Media Coverage of COVID -19

[NorthKent1989]

You're missing the point - those were a couple of random examples picked simply because the government has encouraged snitching on them for many years. You think encouraging snitching is a sign of authoritarian government, so I'd like to know whether you object to it in all cases or only some.

Pretty sure I answered your question, I don’t need to over explain my point over again

 

[quantinghome]

Pretty sure I answered your question, I don’t need to over explain my point over again

You didn't, but never mind. It's up to you.

 

[Mugby]

I thought the BBC's interview with Starmer was very telling, he wants mask wearing to continue (together with certain other things of no great consequence) Does he really believe what he said or does he oppose simply for the sake of opposing!

I was waiting for question: Tell us how long you would continue the restrictions, but no, the interviewer could easily have tied him in knots, but he was let off lightly, I guess what he had to say fitted the BBC's narrative just fine!

 

[stephens]

I thought the BBC's interview with Starmer was very telling, he wants mask wearing to continue (together with certain other things of no great consequence) Does he really believe what he said or does he oppose simply for the sake of opposing!

I was waiting for question: Tell us how long you would continue the restrictions, but no, the interviewer could easily have tied him in knots, but he was let off lightly, I guess what he had to say fitted the BBC's narrative just fine!

The clip of that interview that I saw on the BBC news channel, the interviewer did ask him that very question several times and he refused to answer it. instead he just kept repeating himself word for word.

Clearly his true answer to that question would be well into next year, or beyond!

 

[NorthKent1989]

You didn't, but never mind. It's up to you.

Based on what I stated previously about welfare fraud and illegal immigration that should tell you my stance on those matters, and I feel strongly about snitching about breaking so called Covid rules.

 

[quantinghome]

Based on what I stated previously about welfare fraud and illegal immigration that should tell you my stance on those matters, and I feel strongly about snitching about breaking so called Covid rules.

Yes, you've made your view clear on welfare fraud and illegal immigration. No one would disagree that welfare fraud is wrong and should be prosecuted, and I pretty much agree with you on immigration (notwithstanding difficult situations like people being trafficked into the country against their will).

But I see you have avoided saying whether you think the government should encourage people to inform on their neighbours in those cases. Surely that's as much a sign of an authoritarian tendency as snitching on covid rule breaches?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yes, you've made your view clear on welfare fraud and illegal immigration. No one would disagree that welfare fraud is wrong and should be prosecuted, and I pretty much agree with you on immigration (notwithstanding difficult situations like people being trafficked into the country against their will).

But I see you have avoided saying whether you think the government should encourage people to inform on their neighbours in those cases. Surely that's as much a sign of an authoritarian tendency as snitching on covid rule breaches?

Again I’ve made my views clear.

But I’ll further explain it for you, so called Covid breaches arent even on the list of being a real crime, it’s intrusive into our freedoms and daily lives, illegal immigration or welfare fraud, the latter two are actual crimes that do harm to society, so called Covid breaches are worthless because viruses travel whether humans do or don’t travel regardless.

So do you agree with being spied on going into someone’s house whose not in a bubble but a particular person needs mental health support?

 

[35B]

Again I’ve made my views clear.

But I’ll further explain it for you, so called Covid breaches arent even on the list of being a real crime, it’s intrusive into our freedoms and daily lives, illegal immigration or welfare fraud, the latter two are actual crimes that do harm to society, so called Covid breaches are worthless because viruses travel whether humans do or don’t travel regardless.

So do you agree with being spied on going into someone’s house whose not in a bubble but a particular person needs mental health support?

There are some who'd argue that Covid breaches pose a genuine risk to people, whereas some illegal immigration and some welfare fraud are nothing to do with crime, except for the way that the law has been framed to criminalise them.

I prefer to start with definitions of crime being based on the law, however flawed it is, rather than taking individual arbitrary interpretations of what is or is not "criminal". I would also suggest that if we wanted a definition of "authoritarian", the policies being pursued by the Home Secretary (who has been pretty silent through Covid) are a good touchstone for what is or is not "authoritarian".

 

[DustyBin]

Yes, you've made your view clear on welfare fraud and illegal immigration. No one would disagree that welfare fraud is wrong and should be prosecuted, and I pretty much agree with you on immigration (notwithstanding difficult situations like people being trafficked into the country against their will).

But I see you have avoided saying whether you think the government should encourage people to inform on their neighbours in those cases. Surely that's as much a sign of an authoritarian tendency as snitching on covid rule breaches?

