|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Sorry guys, I'm just seriously counting down hours till the weekend at this point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo my work had one person in the company in the head office refused the vax. Stood down until further notice. As we work in high risk we can't take risks It is an OH&S issue. I can imagine a lot of companies taking the low risk option. Not sure I understand your point Every agency offers staff 2 weeks of sick leave. If somebody caught the virus, why wouldnt they just use that time to recover? No loss to the agency In terms of risk of transmission, its equal risk. The probability that the 90% vaccinated will catch and spread the virus is greater than the probability the 10% unvaccinated will catch and spread the virus In terms of risk to clients, if the client is vaccinated then what's the problem? If the client is unvaccinated then they made that choice This is just stupid. The biggest risk is forcing out long term staff that the company has invested tens of thousands into in training and company knowledge, and then throwing them away based on a sensationlised private political view point Should people get vaccinated? Yes, absolutely. Are unvaccinated people a risk to a business? No. thats just dumb I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group... There's a pretty simple answer to this. It isnt simple Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP ) Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anywayI'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same I'm picturing the end of the opening scene in Team America where Paris is a smouldering pile of rubble and they say "We did it- we stopped the terrorists!" Except it'd be Scomo and the different state Premiers, proclaiming "We did it- we stopped the spread!" Ha ha yeah and again, I actually agree. It'll probably be like the Y2K bug and a bunch of other things. Potential catastrophe was avoided so many people thinks it was a panic over nothing. Some of the COVID restrictions put on us, just like with the Y2K issue, might have ended up having minimal impact but we might never know. Others only become clear in hindsight. What's important is that we learn from this period and and come out the other side far better prepared. Good analogy. What are the chances we learn from this and start to adequately fund public health as one example? Aha I love how tragically idiotic we humans are. Our entire species is the lazy problem child that never fulfilled their potential. Yeah don't like our chances on that one :( But countries that went through SARS generally fared much better with covid than the rest so they definitely had mechanisms in place that helped them that we didn't. We (and most/all western countries) were woefully underprepared. I've seen plenty suggest that work around improving ventilation in public places will be something that should happen.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo my work had one person in the company in the head office refused the vax. Stood down until further notice. As we work in high risk we can't take risks It is an OH&S issue. I can imagine a lot of companies taking the low risk option. Not sure I understand your point Every agency offers staff 2 weeks of sick leave. If somebody caught the virus, why wouldnt they just use that time to recover? No loss to the agency In terms of risk of transmission, its equal risk. The probability that the 90% vaccinated will catch and spread the virus is greater than the probability the 10% unvaccinated will catch and spread the virus In terms of risk to clients, if the client is vaccinated then what's the problem? If the client is unvaccinated then they made that choice This is just stupid. The biggest risk is forcing out long term staff that the company has invested tens of thousands into in training and company knowledge, and then throwing them away based on a sensationlised private political view point Should people get vaccinated? Yes, absolutely. Are unvaccinated people a risk to a business? No. thats just dumb I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group... There's a pretty simple answer to this. It isnt simple Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP ) Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anyway I'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same The rest of your answer does not address that single solitary point I made. It was just more of the same waffle that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll try again Well, choose not to lose it all. You won't change the rules with your martyrdom. <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> A) The best you can do is put yourself in each of these people's shoes and hear your own logical voice saying "this is what I would do if I was in this person's situation" which is why you have a generalist view on the simplicity of it. The answer from every person is going to be the same voice with the same logic. B) In order to understand why Bob from West Penrith doesnt want to get vaccinated you have to understand his story. His upbringing, his background, his decision making, and how this one pandemic (which is not the absolute concern of everybody) fits in with his world as a single jigsaw piece <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> B) Sure, but in the moment of being fired Bob has a choice. His family's future or his personal stance on something. This is just the point we are going to have to disagree on You're saying "If Bob is faced with losing his house he might get vaccinated as his priorities shift" I'm saying "100% of people are choosing not to get vaccinated regardless, therefore the answer to that rhetoric appears to be 'no'" The