5 ms·

> but a downside of isolation turns out to have been that, now we are effectively Covid free here in Melbourne, hospitals are filling up due to (sometimes serio

> but a downside of isolation turns out to have been that, now we are effectively Covid free here in Melbourne, hospitals are filling up due to (sometimes serious) other diseases, including cancer, that people left untreated during the various lockdowns. This could really use some additional context for non-Australians. Melbourne is the largest city in Victoria. The Premier of Victoria enacted interregional border closures during its several months-long lockdown. (This wasn’t unique to Victoria — Western Australia did the same thing at the start of the pandemic.) If hospitals are “filling up” now, that could be at least in part due to the logistics previously not allowing it. However, as someone who avoided getting stitches for a finger laceration due to fears of catching Covid in a medical facility, I’m convinced people avoided necessary medical procedures to reduce exposure risk primarily. Hence I’m not sure how much of this surge in delayed medical procedures is due to interregional border closures, and how much of it is due to the public’s fears of catching Covid having been assuaged by the successful Covid safety measures taken by the Victorian state government. Lockdowns have become one of the most politicized aspects of the pandemic. It’s really a shame they’re so unpopular amongst Americans: I think many there would happily subject themselves to 4 months of hard lockdown — in unison with generous unemployment support ofc — if it meant eradicating Covid completely in their local area.