I view it as rather different to be honest. I don’t have snitchy tendencies at all, however I would probably report somebody for committing the above offences, and I’d certainly report somebody if I knew they were going out at night and breaking into houses, for example. Such offences aren’t “victimless” and society is better off without the perpetrators as far as I’m concerned. That’s not authoritarian in my book. Reporting people for breaching petty made up rules however is. Where to draw the line is really up to the individual but the line exists, and having one too many people sat in the garden (for example) is on the authoritarian side of it, to me at least.

 

[NorthKent1989]

There are some who'd argue that Covid breaches pose a genuine risk to people, whereas some illegal immigration and some welfare fraud are nothing to do with crime, except for the way that the law has been framed to criminalise them.

I prefer to start with definitions of crime being based on the law, however flawed it is, rather than taking individual arbitrary interpretations of what is or is not "criminal". I would also suggest that if we wanted a definition of "authoritarian", the policies being pursued by the Home Secretary (who has been pretty silent through Covid) are a good touchstone for what is or is not "authoritarian".

Covid has a 99% survival rate and a average age death of 82, it’s not Ebola or Zika virus.

To be honest I think being there for someone struggling with their mental health is far more important than Covid breaches, especially at this stage

As @DustyBin said, breaking into someone’s house is a real crime, mixing with mates isn’t in the grand scheme of things.

I’m not the person who snitches on people because that would mean I’m constantly looking at what others are doing, for all I know there could be a family of illegal immigrants next door to me and I probably wouldn’t even know, however if someone was attacked on the train I would most certainly report it.

Reporting on neighbours just because they breach a Covid law is quite frankly sinister and is reminiscent of a few authoritarian regimes in the last century that has no place in today’s society.

 

[DustyBin]

I prefer to start with definitions of crime being based on the law, however flawed it is, rather than taking individual arbitrary interpretations of what is or is not "criminal". I would also suggest that if we wanted a definition of "authoritarian", the policies being pursued by the Home Secretary (who has been pretty silent through Covid) are a good touchstone for what is or is not "authoritarian".

Agreed, but if she gets her way will you then simply accept that it’s the law and go along with it? There’s a point at which people need to make a stand, morally, rather than go along with something that isn’t right.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Agreed, but if she gets her way will you then simply accept that it’s the law and go along with it? There’s a point at which people need to make a stand, morally, rather than go along with something that isn’t right.

Quite.

It’s staggering how many people are quite prepared to give up their freedoms and accept some form of authoritarianism all because of a respiratory illness

 

[quantinghome]

But I’ll further explain it for you, so called Covid breaches arent even on the list of being a real crime, it’s intrusive into our freedoms and daily lives, illegal immigration or welfare fraud, the latter two are actual crimes that do harm to society,

Do we get to decide for ourselves what is and isn't a 'real' crime?

According to the law, illegal immigration isn't actually a crime - someone with no right to be in the country can be deported, but they haven't committed a criminal offence. Welfare fraud should be prosecuted as per all types of fraud and theft, but I'm struggling to see what harm it's actually done to my life, other than increasing my tax bill by a tiny fraction.

By contrast persistent breaches of Covid rules have seeded outbreaks of the virus, increased serious illness and deaths and ultimately prolonged lockdowns and restrictions.

so called Covid breaches are worthless because viruses travel whether humans do or don’t travel regardless.

That's complete cobblers.

So do you agree with being spied on going into someone’s house whose not in a bubble but a particular person needs mental health support?

No.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Do we get to decide for ourselves what is and isn't a 'real' crime?

According to the law, illegal immigration isn't actually a crime - someone with no right to be in the country can be deported, but they haven't committed a criminal offence. Welfare fraud should be prosecuted as per all types of fraud and theft, but I'm struggling to see what harm it's actually done to my life, other than increasing my tax bill by a tiny fraction.

By contrast persistent breaches of Covid rules have seeded outbreaks of the virus, increased serious illness and deaths and ultimately prolonged lockdowns and restrictions.


No.

Well, I’m the grand scheme of things Covid breaches aren’t a real crime, especially now since we know more about it and how it hasn’t become this world ending virus people thought it was 18 months ago.

I’m sure if we were to look at how many people died because of missed or delayed appointments for Illnesses more serious than Covid and how many people have died by committing suicide, I’m sure we’ll find that lockdowns have killed more than Covid has, the media doesn’t seem to care about any cause of death that isn’t Covid.

Viruses travel with or without humans, the Delta Variant still got to Australia and they’ve closed off their borders for months.

