Entry 2148, on 2021-08-24 at 12:07:08 (Rating 3, News)
In times of crisis, what is the best approach? Is it better to decide on a path, and then fully commit to that, to the extent of suppressing discussion of alternatives; or is it better to be ready to change course if there is good reason to question the current path when it is shown to be problematic?
This question can be applied to many situations in government, management, and everyday life, but it is particularly relevant now that we really do have a major crisis because of the COVID pandemic.
There are several approaches to managing COVID, and New Zealand has chosen an elimination strategy. I think everyone would be really happy if elimination was practical, or even possible, but is it? Clearly it can be done short term in some countries. New Zealand achieved it for about a year, but now the virus is back in a worse form, and again we are trying to eliminate it.
It worked well in Australia for a while too, but now New South Wales at least has basically admitted defeat and is planning on living with the disease in the community, and so have many other counties, including Britain.
In fact, assuming a country wants to be part of the global community and isn't prepared to just cut itself off from the world for the indefinite future, it is inevitable that we will all have to live with it.
That's not to say that attempts at elimination which give time to prepare for living with the virus in the community aren't worthwhile, but it does mean that it is just a short term strategy and the major effort should be around vaccination, exploring better ways to treat those affected, and implementing safer and more efficient testing and quarantine systems.
So far our government (in New Zealand) has been pretty good with the elimination, but not so great with anything else. During this second major national lockdown there are already signs, after less than a week, that people aren't prepared to be quite so cooperative as they were last time. This might be easily dismissed as people suffering from "lockdown fatigue" or "rejecting the facts" or "being self-centered" but it might equally be because they think the current approach isn't the best.
I'm not necessarily saying that lockdowns and attempted elimination, at least in the short term, isn't a worthwhile aim, just that it is ultimately futile and we should be looking ahead more than we are.
Australia was doing as well as New Zealand until recently, but now they are as badly off as the rest of the world. It is only through good luck that the same hasn't happened here so far, but it is only a matter of time before it does. Maybe the current lockdown will be ineffective against the Delta variant, but even if we succeed this time, what about the next?
We were told in the past that lockdowns were a temporary measure which would be used until we had everyone vaccinated. Now we are told than full vaccination (which won't happen anyway) will not be a complete solution, and that "other measures"will still be necessary. So, beyond a very short-term, simplistic strategy, there doesn't appear to be much really effective long-term thinking going on.
But that's not the only problem. There are credible people who disagree with the approach we have taken, but we don't see their opinions being taken into consideration, or even given much exposure by the media, beyond ridicule. It might very well be that they're wrong, and that our current approach is the best, but I would still like to hear what they have to say.
Our prime minister, in her typical inane style, has called us a team of 5 million, but this is clearly nonsense. I for one, am not a member of that team, and I know many other people who also reject the PM's rhetoric. There are plenty of sheeple in this country, but there are plenty of independent thinkers as well. Sure, many of them are conspiracy theorists, and many simply reject the facts, but there are plenty of others who have genuine questions about our current strategy.
Many people cite Sweden as an example of where a less dictatorial approach was taken, and half of those use it to show how that approach has been a disaster, while the other half see it as a success. When I look at the stats I can see that they could be used to make both cases. I chose some other countries in Europe with similar populations and found Sweden has done better than most, but compare it with its neighbours and it doesn't look so good.
So which is it? Well, that is open to debate, but at the very least we should be prepared to say that their strategy is worth considering. And the "initial lockdowns followed by freedom" strategy of Britain is also worth looking at. Of course, their vaccination strategy is well ahead of ours (in fact almost everyone's is well ahead of ours) so they do have an advantage there. The question is when "freedom day" should be announced. Where is the right balance between control and freedom?
Those with more conspirational tendencies might say that it suits the government to have this level of control, and to have the regular chance for the prime minister to appear on camera with her vacuous announcements. Some might even suggest the appearance of COVID again is welcomed by this government for that reason. Others might go even further and say they accidentally allowed the virus back in through incompetent management of quarantine. Finally, the greatest conspiracy-mongers might even suggest that the quarantine exemption for the Australian rugby team was designed to deliberately allow the virus back in.
I don't accept those conspiracies, and I think it's simple political expediency. They didn't want COVID to reappear, but maybe subconsciously they are glad it did.
So, in summary, if I reject the current system, what do I think could be better? Well, first, I don't necessarily reject the system, I just would like to look at options more seriously. But if I was going to suggest some simple improvements they would go along the lines of making the rules less severe, more consistent, and planning better for the long term.
