Three Great Train Trips and Then Two

[jiml]

It's hard to get agreement on the efficacy of lockdowns, but I offer some anecdotal evidence from our local situation. At Christmas-time only Toronto and surrounding areas were "locked down", with no in-person dining, etc. On December 26 the lockdown was imposed province-wide and two weeks later a "stay at home" order was issued. Since then case numbers have dropped quite dramatically. Given the 10-14 day period for virus detection, it appears that if the initial lockdown wasn't completely effective, the follow-up order was. While there are still "hotspots", daily case numbers are about half what they were a month ago.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...r-BB1d90mf?ocid=MF11KM&li=AAggNb9&OCID=MF11KM
This factors in to the question about border-crossing raised earlier. Both the Canadian and new US federal governments are currently moving to increase border restrictions - not the other way around as many had hoped or expected. The loophole that allowed Canadians to fly to the US (as opposed to crossing on land) is being closed and the Canadian government is moving to halt all travel with severe penalties to Canadians who do. By this time next week it will be much more difficult to travel in either direction and the complex web of rules and requirements may take some time to wind down when case numbers finally warrant. Although disappointed, I would not be surprised if the border remained closed to all but essential travel throughout 2021.

Edited to add link.

 

[Barb Stout]

You missed the point of the peer reviewed scientific research. The research did not find that lockdowns are completely ineffective. Rather, they found that lockdowns do not work better than other much less damaging and restrictive measures.

I am a firm believer in science and, therefore, a peer reviewed research paper carries a lot of weight with me. Believe me... intuitively it feels wrong. But this is one of those situations where we need to listen to the science and be opened minded about the possibility that there are other ways to lower the infection rate - just as Singapore and Korea have learned.

I was replying to Oreius's comment "I’m just hoping no lockdowns; they simply do not work at all!". While I'm not fond of lockdowns and agree they have many undesirable effects, I shared a piece of data where the lockdown did what it was supposed to: reducing Covid19 spread and reducing hospitalizations. We already had a mask mandate in place for several months.

 

[Exvalley]

It's hard to get agreement on the efficacy of lockdowns, but I offer some anecdotal evidence from our local situation...

The point of the study is that, while lockdowns may work, there are much less costly and restrictive methods that appear to work just as well.

The happy medium seems to be protecting the elderly and vulnerable while allowing healthy people to have fewer restrictions. Which makes perfect sense. The risk is not at all the same. So why treat all groups the same if they have vastly different levels of risk? Yes, I understand that there is anecdotal about younger people dying from Covid-19. But policies based on anecdotes are not good policies - especially when lockdowns come at a high cost of their own.

 

[tricia]

....
The happy medium seems to be protecting the elderly and vulnerable while allowing healthy people to have fewer restrictions. Which makes perfect sense. ....

This only makes sense in populations where the vast majority are willing to take basic precautionary measures: wear masks, minimize time spent indoors with folks you don't already share a home with, wash hands and use hand sanitizer. If large numbers aren't willing to do this, then there really isn't any alternative to legally enforced lockdowns--unless you're willing to allow the disease to spread rampantly, which is the choice craven politicians have made for us here in the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

And may I point out that without extensive, free and readily available, and accurate testing we can't even identify who's "healthy" and thus by your reckoning should "have fewer restrictions?"

 

[Exvalley]

This only makes sense in populations where the vast majority are willing to take basic precautionary measures: wear masks, minimize time spent indoors with folks you don't already share a home with, wash hands and use hand sanitizer. If large numbers aren't willing to do this, then there really isn't any alternative to legally enforced lockdowns--unless you're willing to allow the disease to spread rampantly, which is the choice craven politicians have made for us here in the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

And may I point out that without extensive, free and readily available, and accurate testing we can't even identify who's "healthy" and thus by your reckoning should "have fewer restrictions?"

All I can say is that the peer reviewed scientific study says that there are alternatives to lockdowns that work just as well that have much fewer negative consequences.

 

[tricia]

All I can say is that the peer reviewed scientific study says that there are alternatives to lockdowns that work just as well that have much fewer negative consequences.

And all I'm saying is that context matters. Big difference implementing disease-control measures in places where public health measures are respected, vs places where the (now former) president and other leaders of his political party have made disdain for those measures a badge of honor for nearly a year now.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

All I can say is that the peer reviewed scientific study says that there are alternatives to lockdowns that work just as well that have much fewer negative consequences.

It took me a while to realize that the study you keep referencing considers the response of the US and EU to be a lock down while largely ignoring countries that actually sheltered-in-place. The US and EU both have porous internal borders with no universal pandemic policy so this conclusion is both unsurprising and largely irrelevant.

A shelter-in-place lock down can starve the virus in under two months, which likely causes far less economic damage than a year or more of porous regional restrictions that allow the virus to continue raging uncontrolled.

South Korea was repeatedly referenced as an example of how to avoid a lock down effectively but there are some important differences that make this advice ineffective and inapplicable for a country such as the US.

1. South Korea did not disband their pandemic response apparatus.

2. South Korea was prepared with stockpiled PPE and testing infrastructure.

3. South Koreans were willing to wear PPE and get tested without being forced to do so.

4. South Korean authorities did not waste their time sowing doubt and spreading disinformation.

5. South Korean media took the pandemic seriously rather than presenting every development as a partisan issue.

A country that lacks a results-oriented pandemic response plan, with meager testing capabilities, insufficient medical equipment, and woefully inadequate PPE stock has no business following the South Korean model.