[scrollaway]

> Countries like Australia and New Zealand have shown that if you keep up lockdown measures for just a month or two after the hospitals free up (AND if you institute and keep real travel quarantine restrictions), you can get the virus to effectively ZERO community spread and keep it there.

It's too late for that anywhere that isn't super remote like AU/NZ. Even South Korea and Japan, isolated as they are and with very strict measures, controls on lockdown, and a population that strictly follows them, cannot get / is not getting to zero community spread: It's doing regular, short, strict lockdowns instead.

This is the model that the west should adopt but instead a lot of countries are faffing around. Belgium has been in a five-months-long semi-lockdown that is leaving everyone severely depressed, is hugely damaging to the economy, and has plateau'd the spread to very non-zero numbers so the disease is still very much present. Worst of both worlds.

[ggm]

It's too late for that anywhere that isn't super remote like AU/NZ.

As an Australian citizen I often wonder how much this super distant story has to do with it.

[garmaine]

Japan does NOT have strict lockdowns in place. I know, I work for a Japanese company. Heck they've been giving out travel vouchers for free travel around the country. Not a model for pandemic response at all.

Australia is hardly isolated. Tons of flights in and out every day, and a vital part of the world economy. Really, any country can be "isolated" if they just close the borders to non-quarantined (REAL quarantine) travel, which is much more important than lockdowns.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Australia and NZ had the advantage of being quite remote, true. But they had no vaccines.

With vaccines and a decent uptake, the difficulty level to achieve zero spread should go down significantly.

That said, I totally agree that short but strict lockdowns would be much better than permanent half-assed measures.