I’ve not really come out of lockdown since late February.
Once there was any community transmission on the continent i knew the jig was up, so we were pretty cloistered off about two weeks early.
State numbers look good but I’ve yet to substantially change my behavior since I started working from home. Big restocking food trips several weeks apart, no-contact outside activities only, etc.
We’ve only started doing any kind of outside-only-masks-except-when-eating limited contact with family in the last 3 weeks or so, and even that is fragile feeling.
Alternate explanation: you work from home (thus aren't forced out of the house) and you are entertained enough by HN and Reddit and Netflix and whatever you do to have no real desire to leave, and since you have any concern about the virus, you confuse your indoor shut-in lifestyle (which most of us have) as some positive premeditated rational character trait that everyone else lacks.
I'd wager that explains almost all of the self-congratulating I see online.
Or I'd really like to leave the house, go to concerts again, go to restaurants, work at my desk at the office where I can better keep life and work separate and have a great view of the mountains.
But I also know several fairly young people that have died with no comorbidities (as young as 38), and several others that have survived but are in a mental fog months later, and know the importance of staying in.
I'm not the person to whom you replied but my answer is: Sure, and I do, quite a lot, but it's not the same. I've deleted 12 different things from my calendar that my family was going to do between early March and now. A trip to see friends in another country, three baseball games (just the ones we'd bought in advance), two different conventions, and more.
That would probably describe me if I lived alone, but I have five kids and not being able to leave the house to even go to the local park has been terrible. But we do it anyway. It did force us to subscribe to Disney+ (the first time we have ever used a subscription or streaming service) just to get a bit of peace and sanity for part of the day.
Your comment comes across as overly hostile. Maybe it would be different if this was an in-person conversation, but over the Internet, hostility is the only tone I can assign to your calling the sacrifices the OP has made "self-congratulating".
Fair enough. Maybe it reads closer to my intention if you replace the "you"s with "we"s. I'm a shut-in HNer patting myself on the back for keeping the world safe without lifting a finger, I just had thought I met a fellow crusader.
Same. This article is quite negatively written like the author wants sympathy or something. 2020's a shit year for just about everyone, not that sure what else they're looking for. They should feel lucky that Australia got to squeeze in a few months of relatively normal life in between lockdowns.
I have seen an extremely concerning drop (plummet?) in empathy being shown for people over the course of the quarantine. Can we no longer hear that someone is having a bad time without telling them to shut up because it could be worse? It's literally always true that things could be worse, but telling that to people isn't exactly constructive.
As someone who is relatively introverted, and is very frequently asked to do things outside my comfort zone in order to be successful in life, I can’t help but roll my eyes a little when people are asked to stop being so extroverted for once in their life. I have pity for those losing jobs or being unable to put food on the table because of this, and their complaints are perfectly valid, but for those complaining that they miss being able to go to parties and hang out with friends... I can’t help but roll my eyes.
I'm an American living in Melbourne right now (and, I guess, for the foreseeable future) and I've been very impressed with the way the government here has been handling restrictions. They're really doing everything they can to impress the seriousness of this on the population, and of the paramount importance of saving lives.
When I chat with my friends and family in the US, I find myself quietly surprised when they mention things like travel or hanging out with friends. "Oh right, not everyone is locked down like we are." It's tough in some ways - my partner and I really miss hiking - but we're more than willing to keep this up until it's clear that we've contained the spread.
Something like hiking with your partner is such an astronomically low risk activity for contagion that its prohibition would frustrate me a lot. But I guess the way to justify it is that makes enforcement of actually contagious activity easier, since there are so few people in the street they can all be pulled over.
Everything is safe if no one else is doing it, I imagine the concern is that even hiking trails can get crowded. Not if you’re off in a super remote place, but if you’re near a big city and a large percentage of residents all want to go for a hike within 30 minutes of where they live on a Saturday morning, the trails will get crowded. There are bottlenecks like a narrow part of a trail or the public bathrooms where people will have to come into close proximity. And of course you will have people that will inevitably meet up with groups of friends they don’t live with on the hike and spread it that way.
