5 ms·

Yeah I think the mink culling was an absurd over-reaction and highly unethical. Those poor minks. (Disclosure: I also think the same for the human lockdowns to

Yeah I think the mink culling was an absurd over-reaction and highly unethical. Those poor minks. (Disclosure: I also think the same for the human lockdowns too though)

threeseed 6y ago
Lockdowns work. End of story. Melbourne, Australia had a 4-month lockdown which turned an exponentially-rising 500+ cases a day scenario into elimination. Saving thousands of lives. No other place has managed to do something similar and it shows hotel quarantine of foreign arrivals, aggressive contact-tracing, mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing and lockdowns work. The Swedish laissez-faire approach does not.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  New Zealand did the same.
  - gridspy 6y ago
    Yes, but here in NZ we didn't wait until there were 500 infections to act. The lockdown was instituted around the time of <100 active infections being detected and our level 4 lockdown is far more stringent than any US state lockdown.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- prox 6y ago
  Is there a good place I could read about how Australia did it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mewse 6y ago
    This might be a bit low-level, but the Wikipedia page [1] has a pretty good blow-by-blow description of events. I recommend looking at the Victoria section of that page, as Victoria had by far the largest outbreak to cope with. For a more high-level overview, I like the BBC’s article, which talks about their opinions on the most important steps taken by the government, as well as the most critical mistakes. Note that it dates to October of last year and so doesn’t include mention of the three cases which induced a brief tightening of lockdown for a few weeks after the article was published. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646
    - prox 6y ago
      Thanks! Checking those links now.
- polote 6y ago
  > Lockdowns work. End of story This is not true. Hard lockdown that people follow seems to work. But lowdown only doesn't work. 1. Not all lockdown are equal, look at Germany how long they have a been in a soft lockdown so that death can decrease? like 2 months? Not sure at this point this is due to lockdown 2. If people don't follow the order it doesn't work, Peru one of the toughest and longest lockdown but yet also the highest mortality in the world
  - threeseed 6y ago
    All throughout Australia lockdowns worked because they were enforced. Large fines, arrests publicised on television and a strong police presence across the cities ensured that people weren't given the choice about to whether to comply or not. Now does it introduce questions about whether people's civil liberties were infringed ? Absolutely. But it works.
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure OP is implying that lockdowns which are properly enforced do work, obviously. A lockdown is anything but if people can just move about and ignore the rules defeating the whole purpose of a lockdown.
  - anotherevan 6y ago
    > This is not true. Hard lockdown that people follow seems to work. But lowdown only doesn't work. As a fellow Melbournite I will clarify: Real lockdowns work. End of story.
    - cudgy 6y ago
      End of what story? Most people cannot make money while locked down. Who pays their bills? Are they expected to burn through all savings to become destitute enough to qualify for aid? Are landlords and mortgage holders supposed to deal without any revenue? Is caging up your citizens to avoid a disease that has a miniscule chance of death (for all but its oldest citizens) really necessary? Is it ok to saddle future generations with government debt to pay for these lockdowns? There are many “stories” to tell here.
- ptr 6y ago
  Why single out Sweden? UK, who have/had more stringent lockdown rules than Sweden, are facing 1,540 deaths per million. Sweden is at 1,120 and roughly equal to France, Switzerland. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
  - andylynch 6y ago
    The UK one is strong on paper, but enforcement is beyond poor. No company has been sanctioned for breaking workplace COVID rules and the on the streets in some areas you wouldn’t know there was supposed to be a lockdown. And they still haven’t got quarantine for international arrivals - seems that a year ago it was deemed too disruptive.
- sto_hristo 6y ago
  Australia is big and sparely populated compared to other countries that implemented full lockdowns. Also, it's summer down there, with heat waves, etc. All of this diminishes virus' ability to spread. It's very situational. Australia is not doing anything more special than other countries. You gotta look into the meaning of these numbers and just the value. Lockdowns do work, technically speaking, but not in the long-run. Virus doesn't care and will operate as usual, albeit at slower rate. Persistent things those viruses are. Lockdowns make sense only at the beginning of a pandemic and their only sane purpose is to give the health care segment to prepare itself for the hit. Beyond that it's a lost cause. You're not saving thousands of lives, you're just extending the inevitable further down in the future, while your economy is sinking, which will create even more problems down the road. So even if you stay inside the cave forever, the bear will still come.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    1. 71% of Australians live in a handful of cities each of which has very high density relative to the rest of the world. 2. Lockdowns occurred during winter. 3. Australia has effectively eliminated COVID-19 and by having so few cases it allows for targeted lockdowns to work over the long-term e.g. Perth just had 1 case today and is having a short 5-day lockdown - their first in 10 months.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - sto_hristo 6y ago
      High density, you say. Relative to the rest of the world, you say. Sidney - 423/km2 Melbourne - 508/km2 Brisbane - 155/km2 Paris - 20,000/km2 Berlin - 4,206/km2 London - 5,666/km2 NYC - 27,755/km2 You are effectively out of touch with reality. edit: NYC - 27,755/km2 to NYC - 10,716/km2 (27,755 is in mi2 units) sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
