|
Podiacide
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xhttps://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/1428917763335102468If you look at this Tweet by Dan Andrews talking about how cases in under 9's "terrify him" do you really think that: Parents wont demand they include under 12s in our vaccine targets? We wont have lockdowns when kids under 12 get infected? But nowhere in the world has approved the vaccine for under 12s and I cant see Australia vaccinating this age group by then. Kids under 12 should be part of the vaccination strategy however... kids under 12 are generally not roaming around on their own. They're therefore a little easier to track and trace. In a situation where their parents are vaccinated there's a greatly reduced chance of breakout spread. This means it's less likely that there will be statewide lockdowns. If case numbers in general are still low, I think there will however still be school closures and families forced into isolation (effectively localised lockdowns). Young children are less likely to get seriously ill and die but its not an impossibility, there has to be health measures still in place but they should allow us to work and socialise within reason. No one credible is saying everything ends at 80%, just that track and trace has a chance of working more effectively and eventually the focus will shift to looking at hospitalisations and deaths as a factor of deciding whether we do indeed need to lockdown again. You say that deaths for kids are not impossible. Well nothing is impossible but the risks are so small that it would be ridiculous to hold the rest of society hostage to such a low risk. How small is the risk: US: 430 children out of 72 million children and 650,000 total deaths nationwide. UK: 25 children out 12.7 million children and 130,000 total deaths nationwide. Over half of those child deaths were in children with serious pre-existing medical issues. And the deaths are far rarer the younger the children. I.e. the vast majority of those small number of child deaths are 12-16. The fear mongering by Dan Andrews and Other Premiers and their CHOs on this issue is insane and totally irresponsible. Its not "following the science". If we demand that under 12s be vaccinated then there will literally be more kids hospitalised and/or dying from the drive to the vaccination centre than hospitalised and/or dying from covid. And far more excess deaths in this age group from other illnesses. Let alone the mental health effects. If vaccinating under 12 kids for a one in a few million chance of an under 12 child dying means keeping sydney and melbourne in lockdowns for another few months then I dont think thats sustainable. For more information on the risk to kids here is a good thread by that well known right wing hack Leigh Sales: https://twitter.com/leighsales/status/1428931034108760066Vaccine supply for Adults will exceed demand by the end of October, maybe earlier in some states. Waiting for vaccines to be approved for under 12s in Australia and then rolled out will take far longer than that, there is far more hesitancy in parents vaccinating their children than there is hesistancy overall. Sydney and Melbourne will probably still be in lockdowns when the time comes when every adult who wants a vaccine can get one. For Sydney that would mean them being in lockdowns for nearly 5 months. The Doherty modelling and many other epidemiologists are saying that as long as numbers are low enough for track and trace, we can end lockdowns and most restrictions at 80%. There is no way that Australians in Sydney and melbourne will cop another few months in strict lockdowns waiting for us to get to these targets our Premiers keep telling us to aim for and then these leaders decide we have to stay in lockdowns. People in Sydney and Melbourne who are suffering severely from these lockdowns - those struggling with mental illness or lost their businesses/jobs or struggling with home schooling - they just cant keep living like this. They will be patient as we work towards these targets but its inhumane to keep us locked down if we are forced to wait extra months for people who dont want to get vaccinated and/or those whose risk of dying is extremely small (kids under 12). If Dan Andrews reneges on the 80% adult targets I will join the protests as a happily pro-vaccine citizen. If our vaccination rates get stuck in the 70% range due to higher than expected vaccine hesitancy I will join those protests too. And I think a lot more will join me and there wont be enough rubber bullets and tear gas to stop us all. We must stick with the science and that means stick with the adult targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x
The Delta strain is behaving in a different way to the original strain
Right. Which means the Australian template toolset has been tested including lockdown I will reiterate that I simply dont agree that COVID safe is no longer efficient. As I said, there have been hundreds of exposure sites for Delta with most turning up empty and only a small amount churning out a handful of cases. Clusters are few and far between. This isnt something that you get by accident. I find it puzzling that you can advocate for any old tokenistic attempt to cover a face as a means of curbing the spread, but then be critical of science backed time tested methods that have been proven beyond doubt to work
The evidence is this virus is more infectious in the body, but it doesnt behave differently outside the body. It doesnt mean the virus can now travel 2m instead of 1.5m. It doesnt mean the droplets are lighter and more prone to aerosol transmission but the original ones werent, or they are now a beast walking around as some would have you believe. It means less load is required for an infection. It means that before you could get away with standing next to somebody for 5 minutes wearing a mask where as now you cant. It means before tables of people in a restaurant could be seated next to each other indoors where as now they cant. It means before the average Joe could throw something on their face but now they need to either double mask or they need a lab grade one Social distancing and hygiene, which are mechanisms to avoid the virus, will always be relevant. What is being tested is systems of managing clusters of people where social distancing isnt possible I can only go by what the data says. The data says NSW has a history of non compliance. The data says NSW were 100% on top of the outbreak and the virus projection didnt change until after lockdown. The data says snap lockdowns didnt work for Victoria now 4 consecutive times in as many months, ditto for ACT and QLD even struggled there for a while
People have bought into the mentality that this will be over with a snap lockdown because its better than living with the reality there is no easy answer. NSW have disproven the efficiency of simply throwing in a lockdown and hoping for the best so now people are trying to prove they didnt actually have a lockdown. Even though QLD's was LGA only. Even though Vic didnt introduce a ring of steel. McGowan even tried to claim regional NSW didnt have face mask laws early on
If lockdown didnt work, if face masks dont work, or if people needed more social options to balance out their days, I would have thought identifying these things would be beneficial. The system of telling us what works and then claiming things could have been worse has gotten us into a mess nobody wants to be going through right now. I'll leave things at that I think there are a combinations of things that need to come in for it to work. There are definitely leaks in our system if things are getting out - so COVID safe is not full proof (I don't think you are advocating that but it just reinforces the fact that we should probably throw in things like masks to improve on it). Based on the data in your article, it seems to suggest otherwise. NSW Health was saying non-compliance was only in 100 instances (out of around 4800). There is no easy answer but lockdowns worked in NSW in Christmas last year as well. Gladys had the choice of locking down 1 week earlier but didn't - I suspect she wanted to wait until the school holidays and that 1 week delay has blown up. This is how exponential growth works. What has been a failure is communication by government as well. This whole "Gold Standard" narrative made people complacent and now the Government are in retreat when it comes to messaging. You seem to think that throwing on more layers of protection will only have a positive impact. Why not just use the minimal to get the job done like every other profession or industry? This notion that 50 restrictions is better than 5 is flawed. There has to come a point where there is an acceptance that a system will only be 95% efficient and each new layer added doesnt actually contribute anything. There is also a point where each layer added actually has a negative impact Why have every single (eligible) person state wide wearing masks at all times for months on end when there isnt a shred of science that shows any old face covering can trick this highly infectious variant? It is a contradiction of expectation, and its also at a time when you are already asking them to give up so much. Nobody should be within 1.5 meters of another person and thats what systems should ensure. During the first lockdown public transport had tape to ensure there was one passenger per seat. Now its open slather but yay we have masks, and are also trying to condense congestion into an 8 hour window. FFS