• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What is the Covid-19 Exit Strategy of 'Zero Covid' countries such as Hong Kong?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakenhamtrain

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2014
Messages
1,016
Location
Melbourne, Australia
NSW cracked 1,000 cases today. They're actually not far off knocking off Victoria from top of the table.

The reward for getting vaccinated in New South Wales?

The State approves an extra hour of recreation for you.


World has truly gone mad
Fair to say it's being suitably mocked down there.
Meanwhile in news to presumable government if you open up the vaccines to everyone it turns out there are many people who would like one. 200,000 appointments booked through Victorian vaccine hubs yesterday alone after they opened up the Pfizer eligibility to include everyone from 16-40.

The big issue is Shepperton at the moment. 15 percent of the population in isolation up there.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,871
The reward for getting vaccinated in New South Wales?

The State approves an extra hour of recreation for you.


World has truly gone mad

Certainly I don't understand things like time limits on recreation or indeed distance limits.

So if someone who lives on the edge of Sydney goes for a walk for more than the approved number of hours, or beyond the approved number of kilometres, why is that somehow dangerous virus spreading?

Think about it. You walk for 20 minutes in a crowded urban area (even that is low risk if you're outdoors, I suspect) or 5 hours in some isolated countryside. One has a very low risk, the other - the 5 hours in the countryside - has just about zero risk. (I might be exposing the vagueness of my knowledge of Australian geography, but AFAIK Sydney is surrounded by the Blue Mountains so this is theoretically possible if you live on the edge of the urban area). And I see it says 'no outdoor recreation', I'm sorry but this is just authoritarian nonsense, given the virus doesn't, I believe, even spread outdoors to any great extent. Cromwellite, puritanical nonsense which will just cause mental health problems; I do detect an anti-enjoyment agenda going on here. "Some people are dying of the virus, don't even think about having fun". Such an attitude solves nothing.

Also the limit on travelling more than 5km for shopping. What if you had specific dietary needs which required you to travel 6km? During the UK lockdown I had to regularly travel perhaps 4-5km to a specific shop in the centre of my city for dietary reasons, because nothing more local did the food I needed. If I'd have lived further out, this could have been significantly further than that. Thankfully they weren't so fussy about specific distances and the rules were a bit more vague.

It's a nonsense, and more 'control the people' than 'control the virus'.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Certainly I don't understand things like time limits on recreation or indeed distance limits.

So if someone who lives on the edge of Sydney goes for a walk for more than the approved number of hours, or beyond the approved number of kilometres, why is that somehow dangerous virus spreading?

Think about it. You walk for 20 minutes in a crowded urban area (even that is low risk if you're outdoors, I suspect) or 5 hours in some isolated countryside. One has a very low risk, the other - the 5 hours in the countryside - has just about zero risk. (I might be exposing the vagueness of my knowledge of Australian geography, but AFAIK Sydney is surrounded by the Blue Mountains so this is theoretically possible if you live on the edge of the urban area). And I see it says 'no outdoor recreation', I'm sorry but this is just authoritarian nonsense, given the virus doesn't, I believe, even spread outdoors to any great extent. Cromwellite, puritanical nonsense which will just cause mental health problems; I do detect an anti-enjoyment agenda going on here. "Some people are dying of the virus, don't even think about having fun". Such an attitude solves nothing.

Also the limit on travelling more than 5km for shopping. What if you had specific dietary needs which required you to travel 6km? During the UK lockdown I had to regularly travel perhaps 4-5km to a specific shop in the centre of my city for dietary reasons, because nothing more local did the food I needed. If I'd have lived further out, this could have been significantly further than that. Thankfully they weren't so fussy about specific distances and the rules were a bit more vague.

It's a nonsense, and more 'control the people' than 'control the virus'.
The argument for lockdowns, and how they're defined, is based on reducing social contact - whatever the limit is that's applied, it will be based on a view of how to break the chains of transmission. Different modellers, different politicians - different perspectives on how to define the rules.

