Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[Princess Fiona]

The NSW Premier is not going to publicly flag a Plan B (eg end of lockdown too soon - giving up on zero) today. There have been enough tremors. NSW Health Minister did his job and so did NSW Treasurer. At the moment, NSW Government needs high compliance and hence the ramping up and the cliff message "there is no other option".

I think its still NSW Government's position that if there is no additional financial support to support a longer lockdown, then it will end too soon for some other States.

As 10% of our cases are sick enough to be admitted to hospital I don’t think they would at all go down the pathway of ending the lockdown until there is no community transmission.

 

[hydrabyss]

a 10km ring from your home for exercise, but can go further for shopping.

again, why not just introduce a 5km zone like Melbourne did, it's sole purpose is to restrict movement, it's simple & works so well IMO.

I think traffic should keep most people from travelling too far from home. Those that do will always find a way or a reason to do so.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

As was stated in the press conference (and I agree with) the problem seems more to be compliance with existing health orders than the orders themselves. Stay at home means just that, gyms have always been closed, visiting family members or friends (i.e. social events) has never been an allowed activity and while shopping for food and other goods and services has been an allowed activity, going to the local mall to hang out never was.

The problem here has always been people taking the piss, and compliance should be enforced if people wont do what they have been told to do.

Yes and no.

More than 1 going essential shopping - now expected to be a rule for 1 per household
Exercise anywhere - now expected to be a rule of 10km limit or LGA

Verbal recommendations - try getting things online.

So there is an element of taking the rule to the nth degree.

Its not that surprising to be honest. It seems like Sydney was already taking the rules to the limits, rather than following the spirit of the health orders to stay at home unless undertaking one of the 4 well known reasons.

Will Sydney (edit: including Wollongong Blue Mountains and Central Coast) see further prescription in coming days??? Who knows???

 

[bcworld]

As 10% of our cases are sick enough to be admitted to hospital I don’t think they would at all go down the pathway of ending the lockdown until there is no community transmission.

I agree. The language was too strong. More than once today GB talked of the potential for "thousands of hospitalisations" and their associated deaths. I don't think you get to walk that sort of statement back.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

As 10% of our cases are sick enough to be admitted to hospital I don’t think they would at all go down the pathway of ending the lockdown until there is no community transmission.

Yes agree. That was a major ballast that has become evident and I made mention of that earlier in the thread, just not on every post about the potential for plan B. NSW has some ICU cases and ventilator cases and it hasn't even reached 500 cases.

The vaccination rate is low as well, which is also a factor.

But I did see a small note that the Federal Government has relaxed a condition or two about financial assistance. So it may be a case that the Federal Government has decided to bankroll the lockdown in a jobkeeper-lite way.

If NSW authorities decide to end lockdown early, then this would essentially be a last second decision that has been gameplayed out with lots of consultation of further consequences.

Lockdown for 10 weeks - here Sydney comes!!! (Edit: Sydney will probably need to get 3-5 days of essentially no cases not isolating when infectious before ending lockdown is contemplated).

 

[suze2000]

That was last year. I think even in SA people are not as compliant as they were back then. A couple of errors (pizza box and recent tightening of restrictions before we even had a case additional to border controls) had meant that people are coming to realise there needs to be other options to manage. Unfortunately the vaccine roll out has been too slow and Delta too fast.

This is where enforcement and large fines come in. It only took a few well-publicised cases where people copped huge fines for being out of their zone for no reason to make the majority of others fall into line.

And as a side note: one of the big reasons they didn't want people driving long distances just to exercise is it increases the risk they'll have an accident which in turn increases the risk they'll need an ambulance (risk to the police and ambulance officers because they may have covid), and then they take up hospital beds, increasing the risk to hospital staff and also making it harder to admit people who are seriously ill with covid.

 

[Eastwick20]

A passive aggressive kick at NSW in the first couple of lines

It really grinds my gears when McGowan bleats how well WA did

The population of the whole state is 2.6 million , there's more people in North Melbourne or Western Sydney alone then there is in the whole of WA.

Perth is one of the most remote cities in the world has a small spread out population , with very little apartment living and minimal public transport options.

For him to throw grenade's at VIC and NSW on "covid best practice" when the complexity of managing a pandemic is not even close to the east coast circumstances and challenges,

It's just childish and rude

Of course the WA seem to population eat it up

I say the above with no political agenda, for the record, I actually like both Dan Andrews and Gladys

 

[bcworld]

I honestly don't read anything into that sentence. I don't see the NSW bashing.

 

[nutwood]

Interested to read that according to the Business Tasmania newsletter, a business may not refuse entry to an individual who refuses to sign in. I've never really considered it, but I would have thought that unless it breached some other law (racially based for example) a business owner would always have the right to refuse entry to their premises and it would be at their discretion. Plenty of places have restriction on entry, dress codes, OHS etc. Why should Covid check in be any different?

 

[justinbrett]

I honestly don't read anything into that sentence. I don't see the NSW bashing.

Agree, he's usually quite overt in his NSW bashing (which he does frequently). But not so much here.

 

[suze2000]

Interested to read that according to the Business Tasmania newsletter, a business may not refuse entry to an individual who refuses to sign in. I've never really considered it, but I would have thought that unless it breached some other law (racially based for example) a business owner would always have the right to refuse entry to their premises and it would be at their discretion. Plenty of places have restriction on entry, dress codes, OHS etc. Why should Covid check in be any different?

As was demonstrated last year during the Melb lockdown, a business has every right to refuse entry to a person on private property if they will not comply with entry requirements. (Bunnings employee vs "sovereign citizen" has been well hashed out)

Unless the laws are very different in Tassie, I don't see why a business cannot refuse entry to non-compliant people. Or expel them if they stop complying once in the door.

