5 ms·

> But I hate the stupid racism and hate around it. COVID-19 attacked every country. With the exception of, like, New Zealand (but it affected them as well... ha

> But I hate the stupid racism and hate around it. COVID-19 attacked every country. With the exception of, like, New Zealand (but it affected them as well... had to shut down their borders, etc). As someone who lives in New Zealand, we were still "attacked" by covid all the same. The only difference arguably is the coordinated response from our government compared to others. Some of that is presumably culture too (we don't have a document held to a pseudo-religious standard ie the constitution for example) although being too laid back can have its consequences too if emergency health laws were to be abused in order to infringe on personal freedoms for example

nyokodo 6y ago
There was a lot of luck too. Not being a major travel hub meant the virus hadn’t become widespread. The New Zealand government dragged its feet at first and clamped down just in time to prevent a much worse outbreak. If they had waited a few more days the cases likely would have gone exponentially vertical, possibly made it into more vulnerable populations and the death toll would have then increased considerably. I’m very grateful for the luck!
- jashmatthews 6y ago
  NZ has extremely high international air traffic. With 11M international passengers per year Auckland airport is comparable with the big US airports like SFO with 13.8M international. Even kiwis often don’t realize just how busy Auckland airport is!
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Those who had planes flying over our homes know. The various trials the airport conducted with low A380s and other large plane were a nightmare. We aren’t in a typical flight path, but various trials put us in one. I’m not sorry to see that cease.
  - nyokodo 6y ago
    > NZ has extremely high international air traffic. Maybe per capita but not per se. The US had 241 million international air passengers in 2019[1]. The UK had >160 million[2]. The US has two land borders with significant traffic and the UK had 21.5 million Chunnel passengers in 2019[3]. The volume of passenger shipping is also vastly higher in both countries. NZ also has almost no illegal border crossings. NZ has a much smaller risk profile than these and many other countries. And this is born out by events. By the time the world became aware of what was happening the virus had already been spreading in Europe and the US for months. While it had been introduced to NZ it was still in much earlier stages. [1] https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/final-full-year-2019-traffic-data-us-airlines-and-foreign-airlines https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/final-full-year-2019-traffic-da... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/303654/number-of-arriving-and-departing-passengers-in-united-kingdom-airports/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/303654/number-of-arrivin... [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304968/number-of-passengers-travelling-on-the-eurostar-and-le-shuttle-in-the-united-kingdom/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/304968/number-of-passeng...
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      Keep in mind that NZ is less than a tenth the population of the UK and less than a 60th of USAs. And those figures are for the country, not a city. The point made that Auckland has a lot of travellers. It is true that in absolute terms NZ has small trade and travel relative to the UK and US, but those factors are far from being the only reasons that NZ has suffered less death and destruction. It’s more that the UK and US have done poorly.
      - nyokodo 6y ago
        > Keep in mind that NZ is less than a tenth the population of the UK and less than a 60th of USAs. Yes, hence my "per capita" comment. The risk of infection getting into a country is more of a function of how much total traffic it gets rather than the per-capita traffic. > And those figures are for the country, not a city. Auckland Airport represents the vast majority of all international traffic into New Zealand, and not just flights. > The point made that Auckland has a lot of travellers. Not by absolute number which is what matters most for how easy it is for a virus to find its way in and get established domestically. > It’s more that the UK and US have done poorly. This is an important point and I do not belittle it at all. My point isn't to defend the USA and the UK but to point out that the difficulty of NZ's response was enormously easier both absolutely and relatively given the nature of NZ's geography and the fact that the local epidemic had barely started by the lockdowns. NZ has a lot to be proud of in its response, but no reason to be smug.
darkerside 6y ago
Being a small island country certainly played a role, no? Not to take anything away from your impressively functional government.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Being small kind of a bigger deal than being an island. Air travel doesn’t care much if you’re an island or not. The US is practically an island in many senses except for Mexico and Canada, but the virus didn’t come over land, it came over air in multiple places, especially from folks going on Alpine ski trips. If we had shut down air travel early on globally (not just China...) and pursued a vigorous in-country test and trace program, we would’ve had a chance.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Unlikely imo. False reliance on testing has created more issues than it helped. Look at Taiwan (another small island nation). They don't bother testing. If you are sick, it's assumed you have COVID and you quarantine for two weeks. Much smarter and safer imo. I disagree, and think small island nations do have much better chances. Otherwise we'd probably have great success stories in places like Andorra, Armenia, and Vatican City. I'm sure island countries to be more self reliant, with fewer major transport hubs that can be locked down.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Vatican City is not a near-island like the US, tho. It’s a micro state with massive travel to/from the rest of Italy (which was hit early). Taiwan had high mask usage early on. That would’ve helped a lot in the US. Testing was very successful, actually, in places like Singapore. Didn’t help that there was official discouragement of wearing masks followed by culture-war mask avoidance in the US.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  I don’t think the ‘island’ part is the important bit, but the ‘small’ might be. Hawaii and the the UK are examples of islands that haven’t done that well.

