Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[Deleted member 13312]

People continue to eat because it was not known to cause disease. But now there is a widespread realization of the dangerous potential of consuming wildlife meat and that means stricter enforcement and less voluntary consumption.

Civet consumption did not go away even after the SARS outbreak, and if demand for wildlife meat is to be reduced effectively a blanket ban is not going to address the main course of the matter.

 

[localizer]

People continue to eat because it was not known to cause disease. But now there is a widespread realization of the dangerous potential of consuming wildlife meat and that means stricter enforcement and less voluntary consumption.

Yeah a combination of both is needed. Some people need the govt to make them not use drugs and others know that they shouldnt do drugs.

 

[broadsword]

And yet it still kills people which is the point, if Japan simply just blanket banned it people are just going to eat it in secret in all sorts of hazardous ways which is just going to push the death toll up.

The point is that it kills only the eater, the one who makes the decison to eat. It does not harm innocent people in the whole country and internationally.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

You know the flu kills tens of thousands of people every year, right?

So ? If I can identify a certain strain of flu that originates from a singular source then the chances of isolating and preventing the spread increases dramatically, you are equating the common cold to this new and novel strain, pun not intended which is erroneous to the extreme.

 

[broadsword]

Civet consumption did not go away even after the SARS outbreak, and if demand for wildlife meat is to be reduced effectively a blanket ban is not going to address the main course of the matter.

There was a ban, but the Chinese authority relax it. Your second point nails it --- what I meant. It has to be a blanket ban. Abstention will lead to a new lifestyle/habit.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

The idea is to take away their choice. Banning it will reduce the probability of another outbreak.

No that is just going to push it underground, away from public sight and away from health organizations capacity to control and monitor for it.

 

[Blitzo]

And yet it still kills people which is the point, if Japan simply just blanket banned it people are just going to eat it in secret in all sorts of hazardous ways which is just going to push the death toll up.

I'm trying to make sense of this entire tangent.

Outlawing the consumption of a particular type of animal obviously is not a single silver bullet solution, but obviously it would have to coincide with a variety of other measures including education, PR campaigns, and a change in societal views of the consumption of different types of animals.

(This applies for things like education and PR campaigns against the market of trafficking endangered animals or animal parts).



Are you suggesting that a blanket ban should not be part of an overall solution package, or that a blanket ban alone will not be comprehensive?

If it's the latter then I agree with you, but if it's the former I disagree.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

There was a ban, but the Chinese authority relax it. Your second point nails it --- what I meant. It has to be a blanket ban. Abstention will lead to a new lifestyle/habit.

Absentation only comes when there is a voluntary desire to stop doing it, banning something that is in demand clearly does not meet that criteria.

 

[broadsword]

No that is just going to push it underground, away from public sight and away from health organizations capacity to control and monitor for it.

That will be way to deal with, but just like drug taking, consumption is reduced and that means exposure is also reduced.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I'm trying to make sense of this entire tangent.

Outlawing the consumption of a particular type of animal obviously is not a single silver bullet solution, but obviously it would have to coincide with a variety of other measures including education, PR campaigns, and a change in societal views of the consumption of different types of animals.

(This applies for things like education and PR campaigns against the market of trafficking endangered animals or animal parts).



Are you suggesting that a blanket ban should not be part of an overall solution package, or that a blanket ban alone will not be comprehensive?

If it's the latter then I agree with you, but if it's the former I disagree.

I will say that a blanket ban NOW with the current demand for wildlife products still in vogue in China is going to do more harm then good. Which I think does not fit either of your scenarios though it does drifts towards the latter.
This whole reaction was born out of the fact that unregulated wildlife products makes for a perfect vector of disease, an abrupt ban in the wake of this tragedy is only going to drive the activities away from places where we can effectively monitor and control it.