So all you have to do is ignite the boosters and blast spaceship Australia and NZ into space. Then you'll be free! — frank

It can be Elon Musk's next project...

It can be Elon Musk's next project... — Andrew M

We need someone to terraform mars. It could be a global initiative.

We need someone to terraform mars. It could be a global initiative. — frank

Make Mars great again!

:grin: Mars: where the greenhouse effect is a good thing!

It's a subcontinent, isn't it? — frank

Other one is a continent, but the other a chain of Islands.

But as both are quite able to restrict and survey those coming and going from there, it's a more easier task. Just notice how strict these countries are about foreign species into their country with requirements that you have not visited a farm somewhere else before you come to Australia or New Zealand. Bit more difficult to close instantly the borders in Central Europe, for example.

:grin: Mars: where the greenhouse effect is a good thing! — frank

And, better yet, no Democrats, RINO's or CNN!

Make your alternative reality come true. Donate here!

Matt O'Dowd calls Australia "the event horizon"

Make your alternative reality come true. Donate here! — Andrew M

This is giving me an idea.

The results achieved in Australia and NZ are successful tests of it at that scale, and so are instructive for what could be achieved in other regions. — Andrew M

No they're not. They're examples of success in regions with a low community infection source, which is the one type of environment we already know these approaches work well in (why we all should have done them to start with). Neither give an example of the approach working in an environment with a high seroprevalence.

You were earlier advocating a 'precautionary approach', now you're suggesting we dismiss the view of the World Health Organisation and instead pursue a policy devised by some fringe data scientists? Why the change of tune?

As I see it, Katz fails to acknowledge the unknown risk in pursuing herd immunity. Maybe it will work out for the best, as Sweden hoped for early on. Or maybe it will be an unmitigated disaster. — Andrew M

Actually I think we have a good sense of what would happen if we are able to properly and fully insulate the vulnerable (and those who choose to identify as such) from those for whom the threat poses no real risk (i.e. 99% of the population)...there would be no great disaster, the virus would eventually become endemic for 99% of the population and the vulnerable will be protected once they are all vaccinated.

The only tricky part to this solution as I see it is:

How would enforcement of isolation for those who COULD have contact with the vulnerable be maintained? Would the health workers and others who might have contact with the vulnerable be required to have a tracking device such that if they moved outside of certain parameters at certain times enforcement would occurr?

I

Evidence is mounting that having COVID-19 may not protect a person against getting infected again with some of the new variants emerging around the world

This is beginning to sound more like the usual winter influenza where a newly mixed vaccine needs to be administered annually just to keep the serious cases down to manageable numbers.
But periodic lockdowns would slow if not eliminate both.

Actually I think we have a good sense of what would happen if we are able to properly and fully insulate the vulnerable (and those who choose to identify as such) from those for whom the threat poses no real risk (i.e. 99% of the population)...there would be no great disaster, the virus would eventually become endemic for 99% of the population and the vulnerable will be protected once they are all vaccinated. — dazed

Also need to factor in long COVID, length of immunity and the potential effects of emerging variants (for example, the new B117 variant appears to be 30% more deadly).

The only tricky part to this solution as I see it is:

How would enforcement of isolation for those who COULD have contact with the vulnerable be maintained? Would the health workers and others who might have contact with the vulnerable be required to have a tracking device such that if they moved outside of certain parameters at certain times enforcement would occurr? — dazed

So the issue is whether this or any other proposal is robust enough to stop the virus leaking through. If it is not, then vulnerable people will die. If there is a chance that the virus can get through then, sooner or later, it will get through. As we've seen with the recent outbreaks in Australia, despite hotel quarantine.

So a precautionary approach is necessary. Such as the multilayered, or "Swiss-cheese," model of pandemic defense mentioned here. Implementing that model means the virus may get through one or two layers, but can still be stopped by other layers. It is much more robust to human error.

The results achieved in Australia and NZ are successful tests of it at that scale, and so are instructive for what could be achieved in other regions.
— Andrew M

No they're not. They're examples of success in regions with a low community infection source, which is the one type of environment we already know these approaches work well in (why we all should have done them to start with). Neither give an example of the approach working in an environment with a high seroprevalence. — Isaac

My comment was ambiguous. They were successful tests at the scales of infection in Australia and NZ, and therefore instructive (i.e., useful and informative, not proof) for what could be achieved at larger scales of infection.

