Australian state border restrictions

[Lynda2475]

The risk obviously increases with the length of exposure period, and that applies outside NSW and VIC as well

Not necessarily. That only holds true if you are actually exposed.

So if you are in close proximity to a known positive i.e living with them, then exposure duration is a factor, but meerly being in NSW or Vic for 7 or 8 days makes no material difference, especially if the friends or family you are spending majority of your time time with are all fully vaxed and well.

Chances of catching covid from a fleeting interaction with a random stranger are no greater on day 1 of a trip than day 8.

7 days is a completely arbitrary number, not scientific at all. Plenty of people have developed covid symptoms within ia much shorter time frame with Delta.

Using the flawed 7 day rule the majority of nsw would have had covid instead of only the 0.8% who have.

 

[Port Power]

I just have this (good) nagging feeling though that WA might pull a swifty and join pre-Xmas… they are MADLY mandating vaccines for far more people than NSW and VIC ever did - so they are desperate to open up now….

I wouldn’t say “desperate” to open up, but of course many of us are keen to be able to return to WA without having to quarantine for two weeks. That is what’s going to stop son and myself going to Melbourne in January unfortunately. Despite every effort, those “I don’t care about anyone else” types are still holding the rest of the state back. I really want to shake those apathetic yobos! The Premier should now be heavily promoting “no jab, no pub”!

 

[nutwood]

Not necessarily. That only holds true if you are actually exposed.

So if you are in close proximity to a known positive i.e living with them, then exposure duration is a factor, but meerly being in NSW or Vic for 7 or 8 days makes no material difference, especially if the friends or family you are spending majority of your time time with are all fully vaxed and well.

Chances of catching covid from a fleeting interaction with a random stranger are no greater on day 1 of a trip than day 8.

7 days is a completely arbitrary number, not scientific at all. Plenty of people have developed covid symptoms within ia much shorter time frame with Delta.

Using the flawed 7 day rule the majority of nsw would have had covid instead of only the 0.8% who have.

I feel as though I'm missing your point here? Surely it is a simple matter of probability? Your chances of catching Covid may be the same on day eight as on day one but they obviously multiply by the number of days. If it were 1:100 for a one day visit, it's 1:50 for a two day visit, 1:10 for a ten day visit. Very rough and ready logic as real life would depend entirely on the nature of the visit. Visiting family, there'd be a very rapid reduction in probability. Door to door salesman, the linear progression would hold true.
The seven days is obviously an arbitrary number. It can hardly be flawed, as all it is is the point where they reckon the risk has risen sufficiently to justify a test before returning home. Perhaps someone will claim it's scientific but it's clearly just a punt. "How long?".."Make it a week".."Done".

 

[PineappleSkip]

Visiting family, there'd be a very rapid reduction in probability.

That argument would be valid for a family of hermits, but unless they are doona-dwellers the family would be circulating in the community also with the risk each day of bringing the virus home.

 

[Lynda2475]

When the chances of getting covide are a fraction of 1 percent the 7 day rule is nonsensical and will not keep Tasmanians materially safer than if visits of 1 day or 20 days were allowed.

What determines your likelihood of getting covid and then becoming unwell is your behaviours - getting vaccinated, hand hygiene, keeping physically distant from randoms whose vax status you don't know and your general health. Not simply being in the same state.

7 day rule isnt going to keep covid out of Tasmania, just like being in NSW for 8 days doesnt mean you will get covid.

 

[Lynda2475]

There are over 8.1m NSW residents who have been circulating and mixing to varying degrees for almost 2 years, yet less than 0.8% have had covid. If 8 days of being in nsw was so dire we'd have seen much higher case count.

 

[nutwood]

When the chances of getting covide are a fraction of 1 percent the 7 day rule is nonsensical and will not keep Tasmanians materially safer than if visits of 1 day or 20 days were allowed.

What determines your likelihood of getting covid and then becoming unwell is your behaviours - getting vaccinated, hand hygiene, keeping physically distant from randoms whose vax status you don't know and your general health. Not simply being in the same state.

7 day rule isnt going to keep covid out of Tasmania, just like being in NSW for 8 days doesnt mean you will get covid.

I'm still not grasping the point being made? If a Tasmanian visits a State with high Covid community infection, they are obviously materially safer if they are there for one day, rather than twenty?
Seven days is simply an attempt to quantify the risk and nail it to a specific time period. It can never make sense but at some stage, someone has to define a line in the sand and say this is too hot, or too cold, or too fast. If the defined limit is obviously wrong, it can be adjusted, but at least a start has been made!

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm still not grasping the point being made?

You are not alone. The logic of stuff like this:

What determines your likelihood of getting covid and then becoming unwell is your behaviours - getting vaccinated, hand hygiene, keeping physically distant from randoms whose vax status you don't know and your general health. Not simply being in the same state.

... is inscrutible; just take the last bit for example - now arguing spatial risk when its been about time exposure.

