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

[zero]

But they already had measures in place for those coming back, so did the UK. If people were prepared to pay the cost of hotel quarentine, when it was being applied across the board in the UK, then that's their choice and something they should have been able to face if they wanted to. I just don't see why it needed to be a criminal act to leave when there were already such deterrents in place for those who chose to come into the country at the time. Making it illegal to leave was abhorrent in my view, nothing short of dictatorship. It's moot anyway as they got away with it and now, thankfully, we have been able to leave again for many months.

Hotel quarantine was not applied across the board in the UK.

In the UK during the lockdown periods, it was illegal to leave your home without a reasonable excuse. Whether you were going down the road or halfway across the world was immaterial. According to a friend of a friend who works at Heathrow, a surprisingly large number of people were intending to buy property in the Maldives in February this year, and it was essential that their children also go to view the property.

Australia's rationale is that there is a limited number of spaces for hotel quarantine, so even if everyone was willing to pay there were not enough staff or rooms available (incidentally, this is also why countries like Spain and the US, which by some measures should have gone on the UK's red list, haven't). The Australian federal government has chosen to deal with it by not allowing people to leave for holidays at all; if I were in charge I would have simply said you can leave but you have to take your chances as to when you can come back - that's how NZ's hotel quarantine system operates (though if I were in charge I would have done many things differently)

 

[brad465]

I don't know what the on the ground situation in Victoria is, but the case situation is rapidly deteriorating, adding over 1,000 active cases today and now there are more here than in NSW:

Total Active Cases - COVID Live

Live tracking of coronavirus cases, active, tests, deaths, ICU, hospitalisations and vaccinations in Australia

covidlive.com.au

If Victoria hasn't changed its position on conditions for restrictions, they'll not be getting out anytime in future.

 

[kristiang85]

Presumably Victoria is still in lockdown? I've lost track.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

I don't know what the on the ground situation in Victoria is, but the case situation is rapidly deteriorating, adding over 1,000 active cases today and now there are more here than in NSW:

Total Active Cases - COVID Live

Live tracking of coronavirus cases, active, tests, deaths, ICU, hospitalisations and vaccinations in Australia

covidlive.com.au

View attachment 103293

If Victoria hasn't changed its position on conditions for restrictions, they'll not be getting out anytime in future.

We actually changed slightly yesterday. The 10km distance limit went to 15. Next stop is 80 percent single dose. Then 70 percent double dose, then 80 percent double dose. The roadmap to re opening is what we are doing by hook or by crook.


The only reason we racked up 1400 cases today was everyone starting to get sick from thier illegal AFL Grand Final get togethers which was on Saturday. 500 people alone are from that.

Presumably Victoria is still in lockdown? I've lost track.

Melbourne and parts of regional Victoria. Melbourne holds the world record. Lockdown ends at 70 percent double dose.

 

[nw1]

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1435887357815894022

The link has a video to a news report from NSW saying that deliveries to people being locked down are being monitored and excess alcohol over a mandated limit is being exceeded confiscated. (Edit: typo)

Sorry, only just seen this, I realise it's an old post.

Did Oliver Cromwell find a tardis, travel forward in time to contemporary Australia, and install himself in the government of NSW?

If they are worried about excessive alcohol consumption, maybe they need to be a bit more understanding of the adverse effects over-prolonged lockdown, of the kind Australians have had to endure, has on people's mental health and financial security?

 

[brad465]

Australia is finally starting to end its very strict border policy from November:

Australian border to reopen for first time in pandemic

Vaccinated Australians can start travelling abroad from November, ending an 18-month ban.

www.bbc.co.uk

Australia will reopen its international border from November, giving long-awaited freedoms to vaccinated citizens and their relatives.
Since March 2020, Australia has had some of the world's strictest border rules - even banning its own people from leaving the country.
The policy has been praised for helping to suppress Covid, but it has also controversially separated families.
"It's time to give Australians their lives back," PM Scott Morrison said.
People would be eligible to travel when their state's vaccination rate hit 80%, he told a press briefing on Friday.
Travel would not immediately be open to foreigners, but the government said it was working "towards welcoming tourists back to our shores".
At present, people can leave Australia only for exceptional reasons such as essential work or visiting a dying relative.
Entry is permitted for citizens and others with exemptions, but there are tight caps on arrival numbers. This has left tens of thousands stranded overseas.

On Friday, Mr Morrison said Australia's mandatory 14-day hotel quarantine - which costs each traveller A$3,000 (£1,600; $2,100) - would be phased out.
It will be replaced by seven days of home quarantine for vaccinated travellers. When unvaccinated travellers are later given permission to enter, they must do 14 days.
Demand for flights is expected to be high and airlines have already warned of delays in resuming services.
Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra are currently in lockdown due to outbreaks of the virus.
That has helped prompt a surge in the vaccine uptake in recent months.