And based on how most have complied with the rules I don’t think people mixing has been that high, especially in Lockdown 1 where there was hardly anyone out traveling over great distances.

 

[quantinghome]

I’m sure if we were to look at how many people died because of missed or delayed appointments for Illnesses more serious than Covid and how many people have died by committing suicide, I’m sure we’ll find that lockdowns have killed more than Covid has, the media doesn’t seem to care about any cause of death that isn’t Covid.

I'm sure you're going to back that claim up with properly cited data, aren't you?

Viruses travel with or without humans, the Delta Variant still got to Australia and they’ve closed off their borders for months.

You seriously think the virus got to Australia without being carried there by humans? I've heard some rare old stuff on these forums over the years but that takes the prize.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I’m sure if we were to look at how many people died because of missed or delayed appointments for Illnesses more serious than Covid and how many people have died by committing suicide, I’m sure we’ll find that lockdowns have killed more than Covid has, the media doesn’t seem to care about any cause of death that isn’t Covid.

Evidence for that?

Viruses travel with or without humans

That fundamentally is not true. Viruses basically only travel thanks to humans (or animals) travelling. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I'm sure you're going to back that claim up with properly cited data, aren't you?


You seriously think the virus got to Australia without being carried there by humans? I've heard some rare old stuff on these forums over the years but that takes the prize.

And do you have any evidence that lockdowns haven’t caused more issues and deaths that were preventable?

Australia has had the harshest of lockdowns, the borders were shut tight, this is factual and yet the delta variant still got in, laugh all you want, I find myself laughing at some of the things you come out with.

Evidence for that?

That fundamentally is not true. Viruses basically only travel thanks to humans (or animals) travelling. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

So how come so many died in the first lockdown when no one was traveling beyond their local area? Explain that to me? Lockdown 1 the streets were empty and it was the lockdown in which the vast majority of us complied.

And as for your first question, we won’t ever know because the media only cares about Covid and not about those who have missed vital life saving appointments or those who have killed themselves.

 

[notlob.divad]

Viruses travel with or without humans, the Delta Variant still got to Australia and they’ve closed off their borders for months.

If that is your interpretation of recent history, could you give me the scientific reasoning and transfer vector behind how the virus reached Australia, without it being carried by a human please. I am very very keen to expand my knowledge of how a human-to-human transmitted respiratory virus has been able to evolve to a point where it no longer requires humans to be in close proximity to enact that transfer.

Perhaps you have some links to a scientific study that has confirmed this to be the case.

Australia has had the harshest of lockdowns, the borders were shut tight,

It does not help the debate, or serve your ponit well to conflate shutting a countries borders to migration with locking people up in their own houses.

 

[NorthKent1989]

If that is your interpretation of recent history, could you give me the scientific reasoning and transfer vector behind how the virus reached Australia, without it being carried by a human please. I am very very keen to expand my knowledge of how a human-to-human transmitted respiratory virus has been able to evolve to a point where it no longer requires humans to be in close proximity to enact that transfer.

Perhaps you have some links to a scientific study that has confirmed this to be the case.

It’s widely known that Australia has been locked down harsher than Britain, no one going in or out for the past 18 months, of course if it’s politicians leaving the country in the usual one rule for one one rule for the masses then I guess we could blame them in that case

If that is your interpretation of recent history, could you give me the scientific reasoning and transfer vector behind how the virus reached Australia, without it being carried by a human please. I am very very keen to expand my knowledge of how a human-to-human transmitted respiratory virus has been able to evolve to a point where it no longer requires humans to be in close proximity to enact that transfer.

Perhaps you have some links to a scientific study that has confirmed this to be the case.


It does not help the debate, or serve your ponit well to conflate shutting a countries borders to migration with locking people up in their own houses.

Then explain to me how a country with a hard hard lockdown still got this all deadly and terrifying delta variant then?

You could argue it got here because travel between Britain and India had never stopped until too late, so actually it’s a valid point.

The fact of the matter is that viruses do travel, are we going to keep locking down every time a new one comes along? To “protect the NHS” (even though they’re supposed to aid the public) give up more of our basic civil liberties? There was no talk of locking down when Ebola and Zika were on the scene, and those viruses are more deadly than Covid which is basically going to become seasonal and something we will have to live with.

But to deny that lives weren’t lost due to the effects of lockdown is very inaccurate, and is the fault of the media for turning Covid into something of fear porn.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And do you have any evidence that lockdowns haven’t caused more issues and deaths that were preventable?

