The Coronavirus Thread (We nearly didn't see City in the 2021 Grand Final)

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, kingofhearts said:

Another 79 cases today..... We are going to be locked down until Christmas at this rate ffs.

It's time for the government to sit down and have the uncomfortable conversation: what's an acceptable daily infection/death rate that we can manage.

IMO although prima facie it appears that various people on here differ in opinion, I suspect that if we were all sitting down in one room we would find that to a very large extent we are actually in agreement.

It's very nearly 20 months since the first infection arrived in Australia (here in Melbourne as it happened). As I see it, there is still no clearly defined direction that everyone can see. The States are pulling in different directions, and we need a lot more from the Feds than just a few throwaway "I don't hold the hose, mate" comments. The so-called "Four Phase Plan" is no such thing because there is almost no detail or quantification - it's more of a concept or an idea.

So yes, the way it is we're on a downwards spiral, and we do desperately need to halt that and work out what the hell it is we are trying to do, and then equip ourselves to do it.

[belaguttman]

7 hours ago, kingofhearts said:

Another 79 cases today..... We are going to be locked down until Christmas at this rate ffs.

It's time for the government to sit down and have the uncomfortable conversation: what's an acceptable daily infection/death rate that we can manage.

Look beyond the raw figure, because the R nought is around 6, it almost guarantees that every case will infect their whole family, that's why its important to stop extended family contact. Most of the current infections are children or young adults rather than the elderly, so the implications are different. Despite this, the health system in NSW is close to saturation because of staff shortages and burnout, Victoria's is less stressed capacity wise but still suffering staff shortages and very high staff burnout and stress.

Whilst of course we need to carefully ease restrictions when vaccination levels are high enough, there will be a ferocious epidemic amongst the unvaccinated when that happens and that will impact every person's health care, maybe for the next 2 years. Rural Australia is in a particularly vulnerable position, there are only 6 ICU beds in my health region for instance, it won't take too many infected staff before there is effectively zero staffed  ICU beds for people that are otherwise treatable. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't do it, but the discussion needs to be far more nuanced and understanding than 'we've just got to learn to live with it'.

I suggest that this link is a good place to start

Edited August 27, 2021 by belaguttman

[jw1739]

Sobering reading @belaguttman. Thank you.

[belaguttman]

Some further modelling from ANU

On 25/08/2021 at 6:20 AM, NewConvert said:

In the long term, like in about 30 years plus we will learn to live with the Alpha variant of COVID because we would have developed some immunity and would have protocols such as vaccine passports. Now this is predicated that the Delta variant does not continue to mutate into something that the current vaccines are not effective. but as @jw1739 states it is impossible to trust the federal government to do anything right.

It won't take that long, probably 4 or 5 years total pandemic time, we know that it'll be an evolutionary arms race against the virus and there'll be frequent vaccine boosters with tweaked vaccines. How many people will keep getting them though?

[jw1739]

@belaguttman That really is incredible reading. For me the "guts" of it is this:

The whole of the Doherty Report's predictions assume that AT THE POINT WHEN WE GO FROM PHASE A (the one we are in now) TO PHASE B there will be just ONE OUTBREAK INVOLVING 30 INDIVIDUALS.
If this is not the case, then the modelling is irrelevant and no predictions are in the Report. 
Even if we could reduce to one single outbreak of 30 individuals, infections will rise to a peak of around 55,000 per day once we move to Phase B.

I almost wish that I hadn't read it.

Edited August 28, 2021 by jw1739

[belaguttman]

51 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

@belaguttman That really is incredible reading. For me the "guts" of it is this:

The whole of the Doherty Report's predictions assume that AT THE POINT WHEN WE GO FROM PHASE A (the one we are in now) TO PHASE B there will be just ONE OUTBREAK INVOLVING 30 INDIVIDUALS.
If this is not the case, then the modelling is irrelevant and no predictions are in the Report. 
Even if we could reduce to one single outbreak of 30 individuals, infections will rise to a peak of around 55,000 per day once we move to Phase B.

