Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[Quickstatus]

We'll probably know in 5 years time

Or not ever. The Best Managed Covid Pandemic Award remains unclaimed.

complicated nature of the science

And it's intersection with the law and policing, governance, sociology, economics, politics.
No one will get it right

Hence I am always very skeptical of whatever the latest announcements are. Politicians don't follow the science even if they say they do

What has been clear from this pandemic is that Tyrannical power is just under the surface.

 

[jakeseven7]

And as for those people staying home when they are sick, I wish they had've done so before they so obviously infected me (not just Covid, but flu).

How do you know that they even knew they were infected?

 

[drron]

So there is another study showing masks reduce infection between 10% and 35% (the upper limit for those over 65).

Comparing Australia with lockdowns and european countries that did not, I thought Australia had pretty limited transmission. The importance was waiting for the vaccine. We could have completely closed the borders - but that made many Aussies trying to get home very unhappy.

Most of the mask studies are of poor quality. If yours was taken from the CDC list of studies then IMHO it falls in that category. The wide confidence limits suggest it does as well.

You only have to look now at the supply chain issues to realise lockdowns are the cause of huge economic disruption with even the Chinese Government claiming only a 0.4% rise in their GDP this year. Their official GDP figures are always way above the true picture.
General lockdowns as I said are generally now considered to not have been worth the cost.
The evidence for lockdowns reducing transmission is very weak and basically depends on modelling. As you well know in the last 12 months the modelling has been predicting much larger numbers than actually end up oiccurring even though there have been virtually no general lockdowns and mask wearing has dropped considerably.

As to European countries compare like to like. Sweden with no general lockdowns has done just as well as nearby countries who did lockdown. Public Health officials in Denmark and Norway have also expressed doubts that the lockdowns achieved anything.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Most of the mask studies are of poor quality. If yours was taken from the CDC list of studies then IMHO it falls in that category. The wide confidence limits suggest it does as well.

You only have to look now at the supply chain issues to realise lockdowns are the cause of huge economic disruption with even the Chinese Government claiming only a 0.4% rise in their GDP this year. Their official GDP figures are always way above the true picture.
General lockdowns as I said are generally now considered to not have been worth the cost.
The evidence for lockdowns reducing transmission is very weak and basically depends on modelling. As you well know in the last 12 months the modelling has been predicting much larger numbers than actually end up oiccurring even though there have been virtually no general lockdowns and mask wearing has dropped considerably.

As to European countries compare like to like. Sweden with no general lockdowns has done just as well as nearby countries who did lockdown. Public Health officials in Denmark and Norway have also expressed doubts that the lockdowns achieved anything.

350,000 people in the study by Yale and Stanford with a 10% reduction in transmission for the general population, and 35% for those over 65. This includes direct and indirect effects of mask wearing.

 

[JohnK]

You need to get this into your head. Masks are going, isolation is going, life is going back to normal. How are you going to deal with that? There are a handful of covid-obsessed here, but the vast majority are well and truly over it.

A Thai bride? LOL. My wife would love that one.

We understood covid better than most early on. Not seeing family is an inconvenience. Lockdowns are an inconvenience. Masks are an inconvenience. Social distancing is an inconvenience.

Understand that each of the above helps limit spread and the inconvenience is worth it. These are minor inconveniences. They're not life threatening but if you worry about them too much you'll end up worse than the virus itself.

Masks are not going. The only thing that's going is mask mandates for nonconformists such as you. The ones that understand the risks will continue wearing masks.

You're glad isolation is going? So you'll be covid positive and you'll continue going to work, shopping etc? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Hope you don't kill anyone buy if you do I hope you know and it remains in your conscience.

By the way don't get too excited life is not going back to the normal you knew. Not for quite some time but maybe never.

Just keep ignoring facts and make up statistics that make you happy.

