Covid-19 virus update, 13 February

Huge spike in new cases

From Worldometer

Wow. Big spike in new cases. Makes you wonder if there’d been underreporting before.  

Or…what’s going on?
Well… (a bit later), it turns out it’s a change in diagnostic criteria. They didn’t have enough test kits to confirm all cases, and so…

“From today on, we will include the number of clinically diagnosed cases into the number of confirmed cases so that patients could receive timely treatment,” the health authority said in a statement, which did not provide further details about the new criteria.

Hmmm… the article ends “more to follow”. Like: what about the spike in deaths?
While Beijing clamps down
Hong Kong school closures extend beyond March 2. Lucky parents …
US consulate staff in Hong Kong head home. But expatriates “not panicking”
WHO praises China response.  Then again, US experts criticise WHO
April’s annual China Sea yacht race HK to the Philippines is cancelled. Also Hong Kong's famous Rugby Sevens postponed
Virus impact on Australia economy “could be huge”
Incubation period remains uncertain
Talking of Uber. As I was yesterday 

'Despite the Trump impeachment trial and State of the Union saga, American democracy is far from broken’ | Robert Boxwell

I thought I’d heard the name Robert Boxwell, writing in today’s South China Morning Post. And I had.
Back in 2015, I challenged him over his criticism of Uber in our city. I “won” that argument, in the sense that Uber is still operating here in Hong Kong. The government has bigger problems to sort out other than some allegedly errant car-hailing service.

This time Boxwell is writing what I think is a pretty fair and balanced article on American politics. The Post is strongly anti-Trump, so most of its Op-Eds are too. Boxwell, by contrast, makes the point that there are plenty of people who don’t like Trump’s bullying boorishness, but who appreciate many of his successes, the economy not the least. And that hyper-partisanship is, as it were, bi-partisan. Politics were divisive well before Trump came on the scene.
From the Left it’s been nearly four years of attacking not just Trump, but also the people who voted for him. I’m with Ann Althouse on this: “Me — and I'm not a Trump voter — I'm just someone offended by the 3 years of disrespect shown to the people whose candidate won an election.”.
So here is Boxwell’s article.

As for this year’s SOTU: I watched it live and thought it was pretty good. Then I watched CNN analysts tell me it was “dark and dangerous”. Huh? For “dark” try Obama’s SOTU of 2010 when he’d been in office for two years. Or his 2011 SOTU, which was every bit as self-congratulatory as Trump was accused of being, and which is par for the course of all SOTUs. 

As for the “facts” in Trump’s SOTU, NPR couldn’t find any substantive falsehoods. But you wouldn’t know that from CNN. (Trump said at a later rally that there were “exactly 142 people at the [Biden] rally”, clearly a dissing joke. Fact checkers called it a “lie”!). 

The only decent commenter that day in CNN, was Van Jones, who commented how Trump was going after the African-American and Latino votes and that Democrats had better “take notice”. 

Oh, yes, David Axelrod was also pretty decent and fair. But the rest, on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, all in their own powerful vortexes.

UPDATE: Watching Bernie’s speech on winning New Hampshire. (12:07 pm HKT).  It’s very close: Bernie 25.9%, Pete Buttigieg 24.4%. Amy Klobuchar clocked in at 19.8%. Warren and the rest in single figure.
And … Andrew Yang is pulling out. Got only 2.8% of the vote.
Bernie calls Trump “the most dangerous president in history “. I don’t get that. How? exactly. Of course it’s an election. 
Bernie has a simple message which is why it resonates: free health care, free tuition, cancel student debt, tax the rich (100% at the top…), open the borders, green new deal. Of course, nothing is ever “free”. And… you can have open borders or broad social security. But you can’t have both. And… open borders in places like California have most negative impact on the poor, especially working class blacks who are displaced by undocumented Latinos. Plus, he wants to nationalise energy, telecoms, internet, steel, major manufacturing. Just, you know, most of the economy....
Warren is finished. So much for my prediction. Which, TBF, was just taking the average of some polls at the time, so so much for their polling. Well… it was accurate at the time.
Bennet (who?) and Steyer, are also out. [Steyer still in. FWIW]

Bigger fines ‘not enough to crack down on Uber in Hong Kong’

LETTER TO SCMP:
Why is the government wasting time to crack down on Uber, "everyone's private driver"? Answer: because it is under the thumb of the taxi industry. Result: instead of the greatest good for the greatest number, the government panders to the greedy few. 

We are literally surrounded by countries that allow ride-hailing services like Uber. Yet somehow, alone in Asia, we cannot manage to do so. All we do is "crack down", bleating about the "rule of law", as if the law can't be changed to encourage innovation. 

Shame on the government. Shame on the legislators. Shame on the bureaucrats. They make "Asia's World City" a sick joke, a laughing stock.  

