Not really

I cant imagine regional MPs who are in the thick of road map discussions are leaking points to the media that arent even being discussed. If there are genuine concerns that travel restrictions will be lifted when the rules between the cities are different then that does little more than to threaten to throw us right back where we started. And these need to be discussed and debated before it can become a problem, not after the fact

We know for a fact regional and Melbourne will have different road maps and we know for a fact that the restrictions in regional areas will be lighter. We also know for a fact that regional Victoria was locked down despite having less case numbers than your state because travel between the two was a concern

So is he complaining about Gladys Berejiklian who has the same ability enshrined in legislation indefinitely.?

Also very interesting to see Josh the work experience guy blaming the recession on the Victorian shutdown in July while reporting on end of June figures. Always did have little sense of time a la 'We have delivered a surplus' 'We're back in the black' - next year.

He is complaining about action, not potential. What is actually happening not what could be happening

Besides NSW dont have a state of emergency and they dont have the same level of legislation as Victoria. They have sought the powers and rules that were necessary to bring the state to a point where the suppression strategy is successful. No more. No less

And for the state with the biggest population, most outbreaks, most hot spots, and biggest issues early on in the piece, it is a tremendous credit to Gladys that she has managed the virus with a sense of calmness and level headedness when other premiers in her position would have hit the panic button much earlier

Contrast this with Victoria who are in the process of rolling out face masks as part of a Covid Safe legislative framework that will be built into every business allowed to operate in Victoria as part of the new normal, and fall into OH&S regulations. You will be prohibited to enter or work in a work place without a face mask. And remember - face masks have no proven impact on preventing the spread, let alone when the state will be recording 5-10 cases a day

https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298

Im sure you'll have a way to squeeze your argument around the peer reviewed study mentioned in there but I do find it amusing that earlier you were espousing contact tracing as a perfectly valid alternative to lockdowns when faced with hundreds of cases a day despite zero evidence of that working anywhere in the world.  

First of all I never said contact tracing is an alternative to lockdowns. I said social distancing and hygiene are. If you have a hammer you dont need to use the end of your shoe
Secondly that link is not "new". It is something that has been known since day 1 and the foundation of everything we have already said

Lets say face masks stop 70% of molecules. You have 100 people on one side with the virus, 100 people on the other side with the virus. How many people get it?

The fools answer is 30. You take the 70% and apply it to the infection rate and thats the number of lives that could have been saved

The real answer is 0% or 100%. Either the virus is completely ineffective in bursts of 30% intensity meaning 0 people caught it, or 100 people caught it over 3 minutes instead of 1. So where is the science in applying percentage of molecule reduction to total real life social situations in which people have caught the virus? And this also ignores the blatantly obvious that air born molecules aren't the only way this virus can spread

Since you are a fan of simple numbers I'll illustrate what is happening with simple numbers. Lets say with no restrictions in place NSW will get 1000 infections:
. Quarantine may mean only 100 people can get infected
. Add isolation for sick people with a 50% compliance rate and 50 people can get it
. Add social distancing and hygiene with a 70% compliance rate and 15 people can get it

So where do face masks come in? Again, its the fools logic of applying a 70% molecule effective rate and thinking we are down to 5. But no. Not only that you are talking about a situation where somebody has already breached quarantine, not isolated when they are sick and with somebody where neither of them is practicing social distancing or hygiene for a sustained period of time. In other words the people who would have been saved by face masks have already been saved in greater numbers by a better system. Social distancing is the face mask which is why the recommendation by NSW is only use them when the proposed system is not viable. Do you think you get 14 cases in a state with the population size of NSW by accident?

Then you also have to think about the concept that people here cant grasp which is "tipping the scales":
. How many of those sick people will stay at home if people have to wear masks
. How many of those compliant with social distancing and hygiene practices would do so if they had to wear masks
. What is the impact on the social dynamics and therefore overall infection rates if more people meet at home to engage with each other on an emotional and meaningful level because there is no means of doing this in public

This is simple stuff that doesnt require speculation. Compare NSW to America. While America can claim that face masks will save those x% in lieu of a better system, NSW hosted a football grand final with 6,000 people in attendance. They are even pushing for fireworks because the system doesnt stop people from doing things, only devises means of doing them within the framework