You know we only have face masks because health officials want them and they'll find any excuse to roll them out. You say there was a "one week delay in response". No. There wasnt. Face masks were rolled out within the first 24 hours and when that didnt work the time frame was extended from 1 week to 2 weeks, and then to wider geography. Pointless restrictions will always be pointless and if you think this was lost in the first 7 days (which I dont) then you shouldnt think it wise to piss away valuable time and resources rolling out unnecessary restrictions The other thing I highlighted is you say non compliance is only 100 cases (even though this was an estimate and there is a gap and data) but then you explain how critical exponential growth is. 100 instances of non compliance isnt 100 cases, its an exponential number of household infections and then work places that otherwise wouldnt have been infected People pro lockdown will always claim that NSW didnt lockdown, or it wasnt hard enough, or it wasnt fast enough. Victoria recorded over 60 cases today for the 4th consecutive day despite the new outbreak pretty much occuring during lockdown conditions and NSW are recording over 800 cases a day. This is a complex problem that requires a targeted solution. People were sold on the idea of snap lockdowns (and face masks) because its a quick and easy solution and thats what they want. They will argue and attack anything that suggests otherwise
The bottom line is this: You have a look at how NSW was faced with an outbreak of the most contagious variant and their official response for the first 4 days was face masks. Pointless restrictions are the problem and its not something that can be resolved with more pointless restrictions. Other countries have only done what they believe is the minimal to stop hospital systems being overrun and its time we followed suit Agree that it's complicated and it is not as simple as lockdown. It's funny how in one breath you say NSW's first 4 days was face masks, then immediately say that restrictions are not enough. We could have locked down early and it could have been targeted - they could have focused on the eastern suburbs - but Glady's didn't want to do that and now its probably too late. Right now, the only real option is to maintain lockdowns and push vaccinations. This is a terrible outcome. Opening up would only lead to things spiralling even faster.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThe hubris shown by multiple levels of Aus government on this topic is astounding, and as much as the Premiers like to throw crap at Morrison and his vaccine stroll out, didnt see any of them expressing any urgency or concern earlier in the pandemic, Fark I even remember they stopped having regular national cabinet meetings because they had nothing to talk about, must have been too busy patting themselves on the back for doughnut days. Now that lockdowns dont have the same effect the stress you see is palpable, you could see the frustration at Dictator Dans presser today, its clear his lockdown isnt working as numbers are going up and he is now threatening even tougher restrictions to bring this under control. I really thought he was going to blow a gasket at one stage but for a well known control freak it must be difficult for him watching this slowly get away from him, wonder if Gladys will return any of the jibes he has been happy to throw her way, Next few months will be telling, but one thing for sure is we aint getting out of lockdown anytime soon The reason lockdowns aren't working is we need to lockdown harder. It might have some negative side effects in terms of the economy, mental health, alcohol abuse, suicide rates and stuff like that but as Karen and Ken say, if it saves just one life then it doesn't matter how many lives it costs. If people would just do as they're told we would have had months of consecutive donut days by now... Out of interest what exactly is your take on how we get out of this? What do we do exactly when hospitals are so chock full of people dying from COVID that regular patients can't be treated? You seem so concerned about mental health (just like every other conservative apparently is all of a sudden) yet that concern doesn't extend to the potential outcomes of those involved in car accidents, worksite accidents or other health emergencies? For starters, I lean libertarian more than conservative. Secondly (as I have said previously) I have taken part in (and fundraised) for Movember since 2014. As a business owner, I also regularly talk about mindset and wellbeing (even though it isn't specifically my industry). So the suggestion that I'm simply using mental health as a rhetorical bludgeon to beat "the other side with" at short notice is incorrect. I've also maintained that this is not a black and white solution- where we either replicate Dan Andrews' Victoria or shrug and "let it rip". There are shades of grey in between. The NSW government in the last few days re-classifying the Illawarra and Central Coast as regions rather than Greater Sydney is a step in the right direction. The recent talk from NSW about learning to live with COVID and being prepared to open back up when certain vaccine targets are met is also promising- provided they stick to their word, that will win back support they've lost in more recent weeks as well. And if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that lockdowns or curfews are the best solution in the "hot spot" areas then people for the most part can get on board with that. But when those in power apply harsh restrictions and a broad brush approach to entire regions with virtually no cases, and the reward millions of people get for making sacrifices daily and "doing the right thing" is the same grim-faced press conferences from their state leaders with no real exit plan, protests like the ones seen today are the end result of that. I'm concerned about how long the lockdowns can go for. With the extension to September, that means it will be 14 weeks. I'm not sure people have adequate income support to sustain all this. I can see why people would want to protest. I mean everyone is frustrated, but many are certainly at and beyond breaking point. I agree protests now are not helpful and many of the crowds yesterday are misfits and anti-vaxxers. But there are also a lot of people really suffering. The police had to actually close the Foodbank at yarraville on Friday because the 2km line was causing traffic issues. 2km line!!!! As I've stated previously, once the fully vaxxed mask wearing people join these protests and others see the protestors arent all nutters then there will be very big protests. Especially in those states that move the goal posts and are likely to open up months after NSW. Especially if we keep having extreme lockdowns like we are having in Melbourne. Yup. This is messed up. Not sure when the tipping point is, but the vaccinated/mask wearing crowd will certainly start to feel this too.
|
|
|
|
|
Podiacide
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
NSW now vaccinating at rates far higher than the UK or US ever got to, around 6% of their population per week getting a dose and they think they'll go faster than that in next few weeks. https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1429011013316145152If NSW hits its vaccine targets more than a month before some other states there will be citizens in those states asking why they've been so slow. Particularly Victoria. The Victorian press conferences need to be now focused more on Vaccine numbers than case numbers. And Journos at the presser need to start asking why NSW is vaccinating their citizens at nearly twice the rate of Victoria.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xhttps://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/1428917763335102468If you look at this Tweet by Dan Andrews talking about how cases in under 9's "terrify him" do you really think that: Parents wont demand they include under 12s in our vaccine targets? We wont have lockdowns when kids under 12 get infected? But nowhere in the world has approved the vaccine for under 12s and I cant see Australia vaccinating this age group by then. Kids under 12 should be part of the vaccination strategy however... kids under 12 are generally not roaming around on their own. They're therefore a little easier to track and trace. In a situation where their parents are vaccinated there's a greatly reduced chance of breakout spread. This means it's less likely that there will be statewide lockdowns. If case numbers in general are still low, I think there will however still be school closures and families forced into isolation (effectively localised lockdowns). Young children are less likely to get seriously ill and die but its not an impossibility, there has to be health measures still in place but they should allow us to work and socialise within reason. No one credible is saying everything ends at 80%, just that track and trace has a chance of working more effectively and eventually the focus will shift to looking at hospitalisations and deaths as a factor of deciding whether we do indeed need to lockdown again. You say that deaths for kids are not impossible. Well nothing is impossible but the risks are so small that it would be ridiculous to hold the rest of society hostage to such a low risk. How small is the risk: US: 430 children out of 72 million children and 650,000 total deaths nationwide. UK: 25 children out 12.7 million children and 130,000 total deaths nationwide. Over half of those child