Mediterraneo10 5y ago
Resistance to the COVID approach you admire extends beyond the USA to also many in UK and Europe. The problem is that even if a hard lockdown works and COVID is completely eradicated in one’s local area, that means that the borders have to stay closed lest new cases be imported. But many people have families or lovers across borders, they might even commute or do common shopping cross-border, and the lower and middle classes cannot afford the expensive hotel quarantine required. Tourism-based economies need travelers bringing all that money in. (One might think that borders would only have to stay closed until local vaccination has been rolled out. However, several of the scientific advisors recommending the "zero COVID" approach à la Oz and NZ, also want borders closed – except for strict hotel quarantine – for some years into the future to prevent variants from arising, or even in perpetuity to prevent the next pandemic from ever starting.)
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  I’ve never heard of this idea that borders are supposed to stay locked shut indefinitely, and the facts suggest otherwise: the international border between Australia and NZ has reopened, there is no quarantine for international travel between our countries.
  - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    In the case of Australia and New Zealand, travel has reopened only because both of those two countries managed a successful early lockdown and adopted a "zero COVID" approach. But since most countries in the world did not, those living in the "zero COVID" countries would be prevented from freely traveling to all those countries to see loved ones. With regard to the proposal that borders stay closed – except for strict hotel quarantine – until some indefinite date a few years from now when COVID has been eradicated not just locally but worldwide and there is no more threat of variants, see, for example, the interviews which Devi Sridhar (one of the main advisors to the Scottish government and a fan of Australia’s approach) gave over the last several months.
    - Mandatum 5y ago
      > those living in the "zero COVID" countries would be prevented from freely traveling to all those countries to see loved ones Not true. There's repatriate flights weekly out of both NZ and AU. You just have to quarantine coming back in. There's a process for approval, but it's fairy straightforward. If you can afford a ticket and the destination country will take you, you can go. The hard part is - most countries or connecting countries if you can't fly direct require 2 week quarantine or limit people entering. ANY inter-country travel is a bureaucratic nightmare.
      - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
        > There's repatriate flights weekly out of both NZ and AU. What if you are not taking a "repatriate flight", but rather you are simply an Australia citizen who wishes to travel abroad e.g. to see family or be with a lover? My understanding is that Australia has forbidden its own citizens from freely leaving the country over the last year. And having to do a strict hotel quarantine upon reentering definitely does not qualify as being able to freely travel, and as I said in my original post above, many people would not stand for it. Most European countries that require quarantine, for example, allow one to do it at home and it is easily gamed.
tinyhouse 5y ago
It's not a shame at all. Lockdowns have a price. Besides the economic price, I care mostly about the well being of people price. I live in Massachusetts in an area where most people follow the guidelines about social distancing and masks. We had zero full lockdowns but we did have a stay at home advisory when it all started. During that time only essential businesses were open but people were free to go outside. Also, pretty much everyone besides essential workers moved to WFH and still are. Some schools had hybrid options and some were fully remote. This month almost all schools went back to fully in person after the governor of the state forced them to. Overall I feel we managed the pandemic fine so far without lockdowns. Sure, people died and I'm sure in much larger numbers than Australia. But if we ever need to experience something like this again, I would still prefer this over strict lockdowns after a few new cases like in AU. I'm not against strict lockdowns, there might be times when they are a good solution, but nothing longer than a couple of weeks.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  When you talk about the cost of lockdown, I suspect you don’t understand the deal. My experience of Covid, which is the same for almost everyone in Australia, is nothing remotely like yours. For the vast majority of people living here, Covid is a minor inconvenience that doesn’t materially affect our day to day life. I meet friends at bars for drinks and dinner, my kids take public transport to school and go on school camps, I go to the office for work, and I’m even flying to Sydney this afternoon for a couple of days. Australia is basically operating normally with almost no restrictions. Situation normal. You seem to be saying that lockdown was too heavy a price to pay for the freedom I now enjoy, but I respectfully disagree. It was totally worth it. The only thing that I’m unhappy about was that Melbourne stuffed it up the first time and we paid heavily for that. But you know what? Still worth it.
  - tinyhouse 5y ago
    Well, my life here is pretty much back to normal too. But primarily thanks to the vaccines. My question is how many lockdowns you had and the length of each lockdown to achieve the normal life you're having now. I'm really asking as I don't know the details.
aaron_m04 5y ago
> It’s really a shame they’re so unpopular amongst Americans: I think many there would happily subject themselves to 4 months of hard lockdown — in unison with generous unemployment support ofc The unemployment support was missing/inadequate. Had it been adequate, I doubt we'd have had over half a million deaths from this.
artificial 5y ago
America has poor control of its international borders and would be unconstitutional, not just unpopular, to lock down with a right of freedom of movement from state to state.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  I haven’t seen anyone talk about this, but I honestly believe that the fact that voting is mandatory in Australia contributed significantly to the legitimacy of government management of the virus. More than half of the eligible voters in each state voted (either directly or indirectly through preference based instant runoff voting) for their government. This is significantly higher political participation than almost any other country in the world, and I’m sure it contributed to the outcome.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  100% true. America does not have the luxury of Japan or Australia or New Zealand. Our border is very porous — just look at the whole “build the Wall” movement, and how laughably ineffective it was. The pandemic could never have been kept to 0 in America with its porous southern border.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    The US has pretty much only two borders, as big oceans make for really good natural barriers. If you want to see "porous borders" you only need to look at Africa, Asia or Europe, all of which can be walked in-between. Walking from the ME to America? Not gonna happen. Crossing the Mediterranean is very doable with limited resources while crossing the Atlantic/Pacific with the same resources would be impossible.
- atweiden 5y ago
  > America has poor control of its international borders and would be unconstitutional, not just unpopular, to lock down with a right of freedom of movement from state to state. It was also arguably “unconstitutional” [1] for Australian states to close their borders with one another over the pandemic. Business magnate Clive Palmer sued Western Australia over its border closures, in fact, and even received backing from the Australian federal government [2]. Particularly in light of the patchwork framework surrounding state-mandated church closures in the US, the difference between Australia and the United States as it pertains to interstate border closures seems to be more a matter of cultural expectation, than legal impossibility. But IANAL. US airports are highly controllable ports of entry. I think a lot more could’ve been done there had the population willed hard border closures into existence. [1]: https://auspublaw.org/2020/08/border-closures-and-s-92-clive-palmers-quest-to-enter-wa/ https://auspublaw.org/2020/08/border-closures-and-s-92-clive... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/02/federal-government-pulls-out-of-clive-palmer-legal-challenge-to-coronavirus-state-border-closure https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/02/feder...
doctor_eval 5y ago
Yeah I agree that I should have chosen my words more carefully. It wasn't isolation that prevented people from getting medical treatment (you definitely could, and people did), but many related reasons: fear of contagion, a desire not to burden the front line people, lack of access (public transport restrictions), procedural changes (not allowed to have someone with you), etc. So I don't think the current situation is a result of iso but rather a result of Covid, and the fact that we are no longer fearful of it.

