The obvious takeaway is lockdown doesn't work
Non-compliance however kneecaps the ability of lockdowns to be effective, leaving you in a worst-of-all-worlds situation with a damaged economy and a largely unaffected disease curve. I would say the better way to frame that is:
- "lockdowns only work if you actually take them seriously" (as evidenced by countries that did: NZ, TW, CN, AU -- look at their graphs [1], they work).
- and "lockdowns may not be necessary to achieve sufficient results."
[1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
Thats why it wouldn't work. You want everyone to stay inside for 3 weeks.
Even so, Sweden doesn't prove this. They have had lockdowns, e.g. severe limits on social gatherings. You can only say they haven't had lockdowns if you take the pedantic view that "it's not a lockdown if it's not legally enforced, even if everyone follows your rules".
Also, arguably the excess deaths in March/April (comparing to Nordic neighbours especially) and the surging cases now are not "reasonable results".
> "people won't comply with such police-state dystopian policies"
The "but muh freedom" argument is so tired. If folks had stayed in for a few weeks at the start, it would be substantially over now as evidenced by all the countries in which it's substantially over. Instead by going out like petulant children who won't be told no, we have a giant flaming disaster. That would be an example of 'disagree and commit.'
I'm open to the idea that a lockdown would work, and I'm also open to the idea it's not necessary because some subset of restriction is enough, or because we're willing to pay the cost of excess mortality during vaccine development -- the one argument I'm not open to is "but muh freedom."
I'm sorry that reality doesn't always map to the libertarian ideal. Sometimes you have to compromise temporarily for the greater good. For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom.
[1] https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?location=Australia&location...
I'm still open to the idea that a lockdown would work but not for this virus.
>For your own greater good. For a net gain in freedom
You mean for your greater good because it definitely not for my greater good.
And you should be upset about it, I am, it's been an abject failure. We've compromised so much, but just not quite enough, in part because of the uneven distribution of compliance. That has led to huge cost for zero reward.
No, because we don't even need the lockdown in the first place. I'm not saying nothing should be done to about this virus, but if the answer of 'doing something about it' is lockdown then I can't support because the harm is just immense (compared to the risk of this virus).
Yes, I am upset at the government reaction to this virus.
Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
> Although I will say, if "freedom" is the "one argument [you are] not open to" I don't think you have the moral high ground.
We'll have to disagree on this one. "You can't make me" isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom, it's not going to win you any arguments at home with your spouse, it's not going to win you any arguments at work, and it sure as heck isn't going to win you any arguments in public health policy.
Again, I'm open to the idea they may not be necessary to achieve meaningful results, however that is a conversation that can be had without invoking the toddler clause.
Yes we will, since you are arguing in bad faith. I can smell the condescension from here. I never said "you can't make me" but YOU said "petulant children who won't be told no" and "toddler clause" and "muh freedom"
THAT is the type of rhetoric that "isn't going to win you any arguments at the supermarket with your mom"
In other words, the illness will die out, unless it doesn't. Here's some practical experience with this approach:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/
An outbreak of common colds at an Antarctic base after seventeen weeks of complete isolation.
They were effective in NZ, but NZ is still getting new cases, so it's remarkably hard to get 100%.
In fairness, those are due to quarantine failures, which were anticipated and planned for.
Why would a region with one person per square kilometer plan to quarantine people in a crowded hotel in the centre of a crowded city, and respond to the inevitable outbreaks which potentially expose millions of people to the virus, when you could divert all the jets to Woomera and stick everyone in tents for 14 days? That's a question which those responsible are trying hard to ignore.
And a strict lockdown would require most people to have enough supplies in place to last the few weeks, which is likely an impossible demand for our supply chain to meet, and also impossible for those who live paycheck to paycheck.