answer appears to be with no threat of job loss 70% of Bobs got vaccinated, with threat of job loss 90%-95% of Bobs got vaccinated. That's not everyboby You could literally write a thesis titled "why Bob chose not to get vaccinated despite having a mortgage". It's a very complex social, psychological and cultural issue with no clear answer. We knew we were never going to get 100% without even giving this a minute of airtime The only thing definitive is the consequence of job loss that unvaccinated people now have to endure, and that we as a country have to resource, and that deserving people have to lose, as a result I would also argue that once we as a country open up there will be a lot of sheltered and naïve people running to get vaccinated quick smart forcing the same percentages anyhow without the hardship. Anybody who chose to use this as an opportunity to put their foot down on an issue, now less likely
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo my work had one person in the company in the head office refused the vax. Stood down until further notice. As we work in high risk we can't take risks It is an OH&S issue. I can imagine a lot of companies taking the low risk option. Not sure I understand your point Every agency offers staff 2 weeks of sick leave. If somebody caught the virus, why wouldnt they just use that time to recover? No loss to the agency In terms of risk of transmission, its equal risk. The probability that the 90% vaccinated will catch and spread the virus is greater than the probability the 10% unvaccinated will catch and spread the virus In terms of risk to clients, if the client is vaccinated then what's the problem? If the client is unvaccinated then they made that choice This is just stupid. The biggest risk is forcing out long term staff that the company has invested tens of thousands into in training and company knowledge, and then throwing them away based on a sensationlised private political view point Should people get vaccinated? Yes, absolutely. Are unvaccinated people a risk to a business? No. thats just dumb I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group... There's a pretty simple answer to this. It isnt simple Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP ) Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anyway I'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same The rest of your answer does not address that single solitary point I made. It was just more of the same waffle that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll try again Well, choose not to lose it all. You won't change the rules with your martyrdom. <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> A) The best you can do is put yourself in each of these people's shoes and hear your own logical voice saying "this is what I would do if I was in this person's situation" which is why you have a generalist view on the simplicity of it. The answer from every person is going to be the same voice with the same logic. B) In order to understand why Bob from West Penrith doesnt want to get vaccinated you have to understand his story. His upbringing, his background, his decision making, and how this one pandemic (which is not the absolute concern of everybody) fits in with his world as a single jigsaw piece <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> B) Sure, but in the moment of being fired Bob has a choice. His family's future or his personal stance on something. This is just the point we are going to have to disagree on You're saying "If Bob is faced with losing his house he might get vaccinated as his priorities shift" I'm saying "100% of people are choosing not to get vaccinated regardless, therefore the answer to that rhetoric appears to be 'no'" The answer appears to be with no threat of job loss 70% of Bobs got vaccinated, with threat of job loss 90%-95% of Bobs got vaccinated. That's not everyboby You could literally write a thesis titled "why Bob chose not to get vaccinated despite having a mortgage". It's a very complex social, psychological and cultural issue with no clear answer. 1. I agree 2. I sympathise with Bob 3. I still think Bob is a tragic fool despite knowing countless people exhibit self sabotaging behaviour in life including me.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo my work had one person in the company in the head office refused the vax. Stood down until further notice. As we work in high risk we can't take risks It is an OH&S issue. I can imagine a lot of companies taking the low risk option. Not sure I understand your point Every agency offers staff 2 weeks of sick leave. If somebody caught the virus, why wouldnt they just use that time to recover? No loss to the agency In terms of risk of transmission, its equal risk. The probability that the 90% vaccinated will catch and spread the virus is greater than the probability the 10% unvaccinated will catch and spread the virus In terms of risk to clients, if the client is vaccinated then what's the problem? If the client is unvaccinated then they made that choice This is just stupid. The biggest risk is forcing out long term staff that the company has invested tens of thousands into in training and company knowledge, and then throwing them away based on a sensationlised private political view point Should people get vaccinated? Yes, absolutely. Are unvaccinated people a risk to a business? No. thats just dumb I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group... There's a pretty simple answer to this. It isnt simple Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP ) Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anyway I'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same The rest of your answer does not address that single solitary point I made. It