Mediterraneo10 5y ago

Resistance to the COVID approach you admire extends beyond the USA to also many in UK and Europe. The problem is that even if a hard lockdown works and COVID is completely eradicated in one’s local area, that means that the borders have to stay closed lest new cases be imported. But many people have families or lovers across borders, they might even commute or do common shopping cross-border, and the lower and middle classes cannot afford the expensive hotel quarantine required. Tourism-based economies need travelers bringing all that money in. (One might think that borders would only have to stay closed until local vaccination has been rolled out. However, several of the scientific advisors recommending the "zero COVID" approach à la Oz and NZ, also want borders closed – except for strict hotel quarantine – for some years into the future to prevent variants from arising, or even in perpetuity to prevent the next pandemic from ever starting.)

doctor_eval 5y ago
I’ve never heard of this idea that borders are supposed to stay locked shut indefinitely, and the facts suggest otherwise: the international border between Australia and NZ has reopened, there is no quarantine for international travel between our countries.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  In the case of Australia and New Zealand, travel has reopened only because both of those two countries managed a successful early lockdown and adopted a "zero COVID" approach. But since most countries in the world did not, those living in the "zero COVID" countries would be prevented from freely traveling to all those countries to see loved ones. With regard to the proposal that borders stay closed – except for strict hotel quarantine – until some indefinite date a few years from now when COVID has been eradicated not just locally but worldwide and there is no more threat of variants, see, for example, the interviews which Devi Sridhar (one of the main advisors to the Scottish government and a fan of Australia’s approach) gave over the last several months.
  - Mandatum 5y ago
    > those living in the "zero COVID" countries would be prevented from freely traveling to all those countries to see loved ones Not true. There's repatriate flights weekly out of both NZ and AU. You just have to quarantine coming back in. There's a process for approval, but it's fairy straightforward. If you can afford a ticket and the destination country will take you, you can go. The hard part is - most countries or connecting countries if you can't fly direct require 2 week quarantine or limit people entering. ANY inter-country travel is a bureaucratic nightmare.
    - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
      > There's repatriate flights weekly out of both NZ and AU. What if you are not taking a "repatriate flight", but rather you are simply an Australia citizen who wishes to travel abroad e.g. to see family or be with a lover? My understanding is that Australia has forbidden its own citizens from freely leaving the country over the last year. And having to do a strict hotel quarantine upon reentering definitely does not qualify as being able to freely travel, and as I said in my original post above, many people would not stand for it. Most European countries that require quarantine, for example, allow one to do it at home and it is easily gamed.

tinyhouse 5y ago

It's not a shame at all. Lockdowns have a price. Besides the economic price, I care mostly about the well being of people price. I live in Massachusetts in an area where most people follow the guidelines about social distancing and masks. We had zero full lockdowns but we did have a stay at home advisory when it all started. During that time only essential businesses were open but people were free to go outside. Also, pretty much everyone besides essential workers moved to WFH and still are. Some schools had hybrid options and some were fully remote. This month almost all schools went back to fully in person after the governor of the state forced them to. Overall I feel we managed the pandemic fine so far without lockdowns. Sure, people died and I'm sure in much larger numbers than Australia. But if we ever need to experience something like this again, I would still prefer this over strict lockdowns after a few new cases like in AU. I'm not against strict lockdowns, there might be times when they are a good solution, but nothing longer than a couple of weeks.

