Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

Status
Not open for further replies.
and that we didn't want to fall too far behind NSW

This was main driver, if NSW hadn't opened up already I suspect greater Melbourne would have been more restricted until the daily case numbers were lower (under 500).

Good Times these days, what are our restrictions that'll we'll be all facing over christmas that MClown keeps on about??

Absolutely none for the fully vaccinated in NSW come 15th Dec, and virtually none now. Theatres/stadiums etc already at full capacity, masks at the supermarket and on PT hardly a big deal. I've been to theatre twice in the last fortnight, its been fabulous.
 
This was main driver, if NSW hadn't opened up already I suspect greater Melbourne would have been more restricted until the daily case numbers were lower (under 500).
Whilst that might have been part of it, I suspect that the population wasn't going to wear it for much longer. Losing control entirely would not be a good look the chairman.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Whilst that might have been part of it, I suspect that the population wasn't going to wear it for much longer. Losing control entirely would not be a good look the chairman.

Vic actually had its Roadmap out before the NSW Roadmap and it was indicated at the time that as it was following the National Roadmap that they would stick to it as long as hopitilastions (and other adverse outcomes) were under control. The advice being that to get vaccinated as there was no going back.

Hospitalisations are under control and so Vic has opened up as per the roadmap.

Case numbers, hospitalisations etc are all less than the modelling and so the hypothesis that Victoria would only have opened up more slowly with less cases does not at all match what was publicly stated. And indeed case numbers are not even that relevant anymore. It is the number of severe adverse health outcomes that matter.
 
Except Vic opened up with rising case numbers, rising hospitalisations and rising ICU so control argument is highly debatable.

They had in fact lost the good will of the populace, and knew couldn't keep locked down despite numbers not yet trending in the right direction. And meanwhile NSW free already, from a lower base of case numbers.

Dom opening to quarantine free arrivals is the straw that broke the back of Dan's resistance.
 
Last edited:
Vic actually had its Roadmap out before the NSW Roadmap and it was indicated at the time that as it was following the National Roadmap that they would stick to it as long as hopitilastions (and other adverse outcomes) were under control. The advice being that to get vaccinated as there was no going back.

Hospitalisations are under control and so Vic has opened up as per the roadmap.

Case numbers, hospitalisations etc are all less than the modelling and so the hypothesis that Victoria would only have opened up more slowly with less cases does not at all match what was publicly stated. And indeed case numbers are not even that relevant anymore. It is the number of severe adverse health outcomes that matter.
You can in no way convince me to believe that Victoria would be in the state of open we are now without NSW leading the way.
 
For those unfamiliar with the Vic modelling you will note that it was based on opening up at 70% and 80% vaccination rates and that in the adopted scenario that the case numbers, hospitalisations and ICU numbers were all as per below, and that these would keep rising after 80% vaccination was achieved with an eventual peak not till Dec /Jan..

What has happened is the numbers for all three to date are actually lower than in the roadmap.

So speculating that Vic would only have have opened up at some randomly chosen lower case number is a baseless argument. Opening has been as per the roadmap, and the state would have opened up at even higher numbers for adverse outcomes than what has been occurring.

So there is simply no logic to asserting that Victoria would only have opened up at a lower case number for Melbourne.

The indicative timelines announced back in September have all been achieved as per the vaccination level.


And again case numbers are now just not that relevant a measure anyway. It is adverse health outcomes that matter now, and these are all less than what was deemed acceptable to have opened up at.

1636610095140.png


View attachment 264616
 
Last edited:
You can in no way convince me to believe that Victoria would be in the state of open we are now without NSW leading the way.

Why?

Do you think that despite the vaccination targets being the stated criteria to open that they would not have been? The caveat at the time was that adverse health outcomes needed to be under control. As these are all less, why would Vic have not opened up as per the roadmap?


Personally I think that the only thing that may have been different is the international travel settings been made a bit quicker.
All the domestic settings would have been the same.
 
the case numbers, hospitalisations and ICU numbers were all as per below
Which was based on modelling cherry picked by the government as it suited

a) the doomsday agenda
b) the justification for restrictions up until then
c) writing and passing of future legislation in parliament
 
Which was based on modelling cherry picked by the government as it suited

a) the doomsday agenda
b) the justification for restrictions up until then
c) writing and passing of future legislation in parliament

Every state gov has cherry picked the modelling to suit their agenda of the hour :)

Cough dead children on the streets - QLD :eek::rolleyes:
 
Every state gov has cherry picked the modelling to suit their agenda of the hour :)

Cough dead children on the streets - QLD :eek::rolleyes:
Oh I agree completely.

It wasn't intended to be solely directed at Victoria. Every state has done it. But I guess living through the lockdowns here has made me more sensitive to the local context.
 
The Vic Roadmap is only the state version of the National Roadmap anyway, and so I just don't get the argument that Vic would not have opened anyway when it was stated throughout that they were going to follow the national plan, and when all the metrics were better than what was used in the roadmap.
 
Last edited:
I personally think the VIC protests had more to do with the reopening than NSW.

It gets to a point when it's clear to the government they can't continue down their lockdown path forever.
 
QLD coming under more scrutiny to why they need to build another quarantine facility to control the virus spread..... oh dear

-----------

Why does Queensland need two quarantine facilities, when other states are relaxing COVID-19 controls?​


Queensland's Deputy Premier Steven Miles has again been forced to defend the building of two COVID-19 quarantine facilities, arguing his state would be better prepared than New South Wales and Victoria.

Two purpose-built quarantine centres are being developed in Queensland, however, questions have been raised over whether the state needs either of the facilities.

"Throughout this entire pandemic we've made decisions based on being as prepared as we possibly can be," he told 7.30.

The Palaszczuk government is providing financial backing to the building of a quarantine facility on private land at Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in addition to the federal government building a quarantine centre near Brisbane Airport.

 
I personally think the VIC protests had more to do with the reopening than NSW.

Which protests were those are you referring to in particular?

I assume you that don't mean the protests that occurred immediately after the Victoria’s Roadmap: Delivering The National Plan was launched on 19 Sept, and which were a reaction to the that re-opening plan, and in particular the vaccination requirements contained within it for workers and to be able to go to restaurants etc. Thousands took to the streets, whereas millions just went and got jabbed as supply and venues became more abundant.


Also as the Victorian reopening is just part of the National Plan which was based on the Doherty Modelling which was announced well prior to the Victorian Roadmap. So reopening based on achieving vaccination hurdles had been the plan for a while before 19 Sept. On 2 July the intention to reopen based on vaccination was announced, and that was plan that Vic was part of. So reopening was in train from that date. See https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/national-plan-060821.pdf.


Now no one wants to be locked down, but the reopening of Vic, NSW, ACT and Australia in is based on achieving vaccinations.

The protestors just wanted to let er rip without high vaccination levels, and so if their goal was to reopen prior to achieving the vaccination hurdles they failed. If anything it toughened up the vaccination mandates for workers and to attend venues, hospitality and retail etc..

Those jurisdictions without substantial cases are less hurried in achieving those hurdles as they are effectively already open at least internally as far as much of their respective populations are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Next they'll be claiming they are building trial units for the athletes village in 2032 :)

7:30 did a deep dive tonight on the dubious deal the QLD government has done with quarantine facility we don’t need…. Looks very dirty…. No involvement with even QLD Health… QLD police, any relevant departments….

What a great big mess…. This might come back one day to lop the head of a couple of people…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top