was just more of the same waffle that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll try again Well, choose not to lose it all. You won't change the rules with your martyrdom. <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> A) The best you can do is put yourself in each of these people's shoes and hear your own logical voice saying "this is what I would do if I was in this person's situation" which is why you have a generalist view on the simplicity of it. The answer from every person is going to be the same voice with the same logic. B) In order to understand why Bob from West Penrith doesnt want to get vaccinated you have to understand his story. His upbringing, his background, his decision making, and how this one pandemic (which is not the absolute concern of everybody) fits in with his world as a single jigsaw piece <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> B) Sure, but in the moment of being fired Bob has a choice. His family's future or his personal stance on something. This is just the point we are going to have to disagree on You're saying "If Bob is faced with losing his house he might get vaccinated as his priorities shift" I'm saying "100% of people are choosing not to get vaccinated regardless, therefore the answer to that rhetoric appears to be 'no'" The answer appears to be with no threat of job loss 70% of Bobs got vaccinated, with threat of job loss 90%-95% of Bobs got vaccinated. That's not everyboby You could literally write a thesis titled "why Bob chose not to get vaccinated despite having a mortgage". It's a very complex social, psychological and cultural issue with no clear answer. 1. I agree 2. I sympathise with Bob 3. I still think Bob is a tragic fool despite knowing countless people exhibit self sabotaging behaviour in life including me. Then we agree on all counts. The only difference is I'm going to write a ridiculous amount of paragraphs defending Bob's choice where as you're going to give up and enjoy your Friday night
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSo my work had one person in the company in the head office refused the vax. Stood down until further notice. As we work in high risk we can't take risks It is an OH&S issue. I can imagine a lot of companies taking the low risk option. Not sure I understand your point Every agency offers staff 2 weeks of sick leave. If somebody caught the virus, why wouldnt they just use that time to recover? No loss to the agency In terms of risk of transmission, its equal risk. The probability that the 90% vaccinated will catch and spread the virus is greater than the probability the 10% unvaccinated will catch and spread the virus In terms of risk to clients, if the client is vaccinated then what's the problem? If the client is unvaccinated then they made that choice This is just stupid. The biggest risk is forcing out long term staff that the company has invested tens of thousands into in training and company knowledge, and then throwing them away based on a sensationlised private political view point Should people get vaccinated? Yes, absolutely. Are unvaccinated people a risk to a business? No. thats just dumb I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group... There's a pretty simple answer to this. It isnt simple Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP ) Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anyway I'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same The rest of your answer does not address that single solitary point I made. It was just more of the same waffle that I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll try again Well, choose not to lose it all. You won't change the rules with your martyrdom. <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> A) The best you can do is put yourself in each of these people's shoes and hear your own logical voice saying "this is what I would do if I was in this person's situation" which is why you have a generalist view on the simplicity of it. The answer from every person is going to be the same voice with the same logic. B) In order to understand why Bob from West Penrith doesnt want to get vaccinated you have to understand his story. His upbringing, his background, his decision making, and how this one pandemic (which is not the absolute concern of everybody) fits in with his world as a single jigsaw piece <wafflesnipIdon'tdisagreewith> B) Sure, but in the moment of being fired Bob has a choice. His family's future or his personal stance on something. This is just the point we are going to have to disagree on You're saying "If Bob is faced with losing his house he might get vaccinated as his priorities shift" I'm saying "100% of people are choosing not to get vaccinated regardless, therefore the answer to that rhetoric appears to be 'no'" The answer appears to be with no threat of job loss 70% of Bobs got vaccinated, with threat of job loss 90%-95% of Bobs got vaccinated. That's not everyboby You could literally write a thesis titled "why Bob chose not to get vaccinated despite having a mortgage". It's a very complex social, psychological and cultural issue with no clear answer. 1. I agree 2. I sympathise with Bob 3. I still think Bob is a tragic fool despite knowing countless people exhibit self sabotaging behaviour in life including me. Then we agree on all counts. The only difference is I'm going to write a ridiculous amount of paragraphs defending Bob's choice where as you're going to give up and enjoy your Friday night I mean, yeah most likely. Besides the still sore back and teething 6 month old. Ugh. I need to plant some tomato seedlings before they die (which is going to hurt) but I might come back and be snidey about poor Bob's choice after a few over the counter painkillers (beers).