- carlmr 6y ago
  The biggest issue with these strategies is that they're somewhat easier to execute in island nations. I don't see how most of the EU countries can follow this strategy. Germany für example has porous borders with Denmark, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czech republic, Poland. If they don't in turn all follow this strategy we'd have to militarily secure all these borders and stop anybody from going through. This would cause an enormous hit to the economies and cost a lot of money in military gear and personnel to execute. Now for the next scenario, say the whole EU + Switzerland + UK decide to follow zero Covid. Then we still have a boatable connection to Africa and a pretty large land border with Asia to defend. Despite the never before seen political coordination this would need, this would create very harsh humanitarian situations along those borders, even worse than what we've seen in recent years. So all in all I don't think it's that easy to use island nation strategies for mostly land locked nations.
  - mewse 6y ago
    Just for clarity.. the lockdown we’re talking about was Victoria. That’s just one of Australia’s states, and we were the only state with a severe lockdown like this. We have massive land borders with South Australia and New South Wales.
- samoa42 6y ago
  i just seem to miss why its favorable to curtail millions (incl. children) of their lives and stomp the economy for the benefit of thousands. shouldn't we have banned alcohol, tabacco, ice-cars, firearms, gambling ... first if this was so important?
- mewse 6y ago
  I agree. But also, having lived in both countries for more than 20 years each (including being in Melbourne now and throughout the lockdowns), I can’t imagine a country like the US ever engaging in a lockdown, or it working if they tried. It just doesn’t match their national role models of how people are supposed to act and what they’re supposed to care about. The whole defining ideal here in Australia is “mateship”. As you’re growing up, the revered role model that you’re told you should emulate is the “good mate”; being compassionate, taking people as they are, taking care of each other. That’s what they tell each other it means to be Australian. The equivalent mythic figure at the center of US society is the cowboy. It’s all about rugged individualism over there. And sure you take pains to protect your own family, but certainly not anybody else’s. Anything which requires one to take an ounce of inconvenience to help the society as a whole, that’s just not what Americans are generally raised to value. Those other folks ought to be taking care of their own families, after all. So you’ve got a whole society of people where the majority say “I’m not going to wear a mask if it mostly protects you.” And you’re certainly not going to convince a large enough percentage of people to obey a mandate as inconvenient as a requirement to stay inside their house for months at a time for it to be effective. They just won’t do it. I don’t know what realistic options they have in the US. I hope they find one. It’s indisputable that lockdowns do work if followed.. but it’s also true that the US will never be able to make the majority of their population comply with one. It just doesn’t fit the country’s stories about themselves. EDIT: In the above, I make a bunch of sweeping generalisations about huge populations of people, and I’m obviously not saying that everyone in those populations think those ways. I’m just pointing out the difference in what America says being American is about, and what Australia says being Australian is about.
bigmattystyles 6y ago
I mean, the minks were going to be killed for fur anyways right? The culling isn’t really the problematic part.
- jeofken 6y ago
  Denmark’s fur industry is old, but now also dead. Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products.
  - Shacklz 6y ago
    > Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products. Meat and dairy products feed humans, which is a necessity (that, in our day and age, may or may not be achieved by other means while still maintaining a healthy diet), while fur is a luxury product - by no means necessary. It isn't even a byproduct, the fur is the sole reasons the minks are killed. I can't even fathom how you can see these two things in the same light, morally.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      Food is a necessity, but red meat is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (calories, protein, etc) Clothing is a necessity, but fur is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (avoiding nudity when it would be considered immoral, staying warm in cold climates, etc) What's the difference? Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Maybe not relevant for mink vs cow farming, but in some situations I think killing animals for their fur is morally and environmentally superior to raising and killing animals for their meat. Louisiana nutria bounty program is a net positive for the native ecology, which I don't think could be said for most meat products.
      - jeofken 6y ago
        > Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Yeah, it’s easy to be against it and feel good about yourself without making a sacrifice in your life. Wear fur and eat meat folks, but stop with logical inconsistencies!
Shacklz 6y ago
That the mink industry still existed in this day and age in a country such as Denmark was in my opinion a complete travesty to begin with. Having all these animals in ridiculously small cages just for the sake of their fur - the cruelty is appalling. As cruel as Corona itself is - it did bring a few good things, killing the Mink industry was definitely one of them in my opinion.
- sitkack 6y ago
  Those Mink were already dead at birth, whether they die today en masse or tomorrow one at at a time makes no difference. The ethical choice is to not conceive them in the first place.
- jeofken 6y ago
  It’s not different than consuming meat and dairy, which Danes love. Let’s put this moral inconsistency to the side