I almost wish that I hadn't read it.

As always, the relevance of modelling depends on the accuracy of the modelling. Doherty Institute has modelled from the starting assumptions that they were given, but even then the Federal Government has cherry picked and misrepresented the findings. 

We are going to get a pandemic of the unvaccinated as restrictions ease. It would make sense to reduce that group by as much as possible before we start removing restrictions. Almost everyone will become infected sooner or latter.

Timing is also important, as Pfizer effectiveness begins to wane after 6 months it would be prudent to time the removal around this as this just starting to happen here now, we should be planning to use the Moderna stock to offer one booster shot to every vaccinated citizen, and start that next month when it arrives.

Edited August 28, 2021 by belaguttman

[kingofhearts]

176 cases today, the lockdown is clearly not working. It's just a race now for everyone to get vaccinated.

[Jovan]

36 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

176 cases today, the lockdown is clearly not working. It's just a race now for everyone to get vaccinated.

Actually it is working, just depends on what the actual goal is.

[bt50]

46 minutes ago, Jovan said:

Actually it is working, just depends on what the actual goal is.

This is correct, albeit the morons in charge have been aiming at the wrong goal.
Now, and as it should have been all along imo, or at very least since the virus first mutated, the aim should be to flatten the curve as much as possible, without flattening the people. The people in charge don't seem to have much regard for the latter it would appear.

[Jovan]

14 minutes ago, bt50 said:

This is correct, albeit the morons in charge have been aiming at the wrong goal.
Now, and as it should have been all along imo, or at very least since the virus first mutated, the aim should be to flatten the curve as much as possible, without flattening the people. The people in charge don't seem to have much regard for the latter it would appear.

100% this.

They shouldn't even look at case numbers. 

The only numbers of concern should be firstly (unfortunately deaths), then hospital numbers and capacity. 

That idiot in Queensland scaring people about children/unvaccinated should be ashamed or herself of scoring political points.

I'm not suggesting we open up willy nilly, but the settings and timeline and messaging is literally killing any prospects of overcoming this.

 

[kingofhearts]

3 hours ago, Jovan said:

Actually it is working, just depends on what the actual goal is.

Theres never really been 'a goal', just a lot of vauge buzz words attached to some flimsy ass promises.Even now, "70%-80% vaccinated and we'll give you back some of your rights" is just another flimsy promise that the government will most likely backtrack on when they see fit.

State and Federal governments should've been working together throughout the whole pandemic but instead it's just been a massive dick measuring contest. Not even really any point having a Federal government anyway, if the states are just going to do whatever they see fit.

My hope is that enough people are vaccinated by the end of the year and that we can return back to some normality by the next, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[belaguttman]

To bring some perspective, collectively as a planet we have done very well with our pandemic management. In 1919, there was a global population of 2 billion with 20 million deaths from the 'Spanish' Flu pandemic. We are half way through this pandemic and have contained it to 3 million from a global population of almost 8 billion. It's an inexact comparison as the viruses are different, target different vulnerabilities and demographics but overall we are doing well, we understand viruses, we have effective treatments and effective vaccines. Even without all those things, that pandemic passed and this one will too.

As soon as we remove restrictions we are going to get a pandemic amongst the unvaccinated. I have some ethical concerns about this happening before every citizen has had an opportunity to get vaccinated, this includes children <12. These safety and efficacy studies are being dome in children now, and we'll know the results by years end.

We'll be able to return to a degree of normality, but we'll still have targeted lockdowns to protect the health system. I don't think that its widely appreciated how precarious our ability to provide routine health care really is: The system has been operating at 100% efficiency for 30 years now, there's no downtime, no capacity for recovery, little capacity to respond to increased demand, it's a very stressful environment to work in, the last year has ramped up that difficulty and staff all over the world are already stressed, many burned out. It doesn't have to be like this but this is what happens when generic managers try to run a health system 'efficiently' like a factory, the only reason why we have waiting lists is to keep the system at 100% occupancy. What this means is that even though our individual risk from Covid is low, you will be far more likely to die from appendicitis or asthma as there will be a delay in treatment, your elective surgery will be deferred for 18 months, the staff that look after you will be burned out and offer sub-optimal care. Is this worth it so we can go clubbing or shopping?