So let smaller businesses open, with appropriate safeguards, like having one customer at a time in smaller shops. Let people go to the beach, as long as they take reasonable precautions, like keeping distant from others. And above all, let's take alternative approaches more seriously. We are not a team of 5 million, and I hope we never will be.
I think you're missing the point of level 4. It's not about allowing safe businesses operate, it's about keeping as many people at home as possible. Breaking the chain through as many people as possible being at home, not infecting each other.
Fairness and consistency are irrelevant - certainly fairness is - the whole thing is inherently unfair, so what? If you understand the true purpose of L4, then this whole idea of opening up small businesses than can operate "safely" is irrelevant.
"but maybe subconsciously they are glad it did" - that's funny - do you really believe what you say?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-08-26 at 11:03:26:
I know what the point of level 4 is: to minimise transmission of the virus by isolating people from each other. But there are many compromises made: we can still go to supermarkets, we can still go for local outdoor walks, etc. My point is these compromises are inconsistent and unfair.
Opening small businesses is not irrelevant at all. We can't live in this fake way forever. We need to look at managing society until we can return to some semblance normality. Why would we destroy our normal social/economic model with poorly considered rules during lockdown?
I did use the word "maybe" and I think quite rightly. The current government are only there because of COVID. Their popularity was crashing. This might be exactly what they needed to regain their level of political control and popularity.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-08-26 at 11:45:45:
(1) Nobody is suggesting we live this way "forever" - that's pure hyperbole on your part.
(2) "My point is these compromises are inconsistent and unfair". Any classification system will contain inconsistencies - unavoidable. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. Unfair? Unfortunately, irrelevant given the purpose of L4.
(3) "we can still go to supermarkets". Interesting. Are you suggesting that supermarkets not be allowed to open? Come on, be sensible. The point of L4 is to provide the basics of life while minimising the contact points. Surely you see this?
There is a case for looking at these inconsistencies at lower levels, but L4 is a special case whose sole purpose is to reduce the chain of transmission. There is, quite rightly, a high threshold for which businesses should be allowed to open.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-08-26 at 18:49:23:
Some people are actually suggesting that we might need to make permanent changes to how we live, but I was using it more as a way to say that we need to plan ahead for when we can escape from the prison we have made for ourselves.
It is unfair and arbitrary. I agree that there will always be an element of that in any set of rules, but we should try to minimise it. And I can't see how it is irrelevant.
I'm suggesting that being allowed to go to supermarkets is a compromise, so why are we allowed that compromise but not others which might be far less risky, like allowing one person at a time into small businesses, like butchers?
Well what some people see as "quite rightly" others will see as arbitrary, paranoid, or unfair. A matter of opinion, to a large extent.
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2021-08-27 at 19:30:31:
"Some people are actually suggesting that we might need to make permanent changes to how we live". This is.a far cry from saying that level 4 lockdowns will be a permanent thing. Disingenuous to suggest this is what the Government is proposing/thinking.
"but we should try to minimise it" Once again, maybe at lower levels but the primary mission of L4 is to break the chain, so your call for minimisation of these things IS irrelevant to the primary goal of level 4.
"I'm suggesting that being allowed to go to supermarkets is a compromise". Yes, I suppose it is a compromise to letting people starve to death because they can't buy food anywhere. Come on, be reasonable. Supermarkets provide the same service vice as butchers. Opening more small businesses increases the person to person contact, even one person at a time. It's pretty simple really.
No, not opinion - consistent with the very clear goals of level 4. The goal of L4 is not survival of as many small businesses as possible, it is about breaking the chain of transmission. Probably unfair (but then, many aspects to life are unfair), not arbitrary and certainly not paranoid.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2021-08-28 at 10:42:12:
I've sort of lost track about what the original criticism was in relation to. Did I say anywhere that I thought the government might want to put us into level 4 permanently? I don't think so. It's a more general issue I have: using excessively harsh, arbitrary, short-term measures more often than necessary.
The primary goal of level 4 is significantly affected by compromises: we are allowed to go to supermarkets, to exercise locally outside, etc. These are essentially arbitrary, and some would say unfair and poorly executed. These *are* relevant.
Well no, it isn't simple. Surely a hundred people in a supermarket are far more dangerous than 1 in a butcher shop. And we are allowing one into a diary. Why? just arbitrary rules dreamed up by bureaucrats.
You seem to be confused about the goal of level 4. Surely it is, as you said in paragraph 2, eliminating the virus from the community. It is not the survival of as many small businesses as possible. Clearly not!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE