Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

thetyee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 248 posts

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#151

Post by josephg »

baxtr wrote: post #79
threeseed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This island nonsense needs to stop. All of the European countries were able to implement border controls as the Schengen Borders Code permits. They easily could have had a mandatory 2-week quarantine for all foreign approvals and had a similar result to Australia and New Zealand. They chose instead to mimic themselves after Sweden and opted to contain rather than eliminate the virus. Even now Macron refuses to impose…

I am just referring to facts here. I am sorry if you don’t like them. There is no western country not being an island that has zero COVID. It’s a fact don’t you agree? If you agree we can now discuss if this is just a coincidence or if it has something to do with political realities

There's also no western nation that tried NZ/Aus's "go early, go hard" policy of lockdowns and didn't reach 0 local cases.

Maybe the real difference is that we're an island. But much more likely is our different public policies. And if you need evidence, the UK is an island (like Aus/NZ) with policies more like the US and - surprise! They have case numbers more similar to the US than similar to Aus/NZ.

If you really think the island / continent thing is relevant, I'm excited to hear the story of why the US's covid disaster is somehow actually canada and mexico's fault.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#152

Post by gridspy »

mkl wrote: post #138
icelancer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vietnam banned international inbound travel without a 14-day quarantine and extinguished local transmission via test and trace. These are both very good ideas and both impractical for the United States. The former is a logistical nightmare in a collection of states that basically is not possible to carry out due to our incompetent government and the scale of international travel in the US being several orders of magn…

The distrust of government is a major obstacle. In NZ we have a government that took a science-based and very transparent approach, and is pretty well trusted (it helped that opposition parties mostly agreed with the measures). The government basically said "Here is the situation. Here is what we need to do to fix it. Because of that, here's the rules. And here's how we'll help." And most of the population just went…

I believe the uniform nationwide response, free tests and healthcare and the rapid 80% wage subsidy were a huge part of this.

Apart from sectors like tourism, there wasn't anyone who truly felt "screwed over" by arbitrary rules.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#153

Post by gridspy »

MattGaiser wrote: post #30

The author never says it and probably because he knows the reaction it would cause. "Decisive" lockdown at this point would likely be a troops patrolling the street type of event with extreme restrictions on leaving one's home. I don't see that being anywhere near politically acceptable in many areas of the country.

You only need troops on the street in areas where there is so much unrest that neighbors can't keep "bad actors" in check.

I imagine this only being in the heart of cities.

The lack of traffic leads to a reduction in crime generally, freeing up police oversight required to keep a lid on that.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#154

Post by josephg »

ahepp wrote: post #131

Last spring, we were flattening the curve. Last summer, we were waiting for a vaccine. Last fall, we were solving the logistical challenges for production. Now I'm starting to see headlines that "just because there's a vaccine, doesn't mean it's over"? I'm 25. I've spent the last year in a small apartment alone with my dog. If the problem is that we didn't lock down well enough the first time, why should I believe a…

The problem is that if 80% of the population do their civic duty and stay home while the remaining 20% carry on with life as usual - go to bars and sporting events, protest, and so on then the numbers won't come down. The reality of covid is that a few selfish people can easily ruin the hard work of everyone else.

Here in Australia we tried asking people who were infected to just quarantine in their own homes. Eventually the police went around and started doing spot checks, and found that a bunch of people who had known positive covid tests had gone in to work! No no no - you need strict enforcement to go along with lockdown rules or it just doesn't seem to work.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#155

Post by gridspy »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #115

I can't find it right now, of course, but somebody -- I think it was Tom Scott -- had a decent video early on in the pandemic that said, "as a pandemic gets bigger, it gets more weird." Coronaviruses mutate, and every single infected human becomes a petri dish for new mutations. The rest is straightforward natural selection: the most efficient covid-19 variants will win. We might get lucky; the most efficient variant…

We also don't know the true percentage of infected who actually do recover 100% with no long-term issues.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#156

Post by josephg »

icelancer wrote: post #102
kiba wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If it means I can actually go to the gym and workout, meet my friends, etc. I am tired of wearing the god damn masks, having to worry about my elderly parents, Are you tired of the god damn pandemic? I know I am. Because we already have no freedom.