I think that we have at least another 2 years of pandemic ahead of us, not in lockdown, but the next 18 months will be far more dangerous.

Edited September 2, 2021 by belaguttman

[NewConvert]

I will also add that in Australia, the virus has been contained to a very large extent. Viruses tend to kill off the elderly, the sick and children first, then the rest of the general population including adolescents. This is precisely what has happened overseas. In Oz however, only the elderly have been knocked off and primarily at nursing homes run by the federal government (BTW what happened to the RC into Aged Care and the other one to Banks?). So the lockdowns have achieved a reduced mortality rate and the hospital system has not been overwhelmed.

With NSW letting the Delta variant lose, the amount of ICU beds and ventilators is running very low. It would be better if the government would release figures of weekly occupancy rates for general hospital beds as well as ICU beds.

Is there a way out? Well that would be if we achieve the magical 80% of the working age population before the lockdowns are eased. Even with NSW claiming what ever vaccination figure they are claiming today, their hospitals are being overwhelmed which is why people are starting to die at home.

[bt50]

7 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

With NSW letting the Delta variant lose, the amount of ICU beds and ventilators is running very low. It would be better if the government would release figures of weekly occupancy rates for general hospital beds as well as ICU beds.

Pretty sure this is untrue. The 'stress' that the NSW system is under is largely due to staff being furloughed to ensure they dont catch it and pass it on within the hospital setting, creating a shortfall of staff. Basically once we open up we'll dispense of this strategy as its no longer about containing cases, and more about maximising the care.

[jw1739]

2 hours ago, bt50 said:

Pretty sure this is untrue. The 'stress' that the NSW system is under is largely due to staff being furloughed to ensure they dont catch it and pass it on within the hospital setting, creating a shortfall of staff. Basically once we open up we'll dispense of this strategy as its no longer about containing cases, and more about maximising the care.

So once we "open up" and no longer furlough staff we will have infected  staff no longer able to come to work and if they do passing the infection on to hospital patients who are not there for COVID reasons at all?
Whichever way you look at it the root cause of the stress on hospital and medical services is the coronavirus infection.
The strategy used so far has been effective in suppressing the virus, and in some jurisdictions keeping them COVID-free, and it has only been the failures of the Feds and latterly NSW that sees us in our present predicament. If you manage the cases to a minimum you manage everything else to a minimum, not the other way around. IMO it was the correct way to go given the clumsy handling of vaccination by the Feds.
Notwithstanding those comments, the messaging has been appalling right from the start, particularly from the Feds, so-called "experts" and the ATAGI committee. It is not surprising that people have been and are confused.
As for the Feds and the States working together - forget it. ScoMo isn't the first PM not to understand how the system works.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop48/battlesovereignty

Edited September 2, 2021 by jw1739

[kingofhearts]

3 hours ago, belaguttman said:

 

We'll be able to return to a degree of normality, but we'll still have targeted lockdowns to protect the health system. I don't think that its widely appreciated how precarious our ability to provide routine health care really is: The system has been operating at 100% efficiency for 30 years now, there's no downtime, no capacity for recovery, little capacity to respond to increased demand, it's a very stressful environment to work in, the last year has ramped up that difficulty and staff all over the world are already stressed, many burned out. It doesn't have to be like this but this is what happens when generic managers try to run a health system 'efficiently' like a factory, the only reason why we have waiting lists is to keep the system at 100% occupancy. What this means is that even though our individual risk from Covid is low, you will be far more likely to die from appendicitis or asthma as there will be a delay in treatment, your elective surgery will be deferred for 18 months, the staff that look after you will be burned out and offer sub-optimal care. Is this worth it so we can go clubbing or shopping?

