Posts
Comments
"but a lockdown can also be used to reduce the number of cases to effectively zero."
Effectively zero and literally zero are quite different things in pandemics because it only takes one infection to make it through the lock down to start another epidemic wave. Australia (your example) is currently hitting record Covid cases for the country, if you consider that "effectively zero" I don't know what to make of that. Australia's lockdown policy is security theater. If you don't know what security theater is it's like when at an airport everyone is supposed to take off their shoes. It doesn't do anything because obviously if everyone has to take of their shoes no bad guy is going to hide anything there, but it makes people feel safer. What actually makes people safer at airports is background investigation by intelligence agencies. Just because Australia is punishing people for not getting vaccinated that doesn't mean Australia is actually handling the pandemic well. https://gazette.com/news/us-world/australia-covid-19-cases-surge-overloading-testing-system/article_bf0b821d-e59e-5cb3-aa97-e2ff714bd6a1.html
Lockdowns work for delaying waves, not preventing them.
Your point about the evolution of viruses does not invalidate what I said, because you are right that viruses only naturally select to be less deadly if they kill their host too fast. And all you've done is inadvertently admit that Covid isn't actually that deadly already and that vaccines will actually slow down mutation due to the ability for vaccinated people to carry the infection.
"There have been countries that successfully managed to suppress the pandemic during long periods of time."
Long periods of time =/= indefinitely. Just like what we see in Australia, harsh lockdowns slow the virus but NEVER does it actually stop it. You are just proving me right, lockdowns when successful can buy time, but they can never "end" a pandemic because as soon as the lockdown is lifted, even just slightly, the virus is free to spread again. So you either have indefinite lockdowns or lift the lockdowns when vaccines or mutations make the virus less deadly. Not even a theoretical perfect lockdown in your imagination would actually stop end pandemic. Viruses are not bacteria, viruses are not living organisms, meaning you can't just wait for the virus to die off because it's not in common sense a living organism.
"nor do they have a strong incentive to take measures that are unpopular"
Yes, that's democracy. It's a system where the goal is to make sure the politicians represent the people's desires instead of performing unpopular actions. Does democracy have it's flaws? Yes. Do I believe you lean libertarian? I believe you think you do. But I've never heard a Libertarian commend China and argue for a system where politicians should have a system to violate the will of the people.
"This is a bit paradoxical because China is a clear example of a massively populated country that successfully managed to handle much better this crisis"
China is also a country with no free press nor free internet, not to mention an incredibly self-conscious dictator. If any country is not to be believed when they say "everything is fine" it's China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/01/05/beijing-is-intentionally-underreporting-chinas-covid-death-rate-part-2/ China saying Covid deaths are low =/= China's Covid deaths are low. Beijing put a halt to the reporting cases almost two years ago. Western countries only look like they are handling the virus poorly relative to others because they are the only countries who keep reliable and public data on it's people. When making models accurate, you have to make sure the data is accurate, and there is plenty of proof that China's data is inaccurate.
"I would dare to say that the pandemic could be over by now." Then you need to learn more about pandemics. The point of a lockdown isn't to end a pandemic, the point is to buy time. There are only 3 ways pandemics "end". Viruses need their hosts, so most often pandemics "end" when viruses mutate to become less deadly. Modern medicine has also let vaccines be an alternative way to reduce virus fatalities to acceptable levels. Lastly, there's natural selection and only people who have natural immunity survive, but no one wants that.
A more severe and diligent lockdown wouldn't have accelerated vaccine development, and it wouldn't have removed the virus from existing, but it would have actually slowed the mutation of the virus. I don't know what flawed logic you are using to lead you to believe that a more authoritarian lockdown could have ended the pandemic early.
It's also bad logic to assume a virus that targeted children would have been handled less divisively. Do you remember before Covid-19? Anti-vax parents kept losing kids and it wasn't changing their minds. We live in a world of disinformation. If Covid targeted kids, anti-vax people would be fear mongering that the government and vaccines are killing kids.
You seem to think the problem is that the people "in-charge" didn't have enough power and authority. Look at China, you would think their authoritarian system would actually be good in pandemic situations because they could just blockade entire cities in and whatnot... But China instead cared more about prestige and in the early days of Covid tried to make people believe the virus didn't even exist. This is another reason why your line of thinking is detached from reality. You think giving more power to the people in charge would solve your problems ignoring the possibility that it isn't the system that's flawed but instead the components. Let's not forget who the US president at the time of the outbreak. You really think harsher action from politicians would have lead to a better outcome?