Yeah I think the mink culling was an absurd over-reaction and highly unethical. Those poor minks. (Disclosure: I also think the same for the human lockdowns too though)

threeseed 6y ago

Lockdowns work. End of story. Melbourne, Australia had a 4-month lockdown which turned an exponentially-rising 500+ cases a day scenario into elimination. Saving thousands of lives. No other place has managed to do something similar and it shows hotel quarantine of foreign arrivals, aggressive contact-tracing, mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing and lockdowns work. The Swedish laissez-faire approach does not.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
New Zealand did the same.
- gridspy 6y ago
  Yes, but here in NZ we didn't wait until there were 500 infections to act. The lockdown was instituted around the time of <100 active infections being detected and our level 4 lockdown is far more stringent than any US state lockdown.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
prox 6y ago
Is there a good place I could read about how Australia did it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mewse 6y ago
  This might be a bit low-level, but the Wikipedia page [1] has a pretty good blow-by-blow description of events. I recommend looking at the Victoria section of that page, as Victoria had by far the largest outbreak to cope with. For a more high-level overview, I like the BBC’s article, which talks about their opinions on the most important steps taken by the government, as well as the most critical mistakes. Note that it dates to October of last year and so doesn’t include mention of the three cases which induced a brief tightening of lockdown for a few weeks after the article was published. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54654646
  - prox 6y ago
    Thanks! Checking those links now.
polote 6y ago
> Lockdowns work. End of story This is not true. Hard lockdown that people follow seems to work. But lowdown only doesn't work. 1. Not all lockdown are equal, look at Germany how long they have a been in a soft lockdown so that death can decrease? like 2 months? Not sure at this point this is due to lockdown 2. If people don't follow the order it doesn't work, Peru one of the toughest and longest lockdown but yet also the highest mortality in the world
- threeseed 6y ago
  All throughout Australia lockdowns worked because they were enforced. Large fines, arrests publicised on television and a strong police presence across the cities ensured that people weren't given the choice about to whether to comply or not. Now does it introduce questions about whether people's civil liberties were infringed ? Absolutely. But it works.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure OP is implying that lockdowns which are properly enforced do work, obviously. A lockdown is anything but if people can just move about and ignore the rules defeating the whole purpose of a lockdown.
- anotherevan 6y ago
  > This is not true. Hard lockdown that people follow seems to work. But lowdown only doesn't work. As a fellow Melbournite I will clarify: Real lockdowns work. End of story.
  - cudgy 6y ago
    End of what story? Most people cannot make money while locked down. Who pays their bills? Are they expected to burn through all savings to become destitute enough to qualify for aid? Are landlords and mortgage holders supposed to deal without any revenue? Is caging up your citizens to avoid a disease that has a miniscule chance of death (for all but its oldest citizens) really necessary? Is it ok to saddle future generations with government debt to pay for these lockdowns? There are many “stories” to tell here.
ptr 6y ago
Why single out Sweden? UK, who have/had more stringent lockdown rules than Sweden, are facing 1,540 deaths per million. Sweden is at 1,120 and roughly equal to France, Switzerland. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
- andylynch 6y ago
  The UK one is strong on paper, but enforcement is beyond poor. No company has been sanctioned for breaking workplace COVID rules and the on the streets in some areas you wouldn’t know there was supposed to be a lockdown. And they still haven’t got quarantine for international arrivals - seems that a year ago it was deemed too disruptive.
sto_hristo 6y ago
Australia is big and sparely populated compared to other countries that implemented full lockdowns. Also, it's summer down there, with heat waves, etc. All of this diminishes virus' ability to spread. It's very situational. Australia is not doing anything more special than other countries. You gotta look into the meaning of these numbers and just the value. Lockdowns do work, technically speaking, but not in the long-run. Virus doesn't care and will operate as usual, albeit at slower rate. Persistent things those viruses are. Lockdowns make sense only at the beginning of a pandemic and their only sane purpose is to give the health care segment to prepare itself for the hit. Beyond that it's a lost cause. You're not saving thousands of lives, you're just extending the inevitable further down in the future, while your economy is sinking, which will create even more problems down the road. So even if you stay inside the cave forever, the bear will still come.
- threeseed 6y ago
  1. 71% of Australians live in a handful of cities each of which has very high density relative to the rest of the world. 2. Lockdowns occurred during winter. 3. Australia has effectively eliminated COVID-19 and by having so few cases it allows for targeted lockdowns to work over the long-term e.g. Perth just had 1 case today and is having a short 5-day lockdown - their first in 10 months.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sto_hristo 6y ago
    High density, you say. Relative to the rest of the world, you say. Sidney - 423/km2 Melbourne - 508/km2 Brisbane - 155/km2 Paris - 20,000/km2 Berlin - 4,206/km2 London - 5,666/km2 NYC - 27,755/km2 You are effectively out of touch with reality. edit: NYC - 27,755/km2 to NYC - 10,716/km2 (27,755 is in mi2 units) sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
carlmr 6y ago
The biggest issue with these strategies is that they're somewhat easier to execute in island nations. I don't see how most of the EU countries can follow this strategy. Germany für example has porous borders with Denmark, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czech republic, Poland. If they don't in turn all follow this strategy we'd have to militarily secure all these borders and stop anybody from going through. This would cause an enormous hit to the economies and cost a lot of money in military gear and personnel to execute. Now for the next scenario, say the whole EU + Switzerland + UK decide to follow zero Covid. Then we still have a boatable connection to Africa and a pretty large land border with Asia to defend. Despite the never before seen political coordination this would need, this would create very harsh humanitarian situations along those borders, even worse than what we've seen in recent years. So all in all I don't think it's that easy to use island nation strategies for mostly land locked nations.
- mewse 6y ago
  Just for clarity.. the lockdown we’re talking about was Victoria. That’s just one of Australia’s states, and we were the only state with a severe lockdown like this. We have massive land borders with South Australia and New South Wales.
samoa42 6y ago
i just seem to miss why its favorable to curtail millions (incl. children) of their lives and stomp the economy for the benefit of thousands. shouldn't we have banned alcohol, tabacco, ice-cars, firearms, gambling ... first if this was so important?
mewse 6y ago
I agree. But also, having lived in both countries for more than 20 years each (including being in Melbourne now and throughout the lockdowns), I can’t imagine a country like the US ever engaging in a lockdown, or it working if they tried. It just doesn’t match their national role models of how people are supposed to act and what they’re supposed to care about. The whole defining ideal here in Australia is “mateship”. As you’re growing up, the revered role model that you’re told you should emulate is the “good mate”; being compassionate, taking people as they are, taking care of each other. That’s what they tell each other it means to be Australian. The equivalent mythic figure at the center of US society is the cowboy. It’s all about rugged individualism over there. And sure you take pains to protect your own family, but certainly not anybody else’s. Anything which requires one to take an ounce of inconvenience to help the society as a whole, that’s just not what Americans are generally raised to value. Those other folks ought to be taking care of their own families, after all. So you’ve got a whole society of people where the majority say “I’m not going to wear a mask if it mostly protects you.” And you’re certainly not going to convince a large enough percentage of people to obey a mandate as inconvenient as a requirement to stay inside their house for months at a time for it to be effective. They just won’t do it. I don’t know what realistic options they have in the US. I hope they find one. It’s indisputable that lockdowns do work if followed.. but it’s also true that the US will never be able to make the majority of their population comply with one. It just doesn’t fit the country’s stories about themselves. EDIT: In the above, I make a bunch of sweeping generalisations about huge populations of people, and I’m obviously not saying that everyone in those populations think those ways. I’m just pointing out the difference in what America says being American is about, and what Australia says being Australian is about.