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/victorian-government-used-low-grade-mask-study-to-justify-mandate-experts-say/ar-AAPOizx?li=AAgfYrCVictoria
A Burnet institute press release said the “world-first” study had found mask-wearing turned the pandemic around “almost overnight” and were the single most important tool in turning the tide of Victoria’s second Covid wave in 2020. Our paper … showed that the introduction of the mandatory mask policy in Melbourne coincided with a marked decline in cases
Bangladesh had found mask policies can have a reasonable impact on cases, in the order of a 10% reduction What a load of crap. A few "experts" take photos for 3 weeks at the time Melbourne's outbreak was reaching its natural peak and conclude that mask usage alone was the reason the outbreak subsided. And this "evidence" that barely qualifies as a joke is then used to implement real life public health policy which we have had to endure for 458 consecutive days as law. Not only that but face masks are "so important" that they will be the last thing to go, long after quarantine measures There's a reason why Victoria have recorded the highest number of cases. They started with the outcome they wanted, and they have then tried to find anybody who can support that The fact is as Australia opens up no state has said "you can do x if you are double vaccinated or wearing a face mask". Face mask law and reliance of face masks as a control mechanism are two different things. Over the next few weeks health officials are going to push for long lasting face masks laws as we have seen in NSW and Australia simply has to say No
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
How's this? https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/health/singapore-confirms-highest-single-day-virus-death-toll-after-abandoning-covidzero/news-story/3d914fc28881d00c88235fcac8e76343Singapore confirms highest single day virus death toll after abandoning Covid-zeroIt is one of the most vaccinated countries on the planet – but after abandoning a Covid-zero approach, case numbers and deaths are now skyrocketing.
(My underlining and bold.) And then the media have the hide to ask 'why are people vaccine hesitant.
This extract is literally the last paragraph of a very long article which 90% of people would read.
Silver lining
Despite Singapore’s worryingly high case numbers, it is important to put those numbers into perspective.
In the past 28 days, an overwhelming 98.7 per cent of local cases were either asymptomatic, or experienced only mild symptoms. And just 0.1 per cent were admitted to intensive care, the government announced
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
That's just another "fear of opening up" sensationalised article. The dime a dozen we can expect over the next few weeks
18 deaths from 3800 cases (0.4%). And thats not 18 daily deaths either. It doesnt mention their age, any co-existing health problems, and how many people in a country with that population on average die of the flu each day
To call this "sky rocketing" and to use it to warn against Australia opening up is worse than anti-vaxx propaganda
We know people are going to catch this. We know people are going to die from it. But we also know that the ability to shut down for months on end without killing people in other ways and destroying them mentally has already been exhausted. This is an approach that only suits the select privileged few who are calling for it
Victoria have 4000 ICU units and they havent even all been rolled out yet even with the current outbreak. People have been programmed to panic and run screaming to the hills over a single case. Now they have to open their door and face this. Other countries have been through the same thing, now its our turn
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat's just another "fear of opening up" sensationalised article. The dime a dozen we can expect over the next few weeks 18 deaths from 3800 cases (0.4%). And thats not 18 daily deaths either. It doesnt mention their age, any co-existing health problems, and how many people in a country with that population on average die of the flu each day To call this "sky rocketing" and to use it to warn against Australia opening up is worse than anti-vaxx propagandaWe know people are going to catch this. We know people are going to die from it. But we also know that the ability to shut down for months on end without killing people in other ways and destroying them mentally has already been exhausted. This is an approach that only suits the select privileged few who are calling for it Victoria have 4000 ICU units and they havent even all been rolled out yet even with the current outbreak. People have been programmed to panic and run screaming to the hills over a single case. Now they have to open their door and face this. Other countries have been through the same thing, now its our turn 100% agree but with a straight face the media asks 'why are people vaccine hesitant'. Not to mention the fear of God they put up everyone for Astrazeneca. They're more than complicit.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I agree it is sensationalising.
