International COVID-19 Updates & Discussion 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
You have to be realistic about this the only lock down that would stop the virus in its tracks is impossible to implement .
No food or any thing moving including people , that is impossible to implement .
By the time the WHO and the rest of the world got their shyt together it was to late .

Agreed, it's not that lockdowns can't stop the virus, it's that they were not implemented properly or in a timely fashion. Basically every country in the world left gaping holes in their defense against the virus.
Even New Zealand embarrassingly got new infections because they did not make sure that people who are supposed to be in isolation weren't out gallivanting.

Closing the borders early on, testing/isolating everyone who had recently arrived in the country and tracing their contacts along with a general lockdown to prevent superspreading events would have quashed this thing pretty quickly, with minimal effort.

As soon as you loose track and it's out in the wild it becomes practically impossible to contain.

The unfortunate reality is that the fewer cases there are the less of a perceived threat there is, which was represented by the sloppy response (and the public's response) we saw all around the world at the most crucial stage of containment.
 
Last edited:

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
13,820
Agreed, it's not that lockdowns can't stop the virus, it's that they were not implemented properly or in a timely fashion. Basically every country in the world left gaping holes in their defense against the virus.
Even New Zealand embarrassingly got new infections because they did not make sure that people who are supposed to be in isolation weren't out gallivanting.

Closing the borders early on, testing/isolating everyone who had recently arrived in the country and tracing their contacts along with a general lockdown to prevent superspreading events would have quashed this thing pretty quickly, with minimal effort.

As soon as you loose track and it's out in the wild it becomes practically impossible to contain.

The unfortunate reality is that the fewer cases there are the less of a perceived threat there is, which was represented by the sloppy response (and the public's response) we saw all around the world at the most crucial stage of containment.

Due to the fact that many cases were asymptomatic, and carriers were infectious a day before they experience symptoms, the most simplistic lockdown would never work, unless in conjunction with a working track and trace program.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
Due to the fact that many cases were asymptomatic, and carriers were infectious a day before they experience symptoms, the most simplistic lockdown would never work, unless in conjunction with a working track and trace program.

Exactly. If our government had shut down incoming international traffic as soon as news hit from China (like millions of people were calling for) and allocated even a tiny fraction of what this mess ended up costing towards proper tracing when the first case appeared then the initial lockdown period would have been sufficient to root out every one of the few infections. But then again who ever expected them to be even the least bit competent in anything they do?

Meh... even then it would have come in through the corruption fueled nightmare that we call a land border.

Anyways, all I'm saying is just because governments either didn't have or didn't follow proper protocol doesn't mean that proper protocol doesn't work, it just means governments are fukking useless.
 

Nod

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
9,243
Lockdowns drastically reduce the transmission of the virus and if instated early on (and adhered to by the public) could easily have stopped the virus in it's tracks.
Might be true for countries who can afford to lock down.
Peru, as per an article in the twitter feed I shared, locked down early, but are one of hardest hit.
People simply could not afford to sit at home.
 

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,127
Agreed, it's not that lockdowns can't stop the virus, it's that they were not implemented properly or in a timely fashion. Basically every country in the world left gaping holes in their defense against the virus.
Even New Zealand embarrassingly got new infections because they did not make sure that people who are supposed to be in isolation weren't out gallivanting.

Closing the borders early on, testing/isolating everyone who had recently arrived in the country and tracing their contacts along with a general lockdown to prevent superspreading events would have quashed this thing pretty quickly, with minimal effort.

As soon as you loose track and it's out in the wild it becomes practically impossible to contain.

The unfortunate reality is that the fewer cases there are the less of a perceived threat there is, which was represented by the sloppy response (and the public's response) we saw all around the world at the most crucial stage of containment.
You can only prevent spread by locking down with severe diseases like ebola, where infectious person is showing severe symptoms (high fever etc). That's why ebola is fairly easy to track and limit, even in developing countries.

With covid, where 90% of infectious people are walking around, not even knowing they have it, it is impossible to stop the spread. That is also why temperature screening of arriving visitors (like in case of ebola)akes no sense.
You either close borders, towns, businesses, houses and food stores altogether, or you forget it.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
Might be true for countries who can afford to lock down.
Peru, as per an article in the twitter feed I shared, locked down early, but are one of hardest hit.
People simply could not afford to sit at home.

Well I'm sure it's costing them a lot more now... :(

Swift action might have cost a fair bit in the short run but it's nothing compared to the money wasted on this pandemic as it stands.

Of course that's always easy to say in hindsight. Still, everyone knew what was happening in China, for some reason (mostly denial or arrogance) they just thought it would never get to that stage in their own countries.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
You can only prevent spread by locking down with severe diseases like ebola, where infectious person is showing severe symptoms (high fever etc). That's why ebola is fairly easy to track and limit, even in developing countries.