I agree with what you're saying, but I just wonder why the government hasn't pumped as much money/resources as they can into healthcare whilst dealing with the response to the pandemic?

Obviously at the start it was hard to predict the effect that this pandemic was going to have on the population (although the resources could've been there)Instead, we're spending money on building train systems, and removing level crossings when right now, the number one priority is to ensure the health system is properly looked after and it feels like the government has done little to nothing to improve it.

I don't claim to have all the answers but providing more ICU beds, getting retired nurses and doctors back in the hospital's, maybe even fast forwarding final or 2nd last year med students into the profession? Obviously if we just had an adequate supply of vaccines we wouldn't have to put in these measures, but outside of 'just wait for the vaccines' there has been no notable improvement in the healthcare system to help them deal with the pandemic

[NewConvert]

47 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

I agree with what you're saying, but I just wonder why the government hasn't pumped as much money/resources as they can into healthcare whilst dealing with the response to the pandemic?

Obviously at the start it was hard to predict the effect that this pandemic was going to have on the population (although the resources could've been there)Instead, we're spending money on building train systems, and removing level crossings when right now, the number one priority is to ensure the health system is properly looked after and it feels like the government has done little to nothing to improve it.

I don't claim to have all the answers but providing more ICU beds, getting retired nurses and doctors back in the hospital's, maybe even fast forwarding final or 2nd last year med students into the profession? Obviously if we just had an adequate supply of vaccines we wouldn't have to put in these measures, but outside of 'just wait for the vaccines' there has been no notable improvement in the healthcare system to help them deal with the pandemic

I'm with you on this. I have no idea why the feds/state government aren't proactive. And I am prepared to accept a two tier system for hospital beds.

[jw1739]

Because the responsibilities are split between the Feds and the States, and the further split into public and private is the simple answer. There is no "national" approach to health care, except for Medicare, and that is just concerned with fees.

[belaguttman]

20 hours ago, kingofhearts said:

I agree with what you're saying, but I just wonder why the government hasn't pumped as much money/resources as they can into healthcare whilst dealing with the response to the pandemic?

Obviously at the start it was hard to predict the effect that this pandemic was going to have on the population (although the resources could've been there)Instead, we're spending money on building train systems, and removing level crossings when right now, the number one priority is to ensure the health system is properly looked after and it feels like the government has done little to nothing to improve it.

I don't claim to have all the answers but providing more ICU beds, getting retired nurses and doctors back in the hospital's, maybe even fast forwarding final or 2nd last year med students into the profession? Obviously if we just had an adequate supply of vaccines we wouldn't have to put in these measures, but outside of 'just wait for the vaccines' there has been no notable improvement in the healthcare system to help them deal with the pandemic

Governments at State and Federal level of both major parties have actually been stripping health for 30 years. The philosophical issue driving it is the new-liberal perspective that health is a service that must be monetized and treated as a commercial enterprise, our factories have the lowest cost over unit by constantly improving efficiency, always running at capacity. The hospital system has been organized around these principles, EDs are always  full, you ensure that by ramping ambulances, beds are always full, that’s why you create waiting lists so that any unexpected vacancy can always be filled by a waiting list patient. This principle continues throughout the health system. Of course, the hospital you’d prefer to be treated in is the one that runs at 80% capacity, no wait to be seen, always a bed when you need it, no waiting lists, doctors and nurses rested with time to think. We have intentionally designed the complete opposite system.

General Practice is similar. The Medicare rebate indexation has lagged far behind CPI, hence the gap when seeing doctors, because of course costs haven’t lagged behind CPI. The Liberals, in particular, are keen to introduce more of a US type system here (that’s the day I find a new job), but, already, GPs spend between a quarter and a half of their time doing compliance paperwork, not seeing patients. No compliance paperwork, no money. The Federal Government payment to GPs for administering Covid vaccinations doesn’t cover the costs of weekend staff penalty rates, if your GP is offering weekend vax shots, they are covering the difference out of their own pocket. 

