte hope. Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? EDIT: Adding to that, since the whole world is not yet vaccinated mutations are a real threat, even in the US they found 2 new mutations in the past weeks. The later even seems to be immun to the vaccinations. Thus to not have to cancel the whole event and all 'guest' bookings one could also argue that the best way is to minimize the risk, chaos, loss. Now everyone can plan around the restrictions and further cancelations are less likely.
  - h0nd 6y ago
    Thank you, I feel this needs some explanation. >You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? It would be a very difficult task to avoid noticing. >So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. The virus is there already, since quite a while. >All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. What kind of tests are available that can show if you're infectuous? That would be really helpful to tackle the situation. So far, I just know about tests that can detect the presence of the virus or antibodies. >Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. What quick tests are you referring to that are able to detect if you are infectious? Again, that would be extremely helpful information and I would be really surprised if this existed but not be used. The quick tests we (my country) have and use, 'just' gives you the information if the virus is present. >PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. They are accurate in terms of detecting smallest leftovers of the virus, but not in detecting if someone is infectious. >Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? I fail to understand how a 'foreigner' is a bigger threat (in terms of 'protection from a new outbreak') than the locals already carrying the virus and being responsible for all the recent cases (there is a staggering 22% positivity rate in Tokyo today - without these 'dangerous' foreigners). But more importantly, and referring to my statement: Is discrimination okay, if there are 'reasons' for it? Is discrimination okay, if a majority agrees with it? Or more generally, when is discrimination okay?
    - profunctor 6y ago
      I am discriminated against because I can't just move to America. I need a visa to live there and Americans don't. Discrimination! I am discriminated against because I am not considered for jobs I don't have the skills to perform. It's fine to discriminate under sensible circumstances, such as stopping millions of people coming to your country during a pandemic.
- raindropm 6y ago
  Um, can't we give those narrative a break even in the time of peril like this? It's just so out of context. It's global Pandemic dude! Controlling the risk from outsiders is the protocol in EVERY COUNTRY right now. They host the Olympic, they seriously WANT everyone from every country to be in their country! and it's just can't happened right now. If the situation is normal, and they refuse to let foreigner in, then we'll talk.
  - matz1 6y ago
    The risk are so low, vast majority of people will survive covid just fine regardless of vaccine or any other precautions. It is pandemic but the risk has been overly exaggerated. Florida can host superbowl recently with almost full attendance.
    - SonicTheSith 6y ago
      So if the vast majority of people survive, we should just let it rip? What would happen if we would let it rip: - Without any counter measures such as masks or lockdowns the rate of infection would be significantly higher resulting - Tens of millions more dead (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/872441984/modelers-suggest-pandemic-lockdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/8724419...) The link shows projections done last year in May. Mutations that spread more such as B1.117 (British variant) are not even in this consideration - More people with long term effects and need for rehabilitation, which will lead to a significant influx on the health care system in third world countries such as the USA were even now Kickstarter ist the most widely used insurance service.... Even if only 1.5% die across all age groups accross the world that would still be 117.000.000 million people. Now the population of people above the age of 65 is 700.000.000 here the mortality rate is higher. Let's be conservative at say 20% ( since there is also an increase between ages 65 and 75+) that would be 140.000.000 Deaths Now for the age group below age 65 and acording to stats from 2016 are 16% of the world population obese . Obese people just like older people have a higher risk of dying from covid than healthy people. 16% from 7. billion ( deducted the above 65% since they already have a higher chance) That would be 1.120.000.000 people that would have a conservative risk to die of covid of 20% = 224.000.000 total death toll = 140.000.000 + 224.000.000 + 88.500.000 (5.9bil healthy people with death chance of 1.5%) = 450.000.000 By no means are these number accurate but they show about what kind of dimension we talk about when we talk about letting it rip. Important to not is that the 5.9 billion people are not all healthy so in reality that number would be much higher. The flu itself kill yearly 650.000 people globally ,.. so every one who says that covid19 is not dangerous is an idiot.
- neogodless 6y ago
  https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lat7h/blog/posts/213.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lat7h/blog/posts/213.html > The connotation of discern is one of perceptive recognition of non-obvious underlying truth; the connotation of discriminate (since the 1860s) is quite the opposite, being more of an unjust imposition of difference where none is deserved. (emphasis mine) The key here is that discrimination is imposing different treatment of people "where none is deserved." When a pandemic is happening, you're not imposing "different" (and unjust) treatment upon foreign visitors - you're imposing necessary treatment as a precaution to help reduce the spread of the virus. This is a good thing that we want to do, not an unjust thing.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? This is indeed what is called a sunk cost fallacy.

latch 6y ago

Sunk cost fallacy

h0nd 6y ago

Maybe it would be an option to NOT treat every foreigner as a possible threat, but as a welcomed guest to visit Japan and the Olympic games. edit: I am surprised to see YC attracting people supporting discrimination.

