Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[HappyFlyerFamily]

NSW milestone - 100 ICU - but it all doesn't matter as they are undervaccinated and its their fault

 

[MEL_Traveller]

PM press conference is fiery. He is crystal clear we should be opening up at 70% and 80%. Journos are asking how he will keep the rogue states in line.

He said at that point lockdowns will be the danger.

Unfortunately for me I don't know whether this statement is based in the best interests of health outcomes, or economic grounds. Just a few weeks ago the PM said 'working from home is not suitable for Australians'. Not suitable because it's hurting small business. Totally suitable to help manage the spread of a virus.

I don't want my health sacrificed on the basis of economics. Whether that's right or wrong is of little consequence, it's how I feel.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Unfortunately for me I don't know whether this statement is based in the best interests of health outcomes, or economic grounds. Just a few weeks ago the PM said 'working from home is not suitable for Australians'. Not suitable because it's hurting small business. Totally suitable to help manage the spread of a virus.

I don't want my health sacrificed on the basis of economics. Whether that's right or wrong is of little consequence, it's how I feel.

Isn't the game - are you vaccinated? If you are vaccinated there is minimal risk of your health being at risk/sacrificed. Doherty report has spoken - 80% and public health risks are dealt with.

 

[justinbrett]

Unfortunately for me I don't know whether this statement is based in the best interests of health outcomes, or economic grounds. Just a few weeks ago the PM said 'working from home is not suitable for Australians'. Not suitable because it's hurting small business. Totally suitable to help manage the spread of a virus.

I don't want my health sacrificed on the basis of economics. Whether that's right or wrong is of little consequence, it's how I feel.

Nothing stopping you from locking yourself down if everyone else is out and about.

We can’t lock down an entire population forever to appease a paranoid few.

 

[Jenya]

COVID Live web site initially posted 1600 cases, not 800
Trying to run a few days ahead probably...

 

[admin]

The moderator team has noticed that there has been an increase in the number of off-topic posts on this thread. Many of these posts are political/unhelpful/divisive (in breach of our Terms of Service) as well as being spiteful/opinionated/insensitive - basically not the type of stuff we want on AFF.

Some posts have already been deleted and infractions issued. We are now also taking a firmer position and will be moderating this thread more aggressively.

A reminder that the topic of this thread is "Australian Reports of the Virus Spread". Please stick to the topic.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Nothing stopping you from locking yourself down if everyone else is out and about.

We can’t lock down an entire population forever to appease a paranoid few.

Agree. But nor do I want policies such as scrapping WFH simply because a coffee shop owner in the CBD doesn't have passing foot traffic. That's the problem I have - I dunno whether the policy is measured taking into account health and economics, or simply economics driven to look after business.

 

[Seat0B]

NSW milestone - 100 ICU - but it all doesn't matter as they are undervaccinated and its their fault

Of course it matters - to them and to their families, and we treat a lot of people for a lot of things that are "their fault" like smoking related illnesses; alcohol related problems; lifestyle induced heart issues, diabetes etc; car accidents; men up ladders with chainsaws who really ought to know better.

But what also matters in this is why vaccinated people should be paying a heavy price for the choices that some people made not to be vaccinated (and I acknowledge that children have no choice, many young people also, and even older folk like me may still not be fully vaccinated due to rollout delays). On face value, as these cases are reported, many of the people in ICU are not in the categories that had no choice. They are people who chose not to be vaccinated. This does not mean they don't matter or don't deserve care. It just means that the rest of us should not be held hostage.

We need to get over expecting no one to be sick or in ICU with COVID. Plenty of people are in ICU on any given day, and none of us even know about it. That is how it should be.

 

[justinbrett]

Agree. But nor do I want policies such as scrapping WFH simply because a coffee shop owner in the CBD doesn't have passing foot traffic. That's the problem I have - I dunno whether the policy is measured taking into account health and economics, or simply economics driven to look after business.

I very much doubt the government has the power to stop people WFH

It's up to the business.

The government can provide incentives, and that should be welcomed. It's a bit offensive to say they ignore the health advice.

 

[Seat0B]

Agree. But nor do I want policies such as scrapping WFH simply because a coffee shop owner in the CBD doesn't have passing foot traffic. That's the problem I have - I dunno whether the policy is measured taking into account health and economics, or simply economics driven to look after business.