Why fix a system that isnt broken? When Australia has a time tested and proven system that sees 14 cases a day in the most populous state, why risk breaking it just because people think we might be seeing 5 or 10 instead of 14 based on articles they read on the internet? This is just ignorance of the broader system. The whole reason we have gone for suppression instead of elimination is because chasing those last 5 or 10 cases risks tipping the scales, and it is undeniable we have a system in place for managing those inevitable numbers

I cant think of a single situation you'll be in where all else has failed but luckily you were both wearing masks and the x% molecule transfer rate was enough to render the encounter ineffective. When a lot of people have literally made their own protection it will be a situation that is little more than dumb luck. It really is a last resort if nothing else

If you want to wear a face mask, fine. Nobody is stopping you. That is your right. If it gives you comfort do it

But for the rest of us it is unnecessary and overkill (aside from front line staff as part of a broader package of tools). The cost of grasping at those last few infections has destroyed the way we can engage with each other in a meaningful and safe manner that you guys from other states clearly take for granted

I'm not going to keep forcing the point for people from other states who dont even practice what they are preaching who have this absurd logic that this scientific method they swear by is only effective for 20% of the population. So this is the last I am going to say on this manner

Non compliance is not an option because that only leads to a higher number of infections. Our life balance depends wholey and soley on the decision makers doing the right things by us. If face masks can't be proven to be decisive in our control of this virus then they shouldnt be a mandated part of it because all that does is punish the overwhelming majority of people who have done the right thing for the sake of those who havent

I like how you tell people not to judge, yet you judge others. For what it's worth, my family has been adhering to stage 4 lockdown levels of control since the start of the pandemic (only going out for grocery shopping, doctors/medication, exercise and supply runs to parents/in-laws). 

As for the effectiveness of face masks, here is a link to 70 studies: https://threader.app/thread/1279144399897866248 

Only 70?  Not conclusive.

my parents who are both 70 have done the same on advice from their GP. 

To say "we don't know what its like" is absolutely a poor attempt to shut us up.

There is a thing called infectious dose, less viral particles (and also a reduction in how far those particles are emitted) reduces the risk of infection. Yes it may not be 70% but at least 70 studies suggest that it has a significant effect.

Yes, that page is 2 months old. There're probably over a dozen more now :)

As mcjules also points out, facemasks reduce the viral load, so how sick you get is also reduced with masks. 

Two more weeks of level 4 in Melbourne, albeit with fewer restrictions.

The woman asking really leading accusative questions trying to get a gotcha comment from Andrews every day is Alex White from the Herald Sun.

I'm over her and the other journo trying to have their gotcha moments.  Theyre asking the same questions and dans not giving them anything and its passing them off

Realistically we won’t get into step 3 for months.
Basically until then it’s considered “lockdown” in my eyes.

Our economy will be decimated once we get to step 3 onwards.

Bravo to Victoria and Daniel Andrews to get under 50 cases today. Nearly there!

Proof that the restrictions are warranted and work despite the noisy conspiracy theorist fuckwits being egged on by sky news trying to destroy any progress. 

Sky news and murdoch would rather see cases go high so they can attack andreas for failing people during covid.listening to his daily pressers we can all see he is tired and stressed but he answers the questions every time and doesn't give an inch to alex 

if anyone thinks the modelling by Andrews is realistic, you need to read the below article. Select exerts below but link to full article is also included. 

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed

John P.A. Ioannidis¹, Sally Cripps², Martin A. Tanner³

COVID-19 is a major acute crisis with unpredictable consequences. Many scientists have struggled to make forecasts about its impact [1]. However, despite involving many excellent modelers, best intentions, and highly sophisticated tools, forecasting efforts have largely failed.

Experienced modelers drew early on parallels between COVID-19 and the Spanish flu [2] that caused >50 million deaths with mean age at death being 28. We all lament the current loss of life. However, as of June 8, total fatalities are ~410,000 with median age ~80 and typically multiple comorbidities.

Predictions for hospital and ICU bed requirements were also entirely misinforming. Public leaders trusted models (sometimes even black boxes without disclosed methodology) inferring massively overwhelmed health care capacity (Table 1) [3]. However, eventually very few hospitals were stressed, for a couple of weeks. Most hospitals maintained largely empty wards, waiting for tsunamis that never came. The general population was locked and placed in horror-alert to save the health system from collapsing. Tragically, many health systems faced major adverse consequences, not by COVID-19 cases overload, but for very different reasons. Patients with heart attacks avoided visiting hospitals for care [4], important treatments (e.g. for cancer) were unjustifiably delayed [5], mental health suffered [6].