deaths were in children with serious pre-existing medical issues. And the deaths are far rarer the younger the children. I.e. the vast majority of those small number of child deaths are 12-16. The fear mongering by Dan Andrews and Other Premiers and their CHOs on this issue is insane and totally irresponsible. Its not "following the science". If we demand that under 12s be vaccinated then there will literally be more kids hospitalised and/or dying from the drive to the vaccination centre than hospitalised and/or dying from covid. And far more excess deaths in this age group from other illnesses. Let alone the mental health effects. If vaccinating under 12 kids for a one in a few million chance of an under 12 child dying means keeping sydney and melbourne in lockdowns for another few months then I dont think thats sustainable. For more information on the risk to kids here is a good thread by that well known right wing hack Leigh Sales: https://twitter.com/leighsales/status/1428931034108760066Vaccine supply for Adults will exceed demand by the end of October, maybe earlier in some states. Waiting for vaccines to be approved for under 12s in Australia and then rolled out will take far longer than that, there is far more hesitancy in parents vaccinating their children than there is hesistancy overall. Sydney and Melbourne will probably still be in lockdowns when the time comes when every adult who wants a vaccine can get one. For Sydney that would mean them being in lockdowns for nearly 5 months. The Doherty modelling and many other epidemiologists are saying that as long as numbers are low enough for track and trace, we can end lockdowns and most restrictions at 80%. There is no way that Australians in Sydney and melbourne will cop another few months in strict lockdowns waiting for us to get to these targets our Premiers keep telling us to aim for and then these leaders decide we have to stay in lockdowns. People in Sydney and Melbourne who are suffering severely from these lockdowns - those struggling with mental illness or lost their businesses/jobs or struggling with home schooling - they just cant keep living like this. They will be patient as we work towards these targets but its inhumane to keep us locked down if we are forced to wait extra months for people who dont want to get vaccinated and/or those whose risk of dying is extremely small (kids under 12). If Dan Andrews reneges on the 80% adult targets I will join the protests as a happily pro-vaccine citizen. If our vaccination rates get stuck in the 70% range due to higher than expected vaccine hesitancy I will join those protests too. And I think a lot more will join me and there wont be enough rubber bullets and tear gas to stop us all. We must stick with the science and that means stick with the adult targets. Some analysis from QLD Health about children - https://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/blog-covid-19-and-kids-what-you-need-to-know/
Serious illness remains extremely rare in children. While there are reports of higher rates of child deaths in some countries, a population-based analysis of 12 million children in the UK in 2020 found 1 in 50,000 children experienced a critical illness, and the rate of death related to COVID-19 was 2 per million children. In comparison, about one half of all adults with critical illness (predominantly elderly people with chronic conditions) have died. Say there are 5m kids in Australia, extrapolating those figures, maybe 100 with critical illness and 5 fatalities. What I'm not sure about is hospitalisation and the pressure that would be put in place there. Seems to say 10% for babies will need to go to hospital, but that is similar to other winter viruses. The latest published data suggests infants are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19 compared to young children, but with a similar risk to adolescents. Approximately 10% of babies appear to need admission to hospital to receive oxygen, in a similar way to other winter viruses. These are important and serious infections, but these babies almost all recover without needing support from intensive care. This is very different to the experience in the elderly, particularly those with existing health problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNSW now vaccinating at rates far higher than the UK or US ever got to, around 6% of their population per week getting a dose and they think they'll go faster than that in next few weeks. https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1429011013316145152If NSW hits its vaccine targets more than a month before some other states there will be citizens in those states asking why they've been so slow. Particularly Victoria. The Victorian press conferences need to be now focused more on Vaccine numbers than case numbers. And Journos at the presser need to start asking why NSW is vaccinating their citizens at nearly twice the rate of Victoria. NSW and Tasmania will be the first stages to be fully vaccinated and WA will trail (but up to a month). Assuming nothing tapers off, NSW will get there by mid-November and WA will be there by mid-December. The argument will be NSW were diverted with more resources/vaccines first. Prior to the current outbreak, Victoria was well ahead of NSW in terms of the roll out. So Victoria might pick up the pace now. Even if NSW gets to 80% by mid-November, I don't think they will open shop straight away. It will be 1-2 weeks before they relax things imo (a staggered approach). WA can also say they want to wait and see - so that would mean a few weeks too. The real question is why didn't we vaccinate at the current pace at the start (nationally)? We were two months behind in our vaccine rollout and our position would be much different if we had the same vaccination rates two months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x
The Delta strain is behaving in a different way to the original strain
Right. Which means the Australian template toolset has been tested including lockdown I will reiterate that I simply dont agree that COVID safe is no longer efficient. As I said, there have been hundreds of exposure sites for Delta with most turning up empty and only a small amount churning out a handful of cases. Clusters are few and far between. This isnt something that you get by accident. I find it puzzling that you can advocate for any old tokenistic attempt to cover a face as a means of curbing the spread, but then be critical of science backed time tested methods that have been proven beyond doubt to work
The evidence is this virus is more infectious in the body, but it doesnt behave differently outside the body. It doesnt mean the virus can now travel 2m instead of 1.5m. It doesnt mean the droplets are lighter and more prone to aerosol transmission but the original ones werent, or they are now a beast walking around as some would have you believe. It means less load is required for an infection. It means that before you could get away with standing next to somebody for 5 minutes wearing a mask where as now you cant. It means before tables of people in a restaurant could be seated next to each other indoors where as now they cant. It means before the average Joe could throw something on their face but now they need to either double mask or they need a lab grade one Social distancing and hygiene, which are mechanisms to avoid the virus, will always be relevant. What is being tested is systems of managing clusters of people where social distancing isnt possible I can only go by what the data says. The data says NSW has a history of non compliance. The data says NSW were 100% on top of the outbreak and the virus projection didnt change until after lockdown. The data says snap lockdowns didnt work for Victoria now 4 consecutive times in as many months, ditto for ACT and QLD even struggled there for a while
People have bought into the mentality that this will be over with a snap lockdown because its better than living with the reality there is no easy answer. NSW have disproven the efficiency of simply throwing in a lockdown and hoping for the best so now people are trying to prove they didnt actually have a lockdown. Even though QLD's was LGA only. Even though Vic didnt introduce a ring of steel. McGowan even tried to claim regional NSW didnt have face mask laws early on