You are the one making the claim

Australia has had the harshest of lockdowns, the borders were shut tight, this is factual and yet the delta variant still got in, laugh all you want, I find myself laughing at some of the things you come out with.

They had strict border controls but to say they were "shut tight" is absolutely not factual. Travel was allowed was very specific reasons. You say you laugh at what other people are saying but you are the one who is suggesting that viruses travel in a totally new way! If not by humans how do viruses travel?

So how come so many died in the first lockdown when no one was traveling beyond their local area? Explain that to me? Lockdown 1 the streets were empty and it was the lockdown in which the vast majority of us complied.

"No one was travelling beyond their local area" simply isn't true though.
Yes travel was greatly reduced compared to normal but that doesn't mean nobody at all was travelling. You had people ignoring the rules, you had all the people who basically jumped on the first train across the country as soon as Boris announced lockdown 1, you had people who were still able to travel for work related reasons, you had people being able to travel for other more personal reasons etc etc. To suggest that people weren't travelling at all is just a straight lie.

And as for your first question, we won’t ever know because the media only cares about Covid and not about those who have missed vital life saving appointments or those who have killed themselves.

So if we "won't ever know" how can you make that claim?
Also worth remembering why lockdown was a thing to begin with - to stop the NHS from getting overrun. Had that happened then many people would also be missing life saving treatments because hospitals would have had to triage what treatments and operations to carry out. Now that isn't the say that justifies the restrictions following that, but had we literally done nothing to prevent the spread of COVID then it is very likely that vital appointments would have been triaged away by hospitals having to make choices between who to treat or not.

It’s widely known that Australia has been locked down harsher than Britain

True - but that doesn't exactly take much in terms of our borders. We basically left them as open as normal for most of the pandemic.

no one going in or out for the past 18 months

Not true.

of course if it’s politicians leaving the country in the usual one rule for one one rule for the masses then I guess we could blame them in that case

Not just politicians of course - there were plenty of ways you could travel in and out. Most of the time that travel then required quarantine but that isn't 100% effective (and unless you literally lock people up like prisoners you can't stop people breaking that quarantine).

 

[notlob.divad]

It’s widely known that Australia has been locked down harsher than Britain, no one going in or out for the past 18 months, of course if it’s politicians leaving the country in the usual one rule for one one rule for the masses then I guess we could blame them in that case



Then explain to me how a country with a hard hard lockdown still got this all deadly and terrifying delta variant then?

You could argue it got here because travel between Britain and India had never stopped until too late, but Australia, so actually it’s a valid point.

You clearly have a different definition of Lockdown than the definition I have become used to.

My understanding from my Auntie who lives there, is that different parts of Australia have had a variety of short harsh lockdowns when potential community transmission has been detected. Running along side this has been long term policy of closed borders, with state monitored hotel quarantine, to minimise the number of seed points. This solution is obviously not perfect (there is no perfect solution) as the movement of goods freight and some critical travel still involves human to human contact.

 

[NorthKent1989]

You are the one making the claim

They had strict border controls but to say they were "shut tight" is absolutely not factual. Travel was allowed was very specific reasons. You say you laugh at what other people are saying but you are the one who is suggesting that viruses travel in a totally new way! If not by humans how do viruses travel?

"No one was travelling beyond their local area" simply isn't true though.
Yes travel was greatly reduced compared to normal but that doesn't mean nobody at all was travelling. You had people ignoring the rules, you had all the people who basically jumped on the first train across the country as soon as Boris announced lockdown 1, you had people who were still able to travel for work related reasons, you had people being able to travel for other more personal reasons etc etc. To suggest that people weren't travelling at all is just a straight lie.

So if we "won't ever know" how can you make that claim?
Also worth remembering why lockdown was a thing to begin with - to stop the NHS from getting overrun. Had that happened then many people would also be missing life saving treatments because hospitals would have had to triage what treatments and operations to carry out. Now that isn't the say that justifies the restrictions following that, but had we literally done nothing to prevent the spread of COVID then it is very likely that vital appointments would have been triaged away by hospitals having to make choices between who to treat or not.

True - but that doesn't exactly take much in terms of our borders. We basically left them as open as normal for most of the pandemic.

Not true.

Not just politicians of course - there were plenty of ways you could travel in and out. Most of the time that travel then required quarantine but that isn't 100% effective (and unless you literally lock people up like prisoners you can't stop people breaking that quarantine).