Modeling resurgence after reopening also failed. E.g. a Massachusetts General Hospital model [9] predicted over 23,000 deaths within a month of Georgia reopening. The actual number was only 896.

Failure in epidemic forecasting is an old problem. In fact, it is surprising that epidemic forecasting has retained much credibility among decision-makers, given its dubious track record. Modeling for swine flu predicted 3,100-65,000 deaths in the UK [11]. Eventually only 457 deaths occurred [12]. The prediction for foot-and-mouth disease expected up to 150,000 deaths in the UK [13] and led to slaughtering millions of animals. However, the lower bound of the prediction was as low as only 50 deaths [13], a figure close to the eventual fatalities. Predictions may work in “ideal”, isolated communities with homogeneous populations, not the complex current global world.

Despite these obvious failures, epidemic forecasting continued to thrive, perhaps because vastly erroneous predictions typically lacked serious consequences. Actually, erroneous predictions may have been even useful. A wrong, doomsday prediction may incentivize people towards better personal hygiene. Problems starts when public leaders take (wrong) predictions too seriously, considering them crystal balls without understanding their uncertainty and the assumptions made. Slaughtering millions of animals in 2001 aggravated a few animal business stakeholders, most citizens were not directly affected. However, with COVID-19, espoused wrong predictions can devastate billions of people in terms of the economy, health, and societal turmoil at-large.

Blindly acting based on extreme value theory alone would be sensible if we lived in the times of the Antonine plague or even in 1890, with no science to identify the pathogen, elucidate its true prevalence, estimate accurately its lethality, and carry out good epidemiology to identify which people and settings are at risk.

Upon acquiring solid evidence about the epidemiological features of new outbreaks, implausible, exaggerated forecasts [19] should be abandoned. Otherwise, they may cause more harm than the virus itself.

https://forecasters.org/blog/2020/06/14/forecasting-for-covid-19-has-failed/

Say what you want about the Murdoch press, but the WHO also disagrees with Andrews lockdown approach. Also let the highlighted sentence sink in......

PRESS RELEASE: COVID-19 SEVERE LOCKDOWNS DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

ON AUGUST 1, 2020, WHO URGED COUNTRIES NOT TO REIMPOSE EXTENSIVE LOCKDOWNS IN AN ATTEMPT TO STEM THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 DUE TO THE GENERAL HEALTH, SOCIAL AND DRAMATIC ECONOMIC REPERCUSSIONS

The World Health Organisation Head of the Emerging Disease Unit, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, a noted epidemiologist, that assists with the WHO pandemic response team, describes the severe lockdowns as blunt, shear force instruments that are only used in the early stages to allow authorities time to establish the necessary public health infrastructure.

Dr Van Kerkhove stated that most advanced countries have tools right now that can prevent transmission and save lives, referencing measures including effective contact tracing, widespread testing, equipping health facilities, physical distancing and wearing face masks. Therefore severe lockdowns are no longer warranted.

Further, the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet, found that while full lockdowns and widespread testing reduced the number of infections (most mild or asymptomatic), they are not associated with reductions in the number of critical COVID-19 cases or mortality. This finding has been supported by numerous other peer-reviewed studies.

https://getthewordout.com.au/press-release/press-release-covid-19-severe-lockdowns-deemed-unnecessary-by-world-health-organisation/

I agree that forecasting is and will always be off. It’s a moving beast. We are better to be over prepared than under. I remember the Federal Government working to get resources/capacity in place by June (which I believe we have met).

I don’t think the WHO made any comments on full lockdown or not. They talks about managing response fatigue but also the need for sustained efforts. The main quote actually talks about people slipping back into another wave. Here is the quote:
 
"Many countries that believed they were past the worst are now grappling with new outbreaks. Some that were less affected in the earliest weeks are now seeing escalating numbers of cases and deaths. And some that had large outbreaks have brought them under control." 
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/01-08-2020-covid-19-emergency-committee-highlights-need-for-response-efforts-over-long-term

Which would be ok, except when those cases get into places like aged care lol.

Also that website didn't actually state which Lancet study they were referring too.

-PB

Here, try this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

Below is the extract from the findings, note last sentence:

Findings

Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97).

Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.

The quote I posted was from Dr Maria Van Kerkhove Head of the WHO’s Emerging Diseases Unit and Technical Lead for WHO's COVID response team so not sure you can dismiss her view as not being related to the WHO, particularly as she gave her opinion as a WHO representative.

