The poster you quoted is Canadian and was discussing the lengths to which Australia goes to get to zero cases. I'm not so sure there really are many countries, including Canada, that would collectively jump on board with almost no pushback completely shutting down provinces, no leaving the home or going more than a certain distance from home, etc for a handful (and yes it was a handful) of cases and repeating this as cases inevitably pop back up. They don't have a slow reopening such that you are used to thinking about, they have slow opening until nearly everything gets shut down again, rinse lather repeat. Most places reopen and then after a certain point add back restrictions when things get too rough. Australia does that immediately and at the hint of any cases. It appears to be working for them but the replication aspect is next to nil.Canadians have generally followed the restrictions, except for the usual vocal minority that also exists in Australia and elsewhere. If the leadership goal was to tamp down the virus at an early stage, with a significant lockdown from mid March for a month, followed by a slow re-opening with aggressive contact tracing as was done in Australia, most Canadians would have accepted this.
You will never get 100% compliance, anywhere in the world.
My post related more to the south of the border.
Precisely. Not everything is about American politics and your last sentence is sheer brilliance!The poster you quoted is Canadian and was discussing the lengths to which Australia goes to get to zero cases. I'm not so sure there really are many countries, including Canada, that would collectively jump on board with almost no pushback completely shutting down provinces, no leaving the home or going more than a certain distance from home, etc for a handful (and yes it was a handful) of cases and repeating this as cases inevitably pop back up. They don't have a slow reopening such that you are used to thinking about, they have slow opening until nearly everything gets shut down again, rinse lather repeat. Most places reopen and then after a certain point add back restrictions when things get too rough. Australia does that immediately and at the hint of any cases. It appears to be working for them but the replication aspect is next to nil.
I think people overestimate the lengths to which they would be able to withstand such extreme measures because it's easy to simply say you are generally compliant but that's when you don't have the same restrictions such that are being discussed. Reading information from a few people on another thread it seems a highly competitive nature between the states in Australia helps out in which the states there want to be the best and so they will do just about anything to get that title.
It's so last year to be bashing the U.S. especially because people seem to miss the actual discussion going on in their haste to do so.
What I meant is that full lock-down in the way Australia has done it would not be largely accepted by societies in North America and western Europe.
To be clear I was responding to the above, which refers to N.A. and Europe. Don't agree there is a inherent difference between the people of Australia and N.A. and Europe. It's primarily a matter of leadership and decision on approach.
But don't differences in leadership reflect differences in the people? Since it is the people that vote in the leaders.
I really cringe even writing this-you may not realize but your comment is how Hitler and others rose to power. Tactics aside on how they were able to do it if you look at just the bolded it's really isn't the best thing to say.Only if you think leadership should be solely based on politics. A true leader will make unpopular decisions when they are needed, or, more effectively, convince the people that a particular course of action is in the public interest.