Well of course people would travel home before Lockdown 1 started, people would want to be with their families, I did the same thing, left my flat empty for months.

There were far fewer travelling out and about than normal, that can’t be denied, to say otherwise is a lie, ok the rare occasion I had to get a train which was once or twice I was often the only one in the carriage, buses were empty, only key workers were doing regular traveling in that time.

Lockdown 1 to ease off the NHS was fair enough but after that it should have been normal service, the Nightingale hospitals weren’t even used and once it became clear that Covid wasn’t Ebola and was basically a new form of flu, the message of protect the NHS should have stopped.

You clearly have a different definition of Lockdown than the definition I have become used to.

My understanding from my Auntie who lives there, is that different parts of Australia have had a variety of short harsh lockdowns when potential community transmission has been detected. Running along side this has been long term policy of closed borders, with state monitored hotel quarantine, to minimise the number of seed points. This solution is obviously not perfect (there is no perfect solution) as the movement of goods freight and some critical travel still involves human to human contact.

I’m fairly certain that the human to human contact was kept to a bare minimum with quarantine and isolation.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If not by humans how do viruses travel?

Suppose Avian Flu can quite readily travel from place to place as wild birds don't always necessarily respect international borders. But it's not COVID / SARS and my understanding is that Avian Flu rarely affects humans.

My main supposition is that the international spread of COVID / SARS has mostly been facilitated by infected humans spreading the virus whilst travelling from one country to another around the world.

 

[quantinghome]

And do you have any evidence that lockdowns haven’t caused more issues and deaths that were preventable?

And as for your first question, we won’t ever know because the media only cares about Covid and not about those who have missed vital life saving appointments or those who have killed themselves.

The data you need is provided by ONS and is easy to obtain from a quick google search.

Australia has had the harshest of lockdowns, the borders were shut tight, this is factual and yet the delta variant still got in, laugh all you want, I find myself laughing at some of the things you come out with.

Australia international travel exemptions: Travel restrictions | COVID-19 and the border (homeaffairs.gov.au). I found this in a few seconds online. Fact checking really isn't that difficult.

I'm not laughing, believe me. I'm aghast that someone can be so ill-informed and yet hold their views with such conviction.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well of course people would travel home before Lockdown 1 started, people would want to be with their families, I did the same thing, left my flat empty for months.

So that travel doesn't count as far as your "nobody travelled" statement then?
The reality is that kind of travel (and the normal day to day travel before lockdown) would have seeded the virus all over the country in the first place.

There were far fewer travelling out and about than normal, that can’t be denied, to say otherwise is a lie

I didn't deny it. You claimed that "nobody was travelling". I was just pointing out that is not true. Yes, significantly less people were travelling, but not "nobody" as you claimed.

ok the rare occasion I had to get a train which was once or twice I was often the only one in the carriage, buses were empty, only key workers were doing regular traveling in that time.

Ahh so people (i.e. you) were travelling then? So why say nobody was?

Lockdown 1 to ease off the NHS was fair enough but after that it should have been normal service, the Nightingale hospitals weren’t even used and once it became clear that Covid wasn’t Ebola and was basically a new form of flu, the message of protect the NHS should have stopped.

Nightingale hospitals weren't used for two main reasons:
1 - They didn't have the staff needed to run them (when they were staffed they nicked staff from other hospitals and healthcare facilities - so essentially defeating the point!).
2 - Because of lockdown and the various restrictions, we didn't end up in a position where we had totally uncontrolled spread of the virus, and so hospital numbers were lower than what they would have likely been otherwise.

I’m fairly certain that the human to human contact was kept to a bare minimum with quarantine and isolation.

Kept to a minimum doesn't equal zero though.
So again I ask, you are claiming that the virus spreading wasn't down to humans travelling so how do you think the virus spread then?

 

[notlob.divad]

I’m fairly certain that the human to human contact was kept to a bare minimum with quarantine and isolation.

Bare minimum <> none. Therefore you have your transmission vector, and you appear to be contradicting your earlier claims that:

viruses travel whether humans do or don’t travel regardless

and

Viruses travel with or without humans

 

[NorthKent1989]

So that travel doesn't count as far as your "nobody travelled" statement then?
The reality is that kind of travel (and the normal day to day travel before lockdown) would have seeded the virus all over the country in the first place.

I didn't deny it. You claimed that "nobody was travelling". I was just pointing out that is not true. Yes, significantly less people were travelling, but not "nobody" as you claimed.

Ahh so people (i.e. you) were travelling then? So why say nobody was?

