Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

[over9k]

It's remarkable how you've just conveniently ignored how the whole rest of the country sorted this thing out whilst making absolutely endless excuses and BS for victoria. It's also interesting how most of the rest of the country is completely reopened without all the deaths that sweden had, and equally as interesting is how you totally ignored the bit where I compared NZ's deaths per million vs Sweden's

Lockdowns work. NZ and the rest of the country are very simple and very obvious proof. You are in total denial of reality. NZ and indeed almost all of the rest of AUS are in a similar position to sweden and yet have a death rate several orders of magnitude lower, and you know it. Don't tell me that victoria is so different to NZ or tasmania or the rest of aus that lockdowns couldn't work there. I know that you don't believe that.


What I think is that you're bright enough to know all of this already. I think there's an ulterior motive to your posts. You've very clearly stated how much you (don't) value human life

 

[satanoperca]

I think there's an ulterior motive to your posts. You've very clearly stated how much you (don't) value human life

You are very smart, he does, it is called humanity.

 

[over9k]

A simple comparison between NZ and sweden, or the rest of aus & victoria tells you literally *everything* you need to know. You expect me to believe that vic is so different to the rest of the country that what's worked absolutely everywhere else couldn't work there? Give me a break.

The only way you could be in denial of this self-evident reality is if you're either absolutely insane, or something else is afoot.

And he's not insane, so my money is on the latter.

 

[Sdajii]

It's remarkable how you've just conveniently ignored how the whole rest of the country sorted this thing out whilst making absolutely endless excuses and BS for victoria.

Wow. I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a child. I haven't ignored it, I've addressed it. Victoria has literally had far more strict lockdowns than any other state. If you think that lockdowns are the answer and all else is irrelevant, your assertion is insane, because the reality is that the state with the most extreme lockdowns has by far the most cases. It should be clear to anyone, even you, that something else is going on. I've explained those obvious things.

It's also interesting how most of the rest of the country is completely reopened without all the deaths that sweden had, and equally as interesting is how you totally ignored the bit where I compared NZ's deaths per million vs Sweden's

Population density and climate are the biggest relevant differences between Sweden and other Australian states. It makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. You can see that Victoria has conditions sufficiently conducive to a viral outbreak (not that it's significant in itself, but it is a phenomenon which exists) as does Sweden, but despite the presence of the virus and little effort being put in, other states have not had similar issues. Sydney is the obvious second most likely to experience a big outbreak, but a warmer climate, lower surrounding population density and several smaller and/or controversial differences also make Melbourne more fertile for a virus.

Comparing NZ to Sweden is a ridiculous case of comparing apples to kumquats, but what you're not taking into consideration is that NZ is a group of small islands in a remote part of the southern Pacific while Sweden is literally on the world's largest landmass with land borders to other countries and much higher population density making eradication impossible and management completely different and far more challenging, plus the fact that Sweden has now reached and endpoint and has no need for isolation, while NZ must remain isolated and is vulnerable to reinfection. Sweden need not worry and can move forward without the issues NZ indefinitely has. NZ is an oddball case not relevant to almost any other country (with perhaps some relevance to Philippines, Iceland and maybe one or two others).

Lockdowns work. NZ and the rest of the country are very simple and very obvious proof. You are in total denial of reality.

If lockdowns work and are your only metric, why does the Australian state with by far, far, far the most extreme lockdowns have by far the highest virus incidence? You literally ignore the most obvious example of reality and accuse someone else of being in denial of it! It's incredible.

NZ and indeed almost all of the rest of AUS are in a similar position to sweden and yet have a death rate several orders of magnitude lower, and you know it. Don't tell me that victoria is so different to NZ or tasmania or the rest of aus that lockdowns couldn't work there. I know that you don't believe that.

Climate and population density are universally recognised as being two of the most important variables, and they are indeed very different. All official information agrees with this. Of course I believe it and it's absurd that you argue against it.

What I think is that you're bright enough to know all of this already. I think there's an ulterior motive to your posts. You've very clearly stated how much you (don't) value human life

What is obvious is that you're either not bright enough to understand this or you're so brainwashed by the hysteria narratives that you can't look at the situation objectively.

I've never said I don't value human life or said anything to suggest it and it is completely disgusting for you to say such a thing and you do deserve to feel ashamed for making the accusation.

 

[Knobby22]

A simple comparison between NZ and sweden, or the rest of aus & victoria tells you literally *everything* you need to know. You expect me to believe that vic is so different to the rest of the country that what's worked absolutely everywhere else couldn't work there? Give me a break.

The only way you could be in denial of this self-evident reality is if you're either absolutely insane, or something else is afoot.

And he's not insane, so my money is on the latter.

Don't worry about him. His mind is fixed.

 

[wayneL]

Don't worry about him. His mind is fixed.

Ironical

 

[Sdajii]

Don't worry about him. His mind is fixed.

Better that than broken like many of the minds around here!

 

[Knobby22]

Ironical

Yes.

