[graeme]

Have a look at the CTV stats. Quebec peaked at 30 per capita, fell to less than 10 with the curfew. And having kept a version of it, now is less than 15 per capita.

Ontario was 25/7/25. BC was 16/10/23.

Roughly. My prediction would be that Quebec has a lower peak than these two provinces and spends less time with max restrictions. Ontario issues a full stay at home order, and did so before Quebec’s curfew announcement.

Also Montreal is the only place that kept the curfew at all (9h30 vs none until recently) and it has markedly lower per capita case counts than the rest of quebec or other BC/Onatario.

Do you have an alternate explanation for this data?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/coronavirus/tracking-ev...

[sudosysgen]

Of course. The curfew being imposed in January also came with harsh restrictions on schools and with workplace closures, and at the same coincided with the wrapping up of the vaccination of the healthcare system, which together account for 80-90% of cases.

Montréal is also the only place that kept many, many other other restrictions and that had accelerated vaccination before cases popping off everywhere.

So we really have to limit observation to curfew only changes.

[graeme]

That’s a hard comparison as there many variables during past case declines too when curfew lifted.

However, right now Ontario has had a total lockdown for a while, but no curfew.

Quebec has similar restrictions (maybe less stringent?) but has a curfew. Case rise nowhere near Ontario.

My bet is we’ll see this divergence continue. The curfew seems to be the biggest point of differentiation Quebec has re: Ontario and BC.

[sudosysgen]

>That’s a hard comparison as there many variables during past case declines too when curfew lifted

Certainly, but if the curfew was the determinant factor, then we would not see the decline persist past it's relaxation or removal.

>However, right now Ontario has had a total lockdown for a while, but no curfew.

Even the implementation of the major measures in January 1st did not have much effect outside of healthcare until around 2 weeks afterwards. It's only been four days since Ontario implemented similar measures. The earlier "lockdown" was a lockdown in name only and even allowed gyms and indoor-dining to be open. For this comparison to be made we will still have to wait at least ten days.

As it stands, the only conclusion we can take from this data we have so far is that the curfew is likely not the decisive, as case declines persisted after it's removal and relaxation.

The priors we have from expert opinions and even government officials is that the lockdown is not expect to be effective.

From this, I can't conclude anything except that the lockdowns are likely not effective.

[graeme]

> From this, I can't conclude anything except that the lockdowns are likely not effective.

Wait you’re expanding this to not just curfew, but any lockdown is ineffective?

I’d invite you to check out the recent outbreak on Newfoundland. Large undetected outbreak, lots of spread, 100% UK variant, totally eliminated in a month due to a lockdown with high compliance, return to zero cases.

I should add I do have some doubts about the curfew with warm weather. Outdoor socialization isn’t harmful, and people will feel more deprived now than during the winter one, when many people hibernate anyway.

[sudosysgen]

Oh fuck sorry I totally got mixed up, I absolutely meant curfew and not lockdown. I was debugging a really hairy algorithm at the same time and I got distacted. Of course, lockowns are incredibly effective, by far the most effective tool, and I wish we had let the first lockdown continue until completion.

[sudosysgen]

Sorry, I made a mistake here. In the last sentence, I mean "curfews are likely not effective", not lockdowns, which definitely are extremely effective.