So here's the argument.

We've seen that lockdown and border controls have been effective at significantly reducing case numbers in regions with lots of daily cases. The point at issue is that almost invariably, once they feel they've "mitigated" the effects of the virus, they stop. And so the cases soon ramp up again and the cycle continues.

During August last year, Australia's state of Victoria (population 6.6 million) was getting around 400 new cases a day yet Australia was subsequently able to achieve elimination. That's a significant test.

More than half of the states in the US had less than 1000 new cases yesterday - they are comparable circumstances to Victoria's in August last year (including the same season - end of Winter).

At different points in time, many US states have been able to significantly reduce daily case numbers if they've tried. For example, daily cases in New York fell from 10,000 during April to under 900 through the summer. So they ended up in comparable circumstances to Victoria's.

That same analysis can be applied to Europe. If mobility is reduced, the daily cases rapidly fall.

You were earlier advocating a 'precautionary approach', now you're suggesting we dismiss the view of the World Health Organisation and instead pursue a policy devised by some fringe data scientists? Why the change of tune? — Isaac

If a fire is spreading, you don't mitigate it, you put it out. That's the precautionary approach.

I'm not dismissing what the WHO says. I'm making the case for an alternative strategy. And it's a strategy that people have been seen to get on board with.

So here's the argument.... — Andrew M

There's no mention of the disadvantages of lockdowns. One cannot make an argument in favour of an approach by only looking at the advantages of it. It's obviously going to look like the best option that way.

If a fire is spreading, you don't mitigate it, you put it out. That's the precautionary approach. — Andrew M

I'm not fond of arguing by analogy, but even this doesn't work. we fight factory fires by showering them with water. When we meet something on the scale of a bushfire, we change tactics. It's too big to fight by showering it with water and it would be dangerous to rely on that. We cut firebreaks, make strategic burn, evacuate people from areas that we've lost...

You're just presuming one factor and so obviously 'precautionary' seems to be limiting that factor, but human systems are complex and focussing only on one factor is never an appropriate precautionary approach.

I'm not dismissing what the WHO says. I'm making the case for an alternative strategy. — Andrew M

That's the same thing. The WHO are advising we prepare for endemic status, you're advising otherwise. That's about as close to 'dismissing' as one can get.

But I'm not here to dissuade you, that boat's clearly sailed, I want to know what attracts you to the position.

Up until last year, what was your position on the world's response to TB? HIV/AIDS? Poverty related food shortages? Suicide? Motor vehicle safety? Were they all similarly single-issue, elimination-focussed?

We actually did eliminate smallpox, polio, in some places, cholera, measles, mumps, almost pertussis except it's trying to make a comeback.

Were these measures mistaken?

We actually did eliminate smallpox, polio, in some places, cholera, measles, mumps, almost pertussis except it's trying to make a comeback.

Were these measures mistaken? — frank

I don't see any reason to think they were, no.

don't see any reason to think they were, no. — Isaac

Yes, so it's totally doable. It's a matter of will and means.

Yes, so it's totally doable. — frank

Yes. I would have thought that much was pretty unarguable because it's been done. It's also not been done with Influenza, HIV, Malaria, Dengue, Tuberculosis... Demonstrating that some viruses/bacterial infections have been effectively eradicated is irrelevant here. Demonstrating that Covid-19 is in the list of ones which can be and not in the list of ones which can't be is the relevant point. At the moment, the opinion of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologist, including the WHO is that it is most probably in the list of ones which can't be, so treating it as if it wasn't is potentially risky.

It's a matter of will and means. — frank

No, It's a matter of will, means and the absence of severe disadvantageous risks which outweigh the chances of success. As I said to Andrew, if you only look at the advantages, everything is going to look like an attractive course of action. Unfortunately, in a complex world, most courses of action have a wide-reaching set of consequences, the risks from which may well outweigh the chances of success.