If lockdown didnt work, if face masks dont work, or if people needed more social options to balance out their days, I would have thought identifying these things would be beneficial. The system of telling us what works and then claiming things could have been worse has gotten us into a mess nobody wants to be going through right now. I'll leave things at that I think there are a combinations of things that need to come in for it to work. There are definitely leaks in our system if things are getting out - so COVID safe is not full proof (I don't think you are advocating that but it just reinforces the fact that we should probably throw in things like masks to improve on it). Based on the data in your article, it seems to suggest otherwise. NSW Health was saying non-compliance was only in 100 instances (out of around 4800). There is no easy answer but lockdowns worked in NSW in Christmas last year as well. Gladys had the choice of locking down 1 week earlier but didn't - I suspect she wanted to wait until the school holidays and that 1 week delay has blown up. This is how exponential growth works. What has been a failure is communication by government as well. This whole "Gold Standard" narrative made people complacent and now the Government are in retreat when it comes to messaging. You seem to think that throwing on more layers of protection will only have a positive impact. Why not just use the minimal to get the job done like every other profession or industry? This notion that 50 restrictions is better than 5 is flawed. There has to come a point where there is an acceptance that a system will only be 95% efficient and each new layer added doesnt actually contribute anything. There is also a point where each layer added actually has a negative impact Why have every single (eligible) person state wide wearing masks at all times for months on end when there isnt a shred of science that shows any old face covering can trick this highly infectious variant? It is a contradiction of expectation, and its also at a time when you are already asking them to give up so much. Nobody should be within 1.5 meters of another person and thats what systems should ensure. During the first lockdown public transport had tape to ensure there was one passenger per seat. Now its open slather but yay we have masks, and are also trying to condense congestion into an 8 hour window. FFS You know we only have face masks because health officials want them and they'll find any excuse to roll them out. You say there was a "one week delay in response". No. There wasnt. Face masks were rolled out within the first 24 hours and when that didnt work the time frame was extended from 1 week to 2 weeks, and then to wider geography. Pointless restrictions will always be pointless and if you think this was lost in the first 7 days (which I dont) then you shouldnt think it wise to piss away valuable time and resources rolling out unnecessary restrictions The other thing I highlighted is you say non compliance is only 100 cases (even though this was an estimate and there is a gap and data) but then you explain how critical exponential growth is. 100 instances of non compliance isnt 100 cases, its an exponential number of household infections and then work places that otherwise wouldnt have been infected People pro lockdown will always claim that NSW didnt lockdown, or it wasnt hard enough, or it wasnt fast enough. Victoria recorded over 60 cases today for the 4th consecutive day despite the new outbreak pretty much occuring during lockdown conditions and NSW are recording over 800 cases a day. This is a complex problem that requires a targeted solution. People were sold on the idea of snap lockdowns (and face masks) because its a quick and easy solution and thats what they want. They will argue and attack anything that suggests otherwise
The bottom line is this: You have a look at how NSW was faced with an outbreak of the most contagious variant and their official response for the first 4 days was face masks. Pointless restrictions are the problem and its not something that can be resolved with more pointless restrictions. Other countries have only done what they believe is the minimal to stop hospital systems being overrun and its time we followed suit Agree that it's complicated and it is not as simple as lockdown. It's funny how in one breath you say NSW's first 4 days was face masks, then immediately say that restrictions are not enough. We could have locked down early and it could have been targeted - they could have focused on the eastern suburbs - but Glady's didn't want to do that and now its probably too late. Right now, the only real option is to maintain lockdowns and push vaccinations. This is a terrible outcome. Opening up would only lead to things spiralling even faster. The face mask response was the stock standard joke response by health officials. They have been pushing and pushing and pushing face masks and every opportunity they have to enforce them is something they'll go for. The 1 week of masks wasn't NSW's real response which is why I said I dont believe 7 days was too late. Health officials saw an opportunity and took it. People mistook it for the response which would have still been tabled and discussed This virus is not 24 hours no cases, 25 hours America. Thats just ridiculous. There is always time to trend numbers downwards. Always. Australia let 4500 cases into the country and trended that downwards over a 4 week period. Victoria today are at 60 cases but nobody is saying they are now doomed for 800 a day. To say NSW lost this in the first 7 days isnt true NSW's response wasnt "too late". It was calculated. They like to make sure they have all the data and have reviewed all the options before throwing millions of people into lockdown. Something the other states should do. As I said, WA lost tens of millions over a preemptive lockdown that came to nothing. This isnt a game. NSW should be praised for taking time to find out where the virus is before implementing options not criticised. But for that to happen people have to believe that 7 days is not too late, particularly when cases might not even manifest for 3 weeks The response could have been targeted like last year but instead it was template. It was done under the notion of "lockdown hard and early like QLD and the virus disappears" which to me suggests their hand was forced by political pressure (and there is no doubt in my mind NSW have started to cave into political pressure). Now those same people are distancing themselves by claiming it wasnt a lockdown. The issue wasnt that the lockdown was too late. The issue was that the lockdown was too template. They had a gold standard game plan and they threw it away to silence the critics and now those critics have walked away whistling And I agree with your last sentence. I am not nor have I ever said NSW should open up to trend numbers downwards. Its long been too late for that. What I am saying is what they should have done. There is no data to support opening up to curb numbers. NSW are left with the same option Victoria were last year - ride it out (I have already predicted they have reached the peak of the wave). My message is for the next lockdown or the one after or the one after. Dont live by the notion that we can go hard, eliminate the outbreak, and then move on. The system in place today is the system in place for the next 6 to 12 months at least
|
|
|
|
|
Podiacide
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNSW now vaccinating at rates far higher than the UK or US ever got to, around 6% of their population per week getting a dose and they think they'll go faster than that in next few weeks. https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1429011013316145152If NSW hits its vaccine targets more than a month before some other states there will be citizens in those states asking why they've been so slow. Particularly Victoria. The Victorian press conferences need to be now focused more on Vaccine numbers than case numbers. And Journos at the presser need to start asking why NSW is vaccinating their citizens at nearly twice the rate of Victoria. NSW and Tasmania will be the first stages to be fully vaccinated and WA will trail (but up to a month). Assuming nothing tapers off, NSW will get there by mid-November and WA will be there by mid-December. The argument will be NSW were diverted with more resources/vaccines first. Prior to the current outbreak, Victoria was well ahead of NSW in terms of the roll out. So Victoria might pick up the pace now. Even if NSW gets to 80% by mid-November, I don't think they will open shop straight away. It will be 1-2 weeks before they relax things imo (a staggered approach). WA can also say they want to wait and see - so that would mean a few weeks too. The real question is why didn't we vaccinate at the current pace at the start (nationally)? We were two months behind in our vaccine rollout and our position would be much different if we had the same vaccination rates two months ago. Well of course this all depends on how many adults in NSW actually want to get vaccinated. They will get to 70% first dose next week. But lets assume the next 10% is much slower but the actual amount of vaccines being done by NSW keeps up at normal levels. Covidlive.com.au is saying it will be 64 days to get to 70% fully vaccinated based on current 7 day average which is late October but once NSW hits first dose ceiling, most of their doses will be 2nd doses and that date range will come in significantly. So I'm still thinking it will be October. Isnt the reduction in transmission about 30-35% for first doses? While it takes a week or two for those effects to kick in, having 58% of NSW having first doses and case rates still going up exponentially is a worry. So just say we do get to 75% fully vaxxed and NSW is stuck at having 500 to 1000 cases per day which means lockdowns - we are seeing those rates in other countries with those vaccnation rates. Do they stay in lockdowns? Victorian 2nd wave 0% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 24 / 4.2% Current NSW outbreak 30% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 163 / 0.6% UK delta75% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 319 / 0.3% Israel delta78% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 310 / 0.3%
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Troisi reposting a One Nation Senator's video praising the lockdown protesters on his insta, can't wait to boo him.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
You don’t even have to scratch far under the surface to see the faceless organises of it are white supremacists using it as a back door to sow discord and suck up followers.
A bizarre mix of wellness types, religious loonies, gym bros and neo nazis.
