China MOF in Feb: The US. travel ban is an unnecessary radical reaction, and this is against WHO's advice on travel restrictions.

China MOF in March: We'll ban ALL foreigners from entry.

So the Beijing CDC is suggesting oversea Chinese students "should not come back to motherland unless absolutely necessary". The irony that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the US among other countries to "limit travel against the advice of WHO" last month...

Making it worse, this incident is being used as an excuse to promote cold-war style propaganda, claiming "this is a media war against China". So the focus soon shifted from reflecting on "what we did wrong" to proving"there is nothing we could have done". (3/2)

, the American liberals "white lefties", the American-right "Redneck", and the Russians "hairy",and maybe the diplomats (!) can stop playing conspiracy theories and accusing the US of spreading it, and the semi-official media can stop using a celebratory tone to report the dire situation in other countries. (2/2)

I don't like the Chinese virus / Wuhan pneumonia name either. However, what frustrates me is many complaining are the same people who complained about the "PC-wave", "language polices" etc., even those who cheered for Trump's election as a victory against "political correctness".

It would be really nice to see a little bit of reflection. If we really care about these languages, maybe stop calling the Japanese "Devil", the Indians "A-san", the Muslims "Greenie", (1/2)

要containment还是要mitigation,是肯定会有取舍的。以扑灭感染为主,重点是找到已经出现的例子和密切接触者,隔离并且扑灭他们。以减低损害为主,重点是*每个人*增加社交距离,避免接触易感人群导致她们/他们感染,同时减少医疗资源挤兑。但是这种取舍不见得意味着扑灭感染为重就一定不要增加社交距离,或者以减少损害为重就不要大规模测试和隔离。更不是说减低损害就是不控制社交活动任凭所有人感染:减低损害仍然是一个平缓曲线的过程:感染人数和重症人数都增加的慢一点,才能减少峰值感染人数,防止医疗系统过载。韩国就是一个现成的例子:他们提倡了灾区人民尽量不出门但是也进行了非常大规模的测试和追踪。从他们的感染人数变化来看,似乎十分成功。

这个过程中*有效沟通现况和预期*十分重要:本地现在是什么状况?接下来可能怎么发展?我们现在的政策是什么?是对输入病例严防死守,还是要大家减少活动以防本地迅速扩散?接下来情况可能会怎么变化?什么情况下可能会采取什么样的政策?

意大利是比较早停中国直航的欧盟国家之一。从意大利伊朗这两天的情况似乎提示我们,试图通过减少人际活动,发现和隔离来阻止啤酒病毒的希望不是没有,但是在降低。这也和各国学者早先的预估类似:再好的隔离也有疏漏,而星星之火,可以燎原。

如果阻止真的不可行,或许是时候思考怎么减小损失了。我们的目标到底是什么,为此付出多大的代价是可以接受的?

现在国内很多人的期待吧,都巴不得所有人不出门,两个礼拜隔离所有病例彻底消失。

如果消失不了呢。如果比如说每天每个省市就那么十来个二十个病例怎么办。

Trump administration temporarily banning foreigners who visited China from entering the United States. nytimes.com/2020/01/31/world/a

Wuhan is on lockdown and some Twitter people are cheering for it. "Should have done that sooner," they say, "and ban all the mainland passengers."

Always amazed by people's faith in freedom.

一些反对集权或者社会主义的人其实并不反对这些体制的目标:相反,他们赞美这些体制“人类进步”的目标,也认同“为了这些进步效率要牺牲一些人的利益”。“我们为什么不是忙着航天殖民而是忙着发展女权/环保/…”就是这种思路的体现。对他们来说,问题不在于牺牲,而在于这个牺牲是不是“邪恶政府”要求的而已

在赫尔辛基跟家里视频:“我觉得这跟东北差不多~”
一个路人东北口音飘过:“那还是差挺多的。”

和00-09年比起来,10年代可能真的算不上一个好的十年:政治气候让人失望,技术创新也没有什么大的突破。十年里最让人兴奋的硬件大概是10年的iPhone 4。从内容的角度上来讲,互联网,特别是中文互联网从开放一步步走向封闭,大量有价值的内容被封闭在微信微博知乎的登录门槛之外,少数平台提供商对舆论渠道有了绝对的控制权。“全网删帖”在2010年恐怕是难以想象的事情。

相比之下,让人兴奋的事情可能是两件:视频内容的大爆发,让外语学习比任何时候都简单;特斯拉的成功让环保的概念更深入人心。

感觉“沃霍尔和李子柒”是一个挺好的高考作文题目。

t.co/huYFm7otMi t.co/8ad7kkRk2B
有趣的是,我朋友圈转发这两篇文章的,很大程度上是重叠的。

And Sondland's line was he _presumed_ a condition for the meetings, etc. So he had goodwill but was ignorant. Both are carefully chosen positions. But Volker's explanation has a larger wiggle room. As Volker could claim that he did not see or engage any quid-pro-quo, it's only about changing the optics of the Ukraine government. In reality, both *probably* knew what's going on. However, their position can make it hard to pin this on Trump directly. 2/2

Show more
Cats on hoppinglife.com

Hi, Welcome to Cats, a private instance of the federated social network Mastodon. The name comes from the personality of cats - social, yet somewhat independent, without a single monopoly, which is a good analogy of ideal social network in my eyes.