I think this is a problem that we all have, given that the health advice and the economic advice are not released or even discussed in any way other than as a throw away excuse (I even heard the PM mention "military advice" when talking about Afghanistan the other day). What it means is that no one is certain about how the decisions are made and how the various risks are weighed. It makes it hard to trust what they say, and frankly is very paternalistic.

 

[justinbrett]

I think this is a problem that we all have, given that the health advice and the economic advice are not released or even discussed in any way other than as a throw away excuse (I even heard the PM mention "military advice" when talking about Afghanistan the other day). What it means is that no one is certain about how the decisions are made and how the various risks are weighed. It makes it hard to trust what they say, and frankly is very paternalistic.

Under Westminster, it is the job of elected leaders to consider relevant advice and make decisions on our behalf.

In general I support written advice being made available to the public, but it's not always possible - especially "military advice" that you mention, where it would be classified at least Secret and not for public consumption.

There is a difference between democracy and absolute democracy, the latter presents a whole range of problems. If you don't trust them, vote for the other guy. I guess it's an issue if you don't trust either.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Of course it matters - to them and to their families, and we treat a lot of people for a lot of things that are "their fault" like smoking related illnesses; alcohol related problems; lifestyle induced heart issues, diabetes etc; car accidents; men up ladders with chainsaws who really ought to know better.

But what also matters in this is why vaccinated people should be paying a heavy price for the choices that some people made not to be vaccinated (and I acknowledge that children have no choice, many young people also, and even older folk like me may still not be fully vaccinated due to rollout delays). On face value, as these cases are reported, many of the people in ICU are not in the categories that had no choice. They are people who chose not to be vaccinated. This does not mean they don't matter or don't deserve care. It just means that the rest of us should not be held hostage.

We need to get over expecting no one to be sick or in ICU with COVID. Plenty of people are in ICU on any given day, and none of us even know about it. That is how it should be.

At the present, covid is different from the other examples because the 'treatment' is not yet fully available and utilised. Yes, vaccines is one part but also treatment drugs for those who get covid. We are getting there but its not there yet.

All people need to pay a heavy price until public health is secured. It appears most of us in this echo chamber are fully vaccinated. But there is a range of divergent views about how and to what extent we look after society - both at an individual level (eg vaccine privileges) and broader - until public health is secured (the marker for securing public health seems to be set at 80% of 16+ eligibles).

Whether intended or not, it can be read into your last paragraph - 100 with COVID in NSW ICU, it doesn't matter to society. Actually more precisely, all in ICU it doesn't matter to society.

 

[Lynda2475]

But they ARE following the same rules as any other non-religous organisations

No only some are and the ones who aren't need to be shut down, the same way that a cafe that breaches the rule has to stop trading.

We need consistent penalties for breaches, not preferential treatement for some.

Fines for other businesses doing the wrong thing (with far fewer than 60 people involved) have been fined more and forced to stop trading. Why do you think it is ok that the same not apply to the business of religion?

 

[Seat0B]

We need to get over expecting no one to be sick or in ICU with COVID. Plenty of people are in ICU on any given day, and none of us even know about it. That is how it should be.

This is what I said.

Whether intended or not, it can be read into your last paragraph - 100 with COVID in NSW ICU, it doesn't matter to society. Actually more precisely, all in ICU it doesn't matter to society.

This is what you said, and I am sorry of that is the inference you took.

What I mean is this. We, the general public, are not usually made aware of the number if people in ICU and their medical diagnosis that landed them there. I think that is quite appropriate. And I also think it is appropriate that we should not have the ins and outs of people who are in ICU with COVID either. In no way am I saying that people in ICU with COVID or any other reason don't matter.

 

[Lynda2475]

But nor do I want policies such as scrapping WFH simply because a coffee shop owner in the CBD doesn't have passing foot traffic. That's the problem I have - I dunno whether the policy is measured taking into account health and economics, or simply economics driven to look after business.

The coffee shop owner has zero bearing on your ability to WFH. That is an arrnagement between you and your employer. Simarlarly the govenrment can provide incentives to work in the office, but they also can not stop you from WFH unless you work for them and they decide being onsite is a conditionof employment.

