3 ms·

Thanks for your concern. Our lockdowns might be the most restrictive, but that makes them the most effective. So I'm not too worried about that. I'd prefer a s

Thanks for your concern. Our lockdowns might be the most restrictive, but that makes them the most effective. So I'm not too worried about that. I'd prefer a short sharp lockdown and then total freedom (within the borders) over the lingering fear that appears to be happening overseas. Personally I'm happy to be winning another few months or a year free of Delta by staying at home for a while. If there was no official lockdown I would still want to stay at home.

dehrmann 5y ago
I'm not sure how long these tactics will work, though. Australia tried, but once covid got a foothold, it's in, and they're past the point of lockdowns stopping it. There also comes a point where New Zealand will either have to accept the risk of covid or continue with a North Korea level of border isolation. The political endgame is pretty messy because opening the borders will introduce covid and people will die--not a lot, but probably more than the entire pandemic for the country.
- shaoonb 5y ago
  Australia tried, but not as hard as New Zealand.
- gridspy 5y ago
  "past the point of lockdowns stopping it" You are never past the point of lockdowns stopping it. It just takes 14 days of strict lockdowns and all the people who are currently infected without knowing it have progressed to either known or recovered. Then you just do some testing and contact tracing (while remaining in lockdown) to mop up the rest of your infected population. This applies to any infected population. Note that most lockdowns define "essential" too widely - beyond just supermarkets, doctors & hospitals.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    > It just takes 14 days of strict lockdowns... The problem is you need to keep utilities running and hospitals open. Then there are slightly less strict lockdowns where people can get limited exercise outdoors, buy groceries, and food production continues. NSW tried this, and it's failing. I suspect it's a combination of delta is too contagious for lockdowns to work in practice, too many people will violate them, 14 days doesn't account for asymptomatic household spread, and 14 days is more like p95 than p999.
    - gridspy 5y ago
      That's why you can't come out of lockdowns after just 14 days. At this point you can really start mopping up with contact tracing and so forth. A further 14 days and any regions with no cases are safe to exit lockdown, as long as you have good border controls. But I imagine that if your hospitals are flooded with patients and Covid is rocking your area, you need those initial 14 days just to reduce the caseload to the point where you can test and contact trace again. That's all it takes to get back from "impossible to eliminate" to "we just need to stamp this out now"

dehrmann 5y ago

I'm not sure how long these tactics will work, though. Australia tried, but once covid got a foothold, it's in, and they're past the point of lockdowns stopping it. There also comes a point where New Zealand will either have to accept the risk of covid or continue with a North Korea level of border isolation. The political endgame is pretty messy because opening the borders will introduce covid and people will die--not a lot, but probably more than the entire pandemic for the country.

shaoonb 5y ago
Australia tried, but not as hard as New Zealand.
gridspy 5y ago
"past the point of lockdowns stopping it" You are never past the point of lockdowns stopping it. It just takes 14 days of strict lockdowns and all the people who are currently infected without knowing it have progressed to either known or recovered. Then you just do some testing and contact tracing (while remaining in lockdown) to mop up the rest of your infected population. This applies to any infected population. Note that most lockdowns define "essential" too widely - beyond just supermarkets, doctors & hospitals.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > It just takes 14 days of strict lockdowns... The problem is you need to keep utilities running and hospitals open. Then there are slightly less strict lockdowns where people can get limited exercise outdoors, buy groceries, and food production continues. NSW tried this, and it's failing. I suspect it's a combination of delta is too contagious for lockdowns to work in practice, too many people will violate them, 14 days doesn't account for asymptomatic household spread, and 14 days is more like p95 than p999.
  - gridspy 5y ago
    That's why you can't come out of lockdowns after just 14 days. At this point you can really start mopping up with contact tracing and so forth. A further 14 days and any regions with no cases are safe to exit lockdown, as long as you have good border controls. But I imagine that if your hospitals are flooded with patients and Covid is rocking your area, you need those initial 14 days just to reduce the caseload to the point where you can test and contact trace again. That's all it takes to get back from "impossible to eliminate" to "we just need to stamp this out now"