There's no mention of the disadvantages of lockdowns. One cannot make an argument in favour of an approach by only looking at the advantages of it. It's obviously going to look like the best option that way. — Isaac

My argument was that elimination is possible (i.e., what could be achieved at larger scales of infection) as against your claim that "zero cases is literally impossible to achieve".

I expect we agree about the disadvantages of lockdowns. The choice though is not between lockdown and no lockdown. It's between targeted, quick lockdowns (used in conjunction with other measures including border controls and contact tracing), or enduring repeated lockdowns every time cases (and deaths) spiral out of control.

I'm not fond of arguing by analogy, but even this doesn't work. we fight factory fires by showering them with water. When we meet something on the scale of a bushfire, we change tactics. It's too big to fight by showering it with water and it would be dangerous to rely on that. We cut firebreaks, make strategic burn, evacuate people from areas that we've lost... — Isaac

... and finally extinguish it. The point is that COVID spread is a multiplicative process just as bushfire spread is.

That's the same thing. The WHO are advising we prepare for endemic status, you're advising otherwise. — Isaac

No, of course we should prepare - that's the direction things are currently going. But endemic status is neither desirable nor inevitable. The outcome is a choice, not a fate.

Up until last year, what was your position on the world's response to TB? HIV/AIDS? Poverty related food shortages? Suicide? Motor vehicle safety? Were they all similarly single-issue, elimination-focussed? — Isaac

The coronavirus pandemic is a systemic risk - unchecked, it grows rapidly, mutates and is highly unpredictable in terms of eventual deaths, health, and economic costs. So the precautionary principle applies.

There's no comparable risk with motor vehicle accidents. Outcomes are fairly predictable.

Now for a country experiencing an HIV epidemic or food shortages where they face an existential threat, they also should apply the precautionary principle.

My argument was that elimination is possible (i.e., what could be achieved at larger scales of infection) as against your claim that "zero cases is literally impossible to achieve". — Andrew M

Right, but we've just established that you didn't really mean 'elimination' in the sense of zero cases, so we're on the same page there. Your remaining argument hinges entirely on the means and the size of the small-but-non-zero target we both agree on.

The choice though is not between lockdown and no lockdown. It's between targeted, quick lockdowns (used in conjunction with other measures including border controls and contact tracing)... — Andrew M

As I've said, it's yet to be demonstrated that such quick lockdowns can be effective in countries where the endemic load is as high as it is in the UK, US and most of Europe.

But endemic status is neither desirable nor inevitable. — Andrew M

Again, the later is yet to be demonstrated. We can hope, but hope is not an empirical observation.

The coronavirus pandemic is a systemic risk - unchecked, it grows rapidly, mutates and is highly unpredictable in terms of eventual deaths — Andrew M

It's neither. It's highly predictable in the wider scheme. As @frank has already mentioned, communicable viruses cannot really maintain high fatality and longevity, it's one or the other. Hosts need to be mobile and even relatively active in order to spread the virus to new hosts. It's been the fate of all such viruses that they eventually become something widespread an mild. covid-19 may well buck that trend somehow, but that;s far from a claim that it's 'highly unpredictable'.

There's no comparable risk with motor vehicle accidents. Outcomes are fairly predictable. — Andrew M

Yes. Predictably one of the single largest causes of death, next to suicide usually. So if it's " eventual deaths" you're concerned to act against, then what is your policy towards these issues -all of which kill many more people than Covid-19 many times over and have done for decades if not hundreds of years. Why the focus on eliminating this particular risk?


Edit - Let me give you a couple of examples.

1.35 million people a year are killed in road accidents. Modern cars are 25% safer than older cars (according to NHTSA data), so a massive investment to allow poorer people to upgrade to more modern cars could save something like a third of a million deaths every single year.

According to the UN just two days of US military spending could save 2.3 million lives through poverty reduction.

Air pollution, vaccine programmes, safety measures, hospital building, affordable care, social housing, geriatric services...do I really need to list the number of issues where massive investment of money and will power could save millions of lives?

This particular one (Covid-19) just happens to be in the media at a time where social media polarizes issues making extreme responses more attractive. It's the effect of this we're seeing here, nothing more.

