3 ms·

There aren't only americans on this site. FWIW as a european (Belgium resident), your statement doesn't apply. Belgium did a shitty job since the second wave: W

There aren't only americans on this site. FWIW as a european (Belgium resident), your statement doesn't apply. Belgium did a shitty job since the second wave: We didn't go far enough and only applied a weak lockdown which has been in effect since October. So life here has been just bad enough to test everybody's patience for about six months. And now we're in a new uptick and everyone's losing their shit. Korea meanwhile applied strict, severe, surgical lockdowns and then were able to fully reopen after containment. People haven't been able to go see their families out of the country. I've not been able to practice my sport (figure skating) since October (they even banned it outdoors during winter!!). And there is a pages-long, ever-changing document on social bubbles, checklists on who you can see which take things such as age and household size into account, etc. It's dumb, people don't follow it, and it has deeply eroded trust in institutions, and it has pushed people into antivax groups because those are the most vocal ones against measures like these (so they are the sole ones sounding like the voice of reason). The "alternative" to the above is not brazil, and I would personally much rather be in Korea. And these measures, while on paper sound like they're slowing the spread, are also pushing people to be against government measures as a whole and feed into much more dangerous sentiments. Would you apply a measure that reduces the spread by 0.1% if it also meant a 0.1% decrease in mask usage? Or a 0.25% decrease in vaccine uptake? What if you can't know any of those numbers, you just know they exist? ---- Edit: Just to really drive home my point: I've been advocating for this for months. Just as I posted this comment, the following article shows up on the Brussels Times: "Belgium needs a short ‘real’ lockdown, warns expert" https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/161157/belgium-needs-a-short-real-lockdown-warns-expert-dirk-devroey-vub-erika-vlieghe-geert-meyfroidt-gems-consultative-committee/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/161157/b...

hef19898 6y ago
All EU countries screwed up, not just Belgium. Case in point, German states agreed on an "emergency brake" once cases increase over 100 per 100k, 7 day average. Now we are there, 3 days in a row. So, one would assume they would close schools again. No, because it has to be 3 days in a row, weekends don't count so. After that, two days to implement measures. Which means schools will be open next week despite a heavy case load. Only to fulfill the political goal of opening schools before Easter. Nevermind we will close down everything after Easter through April. There is no strategy, no planning, no logic involved.
- yorwba 6y ago
  The whole concept of restrictions that only apply for high infection rates shows lack of foresight. If you have a way to halve new infections in x weeks, you can wait for y weeks during which infections double, then apply your countermeasures and after x+y weeks you're back where you started. Or you could start implementing countermeasures immediately, ease up after x weeks, and after y weeks of growth you're also back where you started. The only difference between the scenarios is the ordering, but the first leads to a mountain of infections and the second to a valley, i.e. lower total case count and fewer deaths. (Also a chance of extinction if the expected number of infected falls below 1.) So anything you're willing to do when 100 of 100k are infected is just as good when it's 50 of 100k or really any number greater than zero.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    The funny thing is, the 50, or 100, is completely arbitrary. Initially it was 50 because authorities couldn't follow up cases above that. They couldn't below 50, as it turned out. Also, this threshold changes as seems fit. When 50 wasn't realistic anymore it became 100. Only for one state to choose 200. It is utter chaos. And still, a majority still supports these measures. Funny times indeed.

hef19898 6y ago

All EU countries screwed up, not just Belgium. Case in point, German states agreed on an "emergency brake" once cases increase over 100 per 100k, 7 day average. Now we are there, 3 days in a row. So, one would assume they would close schools again. No, because it has to be 3 days in a row, weekends don't count so. After that, two days to implement measures. Which means schools will be open next week despite a heavy case load. Only to fulfill the political goal of opening schools before Easter. Nevermind we will close down everything after Easter through April. There is no strategy, no planning, no logic involved.

yorwba 6y ago
The whole concept of restrictions that only apply for high infection rates shows lack of foresight. If you have a way to halve new infections in x weeks, you can wait for y weeks during which infections double, then apply your countermeasures and after x+y weeks you're back where you started. Or you could start implementing countermeasures immediately, ease up after x weeks, and after y weeks of growth you're also back where you started. The only difference between the scenarios is the ordering, but the first leads to a mountain of infections and the second to a valley, i.e. lower total case count and fewer deaths. (Also a chance of extinction if the expected number of infected falls below 1.) So anything you're willing to do when 100 of 100k are infected is just as good when it's 50 of 100k or really any number greater than zero.
- hef19898 6y ago
  The funny thing is, the 50, or 100, is completely arbitrary. Initially it was 50 because authorities couldn't follow up cases above that. They couldn't below 50, as it turned out. Also, this threshold changes as seems fit. When 50 wasn't realistic anymore it became 100. Only for one state to choose 200. It is utter chaos. And still, a majority still supports these measures. Funny times indeed.