 

[yorkie]

I always suspected Zero Covid was an unrealistic strategy, right from the very start, and over time this became increasingly clear.

I am surprised they are opening the border as early as this; I had expected them to hold out for longer. This is very good news.

How times have changed compared to around a year ago when people said nonsense like "the UK is an island nation (!) like Australia; we could have eliminated the virus if we had locked down earlier"; those people look very silly now.

 

[Domh245]

It it worth noting that "reopen the border" means letting their own citizens leave, assuming their state has hit an arbitrary target. The border will still be effectively closed to non-citizens

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

https://twitter.com/migga/status/1443793889970720770

Second doses are flying in VIC #covid19vic https://covidlive.com.au/vic In the last 7 days:
243,276 first (52.55%)
219,673 second (47.45%)

Alternate "6 week" projection:
70% = 27 Oct (26 days)
80% = 9 Nov (39 days)

Vaccines are flying off the shelves in Victoria.

 

[Watershed]

It it worth noting that "reopen the border" means letting their own citizens leave, assuming their state has hit an arbitrary target. The border will still be effectively closed to non-citizens

For now - they have stated they intend to reopen to foreign citizens in due course too. I'm glad to see Australia's government have finally seen sense.

It is crass that it has taken the failure of the last 19 months' authoritarian diktats for politicians and the public to accept that "zero Covid" is unworkable. The pointless sacrilege of basic human rights don't bear thinking about.

 

[Domh245]

For now - they have stated they intend to reopen to foreign citizens in due course too. I'm glad to see Australia's government have finally seen sense.

It is crass that it has taken the failure of the last 19 months' authoritarian diktats for politicians and the public to accept that "zero Covid" is unworkable. The pointless sacrilege of basic human rights don't bear thinking about.

My big issue is that they were always going to open in 'due course'. I don't think anyone realistically expected them to stay closed forever and as such, today's news is just an affirmation that they're going to continue with this path. There's nothing about that final step towards normality and reopening to normal travel - no dates (understandably) but nothing about targets or conditions either, just throwaway words.

It's a welcome step for those within the country that want to leave, but nothing much has changed for the rest of the world.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

My big issue is that they were always going to open in 'due course'. I don't think anyone realistically expected them to stay closed forever and as such, today's news is just an affirmation that they're going to continue with this path. There's nothing about that final step towards normality and reopening to normal travel - no dates (understandably) but nothing about targets or conditions either, just throwaway words.

It's a welcome step for those within the country that want to leave, but nothing much has changed for the rest of the world.

The idea was to stay covid zero until the vaccines reached a certain level. Then we had delta screw that up.

 

[Bantamzen]

The idea was to stay covid zero until the vaccines reached a certain level. Then we had delta screw that up.

Viruses have a nasty habit of not caring about political roadmaps. In fact viruses aren't even aware of politics full stop. One way or another, one variant or another it would find it's way in.

 

[35B]

Viruses have a nasty habit of not caring about political roadmaps. In fact viruses aren't even aware of politics full stop. One way or another, one variant or another it would find it's way in.

Worth note that although we're conscious of lockdowns in NSW, ACT and Vic, WA and Queensland are still running more or less normally - though with interstate borders very restricted. Their case numbers are also very low.

 

[Highlandspring]

Viruses have a nasty habit of not caring about political roadmaps.

What other viruses have ever apparently required a "political roadmap" previously?

 

[Bantamzen]

Worth note that although we're conscious of lockdowns in NSW, ACT and Vic, WA and Queensland are still running more or less normally - though with interstate borders very restricted. Their case numbers are also very low.

So not running normally then?

What other viruses have ever apparently required a "political roadmap" previously?

Viruses don't need any political roadmaps, they are quite unaware of them. Politicians on the other hand...

 

[Highlandspring]

Viruses don't need any political roadmaps, they are quite unaware of them.

Yes I understand that. My question is what other virus has resulted in a political and policy response on the scale we've seen with Covid? Even at the height of the AIDS panic in the 1980s no government anywhere in the world was closing borders or removing basic liberties from the population.

The real issue I have is that the response to Covid is often described in the media and online in terms that suggest it has a precedent in the past. People say things like "Obviously we know from experience that lockdowns work" when actually we know nothing of the sort, because virtually every policy dreamed up so far in response to Covid has been completely without precedent for any other epidemic. They threw out the pandemic flu plan in March 2020 and - to use the map analogy - started on a course into uncharted territory. When you say that viruses "have a nasty habit of ignoring political roadmaps" it strikes me that no other virus in human history has ever prompted a 'political roadmap' before (whatever the hell the ridiculous management-speak phrase 'political roadmap' is supposed to mean in the first place).