With covid, where 90% of infectious people are walking around, not even knowing they have it, it is impossible to stop the spread. That is also why temperature screening of arriving visitors (like in case of ebola)akes no sense.
You either close borders, towns, businesses, houses and food stores altogether, or you forget it.

Exactly, which is what we did, but at the same time we didn't test anyone who entered the country but instead asked people nicely to self-isolate if they are showing symptoms while banning delivery services and.... ok... I'm gonna stop here instead of listing every retarded thing our government did to facilitate the spread the virus cause this would become a very long post.

I stand by my previous posts, government failing to execute a proper lockdown (that includes all the trace testing, regulations, public announcements etc) does not mean a proper lockdown (like what I described before) doesn't work.
The last thing I would ever say is that the shitshow we called a lockdown here in SA actually works. :X3:
 

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,127
Exactly, which is what we did, but at the same time we didn't test anyone who entered the country but instead asked people nicely to self-isolate if they are showing symptoms while banning delivery services and.... ok... I'm gonna stop here instead of listing every retarded thing our government did to facilitate the spread the virus cause this would become a very long post.

I stand by my previous posts, government failing to execute a proper lockdown (that includes all the trace testing, regulations, public announcements etc) does not mean a proper lockdown (like what I described before) doesn't work.
The last thing I would ever say is that the shitshow we called a lockdown here in SA actually works. :X3:
I agree, but only partially. Unless you test EVERYONE, or LOCK everyone, both of which are impossible, you cannot stop covid. There are people who have to work (police, doctors, firefighters, retail stores). There are also industries that support these people (transport, packaging etc). People have to go out and shop. There are FAR TOO MANY people milling around (social distancing and masks or not), that can come across other people (asymptomatic), bringing infection back home with them.

Lockdowns will slow infections down (extend it) but will not stop them . So yet again - lockdowns should only be used to control hospital occupancy, NOTHING ELSE.
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
I agree, but only partially. Unless you test EVERYONE, or LOCK everyone, both of which are impossible, you cannot stop covid. There are people who have to work (police, doctors, firefighters, retail stores). There are also industries that support these people (transport, packaging etc). People have to go out and shop. There are FAR TOO MANY people milling around (social distancing and masks or not), that can come a cross other people (asymptomatic), hence bringing the infection back home with them.

Lockdowns will slow infocstion down (extend it) bit will not stop or. So yet again - lockdowns should only be used to control hospital loads, NOTHING ELSE.

Yeah it's obviously far too late now to stop it and has been for a long time. Like I said, once you've lost track there's no going back. :cool:

I'm talking early days when we had a very high chance of success.

We should have closed the border far earlier and along with the 3 week lockdown should have tested every single person who had entered the country in the (then) past few weeks along with everyone they had contact with, and who those people had contact with (and I mean in a matter of days, not weeks).

We should have thrown considerable resources at this back when the first case was detected.

Also, instead of banning them during lockdown, we should have prioritized use of delivery services, subsidizing them to enable 'round the clock free deliveries where possible and even enlisted taxies to act as delivery vehicles.

Let's also remember the ones who were infected first were higher-income citizens who live in low population density areas, so much less likely to spread the virus to a large amount of people. This was a massive advantage.

Of course there was always the danger of the virus getting into high density areas where people might additionally not be following any of the lockdown regulations. But again, that's not the lockdown's fault, it's the fault of the people who would be breaking the law by not following the lockdown regulations.
For a lockdown to work it has to be well planned, well executed and have the support and cooperation of the public.

Saying lockdowns don't work based on what our government did (or any government for that matter) is like putting on a raincoat, getting shot and then saying "bullet proof vests don't work". :ROFL:
 

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,127
Interesting development in Sweden.

Opting for local lockdowns.


I guess the theories about Sweden had achieved herd immunity were wrong.
Not so much - terrible headlining once again
Authories could also ask people to stay away from public transport or avoid visiting elderly or at-risk groups. The rules would be offered as guidelines rather than requirements with the country continuing to avoid fines.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,376
But if they had herd immunity, why do they need these measures?

Did I miss something? When was it claimed that Sweden had already achieved herd immunity?

BTW how are you and your family doing?
 
Last edited:

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
19,382
Might be true for countries who can afford to lock down.
Peru, as per an article in the twitter feed I shared, locked down early, but are one of hardest hit.
People simply could not afford to sit at home.
No countries can afford an extended shutdown. But it probably wouldn't work anyway. People have to go out to get food and other supplies. People are still going to need doctors and dentists. If it is true that you can be infectious for while before showing any symptoms it is still going to spread, but maybe a bit slower.

Ultimately there is a huge cost - the economy, people's savings, children's education, people's mental health, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top