At the start of last year’s lockdown the Federal DoH introduced a very complex TeleHealth item number system, it took months to fully introduce, for the first week there were no TeleHealth item numbers whatsoever so I worked at no cost, there was no way of billing without the patients bearing the total cost. Meanwhile, the DoH was continuing to make Medicare compliance demands on doctors, many working remotely with no secretarial support or records with the threat of repayment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of Medicare payments. Covid stress was nothing compared to this for the unlucky doctors involved. Eventually the DoH relented after pressure from medical Colleges and suspended compliance checks during the pandemic. They assured everyone that they will still do retrospective checks after the pandemic is over. 

This sort of approach exists at all levels of the health system, State and Federal, and don’t even get me started on my area, mental health!

The TL:DR is the system is designed specifically not to improve the quality health system, definitely not to make it a pleasant environment to work in, but to be constantly “improving efficiency”, that means always reducing costs and expecting more performance from less staff. Does this explain why the system is at breaking point with the pandemic?

Edited September 3, 2021 by belaguttman

[bt50]

11 hours ago, jw1739 said:

So once we "open up" and no longer furlough staff we will have infected  staff no longer able to come to work and if they do passing the infection on to hospital patients who are not there for COVID reasons at all?
Whichever way you look at it the root cause of the stress on hospital and medical services is the coronavirus infection.
The strategy used so far has been effective in suppressing the virus, and in some jurisdictions keeping them COVID-free, and it has only been the failures of the Feds and latterly NSW that sees us in our present predicament. If you manage the cases to a minimum you manage everything else to a minimum, not the other way around. IMO it was the correct way to go given the clumsy handling of vaccination by the Feds.
Notwithstanding those comments, the messaging has been appalling right from the start, particularly from the Feds, so-called "experts" and the ATAGI committee. It is not surprising that people have been and are confused.
As for the Feds and the States working together - forget it. ScoMo isn't the first PM not to understand how the system works.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop48/battlesovereignty

I think the reality is that everyone is going to get COVID, and will likely repeatedly get it, just like the flu.
COVID is obv more powerful and deadly than the flu, but ultimately it is just a super saiyan version of the same thing in a practical sense.
All the strategy has done so far is delay the masses from getting it the first time, til such time as the people can get vaccinated and the effects of getting it are considerably less.
The point that is up for debate is when the tipping point comes that the human cost of keeping the virus at bay outweighs the cost of contracting the virus at large unvaccinated. The governments have made that arbitrary line at 70 and 80%, many people will disagree and think that point has well passed. That's their prerogative, as it is those that think we should be locked in a bubble forever.

Tying that back to the hospital staff, effectively once we hit the tipping point it will be staff are working infectious or not, provided they are up to it from a health perspective imo. The alternative is to have hospitals critically understaffed at the risk of infecting someone. Its a numbers game.

[belaguttman]

It's very common for us all to get repeated infections with the same strain of corona viruses, so Covid-19 is no different in that regard. Most corona viruses cause mild limited infections, our bodies are primed and experienced at dealing with them as a consequence of frequent previous infections. Covid-19 will eventually be the same, but in the meantime will cause havoc in about 15% of people. A vaccination trains your immune system, and you'll get a better response than you'll get after a natural infection. This is not an especially lethal virus yo us as individuals, nothing like the bird flu with 60% mortality that epidemiologists are modelling and say is inevitable. It does give us a chance to prepare, in that sense it's been very helpful.

If staff work infected it becomes self-defeating, all that will happen is that will surely infect unprotected patients and visitors, further adding to their workload, this is the dilemma we have been trying to juggle.

The Doherty modelling suggests 70-80% of eligible citizens, that is only 65% of all citizens as it doesn't include children.. This may have been manageable with track, trace, isolate and quarantine at load of 30 new daily infections nationwide, but will definitely absolutely not be of any value in containing the R nought with daily loads >2000. This is why NSW are re-channeling their contact tracing efforts now, by the time you are notified that you were exposed 4 or 5 days ago, you may have infected 40-50 people, who, between them, have infected close to 1,000. (They each infect 6 in 24 hours, each of them infects 6 in 24 hours and so on).

