6 ms·

I've been doing a large part of what you mention voluntarily for nearly the whole time and I'm curious what you take issue with - 8pm-5am curfew (you have to b

I've been doing a large part of what you mention voluntarily for nearly the whole time and I'm curious what you take issue with - 8pm-5am curfew (you have to be at home) - no visitors - 5km radius (this lasted for what felt like 6 months) - you had to wear your mask as soon as you left your house (this went for months, we still have to wear masks in shops (even though we have zero cases)) - you could only go to the super market once per day, and you had to go by yourself - you were only allowed outside for exercise for 1 hour (with 1 person) - no gyms, hospo, group events, activities etc These all seem reasonable in a pandemic to me. Considering yalls success, I would say extremely reasonable. What is the alternative? A half assed version of those (my state imposed a weak curfew, bans to arbitrary activity, but nothing really targeted at preventing COVID). I think there is a particular horror in the current US (and elsewhere) experience where it quite literally feels like a lottery of who among your contacts will get it next. Is two months of an admitted harsh lockdown not worth avoiding that? - lots of shops forced you to give your details over and some demanded that you sanitize your hands (these are two things I didn't want to do for my own reasons) - increase of police powers, fines around $1600 That I find more concerning, and agree with you

thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
I'm not convinced Victoria did anything special to beat the virus, aka I'm not convinced lock downs actually work. It could of just been; - seasonality - Victorians already had antibodies from other strains from years prior - our population may have not be as old as other places - we could just be a healthier society in general - we don't have subways etc But that is a rabbit hole discussion I won't have the time to go into; I think any information about Covid is just noise at this point, everyone (including me) just comes up with some shallow statements about what is going on with just a few data points. Every region of the world reports numbers on everything differently; - What test kits do you use, and what are their +/- rates - How do you report somebody died? (assumed covid, had covid, died from covid) - When does an active case become inactive? - How long do you think it incubates for? etc There is probably another 100+ important questions to ask. And then ask all those questions to different states/countries and all the answers are different. Yet we compare countries all the time. HIV/AIDS had a similar problem, you could have AID's in America, fly to Australia and we would of reported you as maybe not having AID's. "Even AIDS itself has a different definition depending on where you’re standing. In the U.S., AIDS is someone whose little virus-fighters, their CD4 cells, are below 200 per cubic mm of blood (normal is 500-1,500) or who is already showing symptoms. The WHO definition is anyone with a CD4 count below 350. In most European countries, you need to have an AIDS-related infection to be diagnosed with AIDS." https://newrepublic.com/article/117789/aids-data-country-why-its-difficult-compare-them https://newrepublic.com/article/117789/aids-data-country-why... Pretty good article, more or less my stance on Covid at the moment. So when we say the US had 400k deaths and Australia had 3k, I am extremely sceptical that we are reporting things in the same way at all. Edit: Co-authored paper by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox talking about the effectiveness of lock downs -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552...
- flukus 6y ago
  seasonality - We were getting on top of things at the coldest time of year. Victorians already had antibodies - absolutely no evidence of this and plenty of evidence to the contrary, if we had antibodies the second wave wouldn't have happened. we could just be a healthier - Healthy people still get covid. we don't have subways - Plenty of packed commuter trains and trams, having them underground makes no difference. Aside from all that, the case numbers correlate extremely well with when the lockdowns started and when their severity increased (https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC.html https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC.html), there are zero other rational explanations.
  - thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
    I like the link you shared, thanks. (Though the graph still could have easily trended the way it did for many other reasons) Here is an interesting paper too -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552... (Co-authored by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox) (talks about the pros and mostly cons of lockdowns) Edit: Just adding a link to a paper that suggests T-Cell immunity from previous beta corona viruses might be helping -> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
- toomanybeersies 6y ago
  Melbourne went from a peak of 725 daily cases to achieving 60 days with zero local transmission. Suggesting that all the lockdown measures were ineffective, and that eradication was entirely the result of circumstantial factors, doesn't pass the sniff test for me. Given that the reduction in cases fitted closely with expected modelling, and only began after stage 4 lockdown was enacted, it's a logical conclusion that at least some measures of the lockdown were effective at containing the spread. That's not to say that none of your suggested reasons weren't a factor, or that every single one of the lockdown measures were effective. But on balance, the lockdown and other governmental measures were effective. Montreal is a city of similar size, wealth, and demographics to Melbourne, and has 88k confirmed cases, compared to Melbourne's 20k. That kind of difference is more than discrepancies in testing methodology and case definitions. Incidentally, ten days ago the city went into lockdown (although less strict that Melbourne), so if in a few weeks there's a subsequent drop in cases, I think that it will be pretty safe to make the conclusion that lockdowns work.
wpietri 6y ago
Same. I've been doing this voluntarily since March. Does this suck? Yes. Is it better than dying or killing somebody? Fuck yes. I don't understand how it's even a question.
- thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
  Why don't old people just quarantine? Why are you so certain of your viewpoint? Other people can't have different opinions to you?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > Why are you so certain of your viewpoint? because the lockdown in Victoria worked. > Other people can't have different opinions to you? Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?
    - thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
      I just posted it in another comment. Co-authored by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox talking about the effectiveness of lock downs -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552...
      - Naracion 6y ago
        Edit. I see that you were probably responding to "Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?", in which case yes you make a valid point. However it still holds that this paper was from 2006, we're in a much better position today in many places to accomplish work remotely. Many assumptions are in fact not met. I'll keep my original comment as is below: It is immaterial that D. A. co-authored that back in 2006. It was a different time, and the measures that he is professing against have _demonstrably_ proven to be effective. The paper gives suggestions based on many assumptions that don't hold considering the implemented rules. But they're just suggestions. Offering this paper in the face of demonstrable evidence that these measures do in fact work seems a little irrational in my perspective.
closeparen 6y ago
In the US, compliance is not high enough and regions are not coordinated enough to actually make an impact on the danger level. So from the perspective of someone following the rules, the rules are here to stay through mass vaccination. How do you feel about living like this for a minimum of 18 months?
- elijaht 6y ago
  I have made my peace with doing that- it's already been 10 months. And I acknowledge I am extremely lucky to be in a situation where I can do that, and do it in a way that I feel is sustainable (for me personally). My point isn't that "oh this is so easy". Instead, my point is in a heartbeat I would trade 2 months of extreme lockdown to avoid what we see in the United States. I know that isn't/wasn't possible for reasons you describe but it hurts to see someone who lives in a region where they crushed COVID complain about what was done
worker767424 6y ago
> - you had to wear your mask as soon as you left your house > - you were only allowed outside for exercise for 1 hour (with 1 person) > These all seem reasonable in a pandemic to me. Not really; no evidence has ever suggested that outdoor spread is enough of an issue that either of these policies make much of a difference.

thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago

I'm not convinced Victoria did anything special to beat the virus, aka I'm not convinced lock downs actually work. It could of just been; - seasonality - Victorians already had antibodies from other strains from years prior - our population may have not be as old as other places - we could just be a healthier society in general - we don't have subways etc But that is a rabbit hole discussion I won't have the time to go into; I think any information about Covid is just noise at this point, everyone (including me) just comes up with some shallow statements about what is going on with just a few data points. Every region of the world reports numbers on everything differently; - What test kits do you use, and what are their +/- rates - How do you report somebody died? (assumed covid, had covid, died from covid) - When does an active case become inactive? - How long do you think it incubates for? etc There is probably another 100+ important questions to ask. And then ask all those questions to different states/countries and all the answers are different. Yet we compare countries all the time. HIV/AIDS had a similar problem, you could have AID's in America, fly to Australia and we would of reported you as maybe not having AID's. "Even AIDS itself has a different definition depending on where you’re standing. In the U.S., AIDS is someone whose little virus-fighters, their CD4 cells, are below 200 per cubic mm of blood (normal is 500-1,500) or who is already showing symptoms. The WHO definition is anyone with a CD4 count below 350. In most European countries, you need to have an AIDS-related infection to be diagnosed with AIDS." https://newrepublic.com/article/117789/aids-data-country-why-its-difficult-compare-them https://newrepublic.com/article/117789/aids-data-country-why... Pretty good article, more or less my stance on Covid at the moment. So when we say the US had 400k deaths and Australia had 3k, I am extremely sceptical that we are reporting things in the same way at all. Edit: Co-authored paper by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox talking about the effectiveness of lock downs -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552...

