U.S. to close..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

. .. . Why the cruising bans?

In my opinion -- some combination of ignorance and viciousness (make those rich yachters suffer like the rest of us).

Note the policy about cruising boats crossing border in Finland:
"2.1 Internal border traffic without restrictions: travel by pleasure craft between the Schengen countries

"Recreational boat traffic (travel by pleasure craft) between Schengen countries is unrestricted by border control.
Recreational boat traffic between Schengen countries is unrestricted by border control, and recreational boats are not obliged to enter a border checkpoint."

https://www.raja.fi/current_issues/g...border_traffic

That's the way science-driven policy in non-vicious countries works.

Finnish borders are closed, but cruisers can arrive from any other Schengen country without restriction and without even reporting to border control. Welcome mat!

Besides that, there are a bunch of different other exceptions to the closed borders: Finnish citizens and residents have unrestricted right to come and go, business trips and family visits are allowed, even visits between boyfriends and girlfriends (extremely important from social point of view). Furthermore, you generally are not required to prove anything -- the law requires the border guards to accept the word of the traveler on most issues.

Really enlightened policies which seek to minimize the social and psychological harm of the pandemic measures. A stark contrast to the "suck it up" attitude of, say, the Australians.

You can't prove that this and that are connected, but Finland is doing exceptionally well so far during this second wave, with the lowest infection rate by far in Europe:



Schools, restaurants, cinemas, theatres are all open here. There are numerous social distancing and masking measures, but almost everything is voluntary (like Sweden).

This could change at any moment, but so far so good.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

What happened to the quarantine procedure that was in place since the Black plague 1000 years ago?

Sincerely, the bulk of modern ~pandemic control research had concluded, and juggled with at length, the idea that "there's no evidence that the old [pandemic control] methods worked, and, those methods in the first instance will cause more harm that good [the assumption proposed repeatedly here], so we won't employ them until we get more evidence."

This is Western philosophy horsechit. No kidding, it made the job of the public health folks easier...they literally rationalized themselves out of work of orchestrating responses....instead focusing their attention on how to find evidence. But, come crunch time, they didn't even organize how to find evidence.

Indeed, when the fog lifts here, if society learns anything...using a US historical reference point for analogy...if we learn anything, it would be like the CDC (et al) were like US intelligence efforts vis-a-vis the Japanese prior to the Pearl Harbor attack was such that the intelligence people were at the golf course at a conference somewhere discussing how to measure the volume of smoke billowing from US warships to determine how much anti-aircraft munitions should be produced.

Of course...mixing metaphors...once the horse is out of the barn...the fog of war sets in and nothing practical can be learned except....don't let the f*cking horse out of the barn. Twain said something like there's nothing to be learned from the second kick of a mule. But George Carlin said that people who see a wet paint sign still are compelled to touch the paint.

As the other old saying goes, "if you don't challenge your assumptions, they will challenge you." Quite simply some people need pain to learn.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As a student of politics I view leadership as one of many factors while attempting to understand or explain any given society. In most cases, leaders are a symptom, not a cause. So leaders are mostly a reflection of the current type or state of that society.

As the old adage goes: Citizens get the leader they deserve.

That's not to say leadership is unimportant. Some individual leaders are better or worse than others, much like some managers, parents, teachers, etc... . And certain styles of leadership fit better with different times or crisis vs others. But generally, rulers emerge from the morass of their communities, and are therefore a reflection of the collective state.

So individual leaders are generally less important than what the foundational state of collective being of the people. But, as with anything in human politics, there are exceptions to this.



I'd say the basis of the concern is the recent past, where many marine facilities did close, or were curtailed. Combine this with the current trajectory of the pandemic and it seems a reasonable question to ask.

There are several world leaders talking about another shutdown, especially with the recent spike in cases, but there is no where near the unanimous calls for universal shutdown there was at the beginning, and many smaller nations dependent on tourism dollars can no longer afford it.

Also masks, and a possible vaccine, and people are more familiar with the disease so there is not as much panic.

That likely means some countries will close, some will not, others will shutdown areas temporarily.