nyokodo 6y ago

There was a lot of luck too. Not being a major travel hub meant the virus hadn’t become widespread. The New Zealand government dragged its feet at first and clamped down just in time to prevent a much worse outbreak. If they had waited a few more days the cases likely would have gone exponentially vertical, possibly made it into more vulnerable populations and the death toll would have then increased considerably. I’m very grateful for the luck!

jashmatthews 6y ago
NZ has extremely high international air traffic. With 11M international passengers per year Auckland airport is comparable with the big US airports like SFO with 13.8M international. Even kiwis often don’t realize just how busy Auckland airport is!
- lostlogin 6y ago
  Those who had planes flying over our homes know. The various trials the airport conducted with low A380s and other large plane were a nightmare. We aren’t in a typical flight path, but various trials put us in one. I’m not sorry to see that cease.
- nyokodo 6y ago
  > NZ has extremely high international air traffic. Maybe per capita but not per se. The US had 241 million international air passengers in 2019[1]. The UK had >160 million[2]. The US has two land borders with significant traffic and the UK had 21.5 million Chunnel passengers in 2019[3]. The volume of passenger shipping is also vastly higher in both countries. NZ also has almost no illegal border crossings. NZ has a much smaller risk profile than these and many other countries. And this is born out by events. By the time the world became aware of what was happening the virus had already been spreading in Europe and the US for months. While it had been introduced to NZ it was still in much earlier stages. [1] https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/final-full-year-2019-traffic-data-us-airlines-and-foreign-airlines https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/final-full-year-2019-traffic-da... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/303654/number-of-arriving-and-departing-passengers-in-united-kingdom-airports/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/303654/number-of-arrivin... [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304968/number-of-passengers-travelling-on-the-eurostar-and-le-shuttle-in-the-united-kingdom/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/304968/number-of-passeng...
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Keep in mind that NZ is less than a tenth the population of the UK and less than a 60th of USAs. And those figures are for the country, not a city. The point made that Auckland has a lot of travellers. It is true that in absolute terms NZ has small trade and travel relative to the UK and US, but those factors are far from being the only reasons that NZ has suffered less death and destruction. It’s more that the UK and US have done poorly.
    - nyokodo 6y ago
      > Keep in mind that NZ is less than a tenth the population of the UK and less than a 60th of USAs. Yes, hence my "per capita" comment. The risk of infection getting into a country is more of a function of how much total traffic it gets rather than the per-capita traffic. > And those figures are for the country, not a city. Auckland Airport represents the vast majority of all international traffic into New Zealand, and not just flights. > The point made that Auckland has a lot of travellers. Not by absolute number which is what matters most for how easy it is for a virus to find its way in and get established domestically. > It’s more that the UK and US have done poorly. This is an important point and I do not belittle it at all. My point isn't to defend the USA and the UK but to point out that the difficulty of NZ's response was enormously easier both absolutely and relatively given the nature of NZ's geography and the fact that the local epidemic had barely started by the lockdowns. NZ has a lot to be proud of in its response, but no reason to be smug.

darkerside 6y ago

Being a small island country certainly played a role, no? Not to take anything away from your impressively functional government.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Being small kind of a bigger deal than being an island. Air travel doesn’t care much if you’re an island or not. The US is practically an island in many senses except for Mexico and Canada, but the virus didn’t come over land, it came over air in multiple places, especially from folks going on Alpine ski trips. If we had shut down air travel early on globally (not just China...) and pursued a vigorous in-country test and trace program, we would’ve had a chance.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Unlikely imo. False reliance on testing has created more issues than it helped. Look at Taiwan (another small island nation). They don't bother testing. If you are sick, it's assumed you have COVID and you quarantine for two weeks. Much smarter and safer imo. I disagree, and think small island nations do have much better chances. Otherwise we'd probably have great success stories in places like Andorra, Armenia, and Vatican City. I'm sure island countries to be more self reliant, with fewer major transport hubs that can be locked down.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Vatican City is not a near-island like the US, tho. It’s a micro state with massive travel to/from the rest of Italy (which was hit early). Taiwan had high mask usage early on. That would’ve helped a lot in the US. Testing was very successful, actually, in places like Singapore. Didn’t help that there was official discouragement of wearing masks followed by culture-war mask avoidance in the US.
lostlogin 6y ago
I don’t think the ‘island’ part is the important bit, but the ‘small’ might be. Hawaii and the the UK are examples of islands that haven’t done that well.