If a policy is impossible for a given country to carry out, doesn't that suggest that maybe they shouldn't try? I think most people would agree that Prohibition should have delivered several public benefits in theory, but in practice it was beyond the ability of the government to enforce, and a bad policy.

Let's not forget that these mrNPIs have side effects - over 200 million people globally have been thrown into extreme poverty by them, increased deaths of despair, decimation of small business and resulting wealth concentration, etc.

There is a segment of society which believes that obviously mrNPIs are in everyone's best interest, but given that the side effects are well documented and very negative I think the burden of proof should be on the pro lockdown camp to explain why mrNPIs are the best policy intervention. The WHO recommends them only in extreme circumstances. They aren't popular with the public. Surely it's reasonable to consider alternatives (such as improving adherence to WHO recommendations) instead of invoking the alt right bogeyman and shutting down discussion as some are so quick to do.

Prohibition did deliver many public benefits. Not to argue that it was the right choice, but it's worth noting that the research on lockdowns is all being done fast, in the middle of it, and should be taken with some salt. Yes, we have to make decisions based on it, about what we do next, but we can still recognize that we're nowhere near as knowledgeable about this as we will (hopefully) be in a few decades when we've had more time to do research and evaluation.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

I never said it was impossible. Quite the opposite: Australia managed it (also, an anglo nation with popularist right wing government, a shitty press etc).

Choosing not to do something is not the same as not being able to do it.

If our "leaders" mastered have the effort for this that we put into the war on drugs or tax cuts for the Uber rich or even farm subsidies, we'd all be in the pub by now.

Edit:

I think issues like this are difficult exactly because we cannot have a compromise solution. A compromise solution (lots of lockdown but not effective lockdown) is worst for everyone.

Mastering lockdowns certainly does not guarantee that everyone gets to go back to the pub. Once you end the lockdown the spread just starts again and you're back at square one.

The WHO has been clear in their recommendation since the beginning. Building effective test/trace/isolate capacity is how you control the spread of Covid. Is there a limited and brief role for lockdowns, business closures, forced stay at home etc., yes in extreme circumstances. Long term no.

I am just paraphrasing the WHO here, and of course anyone is free to disagree with them, but they're hardly known as a paragon of right wing populism.

https://mobile.twitter.com/who/status/1316020010540625920?la...

They have been putting out publications which say this since, if memory serves, March (or maybe even earlier).

It's not really true that lockdown cannot open the pubs again, take Australia. Their pubs are open. All because they mastered lockdown.

When a case occurs they close for a bit. But they're open 90% of the time. That a lot more of the time than uk pubs are managing.

I'd accept a working test and trace program too. Like Singapore used.

Don't think me greedy but... We could even do both, as we have more resources than Aus and Singapore combined and we've had a lot more time to do all this.

Once again, I have to ask: why hasn't my government managed such a thing? Could it be that it's impossible (despite Singapore having done it) or are they just too complacent?

Instead were stuck with the shitty parts of a long lockdown (closed pubs) without achieving the desired outcomes (single digit daily death rates).

Yes. Look at Australia and New Zealand, who implemented incredibly strict lockdowns and enforced then actively.

Those countries got to party together for new year's because they were both at zero cases.

My best friend is over there. I was in Melbourne when their measures started back in March. I was on one of the last flights back, a few days later, to the uk. Lockdown started here less than a week after they did.

Yet Australia has made a huge success of it. By doing the things we merely talked about. By enforcing basic requirements like masks where we somehow (STILL) can't.

It's very frustrating watching him on the beach while I can't even get a pint...

/rant.

Trust me I know. I'm FROM Melbourne. My friends and family are all there. I'd love to fly back from the UK right now but with quarantine fees it's about eight thousand dollars.

buddy, People in Australia were literally only allowed to leave their houses 1 hour a day. It wasn't fucking masks.

Looking at the effects per country of the mrNPIs, there's a lot of variation per country. You could probably conclude that more restrictive measures don't work as well in countries with large right wing populist movements whoop don't follow the rules...

While it fits in nicely with a narrative, I think that's actually a pretty big logical leap. In particular, in the US, which arguably has a right wing populist movement, it is liberal urban areas seem to have been some of the hardest hit.

This is probably explainable by correlations between political leanings and population density, but that's beside the point: Is there real evidence for the claim you are making, or does it just fit in conveniently with your worldview and narrative?

Let's pare it back a bit: There's large per-country variation in the data, and many of the more restrictive measures show significant positive effect in some countries. There is no attempt to control for how successful particular countries were in implementing the policies (which one might code describe as 'non-linear effects,' per the caveats section of the paper).

The US does particularly badly with the more restrictive measures, and has a large segment of the population that denies covid is real and/or anything to worry about. Connecting those dots isn't THAT much of a leap, in the context of an internet forum...

I live in a liberal urban area. We have a ton of right wing people who aren't adhering to even the most basic containment measures. It only takes 50% to 60% of a population to share a certain set of political views for that area to be labeled with said view, but that still leaves a huge portion of the population. And it only takes a relatively small portion of the population ignoring containment measures in order to seriously undermine their effectiveness.

I'm not OP but...

I don't think he's trying to point out a cold hard fact as much as a trend.

Australia has a right wing popularist government but has coped well. Urban areas would always be worst hit, it's a communicable disease.

So there will never be a cold hard law to this.

Agreed.

I find the dishonesty the most annoying. My current right wing popularise government lacks the bravery to be honest and say "fuck it". So they're pretending to do things. Then immediately breaking the rules themselves very publically.

People get the message: "this is serious, wink wink, nudge nudge"