So no surprises One Nation back it.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xNSW now vaccinating at rates far higher than the UK or US ever got to, around 6% of their population per week getting a dose and they think they'll go faster than that in next few weeks. https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1429011013316145152If NSW hits its vaccine targets more than a month before some other states there will be citizens in those states asking why they've been so slow. Particularly Victoria. The Victorian press conferences need to be now focused more on Vaccine numbers than case numbers. And Journos at the presser need to start asking why NSW is vaccinating their citizens at nearly twice the rate of Victoria. NSW and Tasmania will be the first stages to be fully vaccinated and WA will trail (but up to a month). Assuming nothing tapers off, NSW will get there by mid-November and WA will be there by mid-December. The argument will be NSW were diverted with more resources/vaccines first. Prior to the current outbreak, Victoria was well ahead of NSW in terms of the roll out. So Victoria might pick up the pace now. Even if NSW gets to 80% by mid-November, I don't think they will open shop straight away. It will be 1-2 weeks before they relax things imo (a staggered approach). WA can also say they want to wait and see - so that would mean a few weeks too. The real question is why didn't we vaccinate at the current pace at the start (nationally)? We were two months behind in our vaccine rollout and our position would be much different if we had the same vaccination rates two months ago. Well of course this all depends on how many adults in NSW actually want to get vaccinated. They will get to 70% first dose next week. But lets assume the next 10% is much slower but the actual amount of vaccines being done by NSW keeps up at normal levels. Covidlive.com.au is saying it will be 64 days to get to 70% fully vaccinated based on current 7 day average which is late October but once NSW hits first dose ceiling, most of their doses will be 2nd doses and that date range will come in significantly. So I'm still thinking it will be October. Isnt the reduction in transmission about 30-35% for first doses? While it takes a week or two for those effects to kick in, having 58% of NSW having first doses and case rates still going up exponentially is a worry. So just say we do get to 75% fully vaxxed and NSW is stuck at having 500 to 1000 cases per day which means lockdowns - we are seeing those rates in other countries with those vaccnation rates. Do they stay in lockdowns?Victorian 2nd wave 0% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 24 / 4.2% Current NSW outbreak 30% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 163 / 0.6% UK delta75% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 319 / 0.3% Israel delta78% vaccination Mortality rate 1 in 310 / 0.3% This is where I hope everyone becomes sensible enough to switch the focus to hospitalisations. At 75%, you'd imagine everyone has been given the chance to get vaccinated. I'm worried that the remaining 25% can still overwhelm the hospital system. Maybe there should be an opt out - if you don't want to get vaccinated, then you agree that you don't need to use the hospital system or an ICU bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x
The Delta strain is behaving in a different way to the original strain
Right. Which means the Australian template toolset has been tested including lockdown I will reiterate that I simply dont agree that COVID safe is no longer efficient. As I said, there have been hundreds of exposure sites for Delta with most turning up empty and only a small amount churning out a handful of cases. Clusters are few and far between. This isnt something that you get by accident. I find it puzzling that you can advocate for any old tokenistic attempt to cover a face as a means of curbing the spread, but then be critical of science backed time tested methods that have been proven beyond doubt to work
The evidence is this virus is more infectious in the body, but it doesnt behave differently outside the body. It doesnt mean the virus can now travel 2m instead of 1.5m. It doesnt mean the droplets are lighter and more prone to aerosol transmission but the original ones werent, or they are now a beast walking around as some would have you believe. It means less load is required for an infection. It means that before you could get away with standing next to somebody for 5 minutes wearing a mask where as now you cant. It means before tables of people in a restaurant could be seated next to each other indoors where as now they cant. It means before the average Joe could throw something on their face but now they need to either double mask or they need a lab grade one Social distancing and hygiene, which are mechanisms to avoid the virus, will always be relevant. What is being tested is systems of managing clusters of people where social distancing isnt possible I can only go by what the data says. The data says NSW has a history of non compliance. The data says NSW were 100% on top of the outbreak and the virus projection didnt change until after lockdown. The data says snap lockdowns didnt work for Victoria now 4 consecutive times in as many months, ditto for ACT and QLD even struggled there for a while
People have bought into the mentality that this will be over with a snap lockdown because its better than living with the reality there is no easy answer. NSW have disproven the efficiency of simply throwing in a lockdown and hoping for the best so now people are trying to prove they didnt actually have a lockdown. Even though QLD's was LGA only. Even though Vic didnt introduce a ring of steel. McGowan even tried to claim regional NSW didnt have face mask laws early on
If lockdown didnt work, if face masks dont work, or if people needed more social options to balance out their days, I would have thought identifying these things would be beneficial. The system of telling us what works and then claiming things could have been worse has gotten us into a mess nobody wants to be going through right now. I'll leave things at that I think there are a combinations of things that need to come in for it to work. There are definitely leaks in our system if things are getting out - so COVID safe is not full proof (I don't think you are advocating that but it just reinforces the fact that we should probably throw in things like masks to improve on it). Based on the data in your article, it seems to suggest otherwise. NSW Health was saying non-compliance was only in 100 instances (out of around 4800). There is no easy answer but lockdowns worked in NSW in Christmas last year as well. Gladys had the choice of locking down 1 week earlier but didn't - I suspect she wanted to wait until the school holidays and that 1 week delay has blown up. This is how exponential growth works. What has been a failure is communication by government as well. This whole "Gold Standard" narrative made people complacent and now the Government are in retreat when it comes to messaging. You seem to think that throwing on more layers of protection will only have a positive impact. Why not just use the minimal to get the job done like every other profession or industry? This notion that 50 restrictions is better than 5 is flawed. There has to come a point where there is an acceptance that a system will only be 95% efficient and each new layer added doesnt actually contribute anything. There is also a point where each layer added actually has a negative impact Why have every single (eligible) person state wide wearing masks at all times for months on end when there isnt a shred of science that shows any old face covering can trick this highly infectious variant? It is a contradiction of expectation, and its also at a time when you are already asking them to give up so much. Nobody should be within 1.5 meters of another person and thats what systems should ensure. During the first lockdown public transport had tape to ensure there was one passenger per seat. Now its open slather but yay we have masks, and are also trying to condense congestion into an 8 hour window. FFS You know we only have face masks because health officials want them and they'll find any excuse to roll them out. You say there was a "one week delay in response". No. There wasnt. Face masks were rolled out within the first 24 hours and when that didnt work the time frame was extended from 1 week to 2 weeks, and then to wider geography. Pointless restrictions will always be pointless and if you think this was lost in the first 7 days (which I dont) then you shouldnt think it wise to piss away valuable time and resources rolling out unnecessary restrictions The other thing I highlighted is you say non compliance is only 100 cases (even though this was an estimate and there is a gap and data) but then you explain how critical exponential growth is. 100 instances of non compliance isnt 100 cases, its an exponential number of household infections and then work places that otherwise wouldnt have been infected People pro lockdown will always claim that NSW didnt lockdown, or it wasnt hard enough, or it wasnt fast enough. Victoria recorded over 60 cases today for the 4th consecutive day despite the new outbreak pretty much occuring during lockdown conditions and NSW are recording over 800 cases a day. This is a complex problem that requires a targeted solution. People were sold on the idea of snap lockdowns (and face masks) because its a quick and easy solution and thats what they want. They will argue and attack anything that suggests otherwise