[NewConvert]

8 hours ago, bt50 said:

I think the reality is that everyone is going to get COVID, and will likely repeatedly get it, just like the flu.
COVID is obv more powerful and deadly than the flu, but ultimately it is just a super saiyan version of the same thing in a practical sense.
All the strategy has done so far is delay the masses from getting it the first time, til such time as the people can get vaccinated and the effects of getting it are considerably less.
The point that is up for debate is when the tipping point comes that the human cost of keeping the virus at bay outweighs the cost of contracting the virus at large unvaccinated. The governments have made that arbitrary line at 70 and 80%, many people will disagree and think that point has well passed. That's their prerogative, as it is those that think we should be locked in a bubble forever.

Tying that back to the hospital staff, effectively once we hit the tipping point it will be staff are working infectious or not, provided they are up to it from a health perspective imo. The alternative is to have hospitals critically understaffed at the risk of infecting someone. Its a numbers game.

I will also add that the political and ethical cost will be if covid-19 starts killing children under the age of 5. This is why I stated that it may take 30 years before 'we can live with covid'. I was born right on the edge of the start of modern vaccinations and hygiene that reduced child mortality. It would be devastating for parents to lose kids under 5 to covid and politically it would be poison. I lost my sister when she was 11 months old.

[Jovan]

27 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I will also add that the political and ethical cost will be if covid-19 starts killing children under the age of 5. This is why I stated that it may take 30 years before 'we can live with covid'. I was born right on the edge of the start of modern vaccinations and hygiene that reduced child mortality. It would be devastating for parents to lose kids under 5 to covid and politically it would be poison. I lost my sister when she was 11 months old.

Currently 0 children have died from COVID in Australia and exceptionally low worldwide. 

[belaguttman]

Infected children are unlikely to die, a very small number will get long Covid, just as a very small number get post-viral syndromes from other viral infections. The main issue is that they will be extremely efficient spreaders of delta variant, whereas they weren't big spreaders of variant (last year).

[Jovan]

1 minute ago, belaguttman said:

Infected children are unlikely to die, a very small number will get long Covid, just as a very small number get post-viral syndromes from other viral infections. The main issue is that they will be extremely efficient spreaders of delta variant, whereas they weren't big spreaders of variant (last year).

Whats ironic is traditionally vaccinations begin with the children and work up, but this time round its been the oldest first.

[belaguttman]

It's because the clinical trials are only just been done on children as this is primarily a serious illness in adults, they were trialled first.

[bt50]

17 hours ago, belaguttman said:

If staff work infected it becomes self-defeating, all that will happen is that will surely infect unprotected patients and visitors, further adding to their workload, this is the dilemma we have been trying to juggle.

I disagree here, at least at the point where we decide furloughing is no longer worth the cost, because it will get to the point that the patients or visitors will have got it from somewhere else irrespective, due to the prevalence of it in society at that point. Clearly we arent at that point yet, but it will come as the virus is set free so to speak.
It's also not a 1:1 equation, as only 10% of infected need hospitalisation. Obv we are going to deploy as many strategies as we can to 'flatten the curve' but you dont tear up the graph to do so, esp when the likelihood is that you'll just get it tomorrow anyway.

[belaguttman]

3 hours ago, bt50 said:

I disagree here, at least at the point where we decide furloughing is no longer worth the cost, because it will get to the point that the patients or visitors will have got it from somewhere else irrespective, due to the prevalence of it in society at that point. Clearly we arent at that point yet, but it will come as the virus is set free so to speak.
It's also not a 1:1 equation, as only 10% of infected need hospitalisation. Obv we are going to deploy as many strategies as we can to 'flatten the curve' but you dont tear up the graph to do so, esp when the likelihood is that you'll just get it tomorrow anyway.