The obvious argument "if someone is firing bullets randomly, the chances of your getting shot increase the longer you are within the firing zone" will just get drowned out in random noise.

 

[nutwood]

You are not alone. The logic of stuff like this:

What determines your likelihood of getting covid and then becoming unwell is your behaviours - getting vaccinated, hand hygiene, keeping physically distant from randoms whose vax status you don't know and your general health. Not simply being in the same state.

... is inscrutible; just take the last bit for example - now arguing spatial risk when its been about time exposure.

The obvious argument "if someone is firing bullets randomly, the chances of your getting shot increase the longer you are within the firing zone" will just get drowned out in random noise.

It's such a no-brainer, I'm concerned I'm missing the essential point being made. There's a debatable point as to whether the average infection rate in NSW is so low, the time period is far less relevant than personal hygiene. I can see that, and I think it will become very relevant in months to come. Not so sure it'll be so significant come June next year. Flu season on again and I reckon exposure will rule.

 

[RooFlyer]

There's a debatable point as to whether the average infection rate in NSW is so low, the time period is far less relevant than personal hygiene.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I was going to add to my analogy above:

If someone is firing bullets randomly, the chances of your getting shot increase the longer you are within the firing zone, even if every second round fired is a blank and even if you are wearing body armour'.

As you have said, the '7 day rule' for returning Tasmanians is a pretty random number but principle is soundly based. If nothing else, shows they are no longer doing everything by 'one size (rule) fits all'.

 

[nutwood]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I was going to add to my analogy above:

If someone is firing bullets randomly, the chances of your getting shot increase the longer you are within the firing zone, even if every second round fired is a blank and even if you are wearing body armour'.

As you have said, the '7 day rule' for returning Tasmanians is a pretty random number but principle is soundly based. If nothing else, shows they are no longer doing everything by 'one size (rule) fits all'.

To extend your analogy even further, if the ratio of blanks to live is 999:1, body armour becomes very significant. When you consider it, that's the logic behind many PPE requirements in work places. The actual risk has been reduced so far that slips, trips and falls are the primary concern.

 

[Flashback]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I was going to add to my analogy above:

If someone is firing bullets randomly, the chances of your getting shot increase the longer you are within the firing zone, even if every second round fired is a blank and even if you are wearing body armour'.

As you have said, the '7 day rule' for returning Tasmanians is a pretty random number but principle is soundly based. If nothing else, shows they are no longer doing everything by 'one size (rule) fits all'.

and even if you are on a film set

 

[MARTINE]

and even if you are on a film set

…too soooon!PS - FWIW the only maths that interests me in this thread is the number of FF points that I can not only earn but use in 2022!

 

[PineappleSkip]

Leafing through facebook comments on recent AP and Qld Govt posts, and there were plenty of ‘keep the border shut’ ones. But for every such comment there were half a dozen more howling it down. Hoping to see her backtracking on some of the more nonsensical aspects of her plan soon.

cheers skip

 

[MARTINE]

Leafing through facebook comments on recent AP and Qld Govt posts, and there were plenty of ‘keep the border shut’ ones. But for every such comment there were half a dozen more howling it down. Hoping to see her backtracking on some of the more nonsensical aspects of her plan soon.

cheers skip

With any luck this thread will also go the way of the virus spread one and be confined to the ‘yellow medical waste bin‘ of history very soon …

 

[jakeseven7]

With any luck this thread will also go the way of the virus spread one and be confined to the ‘yellow medical waste bin‘ of history very soon …

Will keep going as long as testing is required pre-travel I think though

 

[SJF211]

Quarantine-free travel from Queensland from Wednesday 27 October

Queensland will transition to ‘very low risk’ from 12:01am, Wednesday 27 October 2021, as part of WA’s controlled border.

www.wa.gov.au

Good news for Queensland travellers

 

[Must...Fly!]

Quarantine-free travel from Queensland from Wednesday 27 October

Queensland will transition to ‘very low risk’ from 12:01am, Wednesday 27 October 2021, as part of WA’s controlled border.

www.wa.gov.au

Good news for Queensland travellers

Just wait until someone on the plane sneezes...

McGowan copped a lot of heat for that change.

But I'd like to know what voodoo doll Anna has because I still don't really get how this super sick individual didn't infect anyone. Not that I've been keeping up with the news about it. Just wondering how they keep getting so lucky.

 

[jrfsp]

Just wait until someone on the plane sneezes...

McGowan copped a lot of heat for that change.

But I'd like to know what voodoo doll Anna has because I still don't really get how this super sick individual didn't infect anyone. Not that I've been keeping up with the news about it. Just wondering how they keep getting so lucky.

Not only that, seems queensland gets away without a major spread everytime. Talk about having 9 lives. There has to be something behind it, perhaps just a more outdoors lifestyle?

 

[mrs.dr.ron]

Not only that, seems queensland gets away without a major spread everytime. Talk about having 9 lives. There has to be something behind it, perhaps just a more outdoors lifestyle?

SUNSHINE AND HEAT