3 ms·

I don't disagree with you that human contact is important for a great deal many of people. However, cynically speaking, death and debilitating, potentially long

by NamTaf 6y ago

I don't disagree with you that human contact is important for a great deal many of people. However, cynically speaking, death and debilitating, potentially long-lasting illness from Covid also can't be hand-waved away. It's an issue of balancing the needs of the many against the needs of the few, and unfortuantely in this instance the actions of individuals can cause incredibly amplified levels of suffering for a great many people. There's countless examples of people all over the world not taking appropriate precautions and care when dealing with Covid. I think it's pretty obvious that you cannot trust everyone to do the right thing, and indeed there's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems. Additionally, note that the current outbreak in Melbourne - 12500 cases, and 175 deaths (and counting) - can be traced back to a handful (i.e. 1-3) initial outbreaks due to lapses in quarantine protocols. It is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths'. Individaul leaked cases through a lockdown can cause an explosion of cases to spiral out of control if allowed to get any traction. I would not call that wild or panicked exaggeration at all, and is most definitely based on what we know. Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it.

arp242 6y ago
> it is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths' "Can" is not the same as "will". I already said "when done with with appropriate precautions and care" in my previous comment. The thing is, just because there are some Oz bogans returning from their coma drinking holiday in Bali acted in an idiotic fashion doesn't mean we should prevent everyone else on the planet from travelling at all, no matter the personal circumstances. Lockdowns also cause real harm, see e.g. [1], although the full effects won't be known for certain with time. "There's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems" with many things: cars, guns, knives, etc. It's always a matter of balancing different interests and trade-offs. > Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it. That's not exactly that I said either. What is your long-term plan with this? Institute a draconic hard lockdown every time there is a single case? It doesn't seem that any of this is just going to disappear from the world any time soon, if ever. It's not a solution, just a stop-gap measure (which is what people have been saying pretty much from the get-go). The real question is what will happen in 6 months, a year, or 2 years time with New Zealand. Remember, we've managed to eradicate exactly one disease in the history of humanity, and that was a far more serious one, although we've been close with Polio for years. New Zealand had great success in the short term (being a fairly sparsely populated island more than 3 hours removed from any other significant landmass probably helped with that), but you can't lock everyone indoors every time there is a new case and it's almost certain this will happen unless NZ commits to a long-term multi-year border lockdown. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
- zvrba 6y ago
  > "Can" is not the same as "will". Well, you don't know. Therefore you must act as if "can" = "will". Otherwise, you're playing Russian roulette. > draconic hard lockdown Travelling ban is not a draconic hard lockdown; in fact it'd allow the country to function mostly as normal. Draconic lockdown would be shutting down all non-essential services (what Norway did in March) and even more drastic measures that other countries used (curfew, home confinement, you're allowed to go out only with a concrete purpose and not "too far away" from your apartment... like it was in France for a while.).

by NamTaf 6y ago

arp242 6y ago

> it is absolutely, demonstrably true that individuals can cause a 'chain of deaths' "Can" is not the same as "will". I already said "when done with with appropriate precautions and care" in my previous comment. The thing is, just because there are some Oz bogans returning from their coma drinking holiday in Bali acted in an idiotic fashion doesn't mean we should prevent everyone else on the planet from travelling at all, no matter the personal circumstances. Lockdowns also cause real harm, see e.g. [1], although the full effects won't be known for certain with time. "There's enough people not doing the right thing for it to cause major problems" with many things: cars, guns, knives, etc. It's always a matter of balancing different interests and trade-offs. > Lastly, it's very obviously false to claim that a hard lockdown cannot help, see New Zealand as a shining counter-example. Extremely aggressive lockdowns and widespread testing can indeed control it. That's not exactly that I said either. What is your long-term plan with this? Institute a draconic hard lockdown every time there is a single case? It doesn't seem that any of this is just going to disappear from the world any time soon, if ever. It's not a solution, just a stop-gap measure (which is what people have been saying pretty much from the get-go). The real question is what will happen in 6 months, a year, or 2 years time with New Zealand. Remember, we've managed to eradicate exactly one disease in the history of humanity, and that was a far more serious one, although we've been close with Polio for years. New Zealand had great success in the short term (being a fairly sparsely populated island more than 3 hours removed from any other significant landmass probably helped with that), but you can't lock everyone indoors every time there is a new case and it's almost certain this will happen unless NZ commits to a long-term multi-year border lockdown. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

zvrba 6y ago
> "Can" is not the same as "will". Well, you don't know. Therefore you must act as if "can" = "will". Otherwise, you're playing Russian roulette. > draconic hard lockdown Travelling ban is not a draconic hard lockdown; in fact it'd allow the country to function mostly as normal. Draconic lockdown would be shutting down all non-essential services (what Norway did in March) and even more drastic measures that other countries used (curfew, home confinement, you're allowed to go out only with a concrete purpose and not "too far away" from your apartment... like it was in France for a while.).