SonicTheSith 6y ago
You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. So all 'guests' would need to go into quarantine for 5 days just to make sure that there is no infection. Who is going to house them? Is it feasable to have large numbers of foreigners quarantined in Japan? Will they follow the rules? Will they were a mask? Looking at the news and the rule bending rule breaking that is happening in the west regarding the pandemic gives litte hope. Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? EDIT: Adding to that, since the whole world is not yet vaccinated mutations are a real threat, even in the US they found 2 new mutations in the past weeks. The later even seems to be immun to the vaccinations. Thus to not have to cancel the whole event and all 'guest' bookings one could also argue that the best way is to minimize the risk, chaos, loss. Now everyone can plan around the restrictions and further cancelations are less likely.
- h0nd 6y ago
  Thank you, I feel this needs some explanation. >You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? It would be a very difficult task to avoid noticing. >So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. The virus is there already, since quite a while. >All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. What kind of tests are available that can show if you're infectuous? That would be really helpful to tackle the situation. So far, I just know about tests that can detect the presence of the virus or antibodies. >Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. What quick tests are you referring to that are able to detect if you are infectious? Again, that would be extremely helpful information and I would be really surprised if this existed but not be used. The quick tests we (my country) have and use, 'just' gives you the information if the virus is present. >PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. They are accurate in terms of detecting smallest leftovers of the virus, but not in detecting if someone is infectious. >Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? I fail to understand how a 'foreigner' is a bigger threat (in terms of 'protection from a new outbreak') than the locals already carrying the virus and being responsible for all the recent cases (there is a staggering 22% positivity rate in Tokyo today - without these 'dangerous' foreigners). But more importantly, and referring to my statement: Is discrimination okay, if there are 'reasons' for it? Is discrimination okay, if a majority agrees with it? Or more generally, when is discrimination okay?
  - profunctor 6y ago
    I am discriminated against because I can't just move to America. I need a visa to live there and Americans don't. Discrimination! I am discriminated against because I am not considered for jobs I don't have the skills to perform. It's fine to discriminate under sensible circumstances, such as stopping millions of people coming to your country during a pandemic.
raindropm 6y ago
Um, can't we give those narrative a break even in the time of peril like this? It's just so out of context. It's global Pandemic dude! Controlling the risk from outsiders is the protocol in EVERY COUNTRY right now. They host the Olympic, they seriously WANT everyone from every country to be in their country! and it's just can't happened right now. If the situation is normal, and they refuse to let foreigner in, then we'll talk.
- matz1 6y ago
  The risk are so low, vast majority of people will survive covid just fine regardless of vaccine or any other precautions. It is pandemic but the risk has been overly exaggerated. Florida can host superbowl recently with almost full attendance.
  - SonicTheSith 6y ago
    So if the vast majority of people survive, we should just let it rip? What would happen if we would let it rip: - Without any counter measures such as masks or lockdowns the rate of infection would be significantly higher resulting - Tens of millions more dead (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/872441984/modelers-suggest-pandemic-lockdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/8724419...) The link shows projections done last year in May. Mutations that spread more such as B1.117 (British variant) are not even in this consideration - More people with long term effects and need for rehabilitation, which will lead to a significant influx on the health care system in third world countries such as the USA were even now Kickstarter ist the most widely used insurance service.... Even if only 1.5% die across all age groups accross the world that would still be 117.000.000 million people. Now the population of people above the age of 65 is 700.000.000 here the mortality rate is higher. Let's be conservative at say 20% ( since there is also an increase between ages 65 and 75+) that would be 140.000.000 Deaths Now for the age group below age 65 and acording to stats from 2016 are 16% of the world population obese . Obese people just like older people have a higher risk of dying from covid than healthy people. 16% from 7. billion ( deducted the above 65% since they already have a higher chance) That would be 1.120.000.000 people that would have a conservative risk to die of covid of 20% = 224.000.000 total death toll = 140.000.000 + 224.000.000 + 88.500.000 (5.9bil healthy people with death chance of 1.5%) = 450.000.000 By no means are these number accurate but they show about what kind of dimension we talk about when we talk about letting it rip. Important to not is that the 5.9 billion people are not all healthy so in reality that number would be much higher. The flu itself kill yearly 650.000 people globally ,.. so every one who says that covid19 is not dangerous is an idiot.
neogodless 6y ago
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lat7h/blog/posts/213.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lat7h/blog/posts/213.html > The connotation of discern is one of perceptive recognition of non-obvious underlying truth; the connotation of discriminate (since the 1860s) is quite the opposite, being more of an unjust imposition of difference where none is deserved. (emphasis mine) The key here is that discrimination is imposing different treatment of people "where none is deserved." When a pandemic is happening, you're not imposing "different" (and unjust) treatment upon foreign visitors - you're imposing necessary treatment as a precaution to help reduce the spread of the virus. This is a good thing that we want to do, not an unjust thing.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? This is indeed what is called a sunk cost fallacy.