Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
What works for sparsely populated islands with very warm weather doesn't necessarily work for everyone.
A true Covid zero response in Canada, among other things, would have relied on closing all US land crossings (including commercial ones), which wasn't feasible. You can get things down to zero, but if you're allowing any kind of non-citizen in without isolation, then you've wasted the effort.
You've also ignored economic factors. What about people who require support workers? The homeless?
|
The bolded is not really how it worked in New Zealand. They still imported goods.
Aside from that, my point was not that everyone could have done it exactly the way New Zealand did and failed for not doing so. I'm not even sure why we need to recycle this conversation. COVID-zero was the ideal approach, and lockdowns were beneficial and successful from both an economic and health perspective, compared to similar countries/areas that did not lockdown.
There were no economic factors ignored. These are facts. And my position is not one I pulled from thin air, it's taken from reading the positions of economists who seem to collectively agree that lockdowns (and in many areas, much more aggressive ones) were the best route to limiting the economic impact of the pandemic. Are they all ignoring economic factors? I don't know. I hope not?