Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[kamchatsky]

If people are worried about kids as part of single/divorced parents, I believe the Sydney rules allow kids to be with parents on shopping/exercise,

eg

Reasonable excuse to leave home​

A reasonable excuse is if you need to

• obtain food or other goods and services
  • in your local government area, within 10km of your home, if reasonably practicable
  • for the personal needs of the household or for other household purposes (including pets)
  • for vulnerable people
  • only one person per household may leave the home to obtain food or other goods and services each day (you may take a dependent person with you if that person cannot be left at home on their own).

From Greater Sydney restrictions

Interestingly the rule said "a dependent person". What about single parents with multiple small kids? I would request change of wording from "a dependent person" to say "dependent persons within the same household".

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Interestingly the rule said "a dependent person". What about single parents with multiple small kids? I would request change of wording from "a dependent person" to say "dependent persons within the same household".

True, but I'm pretty confident the police would be ok with a parent with more than one child say under 12 that was with a parent shopping/exercise. Maybe this is a way of NSW authorities not making the excuses too obvious otherwise people might abuse them.

 

[sjk]

Most of the time its 2 parents and 2-3 kids so zero excuse. Other times the kids are obviously old enough to stay home alone for a hour alone while the parent does the shopping. Its just blatant rule breaking.

What planet would you have to live on to believe that parents take their kids shopping just for kicks and giggles?

Time to stop micro-managing and get on with life with COVID-19.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Most of the time its 2 parents and 2-3 kids so zero excuse. Other times the kids are obviously old enough to stay home alone for a hour alone while the parent does the shopping. Its just blatant rule breaking.

Maybe you should ask this family why they are out with the kids. They might give you a perfectly reasonable answer.

 

[Lynda2475]

What planet would you have to live on to believe that parents take their kids shopping just for kicks and giggles?

Well why else does it take 2 adults and 3 kids from the same family to do a grocery shop? It doesnt so clearly a social outing - only takes 1 adult to do a grocery shop.

 

[jakeseven7]

Maybe you should ask this family why they are out with the kids. They might give you a perfectly reasonable answer.

Please don’t encourage… we don’t need more Karen’s attacking random strangers in front of their children for going out and sourcing essential goods…Things are tough enough right now

 

[Must...Fly!]

Please don’t encourage… we don’t need more Karen’s attacking random strangers in front of their children for going out and sourcing essential goods…Things are tough enough right now

A reasonable answer doesn't have to be one with words.

 

[Lynda2475]

Maybe you should ask this family why they are out with the kids. They might give you a perfectly reasonable answer.

There is no reasonable answer under the rules. 1 adult to do shopping. Kids can come if dependent but if there are two adults in store clearly one can supervise the kids at home (or stay in the car).

I didnt ask them, but I did dob into store manager and then I noticed on my way out that the Dad + 3 kids were standing outside waiting for the Mum to finish up, so clearly they knew they were doing the wrong thing and were asked to leave.

Heaps of criticsm here for NSW not doing enough but then all the excuses in the world for some people. Restrictions only work if they are followed, there needs to be harsh penalties for people like that family taking the mickey.

 

[kamchatsky]

Well why else does it take 2 adults and 3 kids from the same family to do a grocery shop? It doesnt so clearly a social outing - only takes 1 adult to do a grocery shop.

I would say based on my limited observations in shops, I have not seen 2 adults with kids shopping together. I have only seen 1 adult with 2 kids shopping, and they are small kids.

So what you say about 2 adults and 3 kids would be rare (and not legal) case, rather than the norm.

 

[blackcat20]

My kids come with me if TV is away, I don't have anyone to leave them with, and it's been allowed in all our lockdowns. Fortunately we have drive thru click and collect but that's not available to everyone, and so parents need to take their kids shopping.

 

[nutwood]

Seems to be a smack of misopaedia about this discussion. Is there actually any evidence that Covid is being spread by children rampaging around supermarkets?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

More on the Cairns Case:

Covid-19 case being investigated in Cairns​

Authorities are working to determine the movements of a Cairns man who is understood to have contracted the Delta variant of Covid-19 while in Brisbane.​

​

No Cookies | The Cairns Post

No Cookies

www.cairnspost.com.au

​

 

[Lynda2475]

Seems to be a smack of misopaedia about this discussion

Big leap on your part there. My issue is with parents flouting rules by shopping as a family unit and not even caring enough to have their own kids wear masks when doing so.