 

[over9k]

Wow. I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a child. I haven't ignored it, I've addressed it. Victoria has literally had far more strict lockdowns than any other state. If you think that lockdowns are the answer and all else is irrelevant, your assertion is insane, because the reality is that the state with the most extreme lockdowns has by far the most cases. It should be clear to anyone, even you, that something else is going on. I've explained those obvious things.



Population density and climate are the biggest relevant differences between Sweden and other Australian states. It makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. You can see that Victoria has conditions sufficiently conducive to a viral outbreak (not that it's significant in itself, but it is a phenomenon which exists) as does Sweden, but despite the presence of the virus and little effort being put in, other states have not had similar issues. Sydney is the obvious second most likely to experience a big outbreak, but a warmer climate, lower surrounding population density and several smaller and/or controversial differences also make Melbourne more fertile for a virus.

Comparing NZ to Sweden is a ridiculous case of comparing apples to kumquats, but what you're not taking into consideration is that NZ is a group of small islands in a remote part of the southern Pacific while Sweden is literally on the world's largest landmass with land borders to other countries and much higher population density making eradication impossible and management completely different and far more challenging, plus the fact that Sweden has now reached and endpoint and has no need for isolation, while NZ must remain isolated and is vulnerable to reinfection. Sweden need not worry and can move forward without the issues NZ indefinitely has. NZ is an oddball case not relevant to almost any other country (with perhaps some relevance to Philippines, Iceland and maybe one or two others).



If lockdowns work and are your only metric, why does the Australian state with by far, far, far the most extreme lockdowns have by far the highest virus incidence? You literally ignore the most obvious example of reality and accuse someone else of being in denial of it! It's incredible.



Climate and population density are universally recognised as being two of the most important variables, and they are indeed very different. All official information agrees with this. Of course I believe it and it's absurd that you argue against it.



What is obvious is that you're either not bright enough to understand this or you're so brainwashed by the hysteria narratives that you can't look at the situation objectively.

I've never said I don't value human life or said anything to suggest it and it is completely disgusting for you to say such a thing and you do deserve to feel ashamed for making the accusation.

A lockdown which allows multi-thousand-person protests and infected security guards to roam the city is not a lockdown. Victoria didn't have a lockdown, the rest of the country did. Victoria's a shitshow, the rest of the country's great. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.

 

[satanoperca]

A lockdown which allows multi-thousand-person protests and infected security guards to roam the city is not a lockdown. Victoria didn't have a lockdown, the rest of the country did. Victoria's a shitshow, the rest of the country's great. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.

So what are you trying to say?

 

[Sdajii]

A lockdown which allows multi-thousand-person protests and infected security guards to roam the city is not a lockdown. Victoria didn't have a lockdown, the rest of the country did. Victoria's a shitshow, the rest of the country's great. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.

Simple doesn't mean correct. 1 + 1 = 3 is an extremely simple statement, but it's still wrong.

Victoria isn't the only state which had protests. A couple of security guards being stupid are still just a couple of individuals.

That was all months ago anyway. Melbourne has been under extreme lockdown, and certainly far more of a lockdown than anywhere else in Australia. To say that Victoria has had less of a lockdown than the rest of Australia is so far beyond incorrect it's difficult to find appropriate words to respond to it. You're just so ridiculously wrong.

The reality is that the lockdowns have not worked. Presumably you can agree with that. Now, either, they didn't work because lockdowns don't work, or they didn't work because in practice lockdowns don't work because they're so fragile that one horny security guard can ruin the whole thing, which means they don't work because they are so fragile. Either way, Victoria has put in an astronomically higher effort into lockdowns and sacrificed so much more for lockdowns and caused so much more destruction through lockdowns than any other state. You can not deny this clear reality. However you look at it, lockdowns did not work. Even if in theory they do, Victoria is living proof that they don't. But even so, no one I know in Melbourne knows anyone personally who has had the virus in Victoria. Not even a mild confirmed case. That's how trivial the virus is.

 

[over9k]

Simple doesn't mean correct. 1 + 1 = 3 is an extremely simple statement, but it's still wrong.

Victoria isn't the only state which had protests. A couple of security guards being stupid are still just a couple of individuals.

That was all months ago anyway. Melbourne has been under extreme lockdown, and certainly far more of a lockdown than anywhere else in Australia. To say that Victoria has had less of a lockdown than the rest of Australia is so far beyond incorrect it's difficult to find appropriate words to respond to it. You're just so ridiculously wrong.

The reality is that the lockdowns have not worked. Presumably you can agree with that. Now, either, they didn't work because lockdowns don't work, or they didn't work because in practice lockdowns don't work because they're so fragile that one horny security guard can ruin the whole thing, which means they don't work because they are so fragile. Either way, Victoria has put in an astronomically higher effort into lockdowns and sacrificed so much more for lockdowns and caused so much more destruction through lockdowns than any other state. You can not deny this clear reality. However you look at it, lockdowns did not work. Even if in theory they do, Victoria is living proof that they don't. But even so, no one I know in Melbourne knows anyone personally who has had the virus in Victoria. Not even a mild confirmed case. That's how trivial the virus is.

