4 ms·
In my scenario travel in both directions would be disallowed for the time period. This also requires neighboring nations to do the same, as well as farther off
by datameta 5y ago
In my scenario travel in both directions would be disallowed for the time period. This also requires neighboring nations to do the same, as well as farther off countries to implement checks at the airport. All this was somewhat done regardless but in a haphazard manner devoid of full international cooperation.
So we suffered the major drawbacks anyway all while reaping a partial reward.
- nradov 5y agoJust because something is disallowed doesn't mean people stop doing it.
- datameta 5y agoThe insinuation is that in such a scenario there would be a strong enough disincentive. And perhaps also the incentive of not having a years long pandemic.
- nradov 5y agoWhat is a strong enough disincentive? Would you recommend building physical walls along our borders and using violence against people who attempt to cross without authorization?
- datameta 5y agoNo, I wouldn't. Gosh, and if I didn't respond it would almost look like I did support that wouldn't it? Toss out these cheap tactics... There are obviously many levels on the spectrum of what could be done to sufficiently increase compliance without falling back on martial law and giving the governments more reason to erode our freedoms.
- refurb 5y agoYeah the farmer in SE Asia whose family is starving because he can’t get to market will certainly not try and break any rules. Love these solution designed by people who work from home.
- datameta 5y agoFood distribution certainly falls under essential services. Pharmacies, too. But not much else is absolutely necessary.
- kristjansson 5y agoAnd if we banned all drugs, all drug use would stop too?
- datameta 5y agoThat's a strawman for an entirely separate discussion. But I'll bite. No, it wouldn't. However that's not only why we shouldn't. It is most effectively and altruistically addressed as a medical and humanitarian issue.