4 ms·

This is what I found bizarre about NZ's approach. Their goals was 0 _cases_ in the entire country. It's a great accomplishment but perhaps unnecessary.

laurencerowe 6y ago
The big advantage of getting to zero is that after the initial severe lockdown life gets mostly back to normal.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Almost zero. And normal only in the sense that many people don't care that much if very few people are allowed to enter the country.
- choward 6y ago
  Not really. They still have outbreaks and do lockdowns. I wouldn't call that "mostly back to normal". https://apnews.com/article/new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-auckland-70a1da6f3471990b915552f81929c90b https://apnews.com/article/new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-...
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    That's true. They do have outbreaks, about half a dozen people this time, perhaps related to a job at a laundry working with quarantine facilities. For several days Auckland residents couldn't go to the pub. Normally of course they can go to the pub. Or a night club. Or a packed stadium to watch sports. But it's true that for several days last week in Auckland they weren't allowed to do that. And the same back in... September maybe? And according to you that isn't "mostly back to normal" so we can assume you believe it isn't "mostly back to normal" anywhere and never will be. That's just not a very useful benchmark.
orra 6y ago
It's pretty contagious, to be fair. Still, I think you're right when you say perhaps unnecessary: some countries have successfully suppressed COVID without eliminating it. That said, it's some but not many countries. I'm a bit ambivalent. Regardless, it certainly wasn't necessary for NZ to close their border to asylum seekers.
- peterburkimsher 6y ago
  Edit: [removed]
  - orra 6y ago
    > Media are reporting that wealthy migrants are still being welcomed Ouch, that article links to one from May 2020. It said the Avatar film crews were allowed to fly in, whilst families were separated.
statstutor 6y ago
On an island nation with an 80%+ urban population, your choice is either to aim for 0 cases, or to expect unbounded cases and new more virulent mutations (for the whole world to deal with the consequences). This was predictable in advance, and with hindsight I still would prefer 0 cases.
_ph_ 6y ago
At 0 cases you can fully return back to "normal" life. If you have a small amount of cases, this will always grow exponentially without countermeasures.
tialaramex 6y ago
Because zero is magic. If you know your number of cases doubles every week when you aren't locked down, it seems as though it hardly matters what you do right? Five cases, six cases, ten cases, it's going to get out of control no matter. But if your base is zero then double that is still zero. That's why they've pursued elimination and why it has worked.

laurencerowe 6y ago

The big advantage of getting to zero is that after the initial severe lockdown life gets mostly back to normal.

ghaff 6y ago
Almost zero. And normal only in the sense that many people don't care that much if very few people are allowed to enter the country.
choward 6y ago
Not really. They still have outbreaks and do lockdowns. I wouldn't call that "mostly back to normal". https://apnews.com/article/new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-auckland-70a1da6f3471990b915552f81929c90b https://apnews.com/article/new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-...
- tialaramex 6y ago
  That's true. They do have outbreaks, about half a dozen people this time, perhaps related to a job at a laundry working with quarantine facilities. For several days Auckland residents couldn't go to the pub. Normally of course they can go to the pub. Or a night club. Or a packed stadium to watch sports. But it's true that for several days last week in Auckland they weren't allowed to do that. And the same back in... September maybe? And according to you that isn't "mostly back to normal" so we can assume you believe it isn't "mostly back to normal" anywhere and never will be. That's just not a very useful benchmark.

orra 6y ago

It's pretty contagious, to be fair. Still, I think you're right when you say perhaps unnecessary: some countries have successfully suppressed COVID without eliminating it. That said, it's some but not many countries. I'm a bit ambivalent. Regardless, it certainly wasn't necessary for NZ to close their border to asylum seekers.

peterburkimsher 6y ago
Edit: [removed]
- orra 6y ago
  > Media are reporting that wealthy migrants are still being welcomed Ouch, that article links to one from May 2020. It said the Avatar film crews were allowed to fly in, whilst families were separated.

statstutor 6y ago

On an island nation with an 80%+ urban population, your choice is either to aim for 0 cases, or to expect unbounded cases and new more virulent mutations (for the whole world to deal with the consequences). This was predictable in advance, and with hindsight I still would prefer 0 cases.

_ph_ 6y ago

At 0 cases you can fully return back to "normal" life. If you have a small amount of cases, this will always grow exponentially without countermeasures.

tialaramex 6y ago

Because zero is magic. If you know your number of cases doubles every week when you aren't locked down, it seems as though it hardly matters what you do right? Five cases, six cases, ten cases, it's going to get out of control no matter. But if your base is zero then double that is still zero. That's why they've pursued elimination and why it has worked.