General Coronavirus chit chat thread - non-travel specific

[Flying mermaid]

I have family living in Rome (Aussie expats) in mid February all three of them were sick with what they assumed was Influenza. Their four year old had a rolling fever for eight days and they said they have never felt so sick in their lives. They now wonder if they had in fact caught Covid

I have a friend who was n Massachusetts in December and January. Whole family got really sick in January and she was still coughing badly when she returned to Canberra in early February. Doctor in USA put it down to flu. She is also wondering whether in fact they had COVID-19.

 

[drron]

Genuine question. Why?

Eg, if I'm McGowan in WA and I've looked at the different options and the one I've chosen gives WA the best chance of economic recovery, why should I voluntarily conform to something that meets the needs of the Eastern states, but leave WA worse off? Wouldn't that be the fastest way to get yourself voted out of office?

Because there is section 92 and section 117 of the Constitution that has to be respected.There are many legal minds who think the time has come to bring those into play.Politics must run second to the law.

 

[Pushka]

Yes, I was aware of this. I guess another reason apart from Protest March why people questioning 4sqm rule that is in place elsewhere.


Victoria is giving the impression that it’s because people with COVID (or suspected and under a test) don’t follow the rules. It’s not as if they think there is a huge amount of asymptomatic carriers.

So if that’s the case, then why couldn’t they go to 2sqm or 0sqm?

Post automatically merged: Jun 21, 2020

I think that’s why the UK is also either reviewing it or has already abandoned it.

Clearly there are enough cases under investigation for the need for continued distancing in Victoria.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Because there is section 92 and section 117 of the Constitution that has to be respected.There are many legal minds who think the time has come to bring those into play.Politics must run second to the law.

An interesting thought came to my mind.

Perhaps state borders should fully open and/or no quarantine requirements for inter-State travellers unless you are from a designated hotspot.

As raised separately in the context of say cordoning off a Melbourne suburb it will be hard to administer but the High Court might find that alternative acceptable and constitutional.

I think Qld was doing something like that, so it might get tested.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Clearly there are enough cases under investigation for the need for continued distancing in Victoria.

Well if the problem is known or suspected COVID cases and that subsequent transmission, there is still room for everyone else to get most of their daily freedoms back.

If the problem is the number of unknown (I guess typically asymptomatic) COVID carriers, then I’d probably agree with you.

I guessed I feel known and suspected cases should probably be treated like international arrivals (acknowledging that most arrivals probably won’t have COVID) either abide by health directions or get quarantined at your cost away from home.

 

[Pushka]

Well if the problem is known or suspected COVID cases and that subsequent transmission, there is still room for everyone else to get most of their daily freedoms back.

If the problem is the number of unknown (I guess typically asymptomatic) COVID carriers, then I’d probably agree with you.

I guessed I feel known and suspected cases should probably be treated like international arrivals (acknowledging that most arrivals probably won’t have COVID) either abide by health directions or get quarantined at your cost away from home.

Isolating in hospitals was certainly the pattern when the virus first arrived. But that wasn't the ultimate plan as infections increased. And just like international arrivals there should have been checking being done on known positive cases.

I do know that each day someone from SA health contacted one positive cases that I know of in SA. I think their temp was taken multiple times. I'm surprised this wasn't done elsewhere.

As far as people not isolating when there was a medical reason, as I posted earlier, approval for the March sent the message to all that the right to free protest was more important than health issues during a pandemic. So maybe people just started asserted their right.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't disagree with the need to balance things, and there are different ways of doing it, but all the states should pick the same option!

Genuine question. Why?

Because there is section 92 and section 117 of the Constitution that has to be respected.There are many legal minds who think the time has come to bring those into play.Politics must run second to the law.

I'm not sure of the relevance of s92 or s117 to the uniform adoption of laws such as 4 sq m?

This is not politics, this is a health emergency. The law must accommodate that health emergency.

I don't see the need for a uniform adoption of laws on issues such as 4 sq m. What other states do is irrelevant. If you are a resident in Victoria, look at the law in Victoria. What NSW is doing is not relevant.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

If the problem is the number of unknown (I guess typically asymptomatic) COVID carriers, then I’d probably agree with you.

No there has not be to be any unusual problem with asymptomatic carriers reported in Victoria. There was however the recent case of an asymptomatic case who was a doctor who could it from a patient and who then mingled at large father gatherings with the result that at least 4 families became infected.

Remember too that some spread occurs through pre-symptomatic carriers.

Some asymptomatic cases have always been reported, or thought to have cased the unknown local transmission.

