dublinpilot wrote:
There is a lot about restrictions that are a bit cruel. The purpose of that one was to stop different areas cross infecting one another. In the end, I don’t think you really need to travel more than 2km to do your exercise. But it did indeed feel very restrictive.
We’re currently on a 5km restriction for exercise, and it’s likely, but not certain to revert to travel within your county this time next month.
I suppose the trouble with these is that they were done one fit all rather than diversifying up to actual conditions. But somehow in many cases there has been a case of what’s good for the goose will work for the gander kind of attitude, where a more localized and adapted way of dealing with this would have been better. On the other hand, there is the psychological factor: Imagine what would have happened if they had said it’s 500m for the city, but no restriction on the countryside, where it is less risky.
Psychology is the one bit which I guess has been underestimated massively, hence the trouble with the acceptance of many of the regulations. I think I’ve said it before, if mankind were made up of Vulcans (of the “Live long and prosper” kind) we would not need measures at all or rather just information on what will prevent infection and everyone would do the “logical” thing and the disease would not stand a chance.
Humans however are very much different in that regard. They will always think of how to deny, cheat, go around any form of restriction in their lives. The “The good of the many outweigh the good of the few or one” does not apply, at least not in mass. Crisis are met with the five phases of grief, where the last, acceptance, is almost never reached. Quite a lot of folks are still in denial, lots are angry as hell, bargaining is going on on all levels, depression is rampant.
I would still think that a lot of people have arrived at acceptance that this is a dangerous thing and that the measures are for the better, but unfortunately in this case, a small group of deniers or rebels is enough to launch a consecutive wave. And each of those is worse than the one before it, as more people get depressed and resigned and will go in another way of acceptance namely that what is the point, we’ll all get it eventually anyway.
Personally I think an initial strong shock and awe campaign with fast and radical lock down and containment would have been the much better solution and has to be considered for future pandemics with the clear goal of eradicating the pandemic before it goes out of hand. That chance existed in February and March 2020 but fell victim to anger and bargaining.
While I would certainly like to think that it was possible, and maybe will be possible for future pandemics, to contain them at the initial stage, I consider that unlikely to be a real possibility.
SARS Mk I was containable because there was little or no spread without symptoms, and infectiousness appeared to have been lower, so running after everyone who had it was an option.
SARS Mk 2 is milder (hence asymptomatic spread, and more community spread than in hospitals) making that much harder.
Even the borders-closed-and-enforced-quarantine countries are struggeling with occasional flare-ups, although of course at a much lower level than here.
Trying to snuff out a pandemic ends like any horror film where the heroine kills every last one of the aliens/critters/snakes/whatever, only for the camera to zoom in on the one larva/egg/spore left over to hatch in the post-credit scene, setting up the inevitable sequel
Cobalt wrote:
Even the borders-closed-and-enforced-quarantine countries are struggeling with occasional flare-ups, although of course at a much lower level than here.
Some countries managed. Look at Taiwan and to an extent NZ and Australia. Taiwan is important for me, as they were the only ones who really realized very early what they were dealing with and acted accordingly.
What has to happen is that the whole results of this pandemic are analyzed brutally open and corrections to the existing plans and their implementation are done equally without political or other influence. Only, exactly that is where it will fail.
So you are probably right, the next pandemic might wipe out most of mankind and most probably the last frame in that movie will be the survivors fighting about whether it was real or not and who is to blame.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Look at Taiwan and to an extent NZ and Australia
Exactly. Taiwan currently has almost 1,000 active cases. Next to nothing compared to other nations, but not zero.
Anything that is not zero requires ongoing restrictions, and the restrictions required to get to a real zero are, if it is possible in theory at all, so draconian as to be impossible in practice.
Leaving alone the hygiene revolution in the 19th and early 20th century, for new infectious diseases any of four things happen
– prevention reduces the spread so it becomes manageable (e.g., AIDS/HIV)
– the disease is brought under control using vaccination (e.g., measles, polio, smallpox)
– a mild / more infectious variant displaces the aggressive variant (e.g., Influenza)
– treatment makes the disease less of a threat (e.g., pretty much anything bacterial susceptible to antibiotics)
In recent memory, not a single disease was ever eradicated by anything else but vaccination.
Restrictions only stem the tide, but don’t stop it.
Cobalt wrote:
Restrictions only stem the tide, but don’t stop it.
Of course I agree. Also if a disease goes back to the danger level of the common flu and has vaccines available, there is no need to eradicate it.
Prevention is a sore subject I think, as many people tend to stop being careful the moment the disease disappears from the headlines. Particularly HIV has shown with what body parts some people think with and that even very easy means of prevention are often not used because they are inconvenient or people simply are too careless.
You are also very correct that if the simple and normal hygiene measures which were recommended in the beginning would have been followed to the letter and by everybody, lockdowns would not be an issue. Which means, hygiene, masks indoors and close contact and a healthy social distance. But as there are too many people who think that recommendations are for others….
It’s getting nasty again. What is not clear is whether Australia ordered its vaccine before Italy.
Also this kind of thing isn’t going to work a second time
I wonder what the AZ response to this will be.
Blocking export with the presumption that instead of going to Australia those 250,000 doses will be delivered to the EU essentially amounts to confiscation. Preventing export for legal/technical reasons is one thing, but doing it because you wish to take possession of the goods yourself is quite another. Is there much precedent?
Depending on the shelf life, AZ could just lock it away?
When Ursula tried this with the UK, she climbed down saying they will honour existing contractual committments. Hence I ask when Australia placed their orders. If they placed them late, they won’t get any stuff from factories located in the EU…
Very sad for Italy, given their rising numbers (one assumes these are not just due to more testing?)
The Cervinia ski site which said they will open today now says “opening will be set by the government” so probably not this season.
BTW can anyone explain the huge wave in November in Switzerland?
Peter wrote:
BTW can anyone explain the huge wave in November in Switzerland?
It had to do with the total opening during the summer and the failure to close up when the first indications came in September. Consequently people travelled in October (Fall vaccation) and got careless. With the change of weather in the beginning of November things got totally out of control, particularly as there was only very slow reaction to the exploding figures.
Today there was a statistic in the papers that 75% of the altogether 9300 deaths occurred in the 2nd wave. Of all the deaths together, 90% were older than 70 and had some risk factors. The death factor per 100k inhabitants is at 106 which is slightly higher than the European Average of 104.
The October / November wave was not only a problem here however, most countries saw a surge then.
The UK is introducing this which I struggle to understand.
As discussed above, no law here bans foreign travel. It is just guidance, and the underlying law is the one about not being allowed to leave one’s house except for essential reasons. And that provision will de facto need removing on 29 March, as discussed previously.
It would appear this move is to save having police standing at airports and questioning people re their reasons for travelling.
