6,337 New Covid-19 Infections 7/30, Extended Quarantine..?

[gracielle]

La Nacion interviews Argentines re: DNU

Coronavirus en la Argentina. "Quién decide cómo se cuida soy yo". La ética propia de los que reivindican las juntadas con la familia

Coronavirus en la Argentina. "Quién decide cómo se cuida soy yo". La ética propia de los que reivindican las juntadas con la familia

www.lanacion.com.ar

Coronavirus in Argentina. "Who decides how to take care of myself is me."

Coronavirus en la Argentina. "Quién decide cómo se cuida soy yo". La ética propia de los que reivindican las juntadas con la familia

Coronavirus en la Argentina. "Quién decide cómo se cuida soy yo". La ética propia de los que reivindican las juntadas con la familia

translate.google.com

 

[antipodean]

I absolutely agree with your sentiments on the one hand, and completely dismiss them as rational arguments on the other.

There is no way of separating the flexibility needed to battle a pandemic, from the capacity for overregulation. How “targeted” the regulations need to be, depends completely on the facts on the ground. And if you start making exceptions for people following “their social and biological instincts”, you’re well on your way to neutering any kind of regulation. A public-health emergency clearly calls for some regulation that may well conflict with people’s “social and biological instincts”. Nobody wants to be absent from the birth - or death, for that matter - of a loved one. But it is completely reasonable to require extra protection for a hospital of all places. Other examples abound. That’s why epidemics suck.

As for the capacity to overregulate? That is what the political process is for. The assumption is that one will try to act wisely, knowing that they are accountable to voters. Presumably there are ways to challenge a specific measure on a legal level. And there are judges at every point, who presumably - one hopes? - can do something about a clear overreach (again, don’t know enough about Arg criminal procedure to know how that works).

One can criticize the government’s handling of the pandemic on many levels. It was, at the same time, both draconian and utterly ineffective. (Prohibiting any gatherings in a locale with no cases at all would appear to be a good example of a measure that is both). I just don’t think the legal angle - painting necessary police powers as unconstitutional - withstands much scrutiny.

I would say that a constitution exists to avoid overregulation, which is exactly the question in this case and being raised by some judges and governors as an issue.

I disagree with the idea that is it a question of flexibility in regulation as my belief is that any regulation adopted in the first place needs to be effective to be able to work. And regulations (e.g. legal consequence) are very different to recommendations (e.g. personal consequence). Having a rule for the sake of having a rule that either cannot be consistently enforced or followed is oppressive since it is arbitrary and it is open for abuse without delivering any remedy to what it is trying to solve or avoid. Such regulations are typical of dictatorial and authoritarian regimes where having a "trophy" of a law with a hefty threat behind it is more important than having a law that actually works, since you can pretty much only make a show trial from it.

The fact is that in Argentina is that despite having "draconian" measures for the past 5 months, they have failed to stop infection and it is questionable if they have even slowed infection. The ministry of health states that some of the infections are have continued to happen from meeting in peoples houses over all of these months, where protocols do not exist. In other words, people would rather break the law to follow their instincts or do what they are going to do anyway because they are not permitted to do it in "safe" or "regulated" spaces over a very extended period of time, but then what? People get sick because they lack awareness of what protocols to take. If they are unlucky they end up in jail too or with a criminal record. The government also makes themselves responsible for the damages to society for failing to enforce their own laws and control the situation. Everyone looses.

Instead the government should focus on setting guidelines (protocols) for people to understand and mitigate their personal risks in situations within their personal domain and give people a tool kit to minimise risk. For example, "We recommend you not to have any social gathering inside a home. If you do, make sure that you follow XYZ guidelines to keep everyone safe. We prohibit gatherings of more than X people inside a home (or a closed space with a per person space ratio of 1: X sqm) under any circumstances in the following locations...due to the scientific evidence that this is a real and significant public danger"

It is pretty hypocritical to appeal to personal responsibility on one hand, while dictating what conduct one can legally do in their own personal spaces and with who. Which one is it?

