I agree - NZ thinks they can manage all the risk away. Based on the two articles I’ve read about their new lockdown and the demographics of the infected, this is clearly not the way to go about it, even though the MSM has hailed them as a success story.
The NZ model could never work here. The island has the population of Brooklyn and Queens on two major islands with a land mass comparable to Colorado or Oregon. Their densest city (Auckland) is comparable to suburbs you would find beyond the typical bedroom suburbs of New York City (like Western Suffolk or parts of Rockland County).
You can’t expect the US to separate families, lock people in their homes (their lockdown only exempted nearby exercise and trips for groceries),and cut off foreign travel with the hopes of beating mother nature.
If you want to argue that Sweden isn’t the answer either, you’re probably right, but the solution looks more like Sweden and less like what we’re doing, and certainly not what New Zealand did and is doing now.
MJ
This is the end result of mistakenly thinking we have a right to be comfortable and totally safe. There is no such thing as completely safe. You’re often trading one risk for another just as you have to choose between costs.
We’re choosing poverty and future deaths from denial of care out of irrational fear of a disease only as bad as influenza for literally 99% of the population.