https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/28/why-san-mateo-county-...
Those of us fortunate enough to still be employed can help by donating to local food banks like Martha's Kitchen.
Go outside Silicon Valley and a few other metro areas, and you'll still see widespread lack of enforcement. Most of the good behavior has been voluntary. Good people/businesses listening to health guidance. Nobody is getting pulled over in rural America and fined for violating stay-at-home. If I wanted to, I could "unessentially" drive across the state of CA right now, sit down at a fully-open bar or restaurant unmasked, and nobody would lift a finger to stop me.
The only thing a lockdown can do is slow things down in order to have time to get more prepared. The notion that the virus can be extinguished by lockdowns simply is not workable. It's an idea that is attractive because it's simple but only because it ignores the logistic realities of a planet with nearly eight billion people, or on the national level, 330 million people.
Just last week Brisbane Australia had a small outbreak of 3-4 people. We locked down the whole city/region for 3 days to allow contact tracing to occur.
We've now relaxed those controls again but are preventing groups of 20+ people from gathering.
You also must wear masks in all venues where possible, including public transport.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-01/covid-updates-brisban...
It fucking works. The fact that other western countries haven't been successful is nothing to do with the method but the implementation.
It also helps we force interstate and international travellers to enter quarantine for 14 days. But when I'm hearing friends families in Texas going to Prague for Christmas, and didn't have to quarantine when they arrived OR when they went home. Is it that much of a surprise the US and Europe is in such a fucking state?
Edit: just to add another reference to larger lock downs. Brisbane or the state of Queensland has previously had lock downs that went for months previously while we sought to prevent community transmission. Now for the last 4 months we've literally gone back to normal besides international holidays. Pubs reopened. Cafes opened. No restrictions. Dancing in night clubs. No masks.
Lock downs. Work.
When it was suggested in the U.S., xenophobia quickly accompanied it.
Do the rich lock down? Nope. Look at how the athletes, people in power, and other celebrities do things when no one is watching. Rules for the little people.
Edit: on accountability, the rich were also stopped. I can't recall the gentleman but a billionaire on his private yacht back during the biggest part of lock down bounced between states on the east coast last year.
When Queensland Police found out, they went to his yacht and forced him into hotel quarantine for the duration that everyone else is expected to.
There are exceptions. Some other billionaires and wealthy members of society have sought exceptions to quarantine at home. But even then it was with the caveat that they are willing to pay for 24/7 surveillance from security/police to ensure compliance.
I see that [1] 6.7 M people visited Australia in 2020. And 80 M [2] visited the US in 2019. 18 M [3] came from Mexico in 2019.
Perhaps Australia being an island isn't important. Perhaps it is because so few people visited you and you have such low population density.
[1] https://camperchamp.com.au/statistics/australia/#:~:text=How....
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/214686/number-of-interna....
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/214765/number-of-mexican...
There's a reason why the Melbourne/Victorian outbreak which was the worst we've seen in Australia was kept to that city. Noting that exceptions were managed, we still allowed domestic travel for freight and similar so food and goods were still received and sent albeit with delays.
I'm not suggesting the US, Europe and other countries would been as successful as we have been. It's too difficult to say. But what I am saying, is the US and Europe didn't even fucking try.
One thing Australia does have in its favour, is every single state has its own separate state ran government. And each state held others accountable, there's been a lot of political mud slinging but our states enforced those borders and enforced them well. Where the Federal government did the same for international borders (with less success than state borders, e.g New South Wales and Federal Government made a mess of the Ruby Princess: https://theconversation.com/ruby-princess-inquiry-blames-nsw...).
As I mentioned in my grand fathered comment. An anecdote for sure, but I know of people who literally went to Europe from the US for a holiday over the 2020/2021 Christmas. Little to no controls were used. This is why Covid was and is spreading. There's absolutely no desire for either Europe or the US to stop international travellers and Covid spreading events.
I was galled to find the UK didn't make international travel even difficult until the more/highly infectious UK Covid variant came to be and that was only in the last few months. What the fuck was happening prior to then?