 

[drron]

350,000 people in the study by Yale and Stanford with a 10% reduction in transmission for the general population, and 35% for those over 65. This includes direct and indirect effects of mask wearing.

Not a blinded study purely observational the lowest form of evidence but you are now ignoring the lockdown question. Even the Guardian has an article on the harms of lockdown.

Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist

A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worse

www.theguardian.com

By concentrating on developed countries you ignore the devastation on poorer countries.

Lockdowns aimed at fighting COVID-19 causing more harm than good in sub-Saharan Africa

The emergency of COVID-19 has forced many sub-Saharan African (SSA) governments to lockdown countries. This meant minimizing interaction between individuals through actions such as closure of schools, restaurants, bars, and imposing restrictions on movements ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And the evidence you support is flawed. So Australia and NZ had a decreased expected mortality during the first year of Covid so are you saying covid reduced the Australian and NZ mortality.
The second flaw in the argument is that is short term mortality. Late diagnosis,missing follow up etc will cause a later rise in mortality.
But relying on just mortality figures gives only a part of the picture. I doubt that even you would say there wasn't a decrease in quality of life for most. Add to that the ongoing economic consequences of lock downs brought into sharp focus by China.

Then add in the harm caused to our children due to the complete disruption to their education by lockdowns that have been acknowledged as completely unnecessary.

 

[Pushka]

Then add in the harm caused to our children due to the complete disruption to their education by lockdowns that have been acknowledged as completely unnecessary.

One of our prestige Universities still hasnt returned to face to face lectures. And just announced they won't until 2023. There are large cohorts of Uni students here who have not once this year attended Uni. How is that considered beneficial to them and later to society. Worse, many of the lectures provided online have not been modified since their initial presentation a couple of years ago.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

One of our prestige Universities still hasnt returned to face to face lectures. And just announced they won't until 2023. There are large cohorts of Uni students here who have not once this year attended Uni. How is that considered beneficial to them and later to society. Worse, many of the lectures provided online have not been modified since their initial presentation a couple of years ago.

Not ideal. But in the grand scheme of things not getting and spreading covid is probably a better outcome. If my lecturers were used as an example, many would have been in the high risk category for increased suffering or prolonged illness due to covid. So what’s the choice? Online lectures, or no lectures at all.

 

[Pushka]

Not ideal. But in the grand scheme of things not getting and spreading covid is probably a better outcome. If my lecturers were used as an example, many would have been in the high risk category for increased suffering or prolonged illness due to covid. So what’s the choice? Online lectures, or no lectures at all.

Maybe in your grand scheme of things it's acceptable but for the students of 2022 it's another year - on top of the last two at secondary school - that will result in very poor learning outcomes and socialisation skills. Sociological studies have assessed that students because of their isolation, are finding it difficult to relate with their Uni peer group, because they've never met and interacted with them. If you think that's good for our next generation of professionals, well, Why the heck did we all get vaccinated if we are going to keep playing this hide and seek game.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Maybe in your grand scheme of things it's acceptable but for the students of 2022 it's another year - on top of the last two at secondary school - that will result in very poor learning outcomes and socialisation skills. Sociological studies have assessed that students because of their isolation, are finding it difficult to relate with their Uni peer group, because they've never met and interacted with them. If you think that's good for our next generation of professionals, well, Why the heck did we all get vaccinated if we are going to keep playing this hide and seek game.

What’s the alternative? *force* the lecturers to go in? That won’t work either.

My nurse friend texted yesterday that she has covid for the fourth time. This time is particularly bad. That’s not sustainable

 

[dajop]

Add to that the ongoing economic consequences of lock downs brought into sharp focus by China.

But lockdowns in China are incomparable to anything Australia experienced, other than those poor folk in their Flemington Apartments for 2 weeks. They were much more extreme.

Using the generic concept of "lockdowns" is completely useless - as there are so many different levels of lockdown that were applied all over the world.

