Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[Pushka]

At the moment we don't have a reliable way to track people. We know from the start of the pandemic when we initially allowed home Q that lots of people weren't compliant. Yes there are visits by police/ADF/authorised officers, but there are still cases where people aren't at home. Just takes one of those to have a new variant.

Once we have tracking - either via phone or some sort of bracelet it might act as a deterrent.

Simply doesnt explain why it’s safe to have thousands of positive people isolating at home but not travellers who the day before and three days before that were negative.

 

[Batterytraveller]

Has to be said NSW has confirmed it is including people dying "with" covid, and that many people die from other causes but have covid - it's just too difficult to attribute one or the other, so reporting "with" instead of "of" is easier.

So death stats should be taken with appropriate measures of salt, especially when they are in the low range.

I don’t get the distinction and find it extremely callous. Whether COVID was the ‘cause of death or not’, having a severe and traumatic respiratory infection surely hastened their demise.

No one dies ‘of COVID’, they die to pneumonia, or organ failure or any number of causes brought on by having a severe respiratory infection.

So no salt required with these death statistics. Deaths are low and we should be thankful for that and be hopeful that today is a blip and not the start of a trend, we’re a couple of weeks after a major rise in cases. And let’s not also forget that every death is a tragedy for the family and friends they leave behind, no matter what age or underlying health conditions.

Through this all we need to maintain our humanity.

 

[Port Power]

At the moment we don't have a reliable way to track people. We know from the start of the pandemic when we initially allowed home Q that lots of people weren't compliant. Yes there are visits by police/ADF/authorised officers, but there are still cases where people aren't at home. Just takes one of those to have a new variant.

Once we have tracking - either via phone or some sort of bracelet it might act as a deterrent.

In WA we do have tracking, via mobile telephone. I was pinged as I had moved house by one street and new address hadn’t been updated by WA Police (I advised new address at airport). After a home visit by police, it was updated. At the airport or hotel, police could make sure app is downloaded. If you tried to cheat by leaving phone at home, then when you didn’t do your face recognition reply within 4 minutes you would receive a phone call and be asked to explain.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Simply doesnt explain why it’s safe to have thousands of positive people isolating at home but not travellers who the day before and three days before that were negative.

I'm not sure "safe" is the right word.....may be because at 15,000 there are no other reasonable cost-effective options available.

 

[justinbrett]

I don’t get the distinction and find it extremely callous. Whether COVID was the ‘cause of death or not’, having a severe and traumatic respiratory infection surely hastened their demise.

No one dies ‘of COVID’, they die to pneumonia, or organ failure or any number of causes brought on by having a severe respiratory infection.

So no salt required with these death statistics. Deaths are low and we should be thankful for that and be hopeful that today is a blip and not the start of a trend, we’re a couple of weeks after a major rise in cases. And let’s not also forget that every death is a tragedy for the family and friends they leave behind, no matter what age or underlying health conditions.

Through this all we need to maintain our humanity.

What about the deaths from heart disease, cancer, or even suicide?

Why does not having covid make their deaths any more acceptable?

I think that's callous.

 

[Pushka]

I'm not sure "safe" is the right word.....may be because at 15,000 there are no other reasonable cost-effective options available.

So 'safe' doesn't have anything to do with health advice then so expediency comes into play. I agree, there are no cost effective options but it does show if needs must, home quarantine can happen. Remembering that all these people are actually positive and infectious whereas just following along the reports over the last few weeks, very few international arrivals have become positive.

 

[Pom-DownUnder]

Because they could have a new variant. Locally acquired covid we know which strain it will be. What if returned person brings in super strain which only shows up three days after arrival? In the meantime some of those people will have been out and about in the community.

Hopefully when home Q is introduced there will be some safeguards in place to try and prevent this happening.

"Could" "If"
My rights to see my family and travel should not be trumped by such weak phrases.

I do not mean that to sound aggressive, but delta is the one doing the rounds now, and its RIFE in NSW, in my opinion there is now insufficient common sense reasoning for not allowing people that live in NSW (and any small territory fully enclosed in NSW) to travel freely and home Q till a negative test. 7 days if you want to push it.

I think you need a really REALLY good reason to stop someone who has comitted no crime from having freedom of movement and Coulds and Ifs do not cut the mustard.

 

[N860CR]

"Could" "If"
My rights to see my family and travel should not be trumped by such weak phrases.

Exactly. People “could” bring many things back from overseas. Ebola, cocaine, an apple with a worm in it… but we’ve never taken such measures before.

What could they bring back right now? A virus that’s already present in huge volume in the community where those who actually do have said virus are not subjected to the same level of imprisonment. It certainly doesn’t pass the pub test, but people from overseas have been demonised so much that the general public has lost all perspective.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

So 'safe' doesn't have anything to do with health advice then so expediency comes into play. I agree, there are no cost effective options but it does show if needs must, home quarantine can happen. Remembering that all these people are actually positive and infectious whereas just following along the reports over the last few weeks, very few international arrivals have become positive.

Well on the other point I mentioned on the other thread - I think NSW Public Health is still trying to keep cases in the main LGAs currently during this period of undervaccination. So for example, you wouldn't want to bring cases to say Wagga Wagga when there are no cases at the moment.