Pf, etc…

Bigger fines 'not enough to crack down on Uber in Hong Kong'

"Government should not try to stop Uber operating in city"

Uber office in Cheung Sha Wan.  Photo: SCMP Pictures

Printed my letter in yesterday's South China Morning Post, under the headline above and uncut:

Robert Boxwell certainly has a way with scare words ("Uber pushy", August 26).

He lambasts Uber for throwing "bombs" at local laws; for "clogging" streets with "gypsy cabs", with some drivers having convictions for "sexual assault". Uber coders "blow up billions of dollars of Hong Kong investment " by "stomping on the necks of hard-working taxi drivers" and "cutting corners on safety". But Boxwell's vitriol doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is unclear whether local laws specifically prohibit Uber-type car-hailing services, but in any case Uber has offered to work with Hong Kong lawmakers.

Uber cars are not clogging streets. Most already operate as limousines, filling in their spare time with Uber, a more efficient use of their assets. Uber cars are hardly "gypsy cabs"; most are modern Mercedes or Alphards, intrinsically safer than the older Toyota taxis.

Taxi drivers whose necks are allegedly stomped on are in fact working with Uber, which has an "Uber taxi" service providing more work for taxi drivers. For this reason, the price of a taxi licence in Hong Kong has been only marginally affected since Uber opened in mid-2014.

I doubt Boxwell has ever used Uber in Hong Kong. He claims that if the customer doesn't tip, or winds up the window, the Uber driver will give them only one star.

News for Boxwell: we generally don't tip in Hong Kong and usually drive with the window up. I've used Uber 48 times since June 2014. I have never given a tip and keep windows up - my average Uber rating is five stars.

Boxwell states that Beijing won't be influenced by Uber's "propaganda" and so can't "build scale". News for Boxwell: Uber has already built scale, including in four Chinese cities.[*]

This issue should not be one of either taxis or Uber. It should be taxis and Uber. Sometimes one uses taxis, sometimes Uber. This is more choice for consumers, which Hongkongers clearly want.

I have a simple suggestion for the government. Handle it by the Taoist concept of wu wei - do nothing. In response to pressure by taxi owners, refuse to send in the police. Tell the owners to improve their service.

In the US, cities have allowed Uber to do business despite similar arm-twisting by taxi owners, the sort of philosophy that makes the US more innovative than Hong Kong. Let it happen, wu wei.

Yours, etc...
***********
[*] Update Wall Street Journal 4-6 September: Uber operates in 16 cities in China, with 45 more planned in next year. So much for Boxwell's claim that Uber won't build scale in China because of its tactics

Uber-pushy

Letter to the South China Morning Post:

Robert Boxwell certainly has a way with scare words (“Uber pushy” ($) August 26).  He lambasts Uber for throwing “bombs” at local laws; for “clogging” streets with “gypsy cabs”, whose drivers are prone to “sexual assault”.  Uber coders "blow up billions of dollars of Hong Kong investment” by “stomping on the necks of hard-working taxi drivers” and “cutting corners on safety”.

But Boxwell’s vitriol doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  it's unclear whether local laws specifically prohibit Uber-type car-hailing services, but in any case Uber has offered to work with Hong Kong lawmakers.  Uber cars are not clogging streets: most already operate as limousines, filling in their spare time with Uber, a more efficient use of their assets.  Uber cars are hardly “gypsy cabs”; most are modern Mercedes or Alphards, intrinsically safer than the older Toyota taxis.  Taxi drivers whose necks are allegedly stomped on are in fact working with Uber, which has an “Uber Taxi” service providing more work for taxi drivers. For this reason, the price of a taxi licence in Hong Kong has been only marginally affected since Uber opened in mid 2014.  

I doubt Mr Boxwell has ever used  Uber in Hong Kong.  He claims that if the customer doesn’t tip, or winds up the window, the Uber driver will give them only one star. News for Mr Boxwell: we generally don’t tip in Hong Kong and usually drive with the window up. I’ve used Uber 48 times since June 2014. I have never given a tip and keep windows up — my average Uber rating is 5 stars.

Boxwell states that Beijing won’t be influenced by Uber’s “propaganda” and so can’t “build scale".  News for Mr Boxwell: Uber has already built scale, including in four Chinese cities.

This issue should not be one of either taxis or Uber.  It should taxis and Uber. Sometimes one uses taxis, sometimes Uber.  This is more choice for consumers, which Hong Kongers clearly want.

I have a simple suggestion for the government.  Handle it by the Taoist concept of Wu Wei: do nothing.  In response to pressure by taxi owners refuse to send in the police. Tell the owners to improve their service. In the US, cities have allowed Uber to do business despite similar arm-twisting by taxi owners, the sort of philosophy that makes the US more innovative than Hong Kong.  Let it happen; Wu Wei.

Yours, etc...