2 ms·

> The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. No, because we can still do testing and tr

> The virus would have survived somewhere in the world, and quickly began spreading once the 2 month lockdown ended. No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. Afaik Auckland's lockdown is going to be a couple weeks at most. Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>No, because we can still do testing and tracing. A virus infecting a few hundred people that we can detect fast is a lot easier to contain than a virus infecting millions or one that we aren't aware of. If we have effective detection methods, we don't need to lockdown. We just trace and isolate any cases that pop up. >Asian nations (China, Japan, SK) are doing similar to New Zealand and they aren't nearly as isolated. China had far more cases than New Zealand, which goes to my point; New Zealand's position as an isolated island made it easier to contain the virus. AFAIK, Japan and Taiwan never did NZ-style lockdowns. Taiwan had very few deaths relying mostly on contact tracing. >>Understand that, had we done this 2-month full lockdown, we would not even be locked down now. Young people wouldn't be nearly as affected as they are now. NZ has been isolated from the world for a whole year and just recently locked down Auckland again.