That is a more logical approach to contain the disease.

The universal travel freeze that happened 2020 in MY opinion is not as politically feasible, and not likely to repeat.

Small local freezes, and even some countries are likely.

Keep shot records, and medical history on hand.

Covid test history.

And be prepared to be diverted, or redirected at the last minute.

Call ahead, and check entry status often during voyage.

Be prepared to take a repeat test every where you go.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Singularity

...A single biological organism by default operates collectively...and it's collectivism that allows so-called rugged individualists to survive in the first place...not that it's easy to get a so-called rugged individualist to understand this.

Wouldn't it be grand if rugged individualists could instantly have all the benefits of collectivism taken away from them...

Indeed.

As I've said, I expect one of the more significant factors regarding how societies handle this pandemic will be levels of societal trust, or social capital in general. I predict those societies that can act collectively, either voluntarily or through coercion, will do better than those that cannot.

A functioning society can manage a certain number of "rugged individualists," but in times of stress those numbers will go down. A group of "rugged individualists" leads to chaos and a Hobbsian state of nature -- not a good place to be during a pandemic.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Singularity

One man's law of unintended consequences is always another man's I-told-you-so.

People like leaders who offer simple solutions to complicated problems...people don't like leaders who "talk with big words and stuff" and they certainly don't like to be told that their individual worldview was wrong, unsophisticated, etc. Recall Machiavelli's observation that "when neither their property nor their honor is touched the majority of men live content."

So the I-told-you-so people often suffer a fate dependent on the honor status of the ignorant...at least in populations where honor is linked to rugged individualism vs collectivism. A single biological organism by default operates collectively...and it's collectivism that allows so-called rugged individualists to survive in the first place...not that it's easy to get a so-called rugged individualist to understand this.

Wouldn't it be grand if rugged individualists could instantly have all the benefits of collectivism taken away from them...

For once, something coherent. And for once, I agree with you.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Indeed.

As I've said, I expect one of the more significant factors regarding how societies handle this pandemic will be levels of societal trust, or social capital in general. I predict those societies that can act collectively, either voluntarily or through coercion, will do better than those that cannot. . . .

Indeed, but "rugged individualism" and a sense of belonging to, and obligations towards, a community, are NOT mutually exclusive.

A good society manages to harmonize and balance these things. A dysfunctional, horrible society is one which pretends individuals have no obligations to each other. An equally dysfunctional, horrible society is one which pretends that only collective values matter, and that the individual is nothing (Marxism-Leninism, on an actual ontological level, denies that individual persons have even reality, actualy reality -- meaning they don't actually exist -- beyond their social context). We have examples in history of both, and without any exception it ends badly.

It's no secret on here that I admire particularly the Nordic model of this. The Nordic model is little understood in the West because it does not correspond at all to our stereotypical, two-dimensional, left-right narrative. They are more individualist than we are -- much better developed and better protected individual rights (in Sweden and Finland, pandemic lockdown was considered to be actually illegal and unconstitutional and not an option), more economic freedom (that is, more capitalism), less progressive taxation, etc. etc. etc. (corporate tax rates half of ours, zero wealth tax, zero inheritance tax, etc.).

But at the very same time -- extremely well developed community values, community solidarity, which leaves no one behind, leaves no one hungry or unhoused or uneducated or without health care, ignores no one's problems, everyone pitches in to maintain a comprehensive welfare state.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. . . A group of "rugged individualists" leads to chaos and a Hobbsian state of nature -- not a good place to be during a pandemic.

Not a good place to be at any time good or bad. Nasty, brutish, and short comes to mind.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

There are several world leaders talking about another shutdown, especially with the recent spike in cases, but there is no where near the unanimous calls for universal shutdown there was at the beginning, and many smaller nations dependent on tourism dollars can no longer afford it.

Also masks, and a possible vaccine, and people are more familiar with the disease so there is not as much panic.

We (the collective "we") now know a lot more about this disease than when it first washed over all of us early in 2020. We have a better understanding of how it is transmitted, who is at risk, and how to mitigate the spread. We also know a lot more about the costs of shutdowns and border closures.