However for context since people like to compare our rates to Singapore claiming they are similar (the rest of the world counts pop. - we count 16+ ) - double dose rates
Singapore 79.52%
Denmark 75.71%
ACT 71.2%
NSW 70.2%
UK 66.65%
Vic 60.6%
New Zealand 59.7%
Australia 59.7%
Tas 58.9%
USA 56.5 %
SA 50.9%
NT48.7%
Qld 48.7%
WA 47.3%
We are a way closer to vaccine rates of the UK and USA than Denmark or Singapore
|
|
|
|
|
patjennings
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThat's just another "fear of opening up" sensationalised article. The dime a dozen we can expect over the next few weeks 18 deaths from 3800 cases (0.4%). And thats not 18 daily deaths either. It doesnt mention their age, any co-existing health problems, and how many people in a country with that population on average die of the flu each day To call this "sky rocketing" and to use it to warn against Australia opening up is worse than anti-vaxx propagandaWe know people are going to catch this. We know people are going to die from it. But we also know that the ability to shut down for months on end without killing people in other ways and destroying them mentally has already been exhausted. This is an approach that only suits the select privileged few who are calling for it Victoria have 4000 ICU units and they havent even all been rolled out yet even with the current outbreak. People have been programmed to panic and run screaming to the hills over a single case. Now they have to open their door and face this. Other countries have been through the same thing, now its our turn 100% agree but with a straight face the media asks 'why are people vaccine hesitant'. Not to mention the fear of God they put up everyone for Astrazeneca. They're more than complicit. There is not vaccine hesitancy - our first dose rates for those current eligible show that by Monday 80% of those over 50 will have at least 1 dose with 70% across across all states and territories at 70%. There have been supply issues - but that is now dissipating though some regions are still short of supply. This has never been about hesitancy, it has always been about supply. The media showing a small group of protesters and the same anti-vax hairdresser every couple of weeks (i.e. - there is video - not a boring expert) has perpetuated the myth of hesitancy in Australia. When the supply is there (across the regions) we will have very high rates as we traditionally do for most available vaccines. . The truth is that we probably have a hard core of less than 10% of anti-vaxxers and those that cannot have the vaccines.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThat's just another "fear of opening up" sensationalised article. The dime a dozen we can expect over the next few weeks 18 deaths from 3800 cases (0.4%). And thats not 18 daily deaths either. It doesnt mention their age, any co-existing health problems, and how many people in a country with that population on average die of the flu each day To call this "sky rocketing" and to use it to warn against Australia opening up is worse than anti-vaxx propagandaWe know people are going to catch this. We know people are going to die from it. But we also know that the ability to shut down for months on end without killing people in other ways and destroying them mentally has already been exhausted. This is an approach that only suits the select privileged few who are calling for it Victoria have 4000 ICU units and they havent even all been rolled out yet even with the current outbreak. People have been programmed to panic and run screaming to the hills over a single case. Now they have to open their door and face this. Other countries have been through the same thing, now its our turn 100% agree but with a straight face the media asks 'why are people vaccine hesitant'. Not to mention the fear of God they put up everyone for Astrazeneca. They're more than complicit. There is not vaccine hesitancy - our first dose rates for those current eligible show that by Monday 80% of those over 50 will have at least 1 dose with 70% across across all states and territories at 70%. There have been supply issues - but that is now dissipating though some regions are still short of supply. This has never been about hesitancy, it has always been about supply. The media showing a small group of protesters and the same anti-vax hairdresser every couple of weeks (i.e. - there is video - not a boring expert) has perpetuated the myth of hesitancy in Australia. When the supply is there (across the regions) we will have very high rates as we traditionally do for most available vaccines. . The truth is that we probably have a hard core of less than 10% of anti-vaxxers and those that cannot have the vaccines. Heard a nurse on the radio saying they could give out 5 pfizers for every astra because they had to convince those people astra was safe. Of that 10% hard core how many of them had seeds of doubt put into their minds by the media?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
It was the media but they were fed by Morrison’s office because he wanted an out to criticism of his shambolic vaccine rollout
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
So Victoria have revealed the final chapter of their joke response
Once 90% double vax has been reached for everybody over 12, they move to a "vaccinated economy" where the unvaccinated will be locked out of all but essential services for all of 2022 including retail and work places. Not only that but despite scrapping density limits and quarantine, they are going to keep face mask laws in "high risk" settings like buses because nothing is more scientific certain than masks on buses stopping the pandemic - also for all of 2022