bigmattystyles 6y ago

I mean, the minks were going to be killed for fur anyways right? The culling isn’t really the problematic part.

jeofken 6y ago
Denmark’s fur industry is old, but now also dead. Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products.
- Shacklz 6y ago
  > Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products. Meat and dairy products feed humans, which is a necessity (that, in our day and age, may or may not be achieved by other means while still maintaining a healthy diet), while fur is a luxury product - by no means necessary. It isn't even a byproduct, the fur is the sole reasons the minks are killed. I can't even fathom how you can see these two things in the same light, morally.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Food is a necessity, but red meat is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (calories, protein, etc) Clothing is a necessity, but fur is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (avoiding nudity when it would be considered immoral, staying warm in cold climates, etc) What's the difference? Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Maybe not relevant for mink vs cow farming, but in some situations I think killing animals for their fur is morally and environmentally superior to raising and killing animals for their meat. Louisiana nutria bounty program is a net positive for the native ecology, which I don't think could be said for most meat products.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      > Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Yeah, it’s easy to be against it and feel good about yourself without making a sacrifice in your life. Wear fur and eat meat folks, but stop with logical inconsistencies!

Shacklz 6y ago

That the mink industry still existed in this day and age in a country such as Denmark was in my opinion a complete travesty to begin with. Having all these animals in ridiculously small cages just for the sake of their fur - the cruelty is appalling. As cruel as Corona itself is - it did bring a few good things, killing the Mink industry was definitely one of them in my opinion.

sitkack 6y ago
Those Mink were already dead at birth, whether they die today en masse or tomorrow one at at a time makes no difference. The ethical choice is to not conceive them in the first place.
jeofken 6y ago
It’s not different than consuming meat and dairy, which Danes love. Let’s put this moral inconsistency to the side