Ali's Choice wrote:So you're actually advocating for the common sense, preventative measures that Australia, NZ and most Western countries are implementing? Except when there are breakouts of infection you are arguing that there should be no localised or general restrictions or lockdowns, and it should be survival of the fittest? Why would you block the use of temporary lockdowns given they have proven to be the most effective way to control outbreaks?Clogs wrote:Farva wrote:As I understand it you are advocating to allow those that are low risk to return to work and then protect the vulnerable.
I think our performance so far says we can’t do that.
I am advocating that with the appropriate preventative steps, like social distancing, like masks, like work from home, like more sophisticated track and trace and a range of other steps we can actually get this virus to a manageable transmission rate, and still protect those most at risk. It is possible. It is just that people aren't prepared to engage in meaningful discussion because of the shriek brigade.
To expand. South Korea have had some success in controlling the virus without lockdown. Taiwan too.
Hmm, not sure where the trap is. Most western countries including Australia have failed. We need to do something better than what we are doing. It hasnt worked. We should have gone hard and early and pursued elimination like New Zealand or after lockdown 1, realise we were achieving the flattening of the curve but this thing was going to return, and in the time we had bought ourselves come up with far better testing, tracking tracing isolating and technology solutions. We haven't so we are only left with stage 4 lockdown and a prayer that it will work. If we don't eliminate it, and we don't improve in the areas I have suggested then it won't work and by December we will be in stage 4 again. To be in stage 4 now is a failure. We have no choice but to get on with it, but we are not here because were have successfully controlled it.