What has been a problem is that it has been evident for well over a month that families in the northern suburbs were causing a problem and were transmitting the virus to family and friends. Despite this the Victoria Gov took no special measures apart from making more testing available in the region. The NSW Gov by contrast at that time banned truck drivers who has been in 3 Vic Suburbs from entering NSW. So the problem was known, but the Government just sat on its hands with the result that when things were eased that this known problem has now started to rapidly grow.

What was perhaps unknown was the willingness of so many people who were infected, and/ or close contacts of known, cases to still mingle with friends and family, as well as still attend work. But after the Aspen Couple and Cedar Meats this really should not have been a surprise.

The security guards at two quarantine hotels have exhibited the same behaviours. This indicates a clear lack of training, monitoring and supervision. But it also indicates that too many people despite knowing what to do refuse to do it by their actions. ie The guard who failed to advise that he was living with the fruit picker who then flew to Qld, and the fruit picker in turn who knew that he had been living with a Covid 19 case but who still flew and even partied with 15 other people before finally developing symptoms which led to testing. Or the Essendon footballer who broke AFL Guidelines to visit friends and has now shut down the club due to catching the virus.

The majority of the current cases in Victoria have resulted from selfish actions.

These few have immediately caused much harm to those operating and working the cafes, restaurant and pubs that were only just starting to open to greater as well as to Australians at large.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

@lovetravellingoz I did not know all this information.

But if the cases are still traceable, then it strengthens my view that it would be acceptable for relaxing general restrictions in Victoria but ‘penalising’ these specific instances either through mandatory quarantine or at hospital and any other reasonable restrictions Eg no visitors In person. And making sure close contacts are still isolating (I think mandatory quarantine would be justified) until their test results are known.

It’s been over three months down the track and we should have new laws reflecting track, trace and isolate and the legal tools to enforce this rather than blanket rules of Closing State borders, social distancing (eg 4sqm rule), Which are probably more appropriate 2-3 months ago when it felt we didn’t know where the cases were.

 

[JohnM]

Well, W.A. has not had the 4 sqm rule since June 6 - it was reduced to 2 sqm.

Which is effectively the 1.5 m social distancing rule - the square root of 2 being 1.4.

 

[p--and--t]

I'd like to know if every one of the family members who broke their isolation directive and those that went to work knowing they were positive were all fined, twice if they broke both directives.

Maybe its time Victoria replicates the action of WA and gaoling infected people who disobey directives to isolate.

 

[drron]

I'm not sure of the relevance of s92 or s117 to the uniform adoption of laws such as 4 sq m?

This is not politics, this is a health emergency. The law must accommodate that health emergency.

I don't see the need for a uniform adoption of laws on issues such as 4 sq m. What other states do is irrelevant. If you are a resident in Victoria, look at the law in Victoria. What NSW is doing is not relevant.

I was replying to a post that was about WAs border closure.So the Constitution is relevant.
Besides WA doesn't have 4 sq m now.
And the High Court will decide if the Health Emergency declared by the States is still of sufficient concern to override the Constitution.
The Health Emergency must follow the Constitution not the other way round.

 

[Gremlin]

I was replying to a post that was about WAs border closure.So the Constitution is relevant.
Besides WA doesn't have 4 sq m now.
And the High Court will decide if the Health Emergency declared by the States is still of sufficient concern to override the Constitution.
The Health Emergency must follow the Constitution not the other way round.

Actually, you were replying to my post asking why all the states need to act consistently around their proposed course of actions. I don't think the Constitution is relevant at all to asking that question. Alignment of actions or otherwise is entirely independent of the constitutional challenge around the closure of the borders. Some actions may be deemed unconstitutional, but that in and of itself, doesn't force the states to act consistently. I think my question stands.

 

[drron]

Actually, you were replying to my post asking why all the states need to act consistently around their proposed course of actions. I don't think the Constitution is relevant at all to asking that question. Alignment of actions or otherwise is entirely independent of the constitutional challenge around the closure of the borders. Some actions may be deemed unconstitutional, but that in and of itself, doesn't force the states to act consistently. I think my question stands.

But you said this in the post I quoted.
"Eg, if I'm McGowan in WA and I've looked at the different options and the one I've chosen gives WA the best chance of economic recovery, why should I voluntarily conform to something that meets the needs of the Eastern states, but leave WA worse off? Wouldn't that be the fastest way to get yourself voted out of office? "

 

[oz_mark]

Genuine question. Why?

