Chairman Mao wrote:

Ray, of Light wrote:

The feeling is that Toronto has been unfairly penalized for a swift, visible response which reduced spreading at the cost of making things look worse than they really are.

And yet 18 people are dead. They want it reviewed and repealed even as people continue to die. Like I said, I have every confidence that they have it under control. It was thought to be under control before in HK and Singapore and wasn't. Neither city trails Toronto in medical capability. Err on the side of caution.

"Better safe than sorry" is not an appropriate standard, and comparing Toronto's protestations to the actions of Mainland "oops, lied again" China is beneath you.

Here is where I point out that Hong Kong complained similarly when the advisory against them was put in place. "We have it under control!" They cried, and then 200 people were infected in the Amoy Towers. Better safe than sorry is absolutely fucking applicable.

I'd also kinda like to point out that there is several dozen probable cases right here in New York City and not one single goddamn fatality. The dangers here should not be downplayed in any way. The last fucking thing NYC's economy needs right now is a similar advisory, but I would be behind it 100%.

Also, that 5% figure appears suspect: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04669.html

I'm not sure quoting a source that says the rates are vastly higher is working against me any here. I'm advocating obsessive caution, it seems that if the mortality rate was so significantly higher it would make sense to have even broader advisories and quarantines. Also, the 7.2% figure was from a recent cnn.com article, I assumed it was an official WHO number. I have no idea how they arrived at it.