>> Yes. If it means I can actually go to the gym and workout, meet my friends, etc. It doesn't. No amount of hiding temporarily solves the problem. Authoritarian rules would be in effect until immunity rates are above herd thresholds at a minimum. There is no "one month" shutdown in the US or a connected EU country that solves the problem permanently unless you ban international travelers / force them to quarantine f…

> unless you ban international travelers / force them to quarantine for 14 days in a hotel.

Thats the sticking point for you? Who cares about international travellers. They can wait, and visit when covid is over.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#157

Post by josephg »

icelancer wrote: post #105
josephg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because she's not an island, Canada can still close her borders. I'm sure it'll be inconvenient, but short and sharp beats long and drawn out.

>> Canada can still close her borders This was already done and the infection rates are still sky high.

With closed borders, Canada is basically an island like Australia, NZ and the UK.

Lots of posters here seem convinced that being an island makes it easy to control covid. If thats the most important factor, I'd love to hear some theories on why the numbers in canada aren't coming down to 0, like they have in Australia and NZ?

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#158

Post by mewse »

sto_hristo wrote: post #149
threeseed wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. 71% of Australians live in a handful of cities each of which has very high density relative to the rest of the world. 2. Lockdowns occurred during winter. 3. Australia has effectively eliminated COVID-19 and by having so few cases it allows for targeted lockdowns to work over the long-term e.g. Perth just had 1 case today and is having a short 5-day lockdown - their first in 10 months.

High density, you say. Relative to the rest of the world, you say. Sidney - 423/km2 Melbourne - 508/km2 Brisbane - 155/km2 Paris - 20,000/km2 Berlin - 4,206/km2 London - 5,666/km2 NYC - 27,755/km2 You are effectively out of touch with reality. edit: NYC - 27,755/km2 to NYC - 10,716/km2 (27,755 is in mi2 units) sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney https://en.wikipedia.or…

What’s your source? What geographic region are you counting as “Melbourne”, for example?

If we’re talking just about Melbourne’s CBD (which might be a sensible thing to do seeing as we’re talking about people being clustered in the cities and not about the surrounding suburbs, national parks, and rural areas which presumably are included in your “Melbourne” number), then the actual number for Melbourne is around 19,000 people/km2 [1], which is at least in the ballpark of the numbers you’ve given for other major cities. Although again, you don’t give enough details to know specifically what those numbers actually mean.

[1]: https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/theres-a-reas...

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#159

Post by Rebelgecko »

Shacklz wrote: post #66
jeofken wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark’s fur industry is old, but now also dead. Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products.

> Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products. Meat and dairy products feed humans, which is a necessity (that, in our day and age, may or may not be achieved by other means while still maintaining a healthy diet), while fur is a luxury product - by no means necessary. It isn't even a byproduct, the fur is the sole reasons the minks are killed. I can't even fathom how you can see…

Food is a necessity, but red meat is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (calories, protein, etc)

Clothing is a necessity, but fur is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (avoiding nudity when it would be considered immoral, staying warm in cold climates, etc)

What's the difference? Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes?

Maybe not relevant for mink vs cow farming, but in some situations I think killing animals for their fur is morally and environmentally superior to raising and killing animals for their meat. Louisiana nutria bounty program is a net positive for the native ecology, which I don't think could be said for most meat products.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#160

Post by jl6 »

plantain wrote: post #2

It won't happen, because there's no political incentive to do so. The citizens of these beleaguered countries seem quite happy with the government management thus far[1]. I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the UK response thus far and think - more of that please! [1] https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1355606835873669126

The UK response has been mediocre rather than awful.

* PPE sourcing has been poor.

* Track and trace has been poor, and for the money they spent should have been far better.

* Lockdowns have been too leaky, and too late.

* But the vaccination research and rollout has been excellent.

The high UK death toll is only partly due to the above mediocrities, and mainly due to factors that cannot be pinned on the government:

* A very highly internationally mobile population that seeded infections everywhere in the country.

* A very highly internally mobile population that spread infections everywhere in the country.

* A very high density population

* Little experience of pandemic management and limited pre-existing testing capacity

* No culture of mask wearing

* A higher than average aged population

* A higher than average obese population

* Higher percentage of ethnic minority individuals who have been more susceptible to the disease, even after adjusting for health and income inequalities.

* More northerly climate with colder temperatures and higher rates of vitamin D deficiency

* Lower public tolerance for restrictions on movement

* Insufficient police numbers to enforce lockdown policies

No SINGLE cause from the lists above explain the UK's high death rate. It's a perfect storm of all of them.

Post reply on HN