Eg, if I'm McGowan in WA and I've looked at the different options and the one I've chosen gives WA the best chance of economic recovery, why should I voluntarily conform to something that meets the needs of the Eastern states, but leave WA worse off? Wouldn't that be the fastest way to get yourself voted out of office?

Actually, you were replying to my post asking why all the states need to act consistently around their proposed course of actions. I don't think the Constitution is relevant at all to asking that question. Alignment of actions or otherwise is entirely independent of the constitutional challenge around the closure of the borders. Some actions may be deemed unconstitutional, but that in and of itself, doesn't force the states to act consistently. I think my question stands.

Firstly, I don't think that arguing that the difference between a GDP hit will sway the courts. The closures need to be based on health advice, not on economic impost.

So, really, they need to pick options that comply with the constitution. If you say they you can only keep a 2m2 density if you keep the borders closed, then I suspect that a rethink is required,

End of the day, there are no right answers, but if everyone is following the same rules, it is simpler when moving between states, for companies that operate across the country.

This is not about the transition to whatever the new steady state is, it is about what that new steady state is that we may end up being in for a while. State border closeures shouldn't be part of that. If they are needed for short term purposes, that needs to be base on health considerations, not on GDP considerations

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And the High Court will decide if the Health Emergency declared by the States is still of sufficient concern to override the Constitution.

AFAIK you cannot override the Constitution?

 

[drron]

There can be an exception for a Public Health Emergency.That standard was probably met early on but I believe is not met now.We will see.

 

[Gremlin]

Firstly, I don't think that arguing that the difference between a GDP hit will sway the courts. The closures need to be based on health advice, not on economic impost.

So, really, they need to pick options that comply with the constitution. If you say they you can only keep a 2m2 density if you keep the borders closed, then I suspect that a rethink is required,

End of the day, there are no right answers, but if everyone is following the same rules, it is simpler when moving between states, for companies that operate across the country.

This is not about the transition to whatever the new steady state is, it is about what that new steady state is that we may end up being in for a while. State border closeures shouldn't be part of that. If they are needed for short term purposes, that needs to be base on health considerations, not on GDP considerations

I'm not at all interested in what's going to 'sway the courts'. Not all of the possible outcomes rely on the closure of borders. In fact, if there is proper localised isolation and control of any breakouts, none of them need to rely on the closure of borders.

My question, was and is, why should a state premier act against their own state's interest to conform to a collective position?

I think the fundamental issue here isn't the opening or closing of state borders, it's that there isn't a collective agreement from the states/commonwealth as to how to properly localise, isolate and control any breakouts. I think this should have happened by now. My interpretation of his comments is that @drron thinks that the long term solution is also about localised and targeted controls.

Whether the borders are opened or closed doesn't fundamentally address this issue. My suspicion is that it currently comes down to politics, from leaders of both political stripes. I think if there was a common agreement across the country to implement localised hard lockdown of any areas with breakouts, then all such issues, including border closures, go away. As a nation, we can then get on with rebuilding economically. But whilst it's Vic now, it could be any one of the other states next time. And none of the Premiers want to be seen to be enforcing such a measure on their own communities against the interest of their own state but for the national good. Politically, it's much easier to point the finger and say, "But look at Vic."

So hence, my question. Why should a state premier act against their own state's interest to conform to a collective position?

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I think if there was a common agreement across the country to implement localised hard lockdown of any areas with breakouts, then all such issues, including border closures, go away. As a nation, we can then get on with rebuilding economically. But whilst it's Vic now, it could be any one of the other states next time. And none of the Premiers want to be seen to be enforcing such a measure on their own communities against the interest of their own state but for the national good. Politically, it's much easier to point the finger and say, "But look at Vic."

I think most authorities have flagged since the beginning that local hotspots or breakouts would be acted on if required.

Unfortunately in Vic up until belatedly this weekend the Vic Government/Health Authorities have only interpreted this to be per workplace, or per facility. The northern suburbs have been known to have been a problem area for a while and there should have some coordinated tailored strategic actions in place to manage what has been bubbling along in these suburbs. Instead of this, it was allowed to fester, and then to grow when the restrictions were eased statewide.

With the security guards of one hotel quarantine causing a bubble, one would have though that processes would have been tightened immediately at all other sites, but now. Too much reliance has been placed on just using statewide tools, rather than also looking at true hotspots, and potential hotspots with special strategies/restrictions just for them. This week some pretty mild local measures are being taken. Too mild for my likely. Speed to act is always critical with Covid 19.

 

[MelMel]

Hopefully a fire has finally been lit beneath the locals in these areas. Queues for testing were “out the door” and round the block at both Southland and Northland shopping centres this morning.