Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

[Sdajii]

And then when people are still getting the virus, they will turn on the politicians. What you're suggesting is political suicide. I don't think politicians would be stupid enough to support an ineffective vaccine.

They probably have no choice. Either they admit they're wrong now and take the Sweden route (this is what they should do for the good of the country, but they won't because it's political suicide), or they just give up at some point next year when the virus is spreading because we can no longer keep everyone isolated due to logistical, social and economic reasons, and the insanity is revealed (political suicide), or they go with the second option with the addition of giving everyone the fake vaccine, and claim that without the vaccine it would have been much worse, and it's a good thing we waited for it.

This will be an easy enough story to sell and most people will eat it up. If you're gobbling up the current story, you will gobble up the upcoming one along with most people.

Unless you can see an alternative course of action which I'm missing.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

They probably have no choice. Either they admit they're wrong now and take the Sweden route (this is what they should do for the good of the country, but they won't because it's political suicide), or they just give up at some point next year when the virus is spreading because we can no longer keep everyone isolated due to logistical, social and economic reasons, and the insanity is revealed (political suicide), or they go with the second option with the addition of giving everyone the fake vaccine, and claim that without the vaccine it would have been much worse, and it's a good thing we waited for it.

This will be an easy enough story to sell and most people will eat it up. If you're gobbling up the current story, you will gobble up the upcoming one along with most people.

Unless you can see an alternative course of action which I'm missing.

Being honest, isn't necessarily political suicide; deliberately breaching the trust of the public to take an ineffective vaccine could be considered a varying degree of murder if people get the virus and die.

Being honest and saying that we don't have a vaccine and we are reopening our economy; everyone be warned that they should proceed with caution is very different. In saying this; I am not advocating to reopen without a vaccine.

 

[qldfrog]

Being honest, isn't necessarily political suicide; deliberately breaching the trust of the public to take an ineffective vaccine could be considered a varying degree of murder if they get the virus and die.

Being honest and saying that we don't have a vaccine and we are reopening our economy; everyone be warned that they should proceed with caution is very different. In saying this; I am not advocating to reopen without a vaccine.

You just have to say the vaccine boosts your defence and reduce the risk but is nit perfect.
People are already unable/unwilling to compare the Swedish response to full lockdown:
They will never compare with/without that vaccine
If Sweden for example foes not vaccinate, you can say they were protected by their neighbours etc
The fake vaccine is an easy story to sell.
Wait the end of winter to release it and we will see how efficient it is, with cases dropping etc..as it did this summer in Europe..just with sun
But please bring it on ASAP, just do not force me to do it

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

You just have to say the vaccine boosts your defence and reduce the risk but is nit perfect.
People are already unable/unwilling to compare the Swedish response to full lockdown:
They will never compare with/without that vaccine
If Sweden for example foes not vaccinate, you can say they were protected by their neighbours etc
The fake vaccine is an easy story to sell.
Wait the end of winter to release it and we will see how efficient it is, with cases dropping etc..as it did this summer in Europe..just with sun
But please bring it on ASAP, just do not force me to do it

Even that is misleading. I don't think you will get many politicians that will go along with this idea. Personally I disagree with it.

 

[moXJO]

I wear one if I have been coughing at home or feel under the weather. I'd probably wear one if I was bundled in a room full of people. But its not really going to protect you if you don't have the virus and are wearing a mask.

Its more to contain your germs. If you take it off incorrectly you probably expose yourself more. You could effectively walk around with a shirt over your mouth and nose for similar effect.

 

[moXJO]

It is very tough getting closure when wanting to farewell close friends and family who have died. Already had three friends and family pass away with similar very limited funerals.

But the unflinching reality is that large funerals held during this COVID crisis have killed scores more people people who came to pay their respects. Spread of the contagion during large funerals was horrific.
Very difficult but essential.

https://www.seniorsnews.com.au/news/17-family-members-infected-at-funeral/3986050/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...ing-funeral-infected-100-200702100210137.html

More an observation than an attack against the law. People have already shown they need these laws in place (Victoria).

 

[Sdajii]

Even that is misleading. I don't think you will get many politicians that will go along with this idea. Personally I disagree with it.