Sure, but no health worker is going to want to risk infecting and possibly being a contributor to the death of a vulnerable patient. That's irrespective of the inevitable truth that if they don't get infected by me then its likely to come from someone else, it's about the personal responsibility and how heavily that weighs on individuals, particularly when they are stressed, burned out and also dealing with their own infection. You can require health workers to go to work when infected but you can't prevent the emotional impact that will cause.

[jw1739]

One thing that's really starting to irk me about all this...not only are we fragmenting the country along State lines with the different approaches to managing the pandemic, but I'm getting progressively pissed off with the discrimination between Melbourne and so-called "regional Victoria." 

I didn't ask to come to Melbourne, I was transferred here a long time ago with the alternative being loss of my employment, after quite long sojourns in two other States and a short time in a third. Now  I'm a virtual prisoner here, not even able to travel freely in my own State. And surprise, surprise, it's not possible to just pack up and move "to the country" at the drop of a hat, for a whole lot of reasons.

I don't underestimate the tasks faced by our government, but IMO it needs to do a lot more than just draw a few lines on a map, and let those on one side lead one life-style and condemn those on the other side to another. That's not a "plan" at all.

[belaguttman]

The State Governments will step in and fill the void when there's a vacuum of Federal Government leadership,

[jw1739]

15 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

The State Governments will step in and fill the void when there's a vacuum of Federal Government leadership,

The Feds' jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution. Occasionally they try to use their "foreign affairs" powers to get the States to do (or not do) something, but in practice their powers are limited. What I'm getting irked by is the sovereign state of Victoria starting to treat its citizens differently based on where they live. And doing it on a rather arbitrary basis. As I've pointed out before, some people who are locked down and under curfew are many km away from their nearest infection - further than some who are deemed to be in "regional Victoria." I don't object to restrictions per se but they need to be logical and applied in a logical manner. And after 18 months we've had the time to work this out.

[Shahanga]

2 hours ago, belaguttman said:

The State Governments will step in and fill the void when there's a vacuum of Federal Government leadership,

Especially when they have psychotic tendencies to over the top authoritarian “solutions” to every situation.

[NewConvert]

6 hours ago, jw1739 said:

One thing that's really starting to irk me about all this...not only are we fragmenting the country along State lines with the different approaches to managing the pandemic, but I'm getting progressively pissed off with the discrimination between Melbourne and so-called "regional Victoria." 

I didn't ask to come to Melbourne, I was transferred here a long time ago with the alternative being loss of my employment, after quite long sojourns in two other States and a short time in a third. Now  I'm a virtual prisoner here, not even able to travel freely in my own State. And surprise, surprise, it's not possible to just pack up and move "to the country" at the drop of a hat, for a whole lot of reasons.

I don't underestimate the tasks faced by our government, but IMO it needs to do a lot more than just draw a few lines on a map, and let those on one side lead one life-style and condemn those on the other side to another. That's not a "plan" at all.

Not the only country with this issue. Spoke with a friend of mine in Japan who lives in north Tokyo and asked him whether he had been able to visit his parents who live in another city about three hours away. He hadn't because travelling through towns he would most likely be assaulted by the locals who wanted to keep the infected people of Tokyo out of their safe homes. Now Japan does not have the lockdown situation that we have here, so he is free to go but he wasn't going to risk getting assaulted.

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

The Feds' jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution. Occasionally they try to use their "foreign affairs" powers to get the States to do (or not do) something, but in practice their powers are limited. What I'm getting irked by is the sovereign state of Victoria starting to treat its citizens differently based on where they live. And doing it on a rather arbitrary basis. As I've pointed out before, some people who are locked down and under curfew are many km away from their nearest infection - further than some who are deemed to be in "regional Victoria." I don't object to restrictions per se but they need to be logical and applied in a logical manner. And after 18 months we've had the time to work this out.

The constitutional limits has been breached many, many times by federal governments and they have the power to do so now. Pandemics and quarantines are federal jurisdictions by constitutional fiat. Additionally, the High Court has always ruled that the international trade clauses override state limitations.