The bottom line is this: You have a look at how NSW was faced with an outbreak of the most contagious variant and their official response for the first 4 days was face masks. Pointless restrictions are the problem and its not something that can be resolved with more pointless restrictions. Other countries have only done what they believe is the minimal to stop hospital systems being overrun and its time we followed suit Agree that it's complicated and it is not as simple as lockdown. It's funny how in one breath you say NSW's first 4 days was face masks, then immediately say that restrictions are not enough. We could have locked down early and it could have been targeted - they could have focused on the eastern suburbs - but Glady's didn't want to do that and now its probably too late. Right now, the only real option is to maintain lockdowns and push vaccinations. This is a terrible outcome. Opening up would only lead to things spiralling even faster. The face mask response was the stock standard joke response by health officials. They have been pushing and pushing and pushing face masks and every opportunity they have to enforce them is something they'll go for. The 1 week of masks wasn't NSW's real response which is why I said I dont believe 7 days was too late. Health officials saw an opportunity and took it. People mistook it for the response which would have still been tabled and discussed This virus is not 24 hours no cases, 25 hours America. Thats just ridiculous. There is always time to trend numbers downwards. Always. Australia let 4500 cases into the country and trended that downwards over a 4 week period. Victoria today are at 60 cases but nobody is saying they are now doomed for 800 a day. To say NSW lost this in the first 7 days isnt true NSW's response wasnt "too late". It was calculated. They like to make sure they have all the data and have reviewed all the options before throwing millions of people into lockdown. Something the other states should do. As I said, WA lost tens of millions over a preemptive lockdown that came to nothing. This isnt a game. NSW should be praised for taking time to find out where the virus is before implementing options not criticised. But for that to happen people have to believe that 7 days is not too late, particularly when cases might not even manifest for 3 weeks The response could have been targeted like last year but instead it was template. It was done under the notion of "lockdown hard and early like QLD and the virus disappears" which to me suggests their hand was forced by political pressure (and there is no doubt in my mind NSW have started to cave into political pressure). Now those same people are distancing themselves by claiming it wasnt a lockdown. The issue wasnt that the lockdown was too late. The issue was that the lockdown was too template. They had a gold standard game plan and they threw it away to silence the critics and now those critics have walked away whistling And I agree with your last sentence. I am not nor have I ever said NSW should open up to trend numbers downwards. Its long been too late for that. What I am saying is what they should have done. There is no data to support opening up to curb numbers. NSW are left with the same option Victoria were last year - ride it out (I have already predicted they have reached the peak of the wave). My message is for the next lockdown or the one after or the one after. Dont live by the notion that we can go hard, eliminate the outbreak, and then move on. The system in place today is the system in place for the next 6 to 12 months at least I'd say NSW's response was miscalculated. If they took a focused lockdown approach on the East (similar to December last year), I don't think the rest of Sydney would have to suffer for it. They thought they could contain it with contact tracing alone believing that it was the same as the Alpha. I also think and hope the numbers will trend down. My guess is a mid-September peak with maybe 2k cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe hubris shown by multiple levels of Aus government on this topic is astounding, and as much as the Premiers like to throw crap at Morrison and his vaccine stroll out, didnt see any of them expressing any urgency or concern earlier in the pandemic, Fark I even remember they stopped having regular national cabinet meetings because they had nothing to talk about, must have been too busy patting themselves on the back for doughnut days. Now that lockdowns dont have the same effect the stress you see is palpable, you could see the frustration at Dictator Dans presser today, its clear his lockdown isnt working as numbers are going up and he is now threatening even tougher restrictions to bring this under control. I really thought he was going to blow a gasket at one stage but for a well known control freak it must be difficult for him watching this slowly get away from him, wonder if Gladys will return any of the jibes he has been happy to throw her way, Next few months will be telling, but one thing for sure is we aint getting out of lockdown anytime soon The reason lockdowns aren't working is we need to lockdown harder. It might have some negative side effects in terms of the economy, mental health, alcohol abuse, suicide rates and stuff like that but as Karen and Ken say, if it saves just one life then it doesn't matter how many lives it costs. If people would just do as they're told we would have had months of consecutive donut days by now... Out of interest what exactly is your take on how we get out of this? What do we do exactly when hospitals are so chock full of people dying from COVID that regular patients can't be treated? You seem so concerned about mental health (just like every other conservative apparently is all of a sudden) yet that concern doesn't extend to the potential outcomes of those involved in car accidents, worksite accidents or other health emergencies? For starters, I lean libertarian more than conservative. Secondly (as I have said previously) I have taken part in (and fundraised) for Movember since 2014. As a business owner, I also regularly talk about mindset and wellbeing (even though it isn't specifically my industry). So the suggestion that I'm simply using mental health as a rhetorical bludgeon to beat "the other side with" at short notice is incorrect. I've also maintained that this is not a black and white solution- where we either replicate Dan Andrews' Victoria or shrug and "let it rip". There are shades of grey in between. The NSW government in the last few days re-classifying the Illawarra and Central Coast as regions rather than Greater Sydney is a step in the right direction. The recent talk from NSW about learning to live with COVID and being prepared to open back up when certain vaccine targets are met is also promising- provided they stick to their word, that will win back support they've lost in more recent weeks as well. And if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that lockdowns or curfews are the best solution in the "hot spot" areas then people for the most part can get on board with that. But when those in power apply harsh restrictions and a broad brush approach to entire regions with virtually no cases, and the reward millions of people get for making sacrifices daily and "doing the right thing" is the same grim-faced press conferences from their state leaders with no real exit plan, protests like the ones seen today are the end result of that. I'm concerned about how long the lockdowns can go for. With the extension to September, that means it will be 14 weeks. I'm not sure people have adequate income support to sustain all this. I can see why people would want to protest. I mean everyone is frustrated, but many are certainly at and beyond breaking point. 100%. And as I've said, Australians have shown time and time again we'll make sacrifices for real, tangible threats (bushfires across Eastern Australis, floods in C-W NSW and SEQ, cyclones in FNQ). But as it stands, millions of people have made sacrifices and the aim of making those sacrifices has only worsened- with the mouthpieces for the entire state (and more than a few people on s/m I've seen, sadly) pointing the finger and blaming them for these sacrifices not working. On top of that, there is no tangible end date. Just "do the right thing because the situation is getting worse and here's another month of shit for you to live through. But don't even think about not doing what we tell you because we'll punish you even harder."