In fact in Singapore we never even had a "lockdown" per se, just a "circuit breaker" initially * (really strict!) then various phases of "heightened alerts" and "Phase xx" restrictions. But on a whole Singapore never went back to an Australian style lockdown but tweaked various parameters (such as group sizes, densities, dining in or not, WFH or not) that in their entirity felt better than the Australian NSW/VIC situation of oscillating between full lockdown and no restrictions.

* I roll my eyes at the use of the term circuit breaker, but the reality is words matters, and the government carefully chose those words rather than lockdown.

 

[Pushka]

What’s the alternative? *force* the lecturers to go in? That won’t work either.

My nurse friend texted yesterday that she has covid for the fourth time. This time is particularly bad. That’s not sustainable

I’d expect the risk of lecturing with say front two rows clear would be minimal. Forcing people to do their work? Sigh. Your model isn’t sustainable either.

 

[JohnK]

I’d expect the risk of lecturing with say front two rows clear would be minimal. Forcing people to do their work? Sigh. Your model isn’t sustainable either.

You saying lecturers with covid should go to university while they are infectious?

And these kids that have spent the majority of their lives isolating with their tablets and games are going to struggle with interaction skills?

If I knew my child's teacher/lecturer/school kids had covid she ain't going anywhere near that hornets nest.

 

[Pushka]

You saying lecturers with covid should go to university while they are infectious?

And these kids that have spent the majority of their lives isolating with their tablets and games are going to struggle with interaction skills?

If I knew my child's teacher/lecturer/school kids had covid she ain't going anywhere near that hornets nest.

How on earth did you derive that from what was posted? From anyone here. The issue being discussed is about the risk of lecturers catching Covid from students.

Tablets et al are a fake world compared with talking and communicating with real people.

 

[JohnK]

How on earth did you derive that from what was posted? From anyone here. The issue being discussed is about the risk of lecturers catching Covid from students.

Tablets et al are a fake world compared with talking and communicating with real people.

Apologies. There should be zero risk for lecturers to catch covid from students. It's not just lecture hall. Walking around campus. Talking to students etc.

 

[Pushka]

Apologies. There should be zero risk for lecturers to catch covid from students. It's not just lecture hall. Walking around campus. Talking to students etc.

There is no such thing as zero risk unless you stay at home always and don't have anyone visit or live with you.

 

[jakeseven7]

There is no such thing as zero risk unless you stay at home always and don't have anyone visit or live with you.

Actually fall risk at home would be far higher contributor of serious injury / morbidity for lecturers forced to WFH v covid.

 

[drron]

What’s the alternative? *force* the lecturers to go in? That won’t work either.

My nurse friend texted yesterday that she has covid for the fourth time. This time is particularly bad. That’s not sustainable

But you say masks work well. Surely the nurse wore masks at work.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But you say masks work well. Surely the nurse wore masks at work.

You have stated previously masks may be most effective if worn by those infected, to help prevent the spread. Yes of course medical staff wear PPE. But if patients aren’t wearing them as well, or are actually coming in in the first place while infected, the chances of catching covid are going to be increased.

The study I linked above found masks reduced infection rates between 10% and 35%. Not that masks were 100% effective.

There aren’t many safety protocols that are 100% effective. Not even seatbelts.

 

[drron]

You have stated previously masks may be most effective if worn by those infected, to help prevent the spread. Yes of course medical staff wear PPE. But if patients aren’t wearing them as well, or are actually coming in in the first place while infected, the chances of catching covid are going to be increased.

The study I linked above found masks reduced infection rates between 10% and 35%. Not that masks were 100% effective.

There aren’t many safety protocols that are 100% effective. Not even seatbelts.

And as I said your study is basically an observational study with wide confidence intervals. You place too much reliance on that udy. The Danish study compared households with a covid patient and the difference in catching covid in houses where the others did or did not wear masks was very small and the most you could claim was that masks were 1 or 2% effective. Not an ideal study but one of the better ones done.