It's funny that you seem to have faith in the honesty of politicians.

 

[Smurf1976]

The fake vaccine is an easy story to sell.
Wait the end of winter to release it and we will see how efficient it is, with cases dropping etc..as it did this summer in Europe..just with sun
But please bring it on ASAP, just do not force me to do it

If government was going to go down that track, a vaccine and then that allows the economy to re-open, I expect that anyone who didn't receive it would find themselves ostracised in practice.

Government might not force you to have it but fair chance all sorts of businesses decide to impose conditions of entry and the law backs them in doing so. Eg Airlines are one that may well decide no vaccination certificate = no boarding.

Not having it would thus become somewhat like choosing to not have a mobile phone, credit card or any form of photo ID. No law saying you must do it, government isn't forcing you, but in practice you'll have a lot of trouble living a normal life if you don't go along with it.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

It's funny that you seem to have faith in the honesty of politicians.

I like to live my life with an element of integrity. How could I, in good conscience, endorse an act that will breach the trust of my follow citizens; which may mislead them into a false sense of security, that could result in them getting a disease and dying. This is why I disagree with you here. I am just an Australian citizen who invests and trades to try and make a crust; however if I was a politician, this is how I would think.

Being deceitful to protect your nation and citizens, against foreign enemies and threats, is a different story.

 

[Smurf1976]

Unless you can see an alternative course of action which I'm missing.

The alternative would be if eradication is actually possible.

I'm unconvinced either way on that but if (hypothetically) it turns out that WA, Tas, SA, NT have actually done it well then that's a huge political problem for anyone in Victoria or NSW arguing that it can't be done.

It's one thing politically if Melbourne or Sydney are struggling to achieve something (anything, not necessarily pandemic-related) that's been done in a big city overseas. A somewhat more embarrassing problem politically if they're scrambling to catch up to Adelaide or Hobart.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

It's funny that you seem to have faith in the honesty of politicians.

Why don't we get a team of the best Australian health professionals that specialise in virology and put them in the room with Scomo's COVID Commission (https://www.pmc.gov.au/ncc/who-we-are)

Also a few economists from Treasury and the RBA, should be in that room.

Then we might be able to get some coordination on national policy and direction.

 

[Sdajii]

The alternative would be if eradication is actually possible.

How can anyone suggest this with a straight face? Honestly, have you given it any thought at all? It makes utterly no sense to suggest we can eradicate it. Even in the impossible scenario of complete eradication in Australia. Magical aliens come down and completely eliminate it from the continent, all it takes is one person coming in with it and the whole thing starts again. Clearly it's absurd to think we'll eradicate it from the whole planet without the medical equivalent of a technological miracle which makes the Manhattan Project look like a primary school science project, so we are sooner or later going to have an outbreak, unless we forever have extraordinary limits on people coming in and out of Australia and also live in perpetual paranoia level lockdown (because periodically infected people will come in, and without paranoia level quarantine and lockdown, they will result in rapid outbreaks - just look at what happens now, even in the middle of paranoia level, official state of emergency!).

I'm unconvinced either way on that but if (hypothetically) it turns out that WA, Tas, SA, NT have actually done it well then that's a huge political problem for anyone in Victoria or NSW arguing that it can't be done.

It's possible to do in a place like WA or NT, it's probably not possible in a place like NSW or VIC - the climate is better for the virus and the people are too densely populated. There are also politically incorrect issues I can't openly state on social media which pose greater challenges in these states, particularly Victoria (facts are hate speech these days, even when lives are lost by that censorship).

But again, You'll never eliminate it from either of the world's two large land masses, and they will forever be a source of reinfection for anywhere else. There are about 200 countries in the world, some of them have at least officially eradicated it and likely some of them actually have done so, but then we have examples of them being reinfected, and there are new places having new infections. New Zealand officially beat it but had an infected person break out of quarantine and go shopping just recently. PNG has a sizeable outbreak right now from a recent source new to the country, after months of being free from the virus.

It's one thing politically if Melbourne or Sydney are struggling to achieve something (anything, not necessarily pandemic-related) that's been done in a big city overseas. A somewhat more embarrassing problem politically if they're scrambling to catch up to Adelaide or Hobart.