It's a matter of will, means and the absence of severe disadvantageous risks which outweigh the chances of success. — Isaac

True. I think the generation that conquered smallpox was more youthful, ambitious, and optimistic.

I don't know if It's just me, but I feel some heavy pessimism in the air these days.

That may well be, but ambitious optimists don't make good consumers. Miserable, passive, idiots with negligible self-esteem generally buy more crap.

That may well be, but ambitious optimists don't make good consumers. Miserable, passive, idiots with negligible self-esteem generally buy more c — Isaac

I thought it was just richer people who buy lots of crap.

I thought it was just richer people who buy lots of crap. — frank

Well yeah, that too, to a point. At a certain level, richer people can afford to make larger single investments of higher quality items, so they end up buying less (only paying more for it). The poor buy more because they can't afford to make more robust long-term investments. You pay £1.50 for a torch how long do you expect it to last?

Where I live, a torch is a piece of wood with oily rags tied on one end. The peasants use them to burn down the governor's mansion.

Where I live, a torch is a piece of wood with oily rags tied on one end. The peasants use them to burn down the governor's mansion. — frank

Yes, but have you tried the i-torch 8, with new splinter-free wood and lavender-scented oily rags (all emblazoned with your favourite Disney character)? It shines 10% brighter (in tests carried out by independent firm 'i-testing ltd') and it really tackles all 7 scientifically-proven signs of being under the yoke of an oppressive governor, which other torches just can't reach.

Not yet. I'm waiting for the i-torch 9, they say it has a better camera.

"China refused to hand over key data to the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of Covid-19, Prof Dominic Dwyer has said."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56054468

They're examples of success in regions with a low community infection source, — Isaac

Keep in mind that both Australia and New Zealand have low community infection precisely because they locked down heavily and quickly. IF 'merica or the UK were to lock down now, they could do the same.

Fucksake, the UK is only now thinking of isolating international travellers.

Keep in mind that both Australia and New Zealand have low community infection precisely because they locked down heavily and quickly. — Banno

Absolutely.

IF 'merica or the UK were to lock down now, they could do the same. — Banno

Well that's the matter in question. I'm not overly wedded to one position or the other on this, but from the WHO briefings alone, this is definitely a moot point. The trouble is the we can't lockdown everything. Lockdown just means lock down unnecessary stuff, if there's sufficient endemic load that even those essential services represent vectors along which the virus can travel (without meeting a dead end), then there will be no less a source population after the lockdown than there was before.

In order to eliminate a virus locally all current live host populations have to be unable to reach a new viable host before the time either their host dies, they are eliminated by their host, or they are killed by environmental conditions outside the host.

We can do this by reducing the number of viable hosts (immunity, vaccination), or by reducing the chance of a potential host passing by a current host's vicinity within that crucial time window (lockdown).

The problem is that the time window gets reset every time the virus moves to a new host, it gets to start the clock again, If the original endemic population is small, the total number of successive successful moves (moves where the virus does meet a new viable host in that time window) prior to a failed move (one where it doesn't and so dies out) is small.

In a high endemic load the total number of successful moves a virus population makes before finally making an unsuccessful one is much larger because not all current hosts are going to recover/die at the same time, so their windows of opportunity are offset slightly.

At some point in endemic load, especially within essential services which are not locked down, the sum total of all those offset time-windows adds up to more time than the lockdown can feasibly last.

Which brings us back to the point I made to Andrew originally. If you only look at the advantages of an approach it's obviously going to appear attractive. Lockdowns in populations with high endemic loads have to be much longer to have any effect (for the reasons I've outlined above). Lockdowns have serious life-threatening consequences (as I've shown with my previous citations about TB, vaccine programmes, access to development aid, medical services, community health services etc.). So at some point there will be a threshold where the endemic load is sufficiently hight that the duration required to achieve elimination would cause more harm than the elimination would prevent.

Fucksake, the UK is only now thinking of isolating international travellers. — Banno

Yes. Not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but after it has bolted, reached a new farm, settled down, had foals, gone lame and been turned into glue.

'Anti-vaccination protesters have gathered across Australia ahead of the launch of the country's coronavirus inoculation programme.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56137597

@StreetlightX@Banno