 

[MikeWM]

Yes I understand that. My question is what other virus has resulted in a political and policy response on the scale we've seen with Covid? Even at the height of the AIDS panic in the 1980s no government anywhere in the world was closing borders or removing basic liberties from the population.

Mexico tried a 'lockdown' for swine flu in 2009, though it only lasted a couple of weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/30/swine-flu-mexico-government-lockdown

Other than that, and some (brief and unpopular) mask mandates in some cities of the USA when the Spanish flu was going on around 1919, I believe this situation to be entirely unprecedented.

When you say that viruses "have a nasty habit of ignoring political roadmaps" it strikes me that no other virus in human history has ever prompted a 'political roadmap' before (whatever the hell the ridiculous management-speak phrase 'political roadmap' is supposed to mean in the first place).

I've said from the start that our biggest problems stem from approaching a respirarory virus pandemic as a political issue. It shouldn't be, and indeed comparable and/or worse pandemics haven't ever been considered so in the past.

 

[Berliner]

Yes I understand that. My question is what other virus has resulted in a political and policy response on the scale we've seen with Covid? Even at the height of the AIDS panic in the 1980s no government anywhere in the world was closing borders or removing basic liberties from the population.

The real issue I have is that the response to Covid is often described in the media and online in terms that suggest it has a precedent in the past. People say things like "Obviously we know from experience that lockdowns work" when actually we know nothing of the sort, because virtually every policy dreamed up so far in response to Covid has been completely without precedent for any other epidemic. They threw out the pandemic flu plan in March 2020 and - to use the map analogy - started on a course into uncharted territory. When you say that viruses "have a nasty habit of ignoring political roadmaps" it strikes me that no other virus in human history has ever prompted a 'political roadmap' before (whatever the hell the ridiculous management-speak phrase 'political roadmap' is supposed to mean in the first place).

I agree 100%. I suppose AIDS is not respiratory, so in that sense is easier to control and from the off, there was already numerous prevention methods.

That said, the WHO never advocated lockdowns and border closures or the removal of civil liberties. They distinctly said, "test, test, test" and yet governments were so slow to roll out testing and at first it almost seemed like one had to be some kind of elite club member to get anywhere near a testing site. I understand these things take time, but surely wider and home testing capabilities should have been rolled out much, much sooner to control the spread, even if they just focused on key workers or those that could not WFH and had to be out and about as obviously it as spreading among thee people most. We were over a year after the initial lockdown before we could even order home tests. I fear some of the damage done to society from Covid restrictions is far worse than the actual virus. No government ever gave this kind of attention to other respiratory viruses, what was it that caused the world to react like this?

 

[takno]

I agree 100%. I suppose AIDS is not respiratory, so in that sense is easier to control and from the off, there was already numerous prevention methods.

That said, the WHO never advocated lockdowns and border closures or the removal of civil liberties. They distinctly said, "test, test, test" and yet governments were so slow to roll out testing and at first it almost seemed like one had to be some kind of elite club member to get anywhere near a testing site. I understand these things take time, but surely wider and home testing capabilities should have been rolled out much, much sooner to control the spread, even if they just focused on key workers or those that could not WFH and had to be out and about as obviously it as spreading among thee people most. We were over a year after the initial lockdown before we could even order home tests. I fear some of the damage done to society from Covid restrictions is far worse than the actual virus. No government ever gave this kind of attention to other respiratory viruses, what was it that caused the world to react like this?

WHO absolutely did advocate lockdowns and border closures. They were extremely slow off the mark in recommending border closures, and then they started wildly overreacting. Certainly the official WHO line sometimes deviated from what their spokespeople were saying, and David Nabarro as their European rep has always been far less keen on lockdowns than the lunatic in overall charge, but they have repeatedly recommended lockdowns.

 

[yorksrob]

Mexico tried a 'lockdown' for swine flu in 2009, though it only lasted a couple of weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/30/swine-flu-mexico-government-lockdown

Other than that, and some (brief and unpopular) mask mandates in some cities of the USA when the Spanish flu was going on around 1919, I believe this situation to be entirely unprecedented.



I've said from the start that our biggest problems stem from approaching a respirarory virus pandemic as a political issue. It shouldn't be, and indeed comparable and/or worse pandemics haven't ever been considered so in the past.

I believe we pursued a policy of forcing bubonic plague sufferers to stay in their homes, and painted a big red cross on their front doors during the 1660's

 

[Yew]

WHO absolutely did advocate lockdowns and border closures. They were extremely slow off the mark in recommending border closures, and then they started wildly overreacting. Certainly the official WHO line sometimes deviated from what their spokespeople were saying, and David Nabarro as their European rep has always been far less keen on lockdowns than the lunatic in overall charge, but they have repeatedly recommended lockdowns.