Regional Victorians are going to go from being unvaccinated and able to access retail today, to not being able to access it at the end of November. And dont forget, this starts at 90% so the impact on 10% of people will be immediate
So much for moving to the national plan of treating this like any other infectious disease. But we knew from the start Victoria were never going to do that
The only good thing is the election falls within 2022
I've spent time posting here airing my thoughts waiting for the final certainty of what life will look like once Australia, and particularly Victoria, opens up. Now I have that answer so I dont see a need to post on this topic anymore (collective sigh of relief and another reason for Victorians to celebrate). As somebody who has spent over a decade working in welfare and with some of the most difficult and challenging people I have always had a tendency to put others first. I dont see this as a good outcome just because I'm not impacted (I'm vaccinated and dont use public transport)
Victoria were (are) the worst state for living in during this pandemic, and in some instances worst in the world. That's not a record anybody should be proud of
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSo Victoria have revealed the final chapter of their joke response Once 90% double vax has been reached for everybody over 12, they move to a "vaccinated economy" where the unvaccinated will be locked out of all but essential services for all of 2022 including retail and work places. Not only that but despite scrapping density limits and quarantine, they are going to keep face mask laws in "high risk" settings like buses because nothing is more scientific certain than masks on buses stopping the pandemic - also for all of 2022 Regional Victorians are going to go from being unvaccinated and able to access retail today, to not being able to access it at the end of November. And dont forget, this starts at 90% so the impact on 10% of people will be immediate So much for moving to the national plan of treating this like any other infectious disease. But we knew from the start Victoria were never going to do that The only good thing is the election falls within 2022 I've spent time posting here airing my thoughts waiting for the final certainty of what life will look like once Australia, and particularly Victoria, opens up. Now I have that answer so I dont see a need to post on this topic anymore (collective sigh of relief and another reason for Victorians to celebrate). As somebody who has spent over a decade working in welfare and with some of the most difficult and challenging people I have always had a tendency to put others first. I dont see this as a good outcome just because I'm not impacted (I'm vaccinated and dont use public transport) Victoria were (are) the worst state for living in during this pandemic, and in some instances worst in the world. That's not a record anybody should be proud of Whenever I'm in an indoor area, I look around at the people wearing face masks and wonder "How many of these people also know it's political theatre and a load of shit, and how many still actually believe they are saving grandma?" The ones also wearing the face shields you can immediately put into category B, and make their children promise to never sit in the aisle seats at a cinema in case a junkie comes in and stabs them in the arm to get them hooked.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe ones also wearing the face shields you can immediately put into category B, and make their children promise to never sit in the aisle seats at a cinema in case a junkie comes in and stabs them in the arm to get them hooked. 
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSo Victoria have revealed the final chapter of their joke response Once 90% double vax has been reached for everybody over 12, they move to a "vaccinated economy" where the unvaccinated will be locked out of all but essential services for all of 2022 including retail and work places. Not only that but despite scrapping density limits and quarantine, they are going to keep face mask laws in "high risk" settings like buses because nothing is more scientific certain than masks on buses stopping the pandemic - also for all of 2022 Regional Victorians are going to go from being unvaccinated and able to access retail today, to not being able to access it at the end of November. And dont forget, this starts at 90% so the impact on 10% of people will be immediate So much for moving to the national plan of treating this like any other infectious disease. But we knew from the start Victoria were never going to do that The only good thing is the election falls within 2022 I've spent time posting here airing my thoughts waiting for the final certainty of what life will look like once Australia, and particularly Victoria, opens up. Now I have that answer so I dont see a need to post on this topic anymore (collective sigh of relief and another reason for Victorians to celebrate). As somebody who has spent over a decade working in welfare and with some of the most difficult and challenging people I have always had a tendency to put others first. I dont see this as a good outcome just because I'm not impacted (I'm vaccinated and dont use public transport) Victoria were (are) the worst state for living in during this pandemic, and in some instances worst in the world. That's not a record anybody should be proud of Whenever I'm in an indoor area, I look around at the people wearing face masks and wonder "How many of these people also know it's political theatre and a load of shit, and how many still actually believe they are saving grandma?" I guess it depends on whether they watch Sky News or not, which unlike the "MSM", has always provided its audience with the true, sinister reason behind masks (marxism).