 

[Renzi]

View attachment 7175
This rule does not exist in any other countries as something linked to a criminal code, except for in some parts of China and perhaps other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, and of course Argentina.

One thing you're missing as we split hairs over what the law actually means in a real sense, is that this government simply lacks the capacity to enforce the law in a "dictatorial" manner even if it wanted to. The authoritarian regimes that come to mind such as Egypt, Turkey, Syria, NK, China, all have a vast state security apparatus that Argentina has not had for decades. There are regular anti-cuarentena protests at the Obelsico that would never, ever happen in any of those nations without citizens either being immediately shot or imprisoned for life.

I'd be more concerned by the recent spike in violent crime and break-ins. As it is, there aren't enough cops around to deal with that, much less go door to door to bust people for visiting their abuelita.

 

[jblaze5779]

Speaking to my local friends, insecurity is the only thing they're afraid of in the near future.

 

[antipodean]

One thing you're missing as we split hairs over what the law actually means in a real sense, is that this government simply lacks the capacity to enforce the law in a "dictatorial" manner even if it wanted to. The authoritarian regimes that come to mind such as Egypt, Turkey, Syria, NK, China, all have a vast state security apparatus that Argentina has not had for decades. There are regular anti-cuarentena protests at the Obelsico that would never, ever happen in any of those nations without citizens either being immediately shot or imprisoned for life.

I'd be more concerned by the recent spike in violent crime and break-ins. As it is, there aren't enough cops around to deal with that, much less go door to door to bust people for visiting their abuelita.

Denuncias

Para denunciar violaciones a la cuarentena o violencia institucional, comunicate con el Ministerio de Seguridad al **número gratuito 134**. [Si estás en tu celular, llamá ahora](tel:134){.btn.btn-success.btn-sm}

www.argentina.gob.ar

Para denunciar violaciones a la cuarentena o violencia institucional, comunicate con el Ministerio de Seguridad al número gratuito 134.

If there is a denuncia there is an obligation to investigate and respond to it.

In a real sense, don't piss off the wrong person or you can end up with a criminal record which in this country can make the rest of your life very difficult indeed. Hardly a law that gives me any sense of comfort knowing it is achieving something if complying with it, or any sense of comfort that I will get away with it if breaking it. The same way perhaps a would be protestor in Cuba does not protest in public and feels oppressed... it is not an automatic death or life prison sentence to protest in Egypt, Venzuela, Cuba, Turkey, Russia, Algeria, China, Zimbabwe (Mugabe years) or other similar countries but more likely your life will just get more complicated if caught and someone decides to make an example of you..

 

[FrankPintor]

The fact is that in Argentina is that despite having "draconian" measures for the past 5 months, they have failed to stop infection and it is questionable if they have even slowed infection. The ministry of health states that some of the infections are have continued to happen from meeting in peoples houses over all of these months, where protocols do not exist. In other words, people would rather break the law to follow their instincts or do what they are going to do anyway because they are not permitted to do it in "safe" or "regulated" spaces over a very extended period of time, but then what? People get sick because they lack awareness of what protocols to take. If they are unlucky they end up in jail too or with a criminal record. The government also makes themselves responsible for the damages to society for failing to enforce their own laws and control the situation. Everyone looses.

Argentina has demonstrably slowed infection, you have only to compare with Chile (first case detected on the same day as Argentina) to see that. Chile is particularly instructive, having done virtually everything wrong, and only "flattening the curve" in the horizontal axis (they had done a superb job flattening it in the vertical axis) after finally imposing a complete quarantine (which is still in place, I believe) in May on Santiago, just like, ahem, Buenos Aires.

 

[antipodean]

Argentina has demonstrably slowed infection, you have only to compare with Chile (first case detected on the same day as Argentina) to see that. Chile is particularly instructive, having done virtually everything wrong, and only "flattening the curve" after imposing a complete quarantine (which is still in place, I believe) in May on Santiago, just like, ahem, Buenos Aires.

