I'm in Melbourne right now and would not describe the situation as insanity.
Fundamentally it comes down to how much value you assign to a human life, other then your own.
It's been incredibly difficult on a personal level being locked down for so long, particularly with young children in tow, but without doubt the containment measures have saved many thousands of lives. Our main failure has been in obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies, early enough, and therefore dragging all of this out far longer then necessary.
This is a good mindset for you to have when you can't practically change anything. Life is going on in many parts of the world though and it's fine. There are other preventable diseases that take many more lives every single year that no one is making a fuss about. This is about control, and control only. The excuses are running out.
Take the US approach as an alternative... a 9/11 worth of deaths every 1.5 days? More deaths then both world wars and Vietnam combined?
If you're relatively young and healthy, it's easy to frame this pandemic as "no big deal", but many of us also believe that there's a fundamental element to civil society that requires compassion for the vulnerable.
If this was about compassion and caring for our fellow man there would be a lot more discussion about the personal responsibility of exercise, eating clean, not being obese, etc etc. The top killers are heart disease and diabetes. Also, doctors that are advocating for medicine that can cure the disease wouldn't be censored. Scientists that advocated against vaccinating into an active pandemic so as to not put selective pressure on mutations wouldn't be silenced. This is about control and money though; there is no fair play or goodwill by the media or captured government institutions.
> Fundamentally it comes down to how much value you assign to a human life, other then your own.
The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be. There is a growing body of evidence that lockdowns and other restrictions are causing significant mental health problems, including depression and alcohol/drug abuse, increasing incidences of domestic violence, impacting the physical, intellectual, social and emotional development of children, and preventing individuals from accessing healthcare services, which will result in future deaths from undiagnosed and late-diagnosed disease.
Not taking these things into account in a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and other restrictions is not sensible.
> Our main failure has been in obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies, early enough, and therefore dragging all of this out far longer then necessary.
Looking at countries with much higher vaccination rates, including Israel and Singapore, the vaccines are clearly not a panacea. The virus is becoming endemic (if it isn't already), which means that at some point very soon, policies aimed at 0 COVID will need to be revisited if the countries that have embraced these policies are to ever get back to anything resembling normal.
The vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalization and death, which is a very good thing. The challenge is that, thanks apparently to Delta, breakthroughs are more common than hoped for, vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, and for the most part the people who are being hospitalized and dying with breakthrough infections are the very same people who are at greatest risk when unvaccinated -- the elderly and people with comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes.
Should we just give up on the elderly and people who have comorbidities? Of course not. But again, we also need to be realistic in our cost-benefit analyses.
Look, I agree with the general gist of what you're saying - there most certainly is a morbid equation at play. It's clear that different societies have different calibrations though, and the OP describing the lockdowns as "insanity" does nothing to capture the nuance of the situation.
With the benefit of hindsight, my viewpoint is that the optimal response was early and aggressive suppression, followed by swift mass vaccinations, followed by an acceptance that the virus will be endemic and a subsequent 'opening up'. Australia failed on the vaccination rollout front, US failed on early suppression, etc.
> It's clear that different societies have different calibrations though, and the OP describing the lockdowns as "insanity" does nothing to capture the nuance of the situation.
Given the numbers, along with what we now know about the virus and vaccines, I believe the aggressiveness and longevity of Australia's approach is insane. And there are many Australians who are publicly voicing that opinion too.
10 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 41.6 ms ] thread7 day average cases for the entire country: 1,702
7 day average deaths for the entire country: 10
2 months of lockdown.
Pure insanity.
Fundamentally it comes down to how much value you assign to a human life, other then your own.
It's been incredibly difficult on a personal level being locked down for so long, particularly with young children in tow, but without doubt the containment measures have saved many thousands of lives. Our main failure has been in obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies, early enough, and therefore dragging all of this out far longer then necessary.
If you're relatively young and healthy, it's easy to frame this pandemic as "no big deal", but many of us also believe that there's a fundamental element to civil society that requires compassion for the vulnerable.
The situation is not as simple as you make it out to be. There is a growing body of evidence that lockdowns and other restrictions are causing significant mental health problems, including depression and alcohol/drug abuse, increasing incidences of domestic violence, impacting the physical, intellectual, social and emotional development of children, and preventing individuals from accessing healthcare services, which will result in future deaths from undiagnosed and late-diagnosed disease.
Not taking these things into account in a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns and other restrictions is not sensible.
> Our main failure has been in obtaining sufficient vaccine supplies, early enough, and therefore dragging all of this out far longer then necessary.
Looking at countries with much higher vaccination rates, including Israel and Singapore, the vaccines are clearly not a panacea. The virus is becoming endemic (if it isn't already), which means that at some point very soon, policies aimed at 0 COVID will need to be revisited if the countries that have embraced these policies are to ever get back to anything resembling normal.
The vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalization and death, which is a very good thing. The challenge is that, thanks apparently to Delta, breakthroughs are more common than hoped for, vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, and for the most part the people who are being hospitalized and dying with breakthrough infections are the very same people who are at greatest risk when unvaccinated -- the elderly and people with comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes.
Should we just give up on the elderly and people who have comorbidities? Of course not. But again, we also need to be realistic in our cost-benefit analyses.
With the benefit of hindsight, my viewpoint is that the optimal response was early and aggressive suppression, followed by swift mass vaccinations, followed by an acceptance that the virus will be endemic and a subsequent 'opening up'. Australia failed on the vaccination rollout front, US failed on early suppression, etc.
Given the numbers, along with what we now know about the virus and vaccines, I believe the aggressiveness and longevity of Australia's approach is insane. And there are many Australians who are publicly voicing that opinion too.
500 apparently can be attributed to Grand Final Celebration! (American equivalent of the super bowl but for AFL)
Get vaccinated everyone so we can escape this hell we all call living!