Personally, I'd have said that the key issue here is public acceptance of the rules over any length of time.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
The argument for lockdowns, and how they're defined, is based on reducing social contact - whatever the limit is that's applied, it will be based on a view of how to break the chains of transmission. Different modellers, different politicians - different perspectives on how to define the rules.

Personally, I'd have said that the key issue here is public acceptance of the rules over any length of time.

So anything restricting the duration of solitary activities is inevitably complete claptrap.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
So anything restricting the duration of solitary activities is inevitably complete claptrap.
No - there's a good argument for simplicity in rules, and avoiding loopholes and confusion that follows. But that's only an argument about how they're structured, not that the solitary activity itself is a vector.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
No - there's a good argument for simplicity in rules, and avoiding loopholes and confusion that follows. But that's only an argument about how they're structured, not that the solitary activity itself is a vector.

"Simplicity of rules" is an extremely poor argument to impose such a curtailment of liberty (even before we get to the nonsense of suggesting that arbitrary time and geographical limits are somehow simpler than simply saying "you can go out, but don't meet anyone").
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
No - there's a good argument for simplicity in rules, and avoiding loopholes and confusion that follows
The countries that learnt the lessons of early 2020 lockdowns focused instead on business closures rather than trying to tell people they “couldn’t leave home except”. There is no palatable form of that which is not either 1) filled with loopholes and unequal enforcement at the whims of police, or 2) so strict that it is likely to lead to civil unrest.

I agree with you about public acceptance of the rules; I would suggest Australia doesn’t have that acceptance in relation to personal freedom of movement, and if the truth be told the U.K. didn’t either during lockdowns 2 and 3.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
They will. Not quite as free borders as before. It'll add up.

One wonders how people managed to go on foreign holidays before, given most of the world *isn’t* in the EU club. I really can’t see this being that much of a thing, especially compared against the current issues.

I thought the general consensus was that next year was considered likely to a foreign holiday bonanza with Britain in low demand? All I’ve heard for the last few weeks is people moaning about how awful, or at least mediocre, their UK “staycation” has been, with the two main gripes being places being overcrowded, and the weather which has been distinctly dull this summer, and at times poor.

The mood seems to be very much “can’t wait to jet off to the sunshine”, rather then “let’s keep repeating 2021”. Time will tell of course, and in reality the biggest factor is what other countries choose to do in respect of allowing us entry. It may well be the case that a 2022 holiday to New Zealand isn’t the best plan, but that’s barely a Brexit issue...
 

matt

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Messages
7,812
Location
Rugby
Looks like Qantas are anticipating the Australian border reopening in December


Qantas aims to restart flights to and from Britain in mid-December, in plans linked to the Covid vaccine rollout in Australia and in several of the airline’s major destinations.
The carrier’s initial focus – pending Australian government acceptance – will be on countries with high vaccination rates, including the UK, Japan Singapore Canada and the US, the airline said in a statement.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
"Simplicity of rules" is an extremely poor argument to impose such a curtailment of liberty (even before we get to the nonsense of suggesting that arbitrary time and geographical limits are somehow simpler than simply saying "you can go out, but don't meet anyone").
The argument about curtailment of liberty applies to lockdowns in principle - my comment was solely on how the measures might be justified.

Personally, if something as drastic as a lockdown is in force, I would rather (on a lesser evil basis) that it was clear and tight with a view to minimising duration and intrusion, than woolly, opaque and liable to the confusions seen here.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
The argument about curtailment of liberty applies to lockdowns in principle - my comment was solely on how the measures might be justified.

Personally, if something as drastic as a lockdown is in force, I would rather (on a lesser evil basis) that it was clear and tight with a view to minimising duration and intrusion, than woolly, opaque and liable to the confusions seen here.