I theoretically have no problem letting overseas arrivals return to do lockdown/no home quarantine if they reside or have a place to reside for 14 days in LGAs of concern. Just that's when more lying will occur and people won't be where they are meant to be.....

(Edit: though I guess NSW authorities could introduce a permit system for international arrivals with a fine for lying and breaching being double the current hotel quarantine cost).

 

[justinbrett]

6 of these were infectious in the community

Looks like the Newcastle outbreak is not as stabilised as they thought. I guess we're not coming out of the statewide lockdown in two weeks.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Simply doesnt explain why it’s safe to have thousands of positive people isolating at home but not travellers who the day before and three days before that were negative.

It does.

Those currently isolating at home would have a known variant if they end up positive.

Those coming in from overseas may have a new variant.

We've seen many times people with negative tests 1-3 days prior to departure have tested positive on day one in Australia. Some have tested positive on day 13.

So until we get a good method of enforcing home Q - for example along the lines of Port Power - there are reasons to still have hotel (or other) quarantine.

 

[justinbrett]

It does.

Those currently isolating at home would have a known variant if they end up positive.

Those coming in from overseas may have a new variant.

We've seen many times people with negative tests 1-3 days prior to departure have tested positive on day one in Australia. Some have tested positive on day 13.

So until we get a good method of enforcing home Q - for example along the lines of Port Power - there are reasons to still have hotel (or other) quarantine.

That's quite a xenophobic view to stay that somehow how our local covid is preferable to foreign covid.

If there are particular variants of greater concern than Delta, they will have been identified in those countries and we can choose to put those countries on the red list requiring hotel quarantine.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Exactly. People “could” bring many things back from overseas. Ebola, cocaine, an apple with a worm in it… but we’ve never taken such measures before.

What could they bring back right now? A virus that’s already present in huge volume in the community where those who actually do have said virus are not subjected to the same level of imprisonment. It certainly doesn’t pass the pub test, but people from overseas have been demonised so much that the general public has lost all perspective.

I don't think it's demonising. It's recognising that new strains are coming via people arriving from overseas. It's managing an identified risk.

If there was a major outbreak of ebola I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be allowing people back to do hotel Q if they were coming from a high risk area.

 

[N860CR]

It does.

Those currently isolating at home would have a known variant if they end up positive.

It doesn’t.

You’re saying that it’s fine to allow people who we know have the virus and know are infectious to simply be trusted to stay at home, however those who have roughly half a percent chance of even having said virus are a greater risk because there may be a new variant? By that argument, why have we ever allowed anybody into the country (and why would we ever again?)

 

[N860CR]

I don't think it's demonising. It's recognising that new strains are coming via people arriving from overseas. It's managing an identified risk.

It most certainly is. And now that roughly a quarter of the worlds population has been infected (based on the WHO estimates), what are honestly the chances of a new “variant” popping up and happening to be carried by a returning Australian (especially a vaccinated one).

Of the two scenarios, it’s not hard to see which is the greater risk.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

NSW - should have made mention of lower testing rates and "smashing" or "moderately edging up" (depending on your overall point of view) past 1% positivity rate (1.15%) - yes low by global standards but still concerning in an undervaccinated population

 

[Pushka]

It does.

Those currently isolating at home would have a known variant if they end up positive.

Those coming in from overseas may have a new variant.

We've seen many times people with negative tests 1-3 days prior to departure have tested positive on day one in Australia. Some have tested positive on day 13.

So until we get a good method of enforcing home Q - for example along the lines of Port Power - there are reasons to still have hotel (or other) quarantine.

Well lucky that SA is trialling that right now. New variant? I reckon we may just hear about it overseas first. Additionally if they have been tested prior to flight then again on arrival and then into isolation, especially if vaccinated then we should be more worried about a car accident on the way home than a new variant that's not been reported elsewhere.

The bottom line is that we are at more risk from contracting covid from someone in Australia than we are from an overseas traveller who has been tested twice and in isolation. The playbook has been rewritten.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I don't think it's demonising. It's recognising that new strains are coming via people arriving from overseas. It's managing an identified risk.

If there was a major outbreak of ebola I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be allowing people back to do hotel Q if they were coming from a high risk area.

Your examples make zero sense and assume that reasonable public health measures that contain COVID are compatible in the long-run with a functioning economy and relatively normal life. Which they clearly and plainly are not.

 

[N860CR]

yes low by global standards but still concerning in an undervaccinated population

35% of the eligible NSW population is vaccinated. Nearly 70% have received a single dose. Looking at the at risk groups, the numbers are far higher. Can we stop with the “undervaccinated” fear mongering?

 

[Pom-DownUnder]

I don't think it's demonising. It's recognising that new strains are coming via people arriving from overseas. It's managing an identified risk.

If there was a major outbreak of ebola I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even be allowing people back to do hotel Q if they were coming from a high risk area.

Which is statistically more likely? a fully vaccinated traveller returning with a new non-delta variant that can make fully vaccinated people very sick.

Or a variant mutating from thousands of cases a day within australia?

answer ... both incredibly ... to the point of being incalculable ... and therefore ignorably low