I am sympathetic. Countries like Spain have been economically destroyed by Covid because they're so reliant on tourism.
Australia's regions where tourism is the largest part of the local GDP (Far North Queensland, Cairns as an example) are really struggling and even with the Federal Government printing money like there's no tomorrow. That relief is being wound down and it's now starting to bite. But even here we provided more support to business and local people more than what I've seen from other countries internationally.
It's appalling really. There just seems so little appetite from people on the ground or the countries ruling parties to commit to lock down and providing financial support to their workers so they can afford to not go to work.
But, I abhore the 'what you did wouldn't work here' rhetoric. It's bullshit. No one fucking tried.
Other countries actually addressed those questions. The most stringent example is china: They restricted everyone to their immediate neighborhood, then delivered food and other essential goods to each neighborhood in a centrally planned system. Medical emergencies were allowed to leave a neighborhood and drive to the nearest hospital.
Not pleasant, but it worked.
The other question is: what are the alternatives? We didn't even have a vaccine prior to December. Now that we have a vaccine, there are the logistics of immunising everyone willing. Once the willing are immunised, we don't know whether it will be enough to stop the spread and mutation of the virus. On the other hand, ignoring the problem won't protect the economy. High absenteeism due to illness or self-imposed isolation of high risk individuals are the best we can hope for. There are far worse scenarios. Ignoring the problem won't protect the health care system. Even if it could handle the increased numbers without impacting mortality rate due to covid, many procedures could not be undertaken since the risk of infection would impact the outcome of those procedures.
The reality is that we are in a difficult situation. There is no perfect solution, simply solutions that improve outcomes. While vaccination may be a better long term solution, it is not a 100% solution. Also, the simplicity of lockdowns is about more than having time to get more prepared. It is about making the situation manageable. May it be through vaccination or isolation, creating a manageable situation is the key component to eradication.
Looking at the situation from the outside, your point can't be emphasised enough. I live in a region that took the initial stay-at-home orders seriously, imposed self-isolation requirements for anyone entering the region, and got numbers low enough that tracking became a realistic tool for containment. Kids go to school, safely and with relative normalcy. Adults work at home when possible and in their workplace when necessary. Most of the restrictions we face are in the form of public health regulations rather than shutdowns. When there are shutdowns, they are targeted and of limited duration. Yes, certain parts of the economy have been hit hard. On the other hand, they would have been hit hard anyway. Accepting the pain at the start of the pandemic has also protected many other parts of the economy.
My experience in WA and NV was that nobody cares. Even in "liberal" Seattle, a couple weeks after WA reopened indoor dining, we went out and couldn't find a spot in a restaurant in the entire neighborhood without a 20+ minute wait. We traveled to NV a few times in the last few months and it was always like that - everything that is allowed to be crowded, is.
Extended family in MA recently reported on the places nearby closing "due to the pandemic". Extended family in TX had a kid's birthday party at a water park. And, tangentially, MA has more cases and deaths per capita than TX...
If there were no lockdowns, the economy would have been mostly fine all along. The unemployment rate divergence across states seems to bear this out.
Hopefully the lesson learned in 2020 is that actual lockdowns work (see the countries that actually did them), but if you're too timid to enforce lockdowns (like the USA), then don't send mixed messages and do it half way. We could have 1. done a lockdown and gotten on with life after a very short period of economic hardship, or 2. ignored it and let a whole bunch of people die. Somehow our government managed to pick a worse option: 3. implement unenforced and unevenly enforced measures, which both craters the economy long term AND lets a whole bunch of people die. Great work, USA.
Moreover, I am not sure the strictness of lockdowns really correlated with outcomes - Sweden is a famous example, Belgium vs Netherlands another iirc. The only lockdowns that worked (so far) were either islands (meaning very few points of exchange that are easy to control) or totalitarian (e.g. China).
Or a little bit of both, like cops barging into somebody's home in Australia over a Facebook post. At that point I'll take liberty over safety, thank you.