On the contrary, if we must have a lockdown, I 'd far rather they stuck with restrictions with some sort of justifiable basis, rather than having pointless blanket restrictions because they think "the plebs" are too thick to understand them. And as I mentioned (and you didn't acknowledge) just saying go out but don't meet anyone, is a lot simpler than putting arbitrary time and geographical limits in for no reason.

Frankly I find this obsession with defending lockdown at all costs perplexing
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
The argument about curtailment of liberty applies to lockdowns in principle - my comment was solely on how the measures might be justified.

Personally, if something as drastic as a lockdown is in force, I would rather (on a lesser evil basis) that it was clear and tight with a view to minimising duration and intrusion, than woolly, opaque and liable to the confusions seen here.

I completely disagree with this.

Any restriction that limits your fundamental freedoms in society - like the ability to leave your house - should have a cast-iron evidence base behind it detailing why that particular restriction has been introduced and why it would absolutely not be possible to have any lesser form of restriction.

The lack of the technicalities / officiousness that were seen in other countries helped make the lockdowns ever so slightly more bearable. If someone had actively been monitoring to make sure I didn't have my *second period of illegal exercise" or had strayed "too far" on a bike ride I think I am not sure I would have been able to cope.

Now if you can prove that having a 5km / 1 hour tag limit is effective then fine but from all the evidence we have that just isn't the case at all.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
On the contrary, if we must have a lockdown, I 'd far rather they stuck with restrictions with some sort of justifiable basis, rather than having pointless blanket restrictions because they think "the plebs" are too thick to understand them. And as I mentioned (and you didn't acknowledge) just saying go out but don't meet anyone, is a lot simpler than putting arbitrary time and geographical limits in for no reason.

Frankly I find this obsession with defending lockdown at all costs perplexing
I completely disagree with this.

Any restriction that limits your fundamental freedoms in society - like the ability to leave your house - should have a cast-iron evidence base behind it detailing why that particular restriction has been introduced and why it would absolutely not be possible to have any lesser form of restriction.

The lack of the technicalities / officiousness that were seen in other countries helped make the lockdowns ever so slightly more bearable. If someone had actively been monitoring to make sure I didn't have my *second period of illegal exercise" or had strayed "too far" on a bike ride I think I am not sure I would have been able to cope.

Now if you can prove that having a 5km / 1 hour tag limit is effective then fine but from all the evidence we have that just isn't the case at all.
The "justifiable basis" is about trying to prevent contacts - the question for any lockdown designer is how they achieve that result. The purpose is to prevent transmission of disease, transmission which occurs on a person to person basis and, for Delta, appears to require very limited contact. If you restrict how far people travel, you limit the chains of connection that allow transmission over long distances. So the measure itself is an entirely logical one if you accept that lockdown type restrictions are a proportionate response to this disease.

As for ease of understanding, I refer back to the reactions to Derbyshire police's ticketing of two women early this year - a cock-up that was only possible because the regulations were loosely framed, and subject to interpretation. Clarity of law - even restrictive law - can be of benefit to the citizen, and protect their position; not just act as a constraint.

All of the above takes the existence of lockdown as a given, and gives the various layers of government the benefit of the doubt about how they respond. I think they've little choice given the alternatives, but that is a sign of fundamental policy failure by not moving through vaccination fast enough to allow themselves to adapt to the existence of Covid, while also preferring performance over real effectiveness on their border controls.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The "justifiable basis" is about trying to prevent contacts - the question for any lockdown designer is how they achieve that result. The purpose is to prevent transmission of disease, transmission which occurs on a person to person basis and, for Delta, appears to require very limited contact. If you restrict how far people travel, you limit the chains of connection that allow transmission over long distances. So the measure itself is an entirely logical one if you accept that lockdown type restrictions are a proportionate response to this disease.
So how long would you limit travel? Weeks, months, years? Its all very well saying limit people to certain areas, but that is entirely impracticable even for a short time as countries like Australia & New Zealand are finding out. For example how do you deal with say a doctor who works in a hospital in another area, or a truck driver, or a train driver. Sooner or later you will stumble across this reality of modern life, limiting people to set areas will not happen because of all the problems it would cause. Trying to affect how a virus spreads & mutates by limiting human movement is quite frankly daft. The virus will find a way through, it doesn't care about the lines we draw in the sand.

