Live data from Hacker News

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

thetyee.ca

201–210 of 248 posts

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

#201
post #164
post #82

As a citizen of New Zealand I believe a short, sharp lock-down combined with test & contact trace is the only route to zero. I think that this option is far far better than being in "half measures" restrictions for very long periods of time. When a country announces their lock-down measures I feel excited for their populace that they might finally be heading to zero. Then I read the holes in the measures: - Resturant…

Kudos to New Zealand, but I'll restate the obvious here: for this strategy it really helps if you're an island - not only with the initial implementation of the strategy, but also with staying virus-free once you reach that state. Because in NZ everyone who enters the country is registered and can be forced to follow the quarantine rules. By contrast, in the EU, we have land borders without border checks. Sure, peopl…

"By contrast, in the EU, we have land borders without border checks."

That's the thing you change.

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

#202
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kudos to New Zealand, but I'll restate the obvious here: for this strategy it really helps if you're an island - not only with the initial implementation of the strategy, but also with staying virus-free once you reach that state. Because in NZ everyone who enters the country is registered and can be forced to follow the quarantine rules. By contrast, in the EU, we have land borders without border checks. Sure, peopl…

Should not be much of a problem in US with only 2 land borders.

Because the US has had so much success securing its southern border, and because taking the necessary actions to truly close it wouldn't be a total political shitstorm.

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

#203
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, agreed. It’s embarrassing for the UK... my point was that there is no example of a western, liberal country not being an island that was able to reach zero Covid. It’s just way easier as an island state.

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…

Nonsense? New Zealand has 5 million people, Australia has 25 million. That's, what, London and Paris metro areas?

Europe has a lot more people living in much less space and much more integrated than isolated places with so much land like New Zealand and Australia.

> 2-week quarantine for all foreign approvals

This would grind EU to a halt. Tourism alone results in 750 million international tourists visiting EU a year. Counting travels of EU citizens between EU countries would result in billions.

Sure, island countries the population size of Croatia and Romania maybe can isolate. EU as a whole? Pfff

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

#204
post #164
post #82

As a citizen of New Zealand I believe a short, sharp lock-down combined with test & contact trace is the only route to zero. I think that this option is far far better than being in "half measures" restrictions for very long periods of time. When a country announces their lock-down measures I feel excited for their populace that they might finally be heading to zero. Then I read the holes in the measures: - Resturant…

Kudos to New Zealand, but I'll restate the obvious here: for this strategy it really helps if you're an island - not only with the initial implementation of the strategy, but also with staying virus-free once you reach that state. Because in NZ everyone who enters the country is registered and can be forced to follow the quarantine rules. By contrast, in the EU, we have land borders without border checks. Sure, peopl…

I wonder why the eu didn't suspend the free movement over covid Australia's states did that and it worked out pretty well.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I'd hope there was some acceptable measure you could get through the courts here in the name of health. Interstate commerce clause is going to be nearly impossible to subvert in courts, much less state autonomy, and non-cooperating governors (primarily Republican, I'm sure, but Gov. Polis likely wouldn't go for it either). >> Talk about the issues, not some made up catch all names like "libertarian" My comment was…

We Americans are experts on what can't be done. Things that are routinely done in many places around the world, like universal healthcare, free education, and schools without shootings, are routinely declared "impossible" in America. Whenever you suggest even the slightest societal behavioral change to fight some public problem, you have hundreds of thousands of people simply dismissing it because "Americans won't do…

When it comes to scientific and technical achievements, the United States is still leading the remainder of the world and has for an entire century. When it comes to societal change, we're (still) pretty bad. It's almost like they might be related phenomenons.

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

#206
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality." With current virus, that could change with each mutation.

Viruses generally change to be less deadly and more transmissible. The “new variant” is just more transmissible. It doesn’t make sense to argue “oh what if this virus magically evolves to hurt children”. You need to propose a theoretical mechanism of action. Otherwise spend your time worrying about flu and tuberculosis which kill far more children than COVID-19.

And it infects children more easily.

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

#207
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality." With current virus, that could change with each mutation.

We cannot indefinitely implement totalitarian lockdowns based on the fact that something "might" happen. No joke, that is how dictatorships start.

Some things are more likely than others.

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

#209
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"who have essentially zero risk of COVID-19 mortality." With current virus, that could change with each mutation.

A lot of things COULD happen. For example, a meteor could hit the earth and wipe out all life. Therefore we should pour ALL resources into space exploration, not medicine.

Compare the probabilities.

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

#210
post #192

This author appears to be completely unaware that, in the US anyway, the progress of the pandemic has been completely and totally disconnected from all control measures. San Francisco, where I'm told (and believe, based on having lived there) that they had very strict lockdown measures: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/coronavirus.asp * Population: ~900,000 * Total Cases: 31,111 (3,457 / 100k) * Total Deaths: 324 (36…

Nowhere in the US has really had harsh lockdown measures.

SF also has density issues that will drive up the r0 of the virus. While the widely quoted r0 of the virus is around 3.0, the r0 in NYC at the start of the outbreak was estimated to be 5.0

(You could argue about if that was really the r(t) and not r0, but I'm not considering time-dependence or the reaction to the virus, but the actual starting reproduction number in NYC before there was any human reaction to the virus -- that isn't a constant value but depends on the local conditions).

Austin has an overall 3,000 people per square mile density, SF has an overall 18,000 people per square mile (and some areas are even more dense than that).

Post reply on HN