Absolute drivel. Victoria's cases were down to almost nothing, then the protests & security guards happened, then cases spiked and spread like wildfire as the lockdowns we now see were only imposed weeks later.

If lockdowns didn't work, the rest of the country would be the same shitshow that victoria is. It's literally that simple. You strike me as a typical "big brained" individual that thinks that something is 1000x more complex than it really is and it is of course just so complex that only someone as clever as you can figure it out.

If not for the protests & security guards, victoria would be in the same situation as the rest of the country. This is undeniable except by either a lunatic or a liar.

 

[satanoperca]

So what are you trying to say?
Always is interesting when you have to ask the same question over and over again, when the person(s), cannot respond, but rather writes a whole lot of content that means nothing.

So Over9K, what is your solution to the problem?

 

[over9k]

Which one?

 

[Sdajii]

Absolute drivel. Victoria's cases were down to almost nothing, then the protests & security guards happened, then cases spiked and spread like wildfire as the lockdowns we now see were only imposed weeks later.

If lockdowns didn't work, the rest of the country would be the same shitshow that victoria is. It's literally that simple. You strike me as a typical "big brained" individual that thinks that something is 1000x more complex than it really is and it is of course just so complex that only someone as clever as you can figure it out.

If not for the protests & security guards, victoria would be in the same situation as the rest of the country. This is undeniable except by either a lunatic or a liar.

You keep repeating this but it doesn't make sense.

Victoria is the only state which has gone into hard lockdown. Victoria has the worst cases. Victoria is not the only state which had BLM protests. Victoria is not the only state with one or two stupid individuals. Many countries in this world have very few cases despite no lockdowns. They just have conditions which are not conducive to the virus (low population density, small population and hot climates seem to be the most important). Lockdowns have been effective in extremely few countries, and most of those have been islands or effective islands (NZ, Japan, South Korea) with China having official figures not worth listening to, but possibly effective lockdowns because people there literally have justified extreme fear of the government and are terrified to show even small transgressions, so it may have been successful there but we have no way of really knowing.

It's really quite comical that you single out lockdowns as the largest factor in determining virus spread when Australia demonstrates this not to be the case. It does, however, perfectly fit in with the global pattern of climate and population density being the most important variables.

If you believe that a lack of lockdowns would have the entire country in the same situation as Victoria, how do you explain all the countries with minimal efforts to control the virus and trivial amounts of virus spread?

Your assertion that a couple of security guards can cause a giant outbbreak flies in the face of cases popping up in other Australian states without causing huge outbreaks. The reason is that those states don't have the same climate and population density as Victoria, so they were never as susceptible. Very very obviously, if a security guard can start such a big thing in Victoria and all other factors were irrelevant, all other states would now be having huge outbreaks because there are cases popping up in those states, but without lockdowns they are not causing big problems, and there are no lockdowns.

If you stop blindly following your nonsensical mantra and try using some logic, you'll see that what you've been saying doesn't make sense. Lockdowns obviously have some influence, but there are other more important variables. Lockdowns only provide a temporary solution at best, and obviously they must be ongoingly imposed or an outbreak is inevitable, unless it was never going to happen due to local conditions not being conducive, or because complete eradication has been achieved (which is only possible for small island nations and even then requires indefinite closure of international travel).

 

[over9k]

Jesus christ I'm arguing with wall on text on reddit, except it's on ASF.

You really are "big brained" individual. Honestly, I don't think there's anything else you could have done to have proven my previous post more correct.

 

[over9k]

Ahahahaha omg the more I stare at all of that the more I laugh.

I am arguing with a meme.

 

[satanoperca]

Absolute drivel. Victoria's cases were down to almost nothing, then the protests & security guards happened, then cases spiked and spread like wildfire as the lockdowns we now see were only imposed weeks later.

If lockdowns didn't work, the rest of the country would be the same shitshow that victoria is. It's literally that simple. You strike me as a typical "big brained" individual that thinks that something is 1000x more complex than it really is and it is of course just so complex that only someone as clever as you can figure it out.

If not for the protests & security guards, victoria would be in the same situation as the rest of the country. This is undeniable except by either a lunatic or a liar.

Ahahahaha omg the more I stare at all of that the more I laugh.

I am arguing with a meme.

If you represent the majority, we are f---kd. Read your posts and others that have contributed to the thread.

 

[Smurf1976]

If not for the protesters in victoria and the ruby princess idiocy, the whole country would be like NZ is at the moment. Instead, we have this bull****.

Nailed it and it couldn't be said any more simply and to the point than that.

 

[Smurf1976]

You're really clutching at straws if you think using the USA as an example at the moment is relevant to any other country. If you want a much more relevant example, look at Sweden. They actually did what I would have suggested and it has proven to be the correct strategy.

If having a higher economic impact and a drastically higher death toll is the correct strategy then I'll happily stick with the "incorrect" approach of a lower economic contraction and far fewer deaths pursued elsewhere.