As for ease of understanding, I refer back to the reactions to Derbyshire police's ticketing of two women early this year - a cock-up that was only possible because the regulations were loosely framed, and subject to interpretation. Clarity of law - even restrictive law - can be of benefit to the citizen, and protect their position; not just act as a constraint.
OK, let's read how you would define the constraints. What limit would you set, and how would you apply it in larger cities?
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,651
On Australian government social media...

(presumably this was one of the ones they didn't shoot)
 

Attachments

  • E9S9eMWXIAMU15A.jpg
    E9S9eMWXIAMU15A.jpg
    376.1 KB · Views: 78

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
It is highly dangerous to put a face mask on an animal. I know this isn't what they are getting at here, but the image messaging is ill advised. Are they that stupid?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
It is highly dangerous to put a face mask on an animal. I know this isn't what they are getting at here, but the image messaging is ill advised. Are they that stupid?
It's a step up from shooting puppies dead because some volunteers might try and collect them to keep them safe.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
On Australian government social media...

(presumably this was one of the ones they didn't shoot)
Aside from the issues of hypocrisy when using a dog, this raises three questions from me :

1) Does anybody actually wear masks as a hat? Never seen that one before!
2) Can dogs contract sars-coV-19? I've heard about cats but nothing about dogs
3) FOR THE LAST TIME, DO FACE MASKS WORK????
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,871
The argument about curtailment of liberty applies to lockdowns in principle - my comment was solely on how the measures might be justified.

Personally, if something as drastic as a lockdown is in force, I would rather (on a lesser evil basis) that it was clear and tight with a view to minimising duration and intrusion, than woolly, opaque and liable to the confusions seen here.

I'm not at all sure about that. Lockdown - if necessary - should be purely about preventing activity which actually causes the virus to spread, not needless curtailment of liberty. So it may be necessary to close pubs, bars and restaurants; it may be necessary to avoid meeting people outside your household - but it should not be necessary to make criminals out of people who go for a solitary 6 hour hike in the Blue Mountains, which might do their mental - and physical - health a world of good.


Rules and regulations always need clear, rational, justification - not just relating to Covid, but in all spheres of life.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
I'm not at all sure about that. Lockdown - if necessary - should be purely about preventing activity which actually causes the virus to spread, not needless curtailment of liberty. So it may be necessary to close pubs, bars and restaurants; it may be necessary to avoid meeting people outside your household - but it should not be necessary to make criminals out of people who go for a solitary 6 hour hike in the Blue Mountains, which might do their mental - and physical - health a world of good.


Rules and regulations always need clear, rational, justification - not just relating to Covid, but in all spheres of life.

I agree - those who want the 6 hour hike on their own/with their household are not the primary target in this. But I stand by my view that when measures are being taken at a population level, the reality is that they can't be bespoke to individuals, but need to be general. This of course disregards the issues associated with either the risk of requiring emergency services, or of carrying disease into other communities (I don't know the Blue Mountains, but know that Lake District visitors acted as carriers, even just by meeting each other or dropping into shops or petrol stations).
So how long would you limit travel? Weeks, months, years? Its all very well saying limit people to certain areas, but that is entirely impracticable even for a short time as countries like Australia & New Zealand are finding out. For example how do you deal with say a doctor who works in a hospital in another area, or a truck driver, or a train driver. Sooner or later you will stumble across this reality of modern life, limiting people to set areas will not happen because of all the problems it would cause. Trying to affect how a virus spreads & mutates by limiting human movement is quite frankly daft. The virus will find a way through, it doesn't care about the lines we draw in the sand.