The problem is that ScoMo is not a leader. He is a coward and a schemer (and probably a spiv) who refuses to be held accountable. So he lets the states run the show so he won't be held accountable. Secondly, leadership is all about being able to persuade without having to use any legal standing. So in a room with six premiers and two territory leaders, he cannot full them nor persuade them. And by and large, Gladys, Dan, Anastacia, Mark, Steven and Peter have been reasonably headed leaders - indeed any one of them would make a better PM on leadership grounds.

And regarding your point about being many Kms away, don't forget that at the beginning of this latest wave, thanks to the Rugby and other social activities, the Delta strain reached the Surf Coast and Shepparton very quickly.

[belaguttman]

14 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

The constitutional limits has been breached many, many times by federal governments and they have the power to do so now. Pandemics and quarantines are federal jurisdictions by constitutional fiat. Additionally, the High Court has always ruled that the international trade clauses override state limitations.

The problem is that ScoMo is not a leader. He is a coward and a schemer (and probably a spiv) who refuses to be held accountable. So he lets the states run the show so he won't be held accountable. Secondly, leadership is all about being able to persuade without having to use any legal standing. So in a room with six premiers and two territory leaders, he cannot full them nor persuade them. And by and large, Gladys, Dan, Anastacia, Mark, Steven and Peter have been reasonably headed leaders - indeed any one of them would make a better PM on leadership grounds.

And regarding your point about being many Kms away, don't forget that at the beginning of this latest wave, thanks to the Rugby and other social activities, the Delta strain reached the Surf Coast and Shepparton very quickly.

Delta reached Shepparton because RMH had stopped doing pre-admission Covid testing. A Shepparton patient shared a room with someone who was an asymptomatic Covid positive patient infected from the Glenroy cluster. He then returned to Shepparton where over 100 people, mostly kids, became infected in a few days.

[jw1739]

20 hours ago, belaguttman said:

The State Governments will step in and fill the void when there's a vacuum of Federal Government leadership,

There's definite Federal Leadership alright. Scummer's Fathers' Day round trip to Sydney for example.

FMD that bloke is truly an arsehole.

[belaguttman]

If anyone has the time or interest, there's an interesting long-form interview about the epidemiology of the pandemic on the Uncommon Sense program on 3RRR. You can stream it from their On Demand section. The TL:DR is that opening up at 70% of the eligible Australians target means that we will have a pandemic amongst the  9 million unvaccinated Australians.

30,000 daily cases. No politicians are talking about this - these figures are in the modelling.

Just hope that you don't need any non-Covid related health care between now and Xmas! It looks at how the Doherty Report has been manipulated to suit political agendas (against the wishes of the Doherty Institute) and how the Government has resisted efforts to re-run the modelling with up-to-date modelling assumptions.

Please, get vaccinated!

Edited September 7, 2021 by belaguttman

[belaguttman]

https://www.rrr.org.au/on-demand

It should be up by this afternoon

Edited September 7, 2021 by belaguttman

[kingofhearts]

What do people think of the idea of mandatory vaccines/vaccine passports?

Seems like it's only a matter of time before both become mandatory, but I couldn't be more strongly against it.

People should have the right to choose what goes into their body, and I believe by mandating this, it begins a slippery slope of other liberties that the government could infringe upon.

Edited September 7, 2021 by kingofhearts

[belaguttman]

3 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

What do people think of the idea of mandatory vaccines/vaccine passports?

Seems like it's only a matter of time before both become mandatory, but I couldn't be more strongly against it.

People should have the right to choose what goes into their body, and I believe by mandating this, it begins a slippery slope of other liberties that the government could infringe upon.

It's a good idea. People without vaccination are an even higher risk of transmitting the virus. Many are refusing vaccination by choice but expect to get the benefit of mass vaccination earned by others who are prepared to carry the small personal risk. It's a public health measure, by all means refuse to be vaccinated but that comes with consequences (including Covid)