[WorksAsIntended]

Interesting post... but.... in a way.... ummm.... to be expected I guess. Would be interested for you to indicate where you think anyone has said anything about "a camera is worth anybodies life" or "one should keep the factories open".... or "people should put there lives at risk to keep making lenses or camera bodies"..... I think it is pretty silly thinking that is what this general discussion is about. The first post I have found somewhat offensive is yours.... go figure!

For me the whole perspective of the opening post is offensive. Imagine being in China as a worker thinking if you and your family survive and somebody else is going on about how and if it will effect him being able to get a new camera or lens release.

But I guess its only offensive when the offended is present?

---

Last edited by WorksAsIntended; 02-17-2020 at 09:27 AM.

[Rondec]

For me the whole perspective of the opening post is offensive. Imagine being in China as a wirker thinking if you and your family survives and somebody else going on about how and if it will effect him being able to get a new camera or lens release.

But I guess its only offensive when the offended is present?

I would say that the OP was made 19 days ago when there was no idea that the Corona Virus would be more than SARS like blip, easily combated. Knowing what we know now, it is a different story, but I was a lot more hopeful that it would be relatively easy to contain 3 weeks ago.

A lot changes quickly and certainly our focus is on human lives not on camera gear.

[WorksAsIntended]

I would say that the OP was made 19 days ago when there was no idea that the Corona Virus would be more than SARS like blip, easily combated. Knowing what we know now, it is a different story, but I was a lot more hopeful that it would be relatively easy to contain 3 weeks ago.

A lot changes quickly and certainly our focus is on human lives not on camera gear.

That may be a fair point if the timeline is as such. I thought it was already wellknown at this point, but did not check back.

[Mistral75]

On the 29th of January, when the OP was made, there were less than 7,900 cases (of which less than 5,000 were reported at the time) and 106 deaths. There are 71,902 cases and 1,775 deaths as of now.

[rawr]

due to feelings that it would make them appear weak to their populace and the rest of the world

I don't think there is really much evidence of them sneaking around down-playing the problem in any serious manner. Totally locking down several cities of 10+ million inhabitants, and other massive public health interventions by the Chinese government across their vast country, were, I'm pretty sure, not just PR moves.

I think we need to give them credit for the decisiveness and scale of their response so far. Any other country (and perhaps political system) would have struggled to mobilise the same way in the face of a public health disaster of this type.

[WorksAsIntended]

Those regimes can answer in an utilitaristic way.
"Our" social understanding is more focused on the individual and we surely were not able to shut down a big city like they did.
Judging this is a immensly complex ethical discussion and I am quite torn between being thankful they did this and thinking it is wrong because there are people trapped.
I cannot see any evidence they take it lightly.

[monochrome]

I don't think there is really much evidence of them sneaking around down-playing the problem in any serious manner. Totally locking down several cities of 10+ million inhabitants, and other massive public health interventions by the Chinese government across their vast country, were, I'm pretty sure, not just PR moves.

I think we need to give them credit for the decisiveness and scale of their response so far. Any other country (and perhaps political system) would have struggled to mobilise the same way in the face of a public health disaster of this type.

Assuming we believe anything they choose to report.

[rawr]

"Our" social understanding is more focused on the individual and we surely were not able to shut down a big city like they did.

Plus we have lawyers . And several layers of politically competing government, which may make pandemic responses less responsive in democracies compared to one-party authoritarian states.

[monochrome]

Those regimes can answer in an utilitaristic way.
"Our" social understanding is more focused on the individual and we surely were not able to shut down a big city like they did.
Judging this is a immensly complex ethical discussion and I am quite torn between being thankful they did this and thinking it is wrong because there are people trapped.
I cannot see any evidence they take it lightly.

In 1918 Mayor Kiel quarantined St. Louis. He and the Public Health Commissioner Dr. Max Starkloff are widely credited with, by that act, saving thousands of lives. St. Louis had the lowest death rate among the ten largest US cities.

It has been done.

St. Louis Post Dispatch

[WorksAsIntended]

In 1918 Mayor Kiel quarantined St. Louis. He and the Public Health Commissioner Dr. Max Starkloff are widely credited with, by that act, saving thousands of lives. St. Louis had the lowest death rate among the ten largest US cities.

It has been done.

St. Louis Post Dispatch

100 years ago was pretty different in that matter.

[monochrome]

100 years ago was pretty different in that matter.

Indeed. Our society was much more free 100 years ago, but economically there were really five economic zones that were essentially self-sustaining. Economic calamities (which may be in the offing from COVIN-9) were also more regional.

[WorksAsIntended]

Indeed. Our society was much more free 100 years ago, but economically there were really five economic zones that were essentially self-sustaining. Economic calamities (which may be in the offing from COVIN-9) were also more regional.

I prefer living today, for a multitude of reasons. I was free to live and work/study in three countries by now and I have never experienced any restrict of my personal freedom.