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSo Victoria have revealed the final chapter of their joke response Once 90% double vax has been reached for everybody over 12, they move to a "vaccinated economy" where the unvaccinated will be locked out of all but essential services for all of 2022 including retail and work places. Not only that but despite scrapping density limits and quarantine, they are going to keep face mask laws in "high risk" settings like buses because nothing is more scientific certain than masks on buses stopping the pandemic - also for all of 2022 Regional Victorians are going to go from being unvaccinated and able to access retail today, to not being able to access it at the end of November. And dont forget, this starts at 90% so the impact on 10% of people will be immediate So much for moving to the national plan of treating this like any other infectious disease. But we knew from the start Victoria were never going to do that The only good thing is the election falls within 2022 I've spent time posting here airing my thoughts waiting for the final certainty of what life will look like once Australia, and particularly Victoria, opens up. Now I have that answer so I dont see a need to post on this topic anymore (collective sigh of relief and another reason for Victorians to celebrate). As somebody who has spent over a decade working in welfare and with some of the most difficult and challenging people I have always had a tendency to put others first. I dont see this as a good outcome just because I'm not impacted (I'm vaccinated and dont use public transport) Victoria were (are) the worst state for living in during this pandemic, and in some instances worst in the world. That's not a record anybody should be proud of Whenever I'm in an indoor area, I look around at the people wearing face masks and wonder "How many of these people also know it's political theatre and a load of shit, and how many still actually believe they are saving grandma?" I was just trapped inside with someone with covid for two weeks. I spoke to two doctors here and one family member who is one in the US about my situation for tips. Everyone of them was consistent with one thing - for both of us to wear a mask whenever near each other/or indoors. I wish I read this earlier and I just lobbed political insult back at them as they were obviously some kind of commies. Having said that I didn't end up catching it.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSo Victoria have revealed the final chapter of their joke response Once 90% double vax has been reached for everybody over 12, they move to a "vaccinated economy" where the unvaccinated will be locked out of all but essential services for all of 2022 including retail and work places. Not only that but despite scrapping density limits and quarantine, they are going to keep face mask laws in "high risk" settings like buses because nothing is more scientific certain than masks on buses stopping the pandemic - also for all of 2022 Regional Victorians are going to go from being unvaccinated and able to access retail today, to not being able to access it at the end of November. And dont forget, this starts at 90% so the impact on 10% of people will be immediate So much for moving to the national plan of treating this like any other infectious disease. But we knew from the start Victoria were never going to do that The only good thing is the election falls within 2022 I've spent time posting here airing my thoughts waiting for the final certainty of what life will look like once Australia, and particularly Victoria, opens up. Now I have that answer so I dont see a need to post on this topic anymore (collective sigh of relief and another reason for Victorians to celebrate). As somebody who has spent over a decade working in welfare and with some of the most difficult and challenging people I have always had a tendency to put others first. I dont see this as a good outcome just because I'm not impacted (I'm vaccinated and dont use public transport) Victoria were (are) the worst state for living in during this pandemic, and in some instances worst in the world. That's not a record anybody should be proud of Whenever I'm in an indoor area, I look around at the people wearing face masks and wonder "How many of these people also know it's political theatre and a load of shit, and how many still actually believe they are saving grandma?" I guess it depends on whether they watch Sky News or not, which unlike the "MSM", has always provided its audience with the true, sinister reason behind masks (marxism). Sky News is for cognitively damaged individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Steven Marhsall can piss right off.
This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now.
Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now.
Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement
Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead
Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it
Masks still everywhere like now
No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey.
