7 ms·

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 hi

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.
- SonicTheSith 6y ago
  > The virus is there already, since quite a while. Sure but adding possible new clusters, is not that good of an idea. Furthermore, the chances that additional strains arrive there is higher. Unfortunately the Britisch strain is spreading now in Tokyo. > 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. In europe we have Antigen Rapid Tests that show results within 30mins. The results indicate whether at the time taken you are infectious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_antigen_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_antigen_test >They are accurate in terms of detecting smallest leftovers of the virus, but not in detecting if someone is infectious. Agree > 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). To stop a pandemic you need to decrease mobility, to do that we had/have lockdowns. Some countries have closed their borders just like Japan (recently) and New Zealand. The Japanese Government has decided to conduct the Olympic games this Summer with only the Atheles and Trainers getting entry. "Guests"/ Tourists would not be limited to the games but would like to go sightseeing etc. thereby increasing the amount of people moving around and creating additional / preventable clusters. Where do you have that 22% positivy rate from? This is the total oposite of what the offical stats say. https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ I know government stats should be taken with a pinch salt. But a positivity rate of 22% would not be posible to hide, since 22% of the kanto region is 16million people.... > Is discrimination okay, if there are 'reasons' for it? Is discrimination okay, if a majority agrees with it? So is New Zealand discrimanting against foreigners for having a entry stop? Japan did the same thing New Zealand/Australia and gave the olympic teams an exception. Furthermore, a countries purpose is to protect their citizins whether they are native or foreign. What is the best and most effective way as an Island nation to reduce the risk and danger to their populace? It is to temporarily halt the issuence of new Visa / Tourist Visa included. And is discrimination ok? It is difficult to say here are two examples: Purely Fiction Country X says no entry to African Americans, because they are taller than the populace. This would be not OK Country Y temporary bans entry to the whole world because of a global pandemic. This would be OK since the goal is not discrimation but the reduction of movement of people. Both can be argued to be discrimination but both have a different intention. Thus I would say that there is no absolute answer, as is True or False. There are greyzones inbetween. I think the intend and purpose matters as well as who is affected - everyone is affected equaly vs a single group of people. Yes you could define 98% of the world as a single group of people , but still... BTW if for example Japan would ban all foreigners, because foreigners have a different hair colour, or because they look different in general. Then I would argue against that policy.

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.
SonicTheSith 6y ago
> The virus is there already, since quite a while. Sure but adding possible new clusters, is not that good of an idea. Furthermore, the chances that additional strains arrive there is higher. Unfortunately the Britisch strain is spreading now in Tokyo. > 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. In europe we have Antigen Rapid Tests that show results within 30mins. The results indicate whether at the time taken you are infectious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_antigen_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_antigen_test >They are accurate in terms of detecting smallest leftovers of the virus, but not in detecting if someone is infectious. Agree > 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). To stop a pandemic you need to decrease mobility, to do that we had/have lockdowns. Some countries have closed their borders just like Japan (recently) and New Zealand. The Japanese Government has decided to conduct the Olympic games this Summer with only the Atheles and Trainers getting entry. "Guests"/ Tourists would not be limited to the games but would like to go sightseeing etc. thereby increasing the amount of people moving around and creating additional / preventable clusters. Where do you have that 22% positivy rate from? This is the total oposite of what the offical stats say. https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ https://stopcovid19.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/en/ I know government stats should be taken with a pinch salt. But a positivity rate of 22% would not be posible to hide, since 22% of the kanto region is 16million people.... > Is discrimination okay, if there are 'reasons' for it? Is discrimination okay, if a majority agrees with it? So is New Zealand discrimanting against foreigners for having a entry stop? Japan did the same thing New Zealand/Australia and gave the olympic teams an exception. Furthermore, a countries purpose is to protect their citizins whether they are native or foreign. What is the best and most effective way as an Island nation to reduce the risk and danger to their populace? It is to temporarily halt the issuence of new Visa / Tourist Visa included. And is discrimination ok? It is difficult to say here are two examples: Purely Fiction Country X says no entry to African Americans, because they are taller than the populace. This would be not OK Country Y temporary bans entry to the whole world because of a global pandemic. This would be OK since the goal is not discrimation but the reduction of movement of people. Both can be argued to be discrimination but both have a different intention. Thus I would say that there is no absolute answer, as is True or False. There are greyzones inbetween. I think the intend and purpose matters as well as who is affected - everyone is affected equaly vs a single group of people. Yes you could define 98% of the world as a single group of people , but still... BTW if for example Japan would ban all foreigners, because foreigners have a different hair colour, or because they look different in general. Then I would argue against that policy.