At the same time, we have a large part of the populace who have been trained to use mitigation measures. Wash your hands. Keep 2 metres apart. Wear a mask. Self-quarantine and get tested when you exhibit any systems.

A complete lockdown is very effective, but also brings a heavy cost. By employing these other measures we can limit the costs of mitigation while also limiting the damage done by the actual disease.

Lockdowns are a simple and easy policy to enact (although hard to enforce). They made sense when faced with a rapidly moving and expanding disease we knew little about. But we now know a lot more, so it makes perfect sense for societies to try and find a sweet spot that limits closures, while supporting the mitigating techniques that reduce virus spread.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed, but "rugged individualism" and a sense of belonging to, and obligations towards, a community, are NOT mutually exclusive.

Agreed, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. Sorry if that's how it came across. I believe there is a Goldilocks balance that can be had between hedonistic individualism and melting pot societal hives where individualism is erased. Indeed, I would suggest ALL societies are attempts to find this sweet spot. Some are simply more successful than others.

I too would point to many of the Nordic countries as positive models for finding this Goldilocks balance. That said, these countries also have some inherent factors which make this easier (relatively small sizes, more homogeneous populations, wealthy, etc...). I would humbly add my own country of Canada as another, slightly different example of modest success. And we are doing it as a large, diverse county.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. Sorry if that's how it came across.

It did not. I was just pointing out for the record.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I believe there is a Goldilocks balance that can be had between hedonistic individualism and melting pot societal hives where individualism is erased. Indeed, I would suggest ALL societies are attempts to find this sweet spot. Some are simply more successful than others.

Sure.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I too would point to many of the Nordic countries as positive models for finding this Goldilocks balance. That said, these countries also have some inherent factors which make this easier (relatively small sizes, more homogeneous populations, wealthy, etc...). I would humbly add my own country of Canada as another, slightly different example of modest success. And we are doing it as a large, diverse county.

Those are not "inherent factors" -- as in, accidental advantages, if they are advantages at all.

Sweden is more than 10 million people -- not all that small. Why is that a big advantage?

These countries are already not homogenous (as I pointed out earlier) -- and why in the world would that be an advantage? I was brought up from the cradle in the U.S. to believe that diversity is actually a great strength of our society, not a weakness, and it's one of the few (perhaps one of the only) mythologies about our society which has stood up to critical scrutiny, at least in my mind. I have always thought that this argument is kind of racist, actually -- "Oh, they manage what we can't, because they don't have all those minorities dragging them down, like we do" -- that's a pathetic racist excuse for failure, in my opinion.

And "rich"? Well, why are they rich? They are rich because they have advanced MARKET economies, with policies which greatly favor entrepreneurship and investment. They never went down the "eat the rich" road which some of our left politicians favor (many of them), and which have been implemented in some other places like France. THAT is why they're rich -- because they identify the golden goose and take care not to kill it. So this is a CONSEQUENCE, not a CAUSE, of their policies.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Singularity

One man's law of unintended consequences is always another man's I-told-you-so.

People like leaders who offer simple solutions to complicated problems...people don't like leaders who "talk with big words and stuff" and they certainly don't like to be told that their individual worldview was wrong, unsophisticated, etc. Recall Machiavelli's observation that "when neither their property nor their honor is touched the majority of men live content."

So the I-told-you-so people often suffer a fate dependent on the honor status of the ignorant...at least in populations where honor is linked to rugged individualism vs collectivism. A single biological organism by default operates collectively...and it's collectivism that allows so-called rugged individualists to survive in the first place...not that it's easy to get a so-called rugged individualist to understand this.

Wouldn't it be grand if rugged individualists could instantly have all the benefits of collectivism taken away from them...

Yes, the little people need BSed. It's a shame they don't know what's good for them. They need cradle to grave intervention.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...Those are not "inherent factors" -- as in, accidental advantages, if they are advantages at all.

Sweden is more than 10 million people -- not all that small. Why is that a big advantage?

I meant physically small, as in geographically small. Most European nations are quaintly small. It's easier to maintain political cohesion in a smaller place.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

These countries are already not homogenous (as I pointed out earlier) -- and why in the world would that be an advantage?