A lot of it comes down to luck, and Adelaide and Hobart are for various reasons not as challenging as Melbourne or Sydney. Larger cities are inherently much more difficult. There are very relevant demographic differences. Melbourne has a very high diversity of... humanity, and some demographics are higher risk than others. Human nature is what it is. Government policy doesn't change that.

Either way, eradication has never been Australia's policy. It was 'flatten the curve' and now as soon as cases get low (as opposed to zero) they relax the measures. There is clearly no attempt being made to eradicate. At least doing so would make sense, because there would be an actual goal. As it is, we're playing an insane strategy of attempting to keep it at a very low level without eliminating it but getting freaked out if half a dozen 90 year olds die. Do people think they had their lives ahead of them and were going to live to 1,090? Since when do we have national mourning over the death of half a dozen people, all of whom were over the average life expectancy? Why do we not care about the other 450 odd people who die *every day* in Australia? If saving lives is so important, why are we ignoring all of the preventable deaths out of those hundreds who die every day? Literally every day in Australia we have multiples of total number of human deaths caused by COVID-19.

 

[Smurf1976]

How can anyone suggest this with a straight face? Honestly, have you given it any thought at all? It makes utterly no sense to suggest we can eradicate it.

Easy.

Perth, population 2 million, isn't exactly a little country town and Tasmania in the middle of winter isn't exactly warm. About the only thing in common between them is that both have at least possibly eradicated it.

If it turns out they haven't really done it well then it's a failure but at this stage it seems at least plausible.

Everything from aircraft to share trading are "impossible" if you make a half-hearted attempt which fails and then give up. Given what's at stake, it would be foolish to not pursue all possible options.

 

[Smurf1976]

If saving lives is so important, why are we ignoring all of the preventable deaths out of those hundreds who die every day? Literally every day in Australia we have multiples of total number of human deaths caused by COVID-19.

Those things are indeed addressed so far as practical.

Compare a 1980 car and the road rules and enforcement thereof versus a 2020 car, rules and enforcement. All up being in a car is now massively safer and countless $ billions have been spent on that.

Look at workplace safety. Like many, I've personally done things in the past that were normal at the time but downright dangerous by modern standards. Compare now with even the relatively recent past, 1990's, and it's night versus day.

Pretty much no private home had any sort of fire alarm in it 35 years ago whereas smoke detectors are are compulsory in at least some states today and common everywhere to the point that even supermarkets sell them.

The outdoor air in the CBD of even relatively small cities tested as unsafe for both asbestos and lead back in the 1980's. Since then we'll we haven't got rid of all asbestos but there's drastically less of it being dealt with and fibres released and much the same with lead, there's drastically less of it being released into the air in cities than was the case not too long ago.

30 years ago someone could have lit up a cigarette in the main area of any indoor shopping centre and nobody would have thought twice about it. Do it today and you'd be promptly escorted off the property.

And so on. It's by no means perfect but much has been done to avoid unnecessary deaths yes and especially so where exposure to the hazard is involuntary whilst going about normal life.

 

[qldfrog]

If government was going to go down that track, a vaccine and then that allows the economy to re-open, I expect that anyone who didn't receive it would find themselves ostracised in practice.

Government might not force you to have it but fair chance all sorts of businesses decide to impose conditions of entry and the law backs them in doing so. Eg Airlines are one that may well decide no vaccination certificate = no boarding.

Not having it would thus become somewhat like choosing to not have a mobile phone, credit card or any form of photo ID. No law saying you must do it, government isn't forcing you, but in practice you'll have a lot of trouble living a normal life if you don't go along with it.

Sxdly well aware of that..
So how much life expectancy am i going to loose by taking it, is it worth it.?
Number game again, no emotion.
My life but still managed by the same stats.i still drive while being at risk, but not at 150km on a wet road

 

[qldfrog]

Easy.

Perth, population 2 million, isn't exactly a little country town and Tasmania in the middle of winter isn't exactly warm. About the only thing in common between them is that both have at least possibly eradicated it.

If it turns out they haven't really done it well then it's a failure but at this stage it seems at least plausible.

