I found this op-ed by Benjamin J. Cowling and Wey Wen Lim at the New York Times, recounting the measures that Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan have taken in response to COVID-19 interesting:
But lockdowns and forced quarantines on this scale or the nature of some methods — like the collection of mobile phone location data and facial recognition technology to track people’s movements — cannot readily be replicated in other countries, especially democratic ones with institutional protections for individual rights.
And so Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong might be more instructive examples. All three places were especially vulnerable to the spread of the infection because of close links with mainland China — especially in early January, as they were prime destinations for Chinese travelers during the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday. And yet, after all three experienced outbreaks of their own, the situation seems to have stabilized.
As of midday Friday, Singapore had 187 cases confirmed and no deaths (for a total population of about 5.7 million), Taiwan had 50 confirmed cases including 1 death (for a total population of about 23.6 million) and Hong Kong had 131 confirmed cases including 4 deaths (for a total population of about 7.5 million).
Since identifying the first infections (all imported) on their territories — on Jan. 21 in Taiwan and on Jan. 23 in both Hong Kong and Singapore — all three governments have implemented some combination of measures to (1) reduce the arrival of new cases into the community (travel restrictions), (2) specifically prevent possible transmission between known cases and the local population (quarantines) and (3) generally suppress silent transmission in the community by reducing contact between individuals (self-isolation, social distancing, heightened hygiene). But each has had a different approach.
While I found this analysis interesting, I don’t think that there is much for us to learn from the experience of Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. They are all primarily ethnic Chinese, culturally have Confucian roots, have histories (or presents) of authoritarianism, and are, by our standards, very small. Not only are Singapore and Taiwan small, they are islands.
Rather than preaching to us to adopt Taiwanese virtues, we are going to need to encourage and bolster our own traditional virtues however much that might horrify coastal elites if we are to arrive at an effective response of our own.
I read a piece today by a guy who purported to know that the “flatten the curve” approach was woefully inadequate after numerical analysis of incidence of disease under a flattening approach vs available hospital resources. He was advocating instead complete isolation.
Per your piece, I don’t know how you accomplish that in America. Anyone seen “good” analysis?
If we had some ham we could make a ham and cheese sandwich if we had some cheese.
We’ll do like we always do, under-prepare, over-react, and after a while get bored with the whole thing and start reporting on the antics of some celebrity. Come a time this will fade from the news, because it’s no longer news. So gradual you’ll barely notice, unless of course you or a loved one get seriously ill or worse. But you see, for most young, healthy people, they’ll be OK. Life will go on, it has no choice.
“we are going to need to encourage and bolster our own traditional virtues however much that might horrify coastal elites ”
We are going to go back to beating up gay people? Jim Crow? What traditional values are going to horrify coastal elites?
Steve
@Steve:
You have a horribly biased view of traditional values. I get the impression you don’t get around much.
Traditional values more likely means the elderly keeping quiet and dying at home so as not to burden their children with medical bills. Or doing the same out of stubborn pride. It means hearing about a breadwinners death and driving over to offer help. Again and again.
It means fundraisers, it means casseroles delivered to the door of the ill or grieving.
We have families, not clans. Gays get beat up by drunken criminals because their passions put them in harms way.
Jim Crow? Give it up, it’s lame. It’s now Black people who travel in groups while Whites travel in families. Sometime you should take a walk through a Black neighborhood at night alone. Just to prove your point.
There are all sorts of them. First and foremost, they’re horrified when we seek solutions that aren’t being proposed by “experts”, defined as other coastal elites. Harvard prof: expert. Purdue prof: not an expert (unless proposing a solution approved by Harvard profs). Here’s another: the more centralized the solution, the better.
“You have a horribly biased view of traditional values. I get the impression you don’t get around much.”
Screw you! The wife and I do all of those and more, just like other people. All of the lefties I work with do this. When my reservists get deployed we help the remaining spouse with child care and food. When one of us gets cancer we organize dinner deliveries. We have at least 3 concurrent fundraisers going on all of the time. We volunteer at our soup kitchen. Others volunteer for school events. Most of us have had parents who made that decision.
There is not a single value you are naming, which I think means you cannot name, that will “horrify” anyone on the left, unless you are going back to the ones I listed.
“Sometime you should take a walk through a Black neighborhood at night alone. Just to prove your point.”
Lived in Germantown. Worked in West Philly. Try again.
” Harvard prof: expert. Purdue prof: not an expert”
Seriously? OK, I love rattling Drew’s chain about Purdue (I dont think I ever mentioned I had a full academic scholarship to attend there and the uncle who was professor there in engineering, civil) but I dare you to find someone horrified because a prof from Purdue, or any other decent university, offered a solution. That is total BS. Is there intra university snobbery? Sure, but that exists outside of Harvard. You really think the full professor at Purdue thinks very highly of the opinion from a prof at Wabash college or Franklin or even Valparaiso or Vincennes? Heck, for years I dont think they even acknowledged that IU was an acceptable school, even if Bobbby Knight always kicked our butts.
“the more centralized the solution, the better.”
Then I guess your point here would be that less centralized is our traditional value? That is probably sort of, kind of true, but then it is also true that we have always had, since our first constitution, a tension between the more and less government groups. I think that is the more accurate description of our history.
So I ma not seeing a single traditional value (even in Indiana honoring only the Purdue professor’s opinion is not a traditional value. Half th estate, at least, roots for IU) that horrifies anyone.
Steve
“We are going to go back to beating up gay people? Jim Crow?”
Again, why do you imagine those are traditional American values?
Why the finger pointing at ghosts of the past? You served in the military, so, I suppose you support wiping out native tribes? Nits make lice, Grant teach you that one?
Why do you imagine that people on the left don’t give a sh*t about sick people, dying people or helping others?
“Again, why do you imagine those are traditional American values?”
I am trying really hard to figure out what traditional values would horrify lefties. Those would, so I listed them. I can’t think of any traditional values that would horrify them. Marriage is only between a man and a woman? People would disagree, but be horrified? Nope. Women have to stay home and have babies, they can’t work at real jobs and it is OK if their husband beats them? Alright, I can see that horrifying them, but then I think that would also horrify most on the right also. (Probably not the most devout Trumpies, but that would be a very small group.)
“You served in the military, so, I suppose you support wiping out native tribes?”
That was a traditional international value at the time, not just American and I thought the implication here was traditional American values. I see some value in putting the Trump tribe away somewhere but would not go so far as wiping them out.
Steve