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
This ones for you bluebird Most face masks won’t stop COVID-19 indoors, study warnsAugust 21, 2021
by John AndererNew research reveals that cloth masks filter just 10% of exhaled aerosols, with many people not wearing coverings that fit their face properly.WATERLOO, Ontario — N95 or KN95 face masks may be the best way to avoid COVID-19 during crowded indoor events. That’s the recommendation from a new study reporting most cloth masks just don’t do the job when it comes to stopping the spread of coronavirus within enclosed spaces.Researchers from the University of Waterloo simulated a person breathing in a large room with a cloth face mask on. Despite wearing a mask, the study finds a large buildup of aerosol droplets suspended in the air. Besides raising awareness on the vulnerability of certain face masks, these findings also emphasize the need for proper ventilation indoors. More ventilation means less of a chance for potentially viral aerosols to linger around. “There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. “However, there is a very serious difference in the effectiveness of different masks when it comes to controlling aerosols.”Studies continue to show that aerosols exhaled by infected individuals can indeed infect others with COVID-19, even if someone is standing more than six feet away. Why do most face masks fail to offer adequate protection?Researchers theorize many people wear masks that don’t fit their face properly. As a result, many cloth and surgical masks only filter about 10 percent of exhaled aerosols. The rest make their way past the mask, most through the top, and spread into the surrounding environment. Conversely, higher-quality, more expensive N95 and KN95 masks filter over 50 percent of all aerosol droplets.In light of these findings study authors recommend that everyone wear a N95 or KN95 mask if possible whenever indoors in the company of others. “A lot of this may seem like common sense,” Prof. Yarusevych comments. “There is a reason, for instance, that medical practitioners wear N95 masks – they work much better. The novelty here is that we have provided solid numbers and rigorous analysis to support that assumption.” It’s also worth mentioning that ventilation tests show even modest ventilation rates provide about the same level of protection as the highest quality masks. The findings appear in the journal Physics of Fluids. https://www.studyfinds.org/face-masks-wont-stop-covid-indoors/
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
818 in nsw. I'm dumbfounded
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
Had to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
I could've told them that without a research grant.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best
|
|
|
|
|
Podiacide
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
If you think the debate about masks is emotional and frustrating the arguments about when to open up and how high vaccination rates need to be is now the main game in town for politics as seen in parliament today. Albanese and other Labor MPs cautioning that the current road map is too dangerous and insisting kids are included in the target, the LNP backbench determined to end lockdowns at 70% and suspend all payments to states/Territories when those targets are met. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/political-push-to-ease-restrictions-heating-up-but-is-it-what-voters-want-20210822-p58kwc.htmlHealth experts at each others throats about risks to kids. https://twitter.com/MarylouiseMcla1/status/1429362783246635008An utterly exhausted public close to emotional overload and distrusting of our political and medical leaders more than ever before. Each one of us has a different perception of risk on when to open up Each one of us is impacted differently by the different varying costs of lockdowns Closely held emotional beliefs on personal risk and risk to family members now becoming hyper politicised in an exhausted yet angry and confused public. This is what we call in policy world a "wicked problem" This is the issue that wholly consumes Australia in the run up to the federal election next year. Hang on tight, going to be one hell of a bumpy ride
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf you think the debate about masks is emotional and frustrating the arguments about when to open up and how high vaccination rates need to be is now the main game in town for politics as seen in parliament today. When the USA was under attack by the virus they didnt have many options. They chose not to close their shorelines and they didnt have much in the way of regulations Scientists went out to "prove" the efficiency of face masks because they had little else in way of defence. The UK took the same approach. But now that these countries are opening up they are dumping masks In the same way vaccine misinformation is a bad thing, so is face mask misinformation. Its no surprise a lot of people are coming out and saying "hang on! you said masks were critical and now you're dumping them!!" These countries are now forced to undo their myths and for those fans of face masks (such as the article above and Australia as a whole) there is now a lot of division You just have to use common sense on this thing. How can throwing any old thing that meets no regulation on your face in any haphazard manner stop a highly infectious disease. You can see the gaps when people walk past. Its an absolute no brainer. Once more research and evidence comes out, Australia is going to look stupid. They should wait until the current outbreaks are resolved, drop them to a recommendation, and then hope they disappear like the All Stars game did
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best The maths in your reply is really out of whack. It's not uncommon though, it's why people over or underestimate probabilities. Our brains aren't wired for it. Face masks aren't 10% effective. If you're basing it off this article AJF linked , the effectiveness ranges from 10% to 99% depending on what the mask is made of and how its worn. Even a single layer cloth masks could be up to 40% effective which, for such a low effort and low technology measure is definitely worth pursuing considering spread is exponential.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best The maths in your reply is really out of whack. It's not uncommon though, it's why people over or underestimate probabilities. Our brains aren't wired for it. Face masks aren't 10% effective. If you're basing it off this article AJF linked , the effectiveness ranges from 10% to 99% depending on what the mask is made of and how its worn. Even a single layer cloth masks could be up to 40% effective which, for such a low effort and low technology measure is definitely worth pursuing considering spread is exponential. Yeah I got from reading the that article that masks are incredibly effective if worn right.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best The maths in your reply is really out of whack. It's not uncommon though, it's why people over or underestimate probabilities. Our brains aren't wired for it. Face masks aren't 10% effective. If you're basing it off this article AJF linked , the effectiveness ranges from 10% to 99% depending on what the mask is made of and how its worn. Even a single layer cloth masks could be up to 40% effective which, for such a low effort and low technology measure is definitely worth pursuing considering spread is exponential. Yeah I got from reading the that article that masks are incredibly effective if worn right. Interesting opinion from a GP friend about masks is that they also provide a visual stimulus to socially distance yourself from another mask wearer. You see someone with a mask, even if its not fitted correctly or the right type, and you subconsciously adjust your own and remind yourself in the process to keep your distance.... dont think their is any research behind this just a mates opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best The maths in your reply is really out of whack. It's not uncommon though, it's why people over or underestimate probabilities. Our brains aren't wired for it. Face masks aren't 10% effective. If you're basing it off this article AJF linked , the effectiveness ranges from 10% to 99% depending on what the mask is made of and how its worn. Even a single layer cloth masks could be up to 40% effective which, for such a low effort and low technology measure is definitely worth pursuing considering spread is exponential. There hasnt been a single credible study on face masks that meets scientific standards. It is all guess work in labs and artificial situations used to prove whatever political point is being debated at the time. People arent sitting in labs a set distance from each other coughing and it is unethical to expose people to COVID. There isnt a single article posted that you could use in any credible debate. I could write my own blog on a website based on my own study and observations and you'll have to take it with the same level of merit When it comes to the effectiveness of face masks there are a number of factors: 1/ Regulations already in place. The chance that a slice of pizza will cure your hungerness changes if you are already eating something 2/ Whether your face mask meets a standard and is worn properly 3/ Whether their face mask meets a standard and is worn properly 4/ Length of time of contact, circumstance of contact (such as sharing facilities and getting it through contact) etc... There are also debate about whether the face mask protects you as somebody without the virus (completely unproven, and also given the virus enters the body through membrane and your eyes are membrane) or whether they simply block a large % of exhaled droplets from somebody with the virus Face mask effectiveness of 30% or 70% is a single instance based on a specific circumstance and one encounter. A mask might save you at 9am and fail you at 10am. You are right that if you throw face masks into a situation like the USA and UK then even 5% or 10% of exponential growth adds up to something. But we dont see that in Australia. Did we really shut our shorelines so we can live behind face masks? And I dont know what you mean by low effort. Having everybody over the age of 12 state wide wearing a mask in all situations out the house for weeks on end when there is a single cluster (or in the cases of ACT none) is not low effort. It completely inhibits face to face school, work and all social activity. What you are talking about is economics vs death. Not quality of interaction and communication People arent going to live their lives here on out with a cloth covering their face. Its just fucking stupid. It has to be tied back to a real tangible risk of hospital systems being overrun with sick and dying people. Face masks (if at all) should be used for the single purpose of helping to control an outbreak. Not a long standing measure just because a few people dont have a problem with wearing them (or rather other people wearing them)