If everyone were to hike as responsibly as possible it would be fine, but in terms of broad stroke rules for public health, it seems you have to err on the side of being more strict than you would be just for yourself because people are always bending the rules and acting unpredictably (whether intentionally or not).
Out of curiosity, why can’t you go hiking? That seems like one of the few activities where you can just about guarantee social distancing by going to more remote areas. Is it explicitly prohibited? If so, I have to question the logic behind that.
It’s pretty much because they don’t want people going more than 5km away from their houses so as to make enforcement easier.
Also, Melbourne is locked out from the rest of the state with police roadblocks due to low cases in the country and high cases in the city, so a lot of hiking spots are inaccessible.
Current lockdown rules restrict us to 5km radius from our homes.. so most likely they can't get to the hiking spots.
I'm in a similar situation. It sucks!
You can only exercise for 1 hour a day, and you must wear a mask everywhere outside and they have the police out in popular rural areas enforcing this.
I'm not sure if its allowed to drive 2 hours to walk for 1 hour or not. I doubt it.
A strict, short lockdown is far preferable to the five months so far of half assed containment that has failed to even reduce cases relative to the beginning of lockdown.
To make this work, there must be enforcement. From my observations, most spread is coming from people not following guidelines.
Hiking? That's more "social distancing" than staying in your apartment. Better for your health too. My wife and I have been hiking several times a week for the past couple of months. Weather is great!
Reminds me of the current situation with Canada. You can get into Canada on a plane. But you can't in a car. Which option seems more epidemiologically sound to you: a single dude in a car, or a can of sardines coughing and sneezing on one another for hours?
I once thought coronavirus is far away even with the level of mandatory lockdown we've endured, none of my family member were affected. Until a few days ago, a remote cousin of mine who was studying in NY died because of it, and it felt real. I'd be so willingly under lockdown for so many more days if that will bring her back. Even if we hardly met, it felt real, and so close.
This was written a day ago and it's annoying to see the author state "cases are only going up" when it has been widely reported that the number of cases in Victoria peaked around a week ago - thanks to the strict lockdown.
Victoria is also unique in that it is the only state in Australia with a large outbreak. The government has huge economic and social incentives to contain it.
I'm sorry that the writer is suffering, but as an Australian living in the US id prefer to undergo several weeks of draconian lockdown enforced by the police that could practically eliminate coroanavirus rather than what is probably going to be at least 12 months of restrictions in the US, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
There’s no evidence that a strict lockdown for several weeks can practically eliminate coronavirus indefinitely without perfect control over a non-permiable border.
As soon as people (or even goods) can move freely across the border of your strictly locked down area you’re back to positive cases spreading through a susceptible population.
The three essentials: strong borders, lots of testing & tracing, and social distancing (including masks).
I've read epidemiologists saying that there's kinda a CAP theorem for epidemiology. Namely, you can trade off one if you're strong on the others: if you're going to have a greater risk of letting it in from weak border controls, then you have to make it hard to catch (distancing) and detect & eliminate it fast when it shows up (testing & tracing). Similarly, if you don't want distance then you've got to be very strong keeping it out and finding it if it shows up. And if you're slack on testing & tracing, then be extremely vigilant on not getting it in the first place.
We are pretty close to a second lockdown in France too, but I think this time might be different: more local instead of whole country (by city/region?), more tests, available masks and gel, better knowledge of the things to do, remote work already well in place, ... It might end up being smoother.
We had people leaving suburbs that had outbreaks, and when the army door knocked positive cases, a large percentage weren’t home :angry:
People are selfish and will not self-isolate via the honour system. Melbourne only saw cases drop after the threat of fines for leaving home happened. Incentives matter.
Here in the UK the cases are going back up again. We're currently lower than France, Spain (which seems to be really taking off), Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden, but have higher rates than Germany and the other Nordic countries. We've had local lockdowns, but we'll have to see if that works. It's the holiday month, and seaside towns are fully booked with tourists. People were desperate for a holiday, my family included, but it seems premature, and these busy seaside places are not suited to social distancing. Hospitals are trying to get the elective work going again, but everyone's keeping an eye on the numbers, which threaten to choke elective pathways. Generally, everyone seems to be struggling a bit psychologically. People are slightly grumpier, slightly more aggressive. Petty crime seems to be going up. My shoe trees were stolen at work. Why? My wife has had to park her usual intellectuality stimulating work and homeschool our children for several months now. She's done with that. I totally empathize with the writer. This has become a war of attrition.