It’s perhaps worth dividing how we consider who policy into pre-pandemic and post pandemic, as they differ significantly

I believe we pursued a policy of forcing bubonic plague sufferers to stay in their homes, and painted a big red cross on their front doors during the 1660's

Has anyone considered throwing a virgin into a volcano? There’s probably about as much evidence for that as some of the things we’ve been forced to endure…

 

[yorksrob]

Has anyone considered throwing a virgin into a volcano? There’s probably about as much evidence for that as some of the things we’ve been forced to endure…

We'd have to find a volcano first !

 

[MikeWM]

I believe we pursued a policy of forcing bubonic plague sufferers to stay in their homes, and painted a big red cross on their front doors during the 1660's

Well, I'm not entirely opposed to some preventative measures during a pandemic *on those who actually have a case of the serious disease* (though not big red crosses!). 18 months of measures on perfectly well people, on the other hand, is clearly totally unacceptable.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I'm not entirely opposed to some preventative measures during a pandemic *on those who actually have a case of the serious disease* (though not big red crosses!). 18 months of measures on perfectly well people, on the other hand, is clearly totally unacceptable.

Indeed. I wasn't advocating lockdown BTW !

 

[MikeWM]

Indeed. I wasn't advocating lockdown BTW !

But that rather shows the point - there's nothing unusual or especially controversial about trying to stop ill people spreading a disease [1], and people who advocate that aren't by any means necessarily endorsing all the other pseudo-science, liberty-destroying nonsense we've had inflicted on us for 18 months now.

Some things make sense. Some things make some sense, but the impact of doing them is wildly disproportionate to their benefits. And some things make no sense at all.


[1] edited for clarity - by 'ill people' I mean people with actual symptoms. And by 'trying to stop ill people spreading a disease' I mean using established methods we've used for centuries, like washing hands and staying home while ill.

 

[bramling]

Yes I understand that. My question is what other virus has resulted in a political and policy response on the scale we've seen with Covid? Even at the height of the AIDS panic in the 1980s no government anywhere in the world was closing borders or removing basic liberties from the population.

The real issue I have is that the response to Covid is often described in the media and online in terms that suggest it has a precedent in the past. People say things like "Obviously we know from experience that lockdowns work" when actually we know nothing of the sort, because virtually every policy dreamed up so far in response to Covid has been completely without precedent for any other epidemic. They threw out the pandemic flu plan in March 2020 and - to use the map analogy - started on a course into uncharted territory. When you say that viruses "have a nasty habit of ignoring political roadmaps" it strikes me that no other virus in human history has ever prompted a 'political roadmap' before (whatever the hell the ridiculous management-speak phrase 'political roadmap' is supposed to mean in the first place).

Yes I’ve always found it rather unnerving when we hear the likes of Whitty and Vallance come out with stuff like “the one thing we know is that lockdowns work”.

That is very debatable indeed, especially when on multiple occasions we’ve been placed into lockdown without a clear set of criteria for what the measure was actually meant to achieve.

March 2020 bought us time, however this to some extent allowed the politicians to avoid having to devise a longer-term strategy. The fact that we have had two further lockdowns since, along with loads of other highly intrusive stuff like the tiers, local lockdowns, and of course the Welsh “firebreak”, would indicate they very much *don’t* work.

We haven’t really held the politicians to account for failing to derive maximum benefit from the enormous costs associated with lockdown - both monetary and the negative impact on our lives.

 

[35B]

So not running normally then?

I said "more or less".

Yes I understand that. My question is what other virus has resulted in a political and policy response on the scale we've seen with Covid? Even at the height of the AIDS panic in the 1980s no government anywhere in the world was closing borders or removing basic liberties from the population.

In the modern world (let's say post 1945 as an approximation), when has there been a disease that has spread so extensively and fast, and with such loss of life? To judge the response, we also need to judge the context.

 

[big_rig]

I said "more or less".

In the modern world (let's say post 1945 as an approximation), when has there been a disease that has spread so extensively and fast, and with such loss of life? To judge the response, we also need to judge the context.

Err, yes. The 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic which killed 1-4 million people, when the worlds population was half what it is now. It is a minor footnote in history with no comparable response of any sort relative to Covid.

 

[bramling]

I said "more or less".

In the modern world (let's say post 1945 as an approximation), when has there been a disease that has spread so extensively and fast, and with such loss of life? To judge the response, we also need to judge the context.

Such loss of life does need to be qualified with the point that, AIUI, the median age of mortality remains at 82, which is actually above typical median life expectancy age.

The question of how many people died “of Covid”, as opposed to “with Covid”, will be something requiring analysis in any follow-up investigation.