The research and data I've seen indicates otherwise. I guess I missed your point earlier. Can you provide some links? Here's just one to make my point, along with a summary map:




A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries

or

The number and proportion of immigrants in the population:International comparisons


As to why this is an advantage, well, the sociological research seems pretty consistent on this. All to do with our tribal natures. We can dive into this research if you like.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I was brought up from the cradle in the U.S. to believe that diversity is actually a great strength of our society, not a weakness, and it's one of the few (perhaps one of the only) mythologies about our society which has stood up to critical scrutiny,

I'd hazard this is an even stronger mythology in Canada (although we're less boisterous about it). And this is why I hold Canada as another way forward. It is a strength IF it is managed properly. But like most things in life, it has a negative side as well. Poorly managed, it can lead to fractured societies.

[capn_billl]

The original quarantine was less than effective mostly because while they stopped sick people from going ashore, they continued to allow rats that carried the disease to go ashore at will.

Also the practice of throwing dead bodies overboard that washed up on shore didn't help.

Today neither of those issues are a problem.

(Except flu carried ashore by birds).

Before Covid tests were available that was a problem.

Now normal quarantine procedures should work just fine.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

.....The research and data I've seen indicates otherwise. I guess I missed your point earlier. Can you provide some links? Here's just one to make my point, along with a summary map:...

That map is dated 2013, I'm really curious what it looks like now, in 2020 with Covid. The Scandinavian countries took in a large number of refugees in the period from 2013-2020. Sweden, as an example, had a net immigration of nearly 1,000,000 people for the seven year period, or 10% of the population. In 2015 alone:



https://sweden.se/migration/#2013

Would be very curious to see an update of the map.

[Stu Jackson]

Problem with masks is they have been politicized by both sides. Sure you have people who refuse to wear a mask packed in an elevator with 30 people but you also have people who drive alone in their cars wearing masks and will happily chastise you for not doing so. Example: Last weekend we were at a National Park on a trail. It was easily 10ft wide and lightly traveled. We stayed to one side. A couple coming in the other direction fully masked up, scurried off the trail and behind a tree...then proceeded to make snarky comments. It wasn't like we were coughing in their general direction or anything and the rules didn't call for masks but they were downright nasty (we just kept walking). But these are the people who talk about "following the science" as a political jab.

This is one of the most egregiously unbalanced "bothsiderism" things I have ever read.

Some others have mentioned the "wearing a mask in a car" issue, and I'd add: when they were alone! I, too, questioned why anyone would do this when I first saw it, and then realized the possible obvious answers after thinking about it for a few minutes.

Only one side politicized it. Those were brought to you by the same guy who KNEW about the dangers and then deliberately ignored it because his dimwit son-in-law thought others could be blamed for it.

That's simply sick.

I walk down a street in my local town and a majority of people care enough about their fellow citizens to wear a mask and stand aside for each other.

A (thankfully few) others intrude on my space without a mask and don't even have the courtesy to move aside when there is plenty of room. Those are almost always the jerks with crude garments with garish lettering declaiming their stupidity. And this isn't even the USA! It's amazing how consistent A-holes really are.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

That map is dated 2013, I'm really curious what it looks like now, in 2020 with Covid. The Scandinavian countries took in a large number of refugees in the period from 2013-2020. Sweden, as an example, had a net immigration of nearly 1,000,000 people for the seven year period, or 10% of the population. In 2015 alone:

Agreed. It would be great to see more up-to-date data. I'm sure it has shifted a bit from the set I posted, but I doubt it's changed dramatically.

BTW, I didn't mean this little side-point to somehow denigrate or reduce the example the Nordic countries offer. I do think they are examples worth emulating, and I'm proud that Canada does this on some level.

Other countries such as Japan also exhibit high levels of social cohesion. And they too are much more ethnically homogeneous than the USA or Canada. All I'm saying is that it's hard to compare apples-to-apples in these kinds of contrasts, much like it's hard to contrast differing approaches to the pandemic.