Lock it all Down

Originally posted by Treefern: ↑

There are issues with the suggestions in this thread of moving to some more stringent lockdown designed to beat the virus.

1) Suggesting a 'total lockdown' is not useful unless you define what that means. At the moment it could be argued we are in total lockdown, where people aren't allowed to go outside except for essential reasons. I suppose schooling and exercise might be able to be shaved off that definition, but what else? Define your 'total lockdown' in its entirety before going on to describe how much better it will be for us, because 'total lockdown' means different things to almost everybody unless it's clearly defined.

2) Nothing I have read has suggested that Australia can prevent Covid-19 from having a rolling presence in the community, whether we move to more stringent measures or not (prior to a vaccine that is). It's easy to say 'close the borders, that will keep covid-19 out', but we simply cannot do that. It is physically and practicably impossible.

Respectfully, it is pretty out on a limb to suggest that randos off an investment website would have better insights than the entirety of the medical and governmental leadership teams in charting the best course here. Do you really think in your wildest dreams that a Government such as our Federal team, who is acutely allergic to spending and welfare, would go for the long, drawn out approach which slowly peels the bandaid off over 6-18 months, when a short, sharp, VASTLY cheaper, VASTLY more manageable and VASTLY more popular solution was so simple that a handful of unqualified anonymites that posts on this website could see it, but they couldn't? That is, unless the powers that be don't have one eye on their ideology or self-interest, but posters on here do.

I'm not suggesting that we should swallow what our leaders (medico/political) are telling us blindly. But everything I've read from sources that aren't obviously self-serving supports the course being charted here by our leadership. Moreover, the way we are going, I can see the entire planet going over the Aus-NZ response to the crisis to develop their own blueprint of how to do it next time, so impressed have I been with Prime Ministers Morrison and Ardern relative to their overseas peers. I suppose time will tell if we have gotten it right.

Expand

There is no reason lay people can't have a good understanding of the subject without being expert. Maybe not everyone but many here have sufficient skills to decipher/understand and you misunderstand that these are not epidemiological decisions. They are political decisions based on epidemiological advice. A tremendous difference.

your point 1/ lockdown isn't this in Brisbane yesterday.

point 2/ I hear you, it is possible though but would require the will that is beyond our body politic. The modelling is mutating more than the virus which imo evidences the flaws in the original modelling that set us on this path. If you have ever worked in modelling you will know it's imperfections and that variables and proxies used within the model can be influenced by the pre-existing biases of the modellers. As can almost all research.

I know we won't be going the elimination path. But, for the record, it is possible, but a gamble at 50/50 according to
University of Melbourne epidemiologist Tony Blakely. According to Field epidemiologist at the University of Newcastle, Craig Dalton "while he prefers this strategy, it would require containing every case of the virus — or risking a resurgence once the lockdown was relaxed."

We are at this point, whether by fault or design, and either reason tells us we will not be successful at elimination. In the end, the decision whether or not it is the right path will be determined by the nature of infection immunity, an unknown but potentially short lived with coronavirus, maybe even 4 months; the mortaliity rate; the long term impairment to health; the social cost; relative economic cost.

Regardless, if herd immunity is 60% it still won't solve our problems as up to 40% will still be subject to infection until vaccine. It will still kill and risks will include any traveller from overseas or even perhaps the real possibility of permanent asymptomatic carriers. People over 50yrs imo have an unacceptable level of risk so should be allowed/paid to isolate. Already at least one life insurance company will not pay out over 50's for covid nor healthworkers treating covid patients. So does their modelling take that into account when they say over 65's or whatever?

This is particularly good
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/where-is-the-data-on-whether-australia-aims-to-squash-or-flatten-the-curve