We now have 4000 - 5000 new cases a day up from a few hundred per day during the first months of quarantine? To me, that indicates the number of cases (not the R factor) is still accelerating and Argentina just kicked the can down the road, along with the risk of pressure on the health system. How can this happen if the quarantine we have had all along (and very similar to that of Peru) really worked as effectively as it could have or actually has an exit strategy to be sustainable? That is something we still need more time to see, but at this stage I am doubtful of a clear success story resulting in most places on earth, perhaps however with the countries that end up holistically "best off" in the long run having taken more precise and pragmatic approaches that used time effectively.

 

[semigoodlookin]

I'd be more concerned by the recent spike in violent crime and break-ins. As it is, there aren't enough cops around to deal with that, much less go door to door to bust people for visiting their abuelita.

Absolutely, this is a real concern at the moment regardless of how much people try to convince me Argentina is safe because it is not Mexico.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I would say that a constitution exists to avoid overregulation, which is exactly the question in this case and being raised by some judges and governors as an issue.

I disagree with the idea that is it a question of flexibility in regulation as my belief is that any regulation adopted in the first place needs to be effective to be able to work. And regulations (e.g. legal consequence) are very different to recommendations (e.g. personal consequence). Having a rule for the sake of having a rule that either cannot be consistently enforced or followed is oppressive since it is arbitrary and it is open for abuse without delivering any remedy to what it is trying to solve or avoid. Such regulations are typical of dictatorial and authoritarian regimes where having a "trophy" of a law with a hefty threat behind it is more important than having a law that actually works, since you can pretty much only make a show trial from it.

The fact is that in Argentina is that despite having "draconian" measures for the past 5 months, they have failed to stop infection and it is questionable if they have even slowed infection. The ministry of health states that some of the infections are have continued to happen from meeting in peoples houses over all of these months, where protocols do not exist. In other words, people would rather break the law to follow their instincts or do what they are going to do anyway because they are not permitted to do it in "safe" or "regulated" spaces over a very extended period of time, but then what? People get sick because they lack awareness of what protocols to take. If they are unlucky they end up in jail too or with a criminal record. The government also makes themselves responsible for the damages to society for failing to enforce their own laws and control the situation. Everyone looses.

Instead the government should focus on setting guidelines (protocols) for people to understand and mitigate their personal risks in situations within their personal domain and give people a tool kit to minimise risk. For example, "We recommend you not to have any social gathering inside a home. If you do, make sure that you follow XYZ guidelines to keep everyone safe. We prohibit gatherings of more than X people inside a home (or a closed space with a per person space ratio of 1: X sqm) under any circumstances in the following locations...due to the scientific evidence that this is a real and significant public danger"

It is pretty hypocritical to appeal to personal responsibility on one hand, while dictating what conduct one can legally do in their own personal spaces and with who. Which one is it?

Art. 23 of the NC allows to suspend almost all rights because of internal disaster or was, itis called State of Siege. However, it is far too extreme and this is why the President decided to do not use it.
You are confusing peace time with war times. We are in the second and the pass system is a natural consequense.
The quarantine was a big success because we boght time to develope test, treatmets, to add more IC bed, to vaccine against flu all the elders, to develop a local vaccine, protection gear for the whole population, etc. all in pesos, because we are super limited on import
Sweden has the kind of quarantine you propose and they have 682 deaths every million people against 85.
Did you know we are 4th in the world ranking on ic beds with 27 every 100.000 inhabitants? We had 19 on March.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

We now have 4000 - 5000 new cases a day up from a few hundred per day during the first months of quarantine? To me, that indicates the number of cases (not the R factor) is still accelerating and Argentina just kicked the can down the road, along with the risk of pressure on the health system. How can this happen if the quarantine we have had all along (and very similar to that of Peru) really worked as effectively as it could have or actually has an exit strategy to be sustainable? That is something we still need more time to see, but at this stage I am doubtful of a clear success story resulting in most places on earth, perhaps however with the countries that end up holistically "best off" in the long run having taken more precise and pragmatic approaches that used time effectively.

View attachment 7176View attachment 7177

Chile has 509 deaths /million people, we have 85. And they were liying about the number of deaths. Nice example you choose. No, thanks.