OK, let's read how you would define the constraints. What limit would you set, and how would you apply it in larger cities?
Firstly, I wouldn't deny biological reality - if a virus requires human contact to spread, then breaking human contacts prevents the virus spreading. That would then dictate my approach to policy - if the virus were significant enough that I needed to take significant action, I would be looking at how I could break those chains most effectively. One part of that would be to consider either the distances travelled (e.g. a radius from home) or level of intermingling between communities (e.g. staying within administrative areas). Define those, and how rigidly you need to apply them, and you can then start to work out how you handle exceptions - in the examples you give, I would suggest permitting travel directly to and from the place of work would be a practical method.

That then begs the question of how I'd define success. Love it or hate it, the New Zealand pandemic policy is absolutely clear about it's approach to containment, and has remained unchanged for a long time. If the disease is identified, and there are cases that can't be traced, then the lockdowns are imposed till there are no more cases.

The real question here, though, is not the theoretical one about whether this or that particular implementation of policy is right, but the principled one about whether restrictions are or are not a legitimate tool. And on that I suspect our views are never going to align.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Aside from the issues of hypocrisy when using a dog, this raises three questions from me :

1) Does anybody actually wear masks as a hat? Never seen that one before!
2) Can dogs contract sars-coV-19? I've heard about cats but nothing about dogs
3) FOR THE LAST TIME, DO FACE MASKS WORK????
1) People seem to like putting them on their chins so i would not be surprised to see them on their heads.
2) Not that i have heard.
3) NO!!!!
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Firstly, I wouldn't deny biological reality - if a virus requires human contact to spread, then breaking human contacts prevents the virus spreading. That would then dictate my approach to policy - if the virus were significant enough that I needed to take significant action, I would be looking at how I could break those chains most effectively. One part of that would be to consider either the distances travelled (e.g. a radius from home) or level of intermingling between communities (e.g. staying within administrative areas). Define those, and how rigidly you need to apply them, and you can then start to work out how you handle exceptions - in the examples you give, I would suggest permitting travel directly to and from the place of work would be a practical method.
Who is denying biology? I know how viruses spread, but what you fail to connect is no matter how much you try to contain a virus, the humans that carry have to move outside of your lines in the sand. It is isn't a case of working out the exceptions, they will be numerous and way too many to control. That is a reality of modern society. You could of course shut pretty much everything down, but then how do you pay for all of this?

Basically it is the same argument about lockdowns that have been going on about lockdowns since the pandemic started. You are really bringing nothing new to the table.

That then begs the question of how I'd define success. Love it or hate it, the New Zealand pandemic policy is absolutely clear about it's approach to containment, and has remained unchanged for a long time. If the disease is identified, and there are cases that can't be traced, then the lockdowns are imposed till there are no more cases.
And look where they are, staring the inevitable in the face. The lockdowns aren't doing what they hoped for, they messed up their vaccine programme, and they are going to have to prepare to come out from behind the sofa before they completely wreak their economy.

The real question here, though, is not the theoretical one about whether this or that particular implementation of policy is right, but the principled one about whether restrictions are or are not a legitimate tool. And on that I suspect our views are never going to align.
Well you got that one right. But frankly our opposing views do not matter one jot, what matters is the damage lockdowns have done & could they ever be used again.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
Certainly I don't understand things like time limits on recreation or indeed distance limits.

So if someone who lives on the edge of Sydney goes for a walk for more than the approved number of hours, or beyond the approved number of kilometres, why is that somehow dangerous virus spreading?
Lockdowns and restrictions are about reducing risk, not eliminating it. Being out for N hours is less of a risk than 2N hours.

Is it sensible overall? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not completely irrational.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
Lockdowns and restrictions are about reducing risk, not eliminating it. Being out for N hours is less of a risk than 2N hours.

Is it sensible overall? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not completely irrational.
No it's claptrap.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
Being out for N hours is less of a risk than 2N hours.
Care to explain further? Simply not true. The risk is zero in both cases, as long as you don't come into contact with any other people. In that case, the risk is so close to zero it's not worth the effects of lockdown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top