flukus 6y ago
seasonality - We were getting on top of things at the coldest time of year. Victorians already had antibodies - absolutely no evidence of this and plenty of evidence to the contrary, if we had antibodies the second wave wouldn't have happened. we could just be a healthier - Healthy people still get covid. we don't have subways - Plenty of packed commuter trains and trams, having them underground makes no difference. Aside from all that, the case numbers correlate extremely well with when the lockdowns started and when their severity increased (https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC.html https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_VIC.html), there are zero other rational explanations.
- thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
  I like the link you shared, thanks. (Though the graph still could have easily trended the way it did for many other reasons) Here is an interesting paper too -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552... (Co-authored by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox) (talks about the pros and mostly cons of lockdowns) Edit: Just adding a link to a paper that suggests T-Cell immunity from previous beta corona viruses might be helping -> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
toomanybeersies 6y ago
Melbourne went from a peak of 725 daily cases to achieving 60 days with zero local transmission. Suggesting that all the lockdown measures were ineffective, and that eradication was entirely the result of circumstantial factors, doesn't pass the sniff test for me. Given that the reduction in cases fitted closely with expected modelling, and only began after stage 4 lockdown was enacted, it's a logical conclusion that at least some measures of the lockdown were effective at containing the spread. That's not to say that none of your suggested reasons weren't a factor, or that every single one of the lockdown measures were effective. But on balance, the lockdown and other governmental measures were effective. Montreal is a city of similar size, wealth, and demographics to Melbourne, and has 88k confirmed cases, compared to Melbourne's 20k. That kind of difference is more than discrepancies in testing methodology and case definitions. Incidentally, ten days ago the city went into lockdown (although less strict that Melbourne), so if in a few weeks there's a subsequent drop in cases, I think that it will be pretty safe to make the conclusion that lockdowns work.

wpietri 6y ago

Same. I've been doing this voluntarily since March. Does this suck? Yes. Is it better than dying or killing somebody? Fuck yes. I don't understand how it's even a question.

thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
Why don't old people just quarantine? Why are you so certain of your viewpoint? Other people can't have different opinions to you?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sumedh 6y ago
  > Why are you so certain of your viewpoint? because the lockdown in Victoria worked. > Other people can't have different opinions to you? Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?
  - thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
    I just posted it in another comment. Co-authored by Donald Henderson who was credited with ridding the world of smallpox talking about the effectiveness of lock downs -> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552...
    - Naracion 6y ago
      Edit. I see that you were probably responding to "Are those opinions shared by the scientific community?", in which case yes you make a valid point. However it still holds that this paper was from 2006, we're in a much better position today in many places to accomplish work remotely. Many assumptions are in fact not met. I'll keep my original comment as is below: It is immaterial that D. A. co-authored that back in 2006. It was a different time, and the measures that he is professing against have _demonstrably_ proven to be effective. The paper gives suggestions based on many assumptions that don't hold considering the implemented rules. But they're just suggestions. Offering this paper in the face of demonstrable evidence that these measures do in fact work seems a little irrational in my perspective.

closeparen 6y ago

In the US, compliance is not high enough and regions are not coordinated enough to actually make an impact on the danger level. So from the perspective of someone following the rules, the rules are here to stay through mass vaccination. How do you feel about living like this for a minimum of 18 months?

elijaht 6y ago
I have made my peace with doing that- it's already been 10 months. And I acknowledge I am extremely lucky to be in a situation where I can do that, and do it in a way that I feel is sustainable (for me personally). My point isn't that "oh this is so easy". Instead, my point is in a heartbeat I would trade 2 months of extreme lockdown to avoid what we see in the United States. I know that isn't/wasn't possible for reasons you describe but it hurts to see someone who lives in a region where they crushed COVID complain about what was done

worker767424 6y ago

> - you had to wear your mask as soon as you left your house > - you were only allowed outside for exercise for 1 hour (with 1 person) > These all seem reasonable in a pandemic to me. Not really; no evidence has ever suggested that outdoor spread is enough of an issue that either of these policies make much of a difference.