Everything from aircraft to share trading are "impossible" if you make a half-hearted attempt which fails and then give up. Given what's at stake, it would be foolish to not pursue all possible options.

Very simple: do you think possible to have eradication world-wide?
I think it is pretty clear that the answer is no? Can anyone even try to disagree on that?
So out of this now fact
If we eradicate tomorrow in OZ.we xan argue it is or was possible.i agree it could but for what next
What next is where economic cost collapsed
We were not even able to stop boat landing from shri Lanka.
Is the nayi now going to blow them up on sight?
Yo norrh in thr Torrens straigh,our birders are porous with png,and Indonesia fishermen.
If we want to export, boays and crews have to touch land here etc
So either you hope dream of a vaccine working and that is then an option or you fully insolate Australia
No boat plane and we become even better than North Korea.
Anything else will fail now tomorrow or next month year.ad for the costs in human lives. Millions wo medicine...
Let's be thankful that the winter spread in the south is ending that craziness.

 

[qldfrog]

Very simple: do you think possible to have eradication world-wide?
I think it is pretty clear that the answer is no? Can anyone even try to disagree on that?
So out of this now fact
If we eradicate tomorrow in OZ.we xan argue it is or was possible.i agree it could but for what next
What next is where economic cost collapsed
We were not even able to stop boat landing from shri Lanka.
Is the nayi now going to blow them up on sight?
Yo norrh in thr Torrens straigh,our birders are porous with png,and Indonesia fishermen.
If we want to export, boays and crews have to touch land here etc
So either you hope dream of a vaccine working and that is then an option or you fully insolate Australia
No boat plane and we become even better than North Korea.
Anything else will fail now tomorrow or next month year.ad for the costs in human lives. Millions wo medicine...
Let's be thankful that the winter spread in the south is ending that craziness.

arrrrgg I have to give up even trying posting from my phone.Apologies for the mangling

 

[spooly74]

Interesting take on spread.
Makes sense when you look at the localised outbreaks in clubs, restaurants & care homes.

 

[Sdajii]

Easy.

Perth, population 2 million, isn't exactly a little country town and Tasmania in the middle of winter isn't exactly warm. About the only thing in common between them is that both have at least possibly eradicated it.

If it turns out they haven't really done it well then it's a failure but at this stage it seems at least plausible.

Everything from aircraft to share trading are "impossible" if you make a half-hearted attempt which fails and then give up. Given what's at stake, it would be foolish to not pursue all possible options.

Tasmania is literally an island with a small population with low population density.

Perth (or the Perth region) is effectively an island.

Not only to Melbourne and Sydney both have populations each of which are multiples of Perth's, they both are surrounded by many other cities, interspersed by countless small towns. Perth on the other hand is by far Australia's most remote capital.

Melbourne itself has twice the population of Western Australia! Western Australia is Australia's largest state by a long way. The population densities of NSW and VIC are far, far higher than any other state. Melbourne and Sydney.

The difficulty in eradicating a virus, especially one like this, geometrically increases with population size (as well as things like climate, cultural practices, etc etc). Melbourne and Sydney individually are each twice the size of any other capital and many times the size of most of them, in addition to being in the middle of dense clusters and cities.

Comparing NSW or Victoria with anywhere else in the country is like looking at the difference between stepping over a footrail and an Olympic level pole vault.

And yes, an Olympic pole vault is possible, and it might be technically possible to eradicate if we ignored several realities such as the inevitable civil disobedience and the political suicide required to make it happen (just two of the countless items). If we just had an orderly execution of everyone over 70 years of age, kept everyone under house arrest other than those delivering food etc, and said we didn't care about the suicides etc etc, and anyone disobeying the rules was to be shot on sight, sure, we'd have it eradicated in a month or two. With less extreme measures we could probably eliminate it in about 3-6 months. If it's going to take longer than that it's not going to happen, and the measures required to completely eradicate it in that timeframe from Victoria and NSW are far beyond the practical and political reality of Australia. If we were Chinese under the rule of Chinese dictatorship, yes, for Australia, no problem. In China with Chinese dictatorship but their population dynamics and geographic position, no, probably not. In somewhere like India, hah, no way at all. Somewhere like New Zealand? Piece of cake (but you're going to have continual reinfection unless you turn the place into Sentinel Island, and this is true for Australia too).