doctor_eval 5y ago
When you talk about the cost of lockdown, I suspect you don’t understand the deal. My experience of Covid, which is the same for almost everyone in Australia, is nothing remotely like yours. For the vast majority of people living here, Covid is a minor inconvenience that doesn’t materially affect our day to day life. I meet friends at bars for drinks and dinner, my kids take public transport to school and go on school camps, I go to the office for work, and I’m even flying to Sydney this afternoon for a couple of days. Australia is basically operating normally with almost no restrictions. Situation normal. You seem to be saying that lockdown was too heavy a price to pay for the freedom I now enjoy, but I respectfully disagree. It was totally worth it. The only thing that I’m unhappy about was that Melbourne stuffed it up the first time and we paid heavily for that. But you know what? Still worth it.
- tinyhouse 5y ago
  Well, my life here is pretty much back to normal too. But primarily thanks to the vaccines. My question is how many lockdowns you had and the length of each lockdown to achieve the normal life you're having now. I'm really asking as I don't know the details.

aaron_m04 5y ago

> It’s really a shame they’re so unpopular amongst Americans: I think many there would happily subject themselves to 4 months of hard lockdown — in unison with generous unemployment support ofc The unemployment support was missing/inadequate. Had it been adequate, I doubt we'd have had over half a million deaths from this.

artificial 5y ago

America has poor control of its international borders and would be unconstitutional, not just unpopular, to lock down with a right of freedom of movement from state to state.

doctor_eval 5y ago
I haven’t seen anyone talk about this, but I honestly believe that the fact that voting is mandatory in Australia contributed significantly to the legitimacy of government management of the virus. More than half of the eligible voters in each state voted (either directly or indirectly through preference based instant runoff voting) for their government. This is significantly higher political participation than almost any other country in the world, and I’m sure it contributed to the outcome.
thehappypm 5y ago
100% true. America does not have the luxury of Japan or Australia or New Zealand. Our border is very porous — just look at the whole “build the Wall” movement, and how laughably ineffective it was. The pandemic could never have been kept to 0 in America with its porous southern border.
- freeflight 5y ago
  The US has pretty much only two borders, as big oceans make for really good natural barriers. If you want to see "porous borders" you only need to look at Africa, Asia or Europe, all of which can be walked in-between. Walking from the ME to America? Not gonna happen. Crossing the Mediterranean is very doable with limited resources while crossing the Atlantic/Pacific with the same resources would be impossible.
atweiden 5y ago
> America has poor control of its international borders and would be unconstitutional, not just unpopular, to lock down with a right of freedom of movement from state to state. It was also arguably “unconstitutional” [1] for Australian states to close their borders with one another over the pandemic. Business magnate Clive Palmer sued Western Australia over its border closures, in fact, and even received backing from the Australian federal government [2]. Particularly in light of the patchwork framework surrounding state-mandated church closures in the US, the difference between Australia and the United States as it pertains to interstate border closures seems to be more a matter of cultural expectation, than legal impossibility. But IANAL. US airports are highly controllable ports of entry. I think a lot more could’ve been done there had the population willed hard border closures into existence. [1]: https://auspublaw.org/2020/08/border-closures-and-s-92-clive-palmers-quest-to-enter-wa/ https://auspublaw.org/2020/08/border-closures-and-s-92-clive... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/02/federal-government-pulls-out-of-clive-palmer-legal-challenge-to-coronavirus-state-border-closure https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/02/feder...

doctor_eval 5y ago

Yeah I agree that I should have chosen my words more carefully. It wasn't isolation that prevented people from getting medical treatment (you definitely could, and people did), but many related reasons: fear of contagion, a desire not to burden the front line people, lack of access (public transport restrictions), procedural changes (not allowed to have someone with you), etc. So I don't think the current situation is a result of iso but rather a result of Covid, and the fact that we are no longer fearful of it.