The fewer people (and that includes kids) out when unecessary the quicker this outbreak gets quashed. There is only one active case in my LGA and Id like to see that go to zero (as it should age out next week) not grow due to the rule breakers.

 

[N860CR]

Big leap on your part there. My issue is with parents flouting rules by shopping as a family unit and not even caring enough to have their own kids wear masks when doing so.

The fewer people (and that includes kids) out when unecessary the quicker this outbreak gets quashed. There is only one active case in my LGA and Id like to see that go to zero (as it should age out next week) not grow due to the rule breakers.

This again goes to the issue of what we’re trying to achieve. We now have 18 months of evidence to show that supermarkets are not a location where there is an issue with virus spread. Seemingly neither are parks with thousands of people gathered shoulder to shoulder.

There’s a fine line between appropriate measures to control a virus and simply punishing people for the sake of it.

In the example of the hero running to the Coles manager to have children removed from the supermarket, what did this actually achieve? The risk was minimal, however by encouraging interaction it was increased.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This again goes to the issue of what we’re trying to achieve. We now have 18 months of evidence to show that supermarkets are not a location where there is an issue with virus spread. Seemingly neither are parks with thousands of people gathered shoulder to shoulder.

There’s a fine line between appropriate measures to control a virus and simply punishing people for the sake of it.

In the example of the hero running to the Coles manager to have children removed from the supermarket, what did this actually achieve? The risk was minimal, however by encouraging interaction it was increased.

By the same token I don't know how helpful it would be to have a list - perhaps hundreds long - of every individual setting and what's allowed/not allowed? It would be too confusing, especially if you had ten settings change each week when new sources of infection are identified.

The lockdown is a lockdown. If people see you can go to a park shoulder-to-shoulder, they're going to wonder why they can't go see mum and dad, socially distanced. If they can go to the supermarket in groups of two or more, they're going to wonder why they can't 'just meet a friend for coffee'.

The mask rules in Victoria are simple - wear a mask any time you leave your property. There aren't pages of confusing rules that say you don't need a mask unless you see someone approaching, but if a jogger runs by you need to put your mask on immediately, but you can take it off 30 seconds later... etc.

 

[Lynda2475]

In the example of the hero running to the Coles manager to have children removed from the supermarket, what did this actually achieve? The risk was minimal, however by encouraging interaction it was increased.

It reduced the density of people in the supermarket making physical distancing easier and removed risk of all other shoppers being exposed to unmasked individuals in an indoor venue where physical distancing is not always possible i.e. the self check out registeres are less than 50cms apart from each other.

Supermarkets havent been a mass spread site but absolutely have be transmission site more than once. The BWS Berala (akin to a supermarket) cluster subsequently infected 3 customers at the adjacent Woolworths supermarket. Early on there was also tranmission from infected worker to customer at Balmain Woolworths. Those are just two off the top of my head.

I agree there haven't been any outdoor transmission events in Sydney, going to the park or for a walk it is very easy to avoid other people, but when unsupervised unmasked kids are running up and down the aisles of Coles its a unecessary risk.

 

[burmans]

Interestingly the rule said "a dependent person". What about single parents with multiple small kids? I would request change of wording from "a dependent person" to say "dependent persons within the same household".

No one here can help you with that! Try the NSW department of health.

 

[N860CR]

If people see you can go to a park shoulder-to-shoulder, they're going to wonder why they can't go see mum and dad, socially distanced

Well you can go to a park packed shoulder to shoulder with people. And plenty are. So perhaps it’s time to revisit the restrictions. I consider sitting in a restaurant, socially distanced tables with QR Code checkin to be far safer than going to Sydney Park at the moment.

6 weeks into this “outbreak”; One single unavoidable death (assuming the person in question was ineligible for a vaccine). Curve is well and truly flat. Hospital system is not overrun. But what have the other costs been?

 

[burmans]

This again goes to the issue of what we’re trying to achieve. We now have 18 months of evidence to show that supermarkets are not a location where there is an issue with virus spread. Seemingly neither are parks with thousands of people gathered shoulder to shoulder.

There’s a fine line between appropriate measures to control a virus and simply punishing people for the sake of it.

In the example of the hero running to the Coles manager to have children removed from the supermarket, what did this actually achieve? The risk was minimal, however by encouraging interaction it was increased.

I suspect the OP would be in favour of public flogging!

 

[bcworld]

6 weeks into this “outbreak”; One single unavoidable death (assuming the person in question was ineligible for a vaccine). Curve is well and truly flat. Hospital system is not overrun.

...after 5 weeks of lockdown, which is ongoing.