Are you talking about the number of identified cases per 1 million or the number of deaths per 1 million?
Looking at the death tolls, you are only lower than San Marino, Belgium, Peru, Andorra and Spain.
Cases. Yes, deaths still seem high. I find that a little strange, as it doesn't fit the rate at all. It might be that the incidence has only just dropped after a delay compared to the continent. Or maybe that these are assummed COVID-19 cases that haven't been tested. But I also notice on the latest data a -78.9 deaths/million two days ago. Not sure if that is a mistake or a correction.
At least they can go out for an hour of exercise. In Spain during the lockdown only a single person could go to the store a day. There won't be another mass lockdown people won't accept it and cases are climbing again. However the good news is that there does not seem to be equal explosion in hospitalisations or death.
As a resident of New York City I absolutely cannot fathom another lock-down, and unfortunately I don't think a vast majority of residents my age would take it "seriously".
A big reason the lock-down ever worked was the sheer exodus of people from Manhattan. Brooklyn and outer boroughs never really had full-quarantine. People hate to admit it, but my friends who live in neighborhoods with high minority populations complained of constant block parties and drinking in the streets - largely pointing to why queens and Williamsburg were hit hard.
I lived a mere three blocks from one of the hospitals that was overrun with patients and for months had multiple chilled semi-trailers filled with dead bodies.
New York has been absolutely decimated, I honestly don't see small business and restaurants coming back in even two years, even if a vaccine is found. I'm starting to shift to the side of finding a compromise to help working class people get back on their feet. Government hand-outs will NOT fix this.
I whole-heartedly supported the first lock-down, but I no longer believe a second lock-down would really help anyone. Obviously, masks should become a social norm but I believe once daily testing before entering certain businesses or buildings will become commonplace. It's already common practice at hospitals and certain federal buildings.
If they aren’t willing to lockdown protests then I can’t quite see the point of locking down otherwise.
NYC is my canary in the coal mine. As long as NYC does not see a resurgence I will believe that the level of herd immunity in NYC is enough, combined with common sense hygiene practices, to keep Rt below 1.
Winter will be interesting both in terms of the NYC economy and covid. Once it's too cold for outdoor dining more businesses will likely close (there's just no way to avoid this, as someone with family in the restaurant industry I find it dumb that more people don't acknowledge how slim the margins of most restaurants are).
It'll be interesting to see how the remaining population in the city fares. If I wasn't waiting to see if I had an office in March or had a lease that I couldn't break there's no way I'd be staying here.
I hope this comes off as politely as it is intended, but do you think your friends' observations also hold across class boundaries and not just across ethnic ones?
large gatherings of people (concerts, theatre, cinema) are still banned.
Most people don't go into restaurants and only eat at the outside tables, but that's voluntary.
Shops need masks and some attempt at social distancing, but the spatis (kind like corner shops but mostly selling cheap beer, very popular here) don't care about masks.
Just a heads up that the sex scandal mentioned was a completely unsubstantiated rumour spread by Australia's Murdoch press, whose agenda is to politicise this outbreak.
I would confidently label myself a "Murdoch disliker", but I don't think "media conglomerate pushes news stories that generate the most anger/fear/hatred/etc (a.k.a. dollars)" is a partisan take in any way.
During WW1 and WW2 people went off to war to die or at best come back scarred from the experience, or people sent loved ones off to war. They grew victory gardens. They lived with shortages.
They survived. For years. A few months of lockdown/masks/distancing and we're crying like babies.
Come on. Life's tough. Wear a helmet (or in this case, a mask).
Using the language of war has been a common theme during the pandemic as a way to justify draconian measures. This isn't a war, nurses are not like soldiers. Lockdown is great if you work from home and can sip wine in the garden. Not so attractive for small businesses owners watching their livelihoods go down the drain or if you are stuck in a tiny high rise flat with 3 kids.
Total lockdown is overkill. Masks + social distancing are more than enough to keep cases in my area below ICU capacity.