Nightingale hospitals weren't used for two main reasons:
1 - They didn't have the staff needed to run them (when they were staffed they nicked staff from other hospitals and healthcare facilities - so essentially defeating the point!).
2 - Because of lockdown and the various restrictions, we didn't end up in a position where we had totally uncontrolled spread of the virus, and so hospital numbers were lower than what they would have likely been otherwise.

Kept to a minimum doesn't equal zero though.
So again I ask, you are claiming that the virus spreading wasn't down to humans travelling so how do you think the virus spread then?

I can see you want to split hairs so I’ll rephrase my statement for you that far fewer people we’re traveling so you can have that one, I didn’t use public transport much last year I mainly used my bike, only got on the bus or train on the rare occasions I had heavy shopping, and I’m telling you they were empty most of the time, there was no rush hour crowd, non essential shops shut, I didn’t see loads and loads of people travelling where I was, maybe it was different in your area.

It seems to me you’re trying to make out that masses of people were still traveling which really wasn’t the case at all.

If people are quarantining for a certain amount of days (usually ten) and isolating from others then how could the virus spread so far and wide? You can’t say that people were breaking the rules and marching because that never happened last year, that only happened this year, and the majority followed the rules last year too, it’s only now when hypocrites like Hancock and Johnson aren’t following their own rules that people are rightfully ditching them.

It must mean that there are other means this virus infects people, but all the isolation and quarantining isn’t going to make Covid go away and all the fear mongering isn’t going to make it anything more than a respiratory virus with a 99% survival rate

Yet despite lockdowns and restrictions last year the cases were still going up and up weren’t they? People dying with or of Covid - not exactly clear is it?

The data you need is provided by ONS and is easy to obtain from a quick google search.


Australia international travel exemptions: Travel restrictions | COVID-19 and the border (homeaffairs.gov.au). I found this in a few seconds online. Fact checking really isn't that difficult.

I'm not laughing, believe me. I'm aghast that someone can be so ill-informed and yet hold their views with such conviction.

And you’re so informed are you?

Not sure you fact checked your own link but here’s what it says about the border situation in Oz from the link you posted:

Australia’s borders are currently closed and entry to Australia remains strictly controlled to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Travel to Australia is only available if you are exempt or you have been granted an individual exemption.
Travel restrictions are subject to change in response to the circumstances surrounding COVID-19. You can stay informed with the latest updates by checking this page regularly. If you are transiting through Australia further information can be found on the Transiting Australia webpage.

Australia is so isolated even citizens can’t easily enter. For the next year, it’s happy to stay that way

Australia’s COVID border restrictions are some of the world’s harshest, and may remain even as vaccination rates climb.

fortune.com

An Australian article from last month yet:

Australia's Covid success crumbles

Around 18 million Australians, 70% of the population, are now under some form of lockdown after cases of the Indian variant escaped from hotels in Brisbane, Darwin, Perth and Sydney.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So despite closed borders Covid is still out there.

It’s probably down to the low vaccination rates, Britain is leading the race on that front but with their hard stance on the borders maybe the population feels the need to not get the vaccine, but proving that going for a zero Covid hard lockdown hasn’t worked and Covid will be here to stay.

 

[quantinghome]

So despite closed borders Covid is still out there.

A closed border with a long list of exemptions. People are still travelling to Australia. Not many compared to normal times, but enough for Covid to get through. This is not a difficult point to get.

 

[NorthKent1989]

A closed border with a long list of exemptions. People are still travelling to Australia. Not many compared to normal times, but enough for Covid to get through. This is not a difficult point to get.

Then all the lockdowns and infringement into people’s civil liberties isn’t worth it then is it? That’s not a difficult point for you to understand either, I’m assuming you didn’t look at the first article.

Their approach was Covid zero, impossible to achieve because it is here to stay and people better get used to that

 

[quantinghome]

Then all the lockdowns and infringement into people’s civil liberties isn’t worth it then is it? That’s not a difficult point for you to understand either, I’m assuming you didn’t look at the first article.

What are you talking about? I'm afraid I'm not following your train of thought.

Australia has largely avoided the long lockdowns and other restrictions we've had to endure by implementing strict border control and quarantine, then short sharp lockdowns to stamp out any local outbreak. As a result, within Australia life has been able to carry on pretty much as normal. That is, until the Delta variant appeared, which is much more transmissible and has got through their defences.

As someone who places a very high value on personal liberty I'd have thought you would have preferred Australia's approach.