Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)


TomSellinger

New Member
Registered Member
What an almighty Canada! Guardian of the whole western world! What a bull "1st world"! What a narcissistic personality disorder! :eek: :D

If you don't have Canadian market, it's practically impossible to break into the European, US, Australian, New Zealand markets. It could take decades. If you have Canadian market, it only takes days because Canada has good relation with other western countries.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
If you don't have Canadian market, it's practically impossible to break into the European, US, Australian, New Zealand markets. It could take decades. If you have Canadian market, it only takes days because Canada has good relation with other western countries.

Not true. For example Australia is selling China EVs before Europe did, and not selling in Canada yet either.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
I do not agree. The reason is that your choice impacts me more than my choice impacts you. Our choices do not have nearly equal impacts, so we do not deserve equal freedom to choose one or the other.

The reason of course is that the virus is contagious. Opening up (your choice) increases my chance of dying. Your "freedom" comes at my expense, and I object to that. My choice (of zero Covid) is morally superior, as it does not increase your risk of death from the virus.

The Zero Covid strategy may even be superior economically. China is actually growing faster than it was doing before the pandemic; the extra growth is probably at the expense of those countries who bungled their Covid policies. By opening up, Singapore could become another of these losers.

So the Zero Covid strategy is superior morally and economically. If your choice of opening up affected only you, perhaps I'd grant you the freedom to choose that path. But it affects more than yourself, so I disagree that it's an issue of "to each his own".

You're conflating issues here. What applies at the individual-to-individual micro level doesn't necessarily carry over the macro stage, whether it be at the national or international level.

Yes, my rights stop where yours begins. I can understand that. A choice to not wear a mask, to not vaccinate, affects the herd well being. No arguments there.

But no one arguing against all reasonable measures be taken. As it stands, masking and vaccination mandate are de rigeur here. Social groups are still restricted in size. You cannot even enter shopping malls if you are not vaccinated. So it's not as if they have stopped trying to control the pandemic/endemic ... they've just moved the goal post ;)

BUT, at the macro, national level -

Your rights to a healthy environment do not necessarily have priority over my rights to a stable, viable economy that I can earn a decent wage in and support my family. As I've already mentioned, the Singapore government has already burnt a substantial part of it's reserves, built up from decades of fiscal prudence, within the space of 1.5 years of Covid necessitated support. The amount of reserves used already exceeds a typical annual government budget. It is conceivable the economy will tank in the short-medium future at this rate. What then? Your rights to survival by health over my rights to survival by food in belly and roof over head? To bring it home, this is the same argument that will pan out in the most smog choked manufacturing cities in China where you have to balance the pollutive effects of cheap energy vs the health and economic well being of the people whose livelihoods are tied to that city's economy. The solution is nuanced and has to be balanced against both. Taking the moral high ground here does little for anyone.

All said and done, we can't all be China. Not all countries work the same way, nor have access to the same strategic resources and position. Be happy and proud that China can achieve what no others can. But to expect others, who cannot pull of the same thing due to the inequality of resources is like the united states ramming "democracy" down everybody's throat whether their demography makes for a good fit or not.
 

TomSellinger

New Member
Registered Member
Not true. For example Australia is selling China EVs before Europe did, and not selling in Canada yet either.

True, but drugs take the most trust. Western countries trust Canada on drugs. So if CanSino sells in Canada, then CanSino within days sells in Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand. Otherwise, it takes years if not decades for CanSino to sell in the west.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
That is why drinking alcohol is heavily regulated in most countries; so is smoking, but less so. Covid needs to be attacked at least as ferociously as drinking -- not in the same way, as the virus doesn't understand regulations, but at least as strongly.

Perhaps some day an effective cure for Covid-19 will emerge. Until such a cure exists and proves to work, I see no reason -- not even economic reason -- to abandon the Zero Covid strategy.

Sorry missed this part and the edit window closed.

Yes, smoking and alcohol is heavily regulated. But my point is you do not see a zero-ciggies or a zero-alcohol policy. Why is that?

So likewise, you can regulate Covid related issues heavily. Mask mandate, vaccine mandate, etc ... but zero-Covid?
 

TomSellinger

New Member
Registered Member
Sorry missed this part and the edit window closed.

Yes, smoking and alcohol is heavily regulated. But my point is you do not see a zero-ciggies or a zero-alcohol policy. Why is that?

So likewise, you can regulate Covid related issues heavily. Mask mandate, vaccine mandate, etc ... but zero-Covid?

As far as I know, there isn't much regulation of alcohol in the world with the exception of the most strict Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Qatar. Hell, here in Canada you can even take canabis let alone alcohol.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
As far as I know, there isn't much regulation of alcohol in the world with the exception of the most strict Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Qatar. Hell, here in Canada you can even take canabis let alone alcohol.

Regulation in the form of taxation to increase cost and reduce consumption.
Regulation in the form of consumption limits for activities (eg. driving).
Regulation in the form of establishments licensed for consumption.
I believe in Canada, the publican is responsible for allowing a customer to become inebriated and culpable for his actions thereafter? That's a form of regulation that's fairly uncommon for curbing alcohol (over)consumption.

But yes, fair enough, it's arguable whether that constitutes "heavy" (I was just lifting the phrase from the comment I was replying to)

Although Prohibition is in the past, it offers a good idea of what happens when a zero-tolerance stance is taken on something viewed by the masses as being relatively benign/harmless. Apply that to Covid and we see how some Govt struggle to get covid containment measures accepted by their electorate.
 

Top