 

[Sdajii]

Those things are indeed addressed so far as practical.

Compare a 1980 car and the road rules and enforcement thereof versus a 2020 car, rules and enforcement. All up being in a car is now massively safer and countless $ billions have been spent on that.

So here we have a case where that money is actually going into providing jobs for people (all those lab techs, designers, testers, etc etc etc). No one's life is being harmed by it, the cost per car is comfortable, and road deaths worldwide are quite high, and tend to hit people in the prime of their lives. Makes sense.

Look at workplace safety. Like many, I've personally done things in the past that were normal at the time but downright dangerous by modern standards. Compare now with even the relatively recent past, 1990's, and it's night versus day.

Here we see another significant cause of human fatality and injury, and again, it makes sense. Different countries strike a different point of balance between freedom and efficiency and safety. Australia in my opinion goes too far on the side of paranoia, but is much closer to the sweet spot than the global average. Each country sets its own point. When I first went to Asia I was astonished at how far in the other direction many countries go, and during my years there I became accustomed to seeing the sort of crazy examples of workplace danger Australians share in memes, but I was seeing them in real life almost daily. No one there thinks it's strange, and yes, they do have more workplace accidents, but globally that's more in line with normal, and proportionate to deaths, far less is put into this issue which kills far, far, far more people than the virus. Even in Australia, where workplace safety is slightly to the paranoia side (yes, in my opinion, but is undeniably right at the absolute extreme of the spectrum by global standards, but let's say Australia is perfectly on the appropriate level for argument's sake), a ridiculously higher amount of resources are being spent on COVID-19, orders of magnitude higher, which clearly makes it inappropriate.

Pretty much no private home had any sort of fire alarm in it 35 years ago whereas smoke detectors are are compulsory in at least some states today and common everywhere to the point that even supermarkets sell them.

Again, this is just a very cheap and easy thing to do. It doesn't solve all house fires, people still die in house fires, but it's clearly worthwhile. This is the COVID-19 equivalent of putting 'Everyone wash your hands' ad campaigns on the telly once in a while. Perfectly logical, reasonable and worthwhile.

The outdoor air in the CBD of even relatively small cities tested as unsafe for both asbestos and lead back in the 1980's. Since then we'll we haven't got rid of all asbestos but there's drastically less of it being dealt with and fibres released and much the same with lead, there's drastically less of it being released into the air in cities than was the case not too long ago.

Again, this is all perfectly sensible and doesn't hurt anyone. We don't shut down industries and destroy lives here. We create a few jobs and make people safer. It makes sense, bravo.

30 years ago someone could have lit up a cigarette in the main area of any indoor shopping centre and nobody would have thought twice about it. Do it today and you'd be promptly escorted off the property.

I'm pretty sure this hasn't ruined anyone's lives. I don't think many businesses were forced into closure because of this. I actually think Australia has gone way too far in this regard (I say this as a non smoker who would ideally prefer zero exposure to cigarette smoke), I like people having the freedom to smoke in a restaurant if they want to, I like restaurants being able to choose whether to allow smoking or not. I miss people being allowed to smoke in comedy clubs, I think it's sad that you can't have a pub where people can enjoy a cigarette at the bar. I enjoy the feeling of freedom in countries like Japan where you can smoke anywhere you want to, including in any restaurant. I was surprised, amused, and I actually really enjoyed having the chefs in restaurants in Japan smoking over my food as they cooked it (something I wouldn't have expected and I can't even quite describe why I like it, but it's probably just a demonstration of a lack of state enforcement and a display of human freedom). Either way, the point is, we haven't done any harm by banning smoking from indoor public spaces. Even if I don't like it I'm content to accept it. We didn't have to ruin the economy to do this, it costs effectively zero.

And so on. It's by no means perfect but much has been done to avoid unnecessary deaths yes and especially so where exposure to the hazard is involuntary whilst going about normal life.

All these examples prove my point and shoot your own down in flames.