In places where people refuse to wear masks and social distance... Let them die at slightly elevated rates, it's clearly what they want. I'm tired of the government trying to save lives at any cost against people's will.
The problem is that when people refuse to wear masks, it's often other people who end up dying because of it, even when the other people took more care.
The reason, of course, is that masks are only partial protection for the people wearing them.
> The problem is that when people refuse to wear masks, it's often other people who end up dying because of it, even when the other people took more care.
Yep, just like lots of other things. 41,000 people die of second hand smoke per year because of the actions of others around them. Yet we do not take drastic measures to prevent these deaths. Having freedom means the people might abuse it to harm others, even by inaction. Novel viruses like covid come once every century. A century of second hand smoke deaths is well over 4 million deaths for the US alone, even higher in Europe.
> Yet we do not take drastic measures to prevent these deaths.
We do, actually. A virus like COVID-19 and second-hand smoke are only comparable to a certain degree, though. For example, smoking in public indoor spaces is banned in many, many countries in the world. I'm sure the measures would be even more drastic if inhaling second-hand smoke once could a) kill you within ~2 weeks if your health was already compromised b) cause brain damage within ~2 weeks if you were an otherwise healthy individual.
Are they all daft? How does that make sense? R~=1 can have a low amplitude or a high amplitude. The goal should be to make the slope go down at least until contact tracing can be achieved. We have states in the US where R~=1 still means test shortages.
Most countries' health authorities don't believe that any achievable level of infection can be controlled through contact tracing alone, so they're aiming to find an acceptable equilibrium for the next year or two until a vaccine can be widely deployed.
If 1 person decides to "kill" all the others living around by not respecting any rules, would you accept that as his/her freedom?
By the way, social distancing could be enough if correctly applied; which is definitely not the case currently anywhere. People meet many others, go into bars and parties, ... It is only correctly applied when enforced strictly (ie. lockdown, sadly).
> In places where people refuse to wear masks and social distance... Let them die at slightly elevated rates
It's not necessarily them who die, though. A COVID-19 carrier who refuses to wear a mask and comply with social distancing might just infect you regardless of you wearing your mask. If you encounter such an individual, the risk of your infection is about 35%: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6....
> I'm tired of the government trying to save lives at any cost against people's will.
Why so many of us accept authoritarian lockdown rulings is beyond me. It’s even more alarming how willing many are to report their neighbours for perceived infringements. Freedom of movement is sacred and people should be able to make their own choices based on the information available.
In France for example, there has been ~35'000 deaths because of COVID-19 in ~6 months of 2020, while there has been ~3'500 deaths on the roads in ~12 months of 2019.
Your "if we both" is a very big if => without making it mandatory, people don't wear them and ill people can propagate the virus to many, making COVID propagation possibly more dangerous than a car accident they could create.
Making mask usage mandatory and actually policing it would be a much lighter touch and the evidence from Japan suggests the virus can be kept under control without lockdowns. If you take the numbers in Japan in your example, driving is more dangerous
Only seven countries have done worse than Sweden[1] in terms of deaths/population. It's worse than the US, 4 times worse than Germany, 95 times worse than South Korea and 1895 times worse than Taiwan. Despite having plenty of advance warning and (wasted) opportunity to learn from what other countries had done.
The government assures us[1] that the strategy was not motivated by economic considerations. Taking them at their word and judging it by the stated objective of curbing the pandemic and protecting people's health, it has been a colossal failure from the start.
Also, with Taiwan's current total[2] of 7 deaths, for them to "be the same as Sweden" there would have to be 13 000 deaths in the second wave. Unless the CDC initiates an exchange program to swap their experienced staff for Sweden's bumbling incompetents, that doesn't seem likely.
I’m not sure how herd immunity is going to work when there’s evidence suggesting that there is no long-term COVID-19 immunity as people are getting reinfected
Once there was any community transmission on the continent i knew the jig was up, so we were pretty cloistered off about two weeks early.
State numbers look good but I’ve yet to substantially change my behavior since I started working from home. Big restocking food trips several weeks apart, no-contact outside activities only, etc.
We’ve only started doing any kind of outside-only-masks-except-when-eating limited contact with family in the last 3 weeks or so, and even that is fragile feeling.