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHad to laugh at this quote: "I was extremely troubled by the fact that the threat put me in a position to choose someone's life over monetary value. I am not an individual who is going to take a chance with somebody's life and play Russian Roulette by putting them into an environment with someone without a mask," she added https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/florida-school-district-drops-mask-mandate-opt-out-in-more-defiance-of-desantis/ar-AANBv6N?li=AAgfLCPWIth vaccinations either you get one or you don't. With face masks it's about forcing everybody around you to wear one so you can feel more comfortable Seriously, people who think they'll start keeling over if people dont wear masks are worse than anti vaxxers. Those who think that sending somebody to a COVID ridden place with a mask is safe are even worse Unless you are wearing a lab grade mask with PPE, if its not safe without a mask, its not safe with one Just like your "we're either open, or we're not", it doesn't work like that. Everything is on a spectrum of risk, even AJF's article says this. There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” says study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, in a university release. You have to understand the difference between fact and opinion When somebody says "face masks are only 10% effective but they should be worn anyway" the first part is fact, the second part is opinion. I dont have to accept the opinion part because it is no doubt swayed by specific circumstance and popular political belief I would have thought sending somebody to school with a mask when there is a 90% chance they can still contract the virus every minute they are in the room would be akin to "playing russian roulette" If 10% fell within the spectrum of acceptable risk then why isnt that figure being proposed for vaccination rates required to open up? I cant see how something with that low effectiveness could be regulated by law and used as a primary defence mechanism by health officials. THey should be nothing more than a recommendation at best The maths in your reply is really out of whack. It's not uncommon though, it's why people over or underestimate probabilities. Our brains aren't wired for it. Face masks aren't 10% effective. If you're basing it off this article AJF linked , the effectiveness ranges from 10% to 99% depending on what the mask is made of and how its worn. Even a single layer cloth masks could be up to 40% effective which, for such a low effort and low technology measure is definitely worth pursuing considering spread is exponential. Yeah I got from reading the that article that masks are incredibly effective if worn right. Interesting opinion from a GP friend about masks is that they also provide a visual stimulus to socially distance yourself from another mask wearer. You see someone with a mask, even if its not fitted correctly or the right type, and you subconsciously adjust your own and remind yourself in the process to keep your distance.... dont think their is any research behind this just a mates opinion. Any discussions about psychology of COVID also have to take into the account the psychology of fatigue, over use, and over kill If you have a fire drill every 30 minutes you can be sure that in the event of a real fire there will be unpreparedness. Take Shepparton for instance. Last year when COVID was new and everybody was compliant there was an outbreak that only hit 3 people. I dont think even the household members were infected. People were prepared, cautious and doing the right thing. But after 12 months of living under the toughest restrictions in Australia for the longest time (outside of Melbourne) people cant relate what they do to anything. You follow the rules because you get fined if you dont (or rather if nobody is looking). Now look at what happens when the virus hits Seatbelts arent used as a reminder that if you see somebody wearing one you adjust your own. People know when they get in the car there are real risks and most people wear them. But they dont wear them when the car is stationary or they dont wear them outside of the car. There has to be some real risk associated with any action. People are not programmed to constantly simulate extreme situations As I said in another post, response teams should have tried to limit restrictions to, say, 4 weeks of every 6 months. Only when absolutely required. I live in regional Victoria and the last case was about 12 months ago yet I havent been able to step outside without a mask for about 5 or 6 months There should never be a law enforcing something that cant be regulated to a standard. The laws arent even consistent or even sensible. Face masks should be nothing more than a recommendation
|
|
|
|
|
Podiacide
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 753,
Visits: 0
|
So the Doherty Institute confirms what PM has been saying - existing case numbers wont stop ability to open up at 70/80%vaccination targets. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/doherty-institute-boss-says-reopening-still-safe-with-hundreds-of-daily-covid-cases-20210823-p58lah.htmlALP still trying to undermine it. Most of the SCOMO haters now deciding we shouldnt "follow the science". Personally I think SCOMO is a tool and his vaccine rollout has been a disgrace but you either follow the science or you dont and the ALP are being fuckwits by pushing a fear campaign about opening up at current targets. What is their alternative plan? Good to see some ABC commentators like Leigh Sales and Casey Briggs rationally sticking to the evidence even if its causing them to get a lot of hate from their usual ABC audiences who are more pro lockdown and definitely anti SCOMO. https://twitter.com/leighsales/status/1429759164964737034I think Dan Andrews and Victoria will be an interesting test case. If numbers dont really start improving by early Sept its clear the lockdowns arent working one way or the other and I cant really see how he can practically tighten them further. He should be focusing on his vaccine rollout which is way behind NSW's. Before anyone says that NSW is so far ahead because NSW got extra vaccines, I'd point you to the Andrews comments yesterday that 10,000 vaccine appointments are being wasted each day because no one is turning up. Yet no one is asking why its happening in Vic and not anywhere else. I booked in my vaccine appointments in 3 different states and the Victorian system is an absolute nightmare - hours on hold, no follow up texts or emails, online booking system crashes all the time and to cancel you have to call or go online. NSW and ACT was simply able to do it by text and both their systems were so so far easier to use.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Statement on the Doherty Institute modellingThe Doherty Institute understands how extremely challenging lockdown restrictions are for everyone. There is light at the end of the tunnel – once we achieve 70%-80% vaccination we will see less transmission of COVID-19 and fewer people with severe illness, and therefore fewer hospitalisations and deaths. COVID-19 won’t go away but it will be easier to control in the future. These estimates come from the modelling work completed to date led by the Doherty Institute and commissioned by the Commonwealth Government to advise on the National Plan to transition Australia's National COVID-19 Response This level of vaccination will make it easier to live with the virus, as we do with other viruses such as the flu. However, it won’t be possible to maintain a situation where there are no cases at all. The focus will shift to keeping the number of people going to hospital and dying at a minimum. In an average year of influenza, we would roughly have 600 deaths and 200,000 cases in Australia. Any death is a tragedy, but our health system can cope with this. In the COVID-19 modelling, opening up at 70% vaccine coverage of the adult population with partial public health measures, we predict 385,983 symptomatic cases and 1,457 deaths over six months. With optimal public health measures (and no lockdowns), this can be significantly reduced to 2,737 infections and 13 deaths. We’ve learned from watching countries that have removed all restrictions that there is no ‘freedom day’. We will need to keep some public health measures in place – test, trace, isolate and quarantine – to keep the reproduction number below 1, but as vaccination rates increase, we’ll be able to ease up further and it is unlikely that we will need generalised lockdowns. Once we reach 70% vaccine coverage, opening up at tens or hundreds of cases nationally per day is possible, however, we will need vigilant public health interventions with higher case loads. It might seem that these ‘test, trace, isolate and quarantine’ measures aren’t currently working – in New South Wales or Victoria. But they are. They are stopping transmissions and reducing the effective reproduction rate from 5 to closer to 1.3 in New South Wales. These measures will become more effective with more people vaccinated as vaccines also contribute to stopping transmission. We are moving towards these targets at a rapid pace, but we need to keep supressing COVID-19 through public health measures while we work towards 70%-80% vaccination across the country. This will ensure we continue to keep the level of hospitalisations and deaths as low as possible to protect the community and prevent our healthcare system from becoming overrun. The team of modellers from across Australia led by the Doherty Institute is now working through the implementation issues specific to the states and territories, specific populations and high risk settings. We are moving towards better control of COVID-19 and a more stable future. We encourage everyone to stay vigilant, get vaccinated if you are eligible and take care of each other as we transition to living with COVID-19. The Doherty Institute Modelling Report to advise on the National Plan to transition Australia's National COVID Response can now be viewed here.
https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/statement-on-the-doherty-institute-modelling
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Have noticed the messaging around reopening has changed in the last few days to 'we can't eliminate it' and 'we have to learn to live with it'. Hate Slomo but agree with him here.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHave noticed the messaging around reopening has changed in the last few days to 'we can't eliminate it' and 'we have to learn to live with it'. Hate Slomo but agree with him here. well imo this directive should have been brought out long ago...... You'd think all the Leaders/CHO's would know that in the first place instead of keeping on the 0 agreement that is near on impossible. No matter locking down within 1 day or 5 or 7 - you can't keep closing shop. Come out when its clear - for how long next time. I get it at the beginning but not 1yr + down the track and with a far stronger/faster strain. Its just screwed everything up, States against each other and people follow like in Sport. Who in their right mind think we could dodge the bullet forever ? utopia. Sadly not going to happen, alot more pain/frustration/anger/loss to come sadly but we got to deal with it best way we can and see light at the end of tunnel one day. I'm sure all here have their covid stories good and not, hope your coping ok it sure is a challenge......
Love Football
|
|
|
|