[mc32]

What’s the rationale behind barring 1000+ attendee events but allowing up to 1000 attendee events?

If you have an infected person at a <1000 person event that can still result in a pretty large graph of potentially affected people.

I don’t think there is a magic number other than 1 where transmission is quashed, but I don’t see how this could have a blunting impact.

More effective might be temporarily barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

[CaptainZapp]

The rational, and actually communicated suchly, was that they had to draw a line somewhere.

And it's not that smaller events automatically go forward, but that the cantons, where those events happen, together with the organizers need to perform a risk assessment and decide if the event can go forward.

> More effective might be barring all international travelers as extreme as that would be.

No it wouldn't for a variety of reasons. For starters, Switzerland is an extremely interconnected country and dependent on such connections. In addition It's part of the Schengen agreement and just shutting down all borders with its neighbors is legally, let alone logistically not feasible (and, IMO, not desirable).

Also, what do you do with citizens who have a legal right to return to the country at any time. Throw 'em all into quarantine camps?

I think that the governments reaction is heavy, but overall measured and reasonable.

But sure, as a Swiss citizen flying home from Bangkok tomorrow you may accuse me of being biased.

[mc32]

I’m pretty sure the agreement allows for temporary border controls in the event of serious emergencies.

For people en-route, yes quarantine upon arrival would be the right thing to do, in the least self quarantine at home with proper precautions.

[CaptainZapp]

The agreement does allow for that.

But I don't think that the situation calls for a full throttled shut everything down, oj! wie is mir, panic.

Since I travelled to Asia 3 1/2 weeks ago I was quite concerned and very abreast with valid information. So I mostly referred to the one reasonable source[1].

In no instance have they suggested any bans on travel or trade. And frankly, I put more stock into the opinion of the WHO than, say, Mike Pence'.

In addition I'm travelling from a country were the risk of infection is lower than if I travelled from neighboring Italy.

That's not to say that I'm blasé about the issue. If I would feel any slight symtoms I'd immediately contact my doc, relay my travel history and do whatever is required. Legally and morally.

Full throttle panic in the line of The end is nigh, shut down all borders! is, if anything, extremely counter productive.

[1] https://www.who.int/

[sschueller]

This is more of a authority thing. All events over 1000+ people are now under the control of the "Bund", as in they decide if they take place or not. Cantons have the authority over smaller events and can individually decide to cancel or not.

They stated the closing borders would cause a shortage of doctors and staff which commute over the border every day.

[mc32]

Sure but if the border is sealed, then, if they contain any patients testing positive, there would be no need for those physicians. It’s a kind of a reverse catch-22.

[NullPrefix]

30km exclusion zone?