Just as many people loathe working from home as love it. And some people are far less productive.

The 70% and 80% freedoms are about allowing those who actually want to be part of a functional society to do so. The benefits of working with people face to face over remote working are well documented, human beings are not meant to be solitary beings.

If you want to continue to wfh do it, but know that you may lose busness to competitors who are willing to work onsite and conduct meetings/traning face to face.

When I have been recruiting ths year, I have been very clear with candidates what the onsite requirments are (when ot subject to lockdown), anyone wanting to solely work from home need not apply.

 

[clarkkent]

Can a vaccine-led approach end NSW’s outbreak in 100 days, or at least substantially reduce morbidity and mortality?

Background and Aims The New South Wales (NSW) COVID-19 outbreak is at 478 daily cases on August 16, 2021. Our aims were to: 1. estimate the time required to reach ≤5 cases per day under three lockdown strengths (weak, moderate, strong), and four vaccination rollouts: (a) per the original...

www.medrxiv.org

Modelling on the topic of interactions between vaccine rollout and the potential for weaker restrictions in NSW.

Their take-home message is:

“The new” NSW will likely achieve 70% vaccination of >16-year-olds before daily cases are ≤5. Increased lockdown strength was more effective at reducing cases than accelerating the vaccine rollout.

“The implications” Accelerating the vaccine rollout is important in the medium-term, but in the short-term strong public health and social restrictions (including lockdown) are more effective at reining in cases.

 

[Lynda2475]

At the present, covid is different from the other examples because the 'treatment' is not yet fully available and utilised.

The people in ICU being treated via drugs (now including antibodies), oxygen and ventilation would disprove that point. We are not turning those unwell with covid away from hopsital nor refusing treatement to anyone.

Unvaccinated people in hospital and ICU who have been eligible for vaccination for months and months do have to own their choices.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The coffee shop owner has zero bearing on your ability to WFH. That is an arrnagement between you and your employer. Simialrly the govenrment can provide incentives to wok in the office, they also cant stop you from WFH unless you work for them and they decide being onsite is a conditionof employment.

Just as many people loathe working from home as love it. And some people are far less productive.

The 70% and 80% freedoms are about allowing those who actually want to be part of a functional society to do so. The benefits of working with people face to face over remote working are well documented, human beings are not meant to be solitary beings.

If you want to continue to wfh do it, but know that you may lose busness to competitors who are willing to work onsite and conduct meetings/tranining face to face.

When I have been recruiting ths year, I have been very clear with candidates what the onsite requirments are, anyone wanting to solely work form home need not apply.

The government can influence WFH indirectly by allowing businesses to point to government guidance that WFH has to end. WFH is an agreement between you and the employer, and employers can come up with all sorts of reasons why they need staff in the office rather than at home. WFH is not guaranteed in most workplaces.

If we're looking to stop the spread of the virus, WFH is a key element. The government's aspirations seem to directly contradict that, even if we have 70 or 80% vaccination.

 

[justinbrett]

Can a vaccine-led approach end NSW’s outbreak in 100 days, or at least substantially reduce morbidity and mortality?

Background and Aims The New South Wales (NSW) COVID-19 outbreak is at 478 daily cases on August 16, 2021. Our aims were to: 1. estimate the time required to reach ≤5 cases per day under three lockdown strengths (weak, moderate, strong), and four vaccination rollouts: (a) per the original...

www.medrxiv.org

Modelling on the topic of interactions between vaccine rollout and the potential for weaker restrictions in NSW.

Their take-home message is:

NZ minister (sorry, don't know which one) said they can't vaccinate their way out of their outbreak (they had 35 new cases today, total now 107).

She said Australia's strategy won't work.

It seems to be a question of can you get the virus under control until you reach the critical vaccination rate. I guess NSW is only about 3 weeks away from having 80% single jab (thus providing a lot of protection), so they believe they can.

 

[N860CR]

She said Australia's strategy won't work.

It seems to be a question of can you get the virus under control until you reach the critical vaccination rate. I guess NSW is only about 3 weeks away from having 80% single jab (thus providing a lot of protection), so they believe they can.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what virtually every other country has done and managed to bring it under control? UK, US, Israel… they didn’t get positive test results to zero (nor did they reach 80%).