What it’s like to go into lockdown for the second time
elemental.medium.com
elemental.medium.com
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.
I'd wager that explains almost all of the self-congratulating I see online.
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.
All ruined because of this stupid virus.
None are replaced by a brisk walk outdoors.
Sorry to disappoint you.
> not that sure what else they're looking for.
"Damn, that sucks." Is probably about right.
It is negatively written, but I don’t think they are looking for sympathy but reflecting how much harder this is when you’re repeating it.
Especially when we could have had better outcomes had we all been in this together.
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.
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).
Soon the trails will be full of hiking newbies.
It was impressive the number of people « discovering » they like jogging in Paris when it was one of the only outdoor activity authorized...
I'm not sure if its allowed to drive 2 hours to walk for 1 hour or not. I doubt it.
To make this work, there must be enforcement. From my observations, most spread is coming from people not following guidelines.
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?
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.
Victoria charts: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ten-graphs-that-...
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.
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.
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.
Specifically, where I live (India, some small part) - most have forgotten about hand sanitizer or face masks.
I don't think a lockdown would be a good option for us but people can at least maintain caution for themselves and others which they aren't.
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.
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.
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.
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've only lived here for six months though, so I don't really consider myself in a position to comment on either of their observations.
Second one will be harder, I think.
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.
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).
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 reason, of course, is that masks are only partial protection for the people wearing them.
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.
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.
What's been mystifying me is all the R0 graphs. They go up above 1, regions get more strict, they flatten, then slope down to around R0=1....
and then they flatten out again. Right at around R0=1.
It's maddening. We should keep it sloping down beyond that point.
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).
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.
We have to protect society's most vulnerable members. We also currently don't know the extent of brain damage it can cause in otherwise healthy individuals: https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-brain-damage/a-54111054.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
This will continue to happen regularly in countries like Australia over the next few years under their current plan.
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.
Sweden has proved that lockdown is total propaganda ran by special interest.
P.S. I am going to get downvoted. But that’s okey. People don’t want hear truth!
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.
[1] https://bloomberg.omniekonomi.se/sweden-says-covid-strategy-...
[1]: https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/nati...
[2]: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/historisk-stort-fald-i-bnp-c...
Denmark is going to suffer months, not years still.
Here you can clearly see how Sweden has done much worse than its neighbours.
Just 3 days ago was another study from Nature which shows that they antibody level is persistent.
There was another one a month ago.
Read more!