Also the converse to your point is, there is no reference to the WHO recommending lockdowns as a suitable response to Covid anywhere at the moment either so you cant suggest they agree with Andrews.

I'm not dismissing her views but can you provide me with a link for her statement? Your article has no quotes from her. What I cited was the WHO press release from Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

I also agree with the converse point. WHO has not made any recommendations regarding lockdowns or not. Your claim is that WHO was anti-lockdown. I'm just saying that WHO didn't say that. 

I'll read the Lancet article in full later, but here is a complete extract of the findings, which seems to suggest increased patient recovery rates with full lockdowns and reduced country vulnerability (emphasis added):

Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.

That's the Lancet I read based off the dates of your article etc (there's a lot of Lancets out there on COVID atm).

Just like that article also states;

"There were a series of predictors with significant associations with the outcome variables that require careful interpretation. An increased scale of national testing was not associated with the number of critical cases, or deaths per million. The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."

-PB

Sorry, this is paywalled but below is link to article with her interview:

No more lockdowns, the price is too high, warns top WHO disease tracker

      

Dr Maria van Kerkhove says they never backed shutdowns, and now it’s time for localised strategies

   03 August 2020
Sarah Newey   

The World Health Organisation has urged countries not to reimpose national lockdowns in an attempt to stem the spread of Covid-19 due to social and economic repercussions.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, who helps lead the WHO’s pandemic response team as the head of the emerging diseases unit, said countries should instead adopt localised strategies.

By the end of March, as the outbreak spiralled out of control across the globe, well over 100 countries had imposed a full or partial lockdown, affecting billions of people. Van Kerkhove described these measures as a “blunt, sheer-force instrument” that bought countries time to build the infrastructure needed to tackle Covid-19. But reflecting on events since the WHO declared a global health emergency six months ago – when fewer than 8,000 cases and 170 deaths had been reported – she added that the economic, health and social costs of lockdown have been “massive”...


https://select.timeslive.co.za/world/2020-08-03-no-more-lockdowns-the-price-is-to-high-warns-top-who-disease-tracker/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1596426230

Bingo, direct fro the WHO itself: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---4-september-2020

    

WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 4 September 2020

     4 September 2020              

  

• Lockdowns are a blunt instrument, and with the right mix of targeted and tailored measures, further national lockdowns can be avoided. Several countries are using a data-driven approach to drive a targeted response.

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening.

Yesterday I had the honour of addressing foreign ministers from G20 countries.

The focus of the discussion was on how together we can reopen societies, economies and borders.

This is something WHO supports wholeheartedly.

Lockdowns are a blunt instrument that have taken a heavy toll in many countries.

With the right mix of targeted and tailored measures, further national lockdowns can be avoided.

Several countries are using a data-driven approach to drive a targeted response.

This is allowing them to open up carefully and safely, while remaining ready to respond rapidly to any new clusters or amplifying events.

Once again, I want to reiterate the four priorities we urge countries to focus on:

Prevent amplifying events.

Empower people to protect themselves and others.

Focus on the public health basics.

And protect the vulnerable, including older people and those with underlying conditions.

And again, direct from WHO Director General: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---21-august-2020

Several countries around the world are now experiencing fresh outbreaks after a long period with little or no transmission.

These countries are a cautionary tale for those that are now seeing a downward trend in cases.

Progress does not mean victory.

The fact remains that most people remain susceptible to this virus.

That’s why it’s vital that countries are able to quickly identify and prevent clusters, to prevent community transmission and the possibility of new restrictions.

No country can just ride this out until we have a vaccine.

A vaccine will be a vital tool, and we hope that we will have one as soon as possible.

But there’s no guarantee that we will, and even if we do have a vaccine, it won’t end the pandemic on its own.

We must all learn to control and manage this virus using the tools we have now, and to make the adjustments to our daily lives that are needed to keep ourselves and each other safe.

So-called lockdowns enabled many countries to suppress transmission and take the pressure off their health systems.

But lockdowns are not a long-term solution for any country.

We do not need to choose between lives and livelihoods, or between health and the economy. That’s a false choice.

Once again, these studies are only looking at the death rate and are not considering the potential  economic impacts over time if it turns out that COVID-19 causes long term or permanent health problems for a significant percentage of those who are infected.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext

You do realise this isnt a research paper, but just a call to do some research (ie there are no facts, just an idea).