At present this explicitly does not include a "lockdown such as we have seen in countries abroad."
I would recommend you not make plans which are contingent on that state of affairs continuing.
"What's the biggest change we're likely to see?"
Every public and private org in Japan will have a conversation tomorrow, and in lamentably many cases for *the first time* tomorrow, on what their coronavirus strategy should be. Some will act; some will start planning to act.
"Every" is a bit of an overstatement for effect here, but as of tomorrow it's hard to imagine e.g. a large corporation or city not having several hundred people working on this issue.
That is, unfortunately, not terribly hard to imagine as of last week or even this morning.
The press conference includes the first time I've heard the acknowledgement from on high (in Japanese) that asymptomatic people can be infectious, which is one of the most important facts for the public health response and which will likely surprise a lot of decisionmakers.
Request from the government to avoid moving from Tokyo/Osaka/etc ("as we've seen abroad during lockdowns") to regions of Japan because a) risk in Tokyo/Osaka/etc "if living life as normal" is low and b) high at-risk population in the regions.
(Both quotes approximate.)
Government clarifies that while compliance with government requests to avoid e.g. operating businesses considered at high risk to spread coronavirus is at the discretion of the business owner, that request could be made directly, by police, in the course of their official duties.
I will note for the benefit of Japanese speakers searching the transcript that the word 職務質問 was used by the questioner, and think your friendly neighborhood legal professional can explain why that is an important word choice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A contractor said something during this project which I thought was both compassionate and the sign that he was a skilled professional, and I thought I’d share:
Scene: My mother, who has some mobility challenges, is sketching out what she wants in her kitchen. He listens.
Then he takes me aside. Following conversation is indicative.
Me: All sound reasonable?
Him: I’ll build whatever you two decide on, but I wanted to have a conversation with you in private first.
Him: Nobody wants to get old and nobody wants their parents to get old, but it happens to everyone, and may God grant your mother many happy years.
Me: Thank you for saying that.
Him: How big do you think a wheelchair is?
Me: Mom doesn’t…
Ruriko: I asked at the train station how to use the automated gates to get the child’s rate for Lillian.
Me: OK.
Ruriko: That was really hard.
Me: OK.
Ruriko: Then I asked the attendant how old children could be and still receive the child’s rate. Do you know what she told me?
Me: I will bet it did not include a correct answer.
Ruriko: How can you work as a train station attendant and not know that answer.
Me: *sigh* America.
I try to be non-partisan in professional spaces. That is due, in no small part, to the acceptable spectrum of opinions in tech spaces as having been about 70 nanometers or so wide for much of the last few years.
Also, related to that, there is this fun game which is played on Twitter, where you adversarially claim that someone represents their employer, elaborate that something they have said causes a workplace safety or PR issue, and then ask for them to made an example of.
One subvariant of them is that early adopters of LLMs outside of companies are going to tell those companies *things they do not know about themselves.*
People often diagnose malice or reckless indifference in a SOP which misquotes the constellation of agreements backing e.g. a rental contract.
Often it is more Seeing like a Really Big Business issues than either of those. Everyone did their job, system in totality failed.
I'll observe two things which are counterintuitive:
1) You might naively assume that "identities" get more valuable as one moves up the socioeconomic ladder, but there is a discontinuity, because certain societally-favored identities have payment streams associated with them.
These go down sharply in working class and don't rise above that level again until you either a) get fairly deep into the upper middle class / PMC or b) somehow manage to get someone's full social security payment, which is (for various reasons) much less likely than other ways.