Sounds to me like someone pushing their neoliberal anti-restrictions wheelbarrow.

 

[Deleted member 74239]

I am unwatching this thread - way too depressing for me

Me too.

 

[MooTime]

Me too.

I'm on the verge of disembarking too.

I'm just in row 28 with front exiting bridge only. I'll get there eventually.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Hang in there everyone !!!
We will shortly be swimming in vaccines and there is now a sense of urgency about getting them in arms and getting us out of this to the other side.
Pleased to report that as of today my whole family is done, two doses.
We will get there and it’s sooner than you think.
If anything the NSW outbreak is showing us that we have to and now.

 

[Lynda2475]

SMH reports:

There are currently 43 people hospitalised with coronavirus in NSW, with 10 of those in ICU, and four of those on ventilators.

Dr Chant said 14 people under the age of 55 have been hospitalised with COVID. Of those, there are seven under the age of 35.

Of the 10 in ICU, one is in their 20s, one is in their 30s, one is in their 50s, five in 60s, 2 in 70s.

Dr Chant indicated they would share vaccination status of those hospitalised tomorrow.



Roughly a quarter of hospitalisations in this outbreak have been in people aged 35 and under. Among the 395 local cases recorded between June 15 and July 7, 156 were in people aged 20 to 39 – nearly 40 per cent of all cases.

During the three months of the Crossroads cluster, which began in July last year, there were 171 cases in their 20s and 30s (30 per cent of all cases). The age group made up just 25 per cent of cases during the Avalon and Berala clusters over summer.

Fifty-two of the 395 cases recorded in the first three weeks of the Bondi cluster were aged 60 and over – just 13 per cent of all cases.

In contrast, people in this age group made up 50 of the cases in the Avalon and Berala clusters (23 per cent) and 101 cases in the Crossroads cluster (18 per cent).

More cases, young people make up half of the infected: Why this outbreak is different

There is a sense of frustration among young people who are bearing the brunt of lockdown restrictions - and now case numbers - while being at the bottom of the queue to get vaccinated.

www.smh.com.au

 

[tgh]

I guess my caveat to the agree with Princess' post is that there appears to be a burgeoning threat from an evolving Virus .
Stuff happens.. we must do the best we can with the tools available and bulk vaccination is presently all the bullets we have in the chamber.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interested to read that according to the Business Tasmania newsletter, a business may not refuse entry to an individual who refuses to sign in. I've never really considered it, but I would have thought that unless it breached some other law (racially based for example) a business owner would always have the right to refuse entry to their premises and it would be at their discretion. Plenty of places have restriction on entry, dress codes, OHS etc. Why should Covid check in be any different?

Direct from the source! Information for organisations and businesses | Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). For applicable premises the last sentence indicates the operator must refuse entry. (Dunno about premises 'not applicable' to the directions.)

What if my customers don't want to use a QR code? ​

​

Checking in to applicable premises, and events is mandatory for all people.​

​

If a person does not have a smartphone or is unable to use one, others attending the premises with that person can use their own phone to check that person in. Alternatively, an organisation can register a person's details using that organisations’ device. If there is no internet access or working device, the organisation can check them in manually on paper. This information must be retained by the organisation for 28 days or added into the app when access is restored.​

​

Organisations must use their best endeavours to require people to check in, this could include:​

​

• Active monitoring of points of entry.
• Requesting that a person shows staff the ‘green tick’.
• Signage or messaging in clear view advising of the need to check in.

If a person refuses to check in, operators should highlight the importance of the check in requirements to assist the contact tracing efforts, and to keep the community safe and Tasmania open for businesses. Organisations may also want to remind people of their legal obligation to check in, and the potential penalties for failing to do so. That is, a person may face a fine if they fail to comply with the check in requirement.​

​

After these efforts, if a person still refuses to check in, the operator of the premises or event must refuse entry as per the Direction Under Section 16 (Contact Tracing – No. 5) of the Public Health Act 1997.​

 

[trevella]

Dr Chant said 14 people under the age of 55 have been hospitalised with COVID. Of those, there are seven under the age of 35.

Huh. It’s almost as though you completely and utterly underestimated the risk of younger people getting ill from COVID-19 relative to the risk of adverse AZ side effects, possibly due to poor assumptions and a lack of adequate background.

 

[Lynda2475]

Huh. It’s almost as though you completely and utterly underestimated the risk of younger people getting ill from COVID-19 relative to the risk of adverse AZ side effects, possibly due to poor assumptions and a lack of adequate background

Nope not at all, i never assessed the risk for the people in hospital, only for myself. Unlike many on this thread blindly pushing for people to get AZ without knowing their individuals circumstance, i have always encouraged people to go with the recommended vaccine for their cohort.

We dont know if those younger people in hospital right now have underlying conditions or were amongst those idiots who have be disregarding health directives or would have got blood clots with AZ. However, the good news is that based on cases in Australia to date, younger people are more likely to recover than not.

Im extremely comfortable with my choices. I have completely avoided the AZ risk (unlike those 3 women who it killed, and the 71 others it sent to the hospital), having had my first Pfizer jab I am also confident i can avoid being exposed to covid as am wfh, wear a mask and keep my distance from others when i head out and am selective re where i go. I will also get my second dose right on schedule. However, had i ignored the recommendation and opted for AZ best case I'd be worrying about clots and still be months away from full protection, worst case i"d dead.

 

[MooTime]

There's a pest on every corner.

Sore thumb on every set of hands.

Definitely a parrot on every thread.