Its a non-announcement
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement  Why are you making me defend Marshall? :laugh: Honestly its not a surprise. I actually expected us to be wearing masks for a lot longer. Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As for the arts and hospitality sector, blame the feds. We should have been vaccinated months ago. And NSW and Vic are all going to hit 90%, if we can't do the same then we have serious problems here. I note that Playford is still lagging behind so I haven't been right about that one yet but there's still hope with a concerted effort there.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement But sure, but perhaps this is a stick to get people to 90%. We're gonna get there for NSW, so I imagine SA can do it too. 42% of 12-15 year olds in SA have a single shot already.
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Why are you making me defend Marshall? :laugh: Honestly its not a surprise. I actually expected us to be wearing masks for a lot longer. Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As for the arts and hospitality sector, blame the feds. We should have been vaccinated months ago. And NSW and Vic are all going to hit 90%, if we can't do the same then we have serious problems here. I note that Playford is still lagging behind so I haven't been right about that one yet but there's still hope with a concerted effort there. I like how standing alcohol consumption is now a high risk activity.
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As long as you quarantine for 2 weeks if there's a case there. 90% over 12 is going to take some time if we are hitting 80% over 16 running into December. That's a long time for essentially no change and plenty of time for them to change the rules once cases start popping up in every LGA in every state. This will all be extended and rationalised beyond the next target. Tell me you don't think they will (not whether you agree they should be). PS "restrictions on MOST activities lifted at 90%" :hehe::hehe::hehe:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As long as you quarantine for 2 weeks if there's a case there.90% over 12 is going to take some time if we are hitting 80% over 16 running into December. That's a long time for essentially no change and plenty of time for them to change the rules once cases start popping up in every LGA in every state. This will all be extended and rationalised beyond the next target. Tell me you don't think they will (not whether you agree they should be). PS "restrictions on MOST activities lifted at 90%" :hehe::hehe::hehe:  You only have to quarantine for 2 weeks if the vax rate is less than 80% in that LGA. So if you were in Byron that might be a problem but not for most places. Marshall reckons we'll hit it during December but I'm sceptical on that one too. I reckon it'll be after Christmas. Now I need to go bathe, I feel unclean :laugh: Seriously though, I'd love everything to be over but it isn't anywhere in the world. The mask wearing and other things we've been doing since the last outbreak were to reduce the chances of another lockdown if we got cases and to get people into the habit for the next phase. It was always going to be this way. Minor variations aside, it doesn't look much different to any other Australian state's plan. And I reiterate, if we had vaccine supply when we were supposed to we'd be at 90% already.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Why are you making me defend Marshall? :laugh: Honestly its not a surprise. I actually expected us to be wearing masks for a lot longer. Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As for the arts and hospitality sector, blame the feds. We should have been vaccinated months ago. And NSW and Vic are all going to hit 90%, if we can't do the same then we have serious problems here. I note that Playford is still lagging behind so I haven't been right about that one yet but there's still hope with a concerted effort there. I like how standing alcohol consumption is now a high risk activity. Yeah it's contentious, the idea being that when people are standing they don't keep adequate distance. I know Christmas last year no place was observing capacity limits, police were turning a blind eye and it was a free for all. I suspect the same thing is going to happen this year.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As long as you quarantine for 2 weeks if there's a case there.90% over 12 is going to take some time if we are hitting 80% over 16 running into December. That's a long time for essentially no change and plenty of time for them to change the rules once cases start popping up in every LGA in every state. This will all be extended and rationalised beyond the next target. Tell me you don't think they will (not whether you agree they should be). PS "restrictions on MOST activities lifted at 90%" :hehe::hehe::hehe: You only have to quarantine for 2 weeks if the vax rate is less than 80% in that LGA. So if you were in Byron that might be a problem but not for most places. Yeah happy to admit I read that wrong this morning. I misread the "and" as more of an "or" I think. So if the LGA has a case AND they have lower than 80%. ie LGA can have a case but be at 81% and you won't have to quarantine. That's not so bad
|
|
|
|
|
aufc_ole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Why are you making me defend Marshall? :laugh: Honestly its not a surprise. I actually expected us to be wearing masks for a lot longer. Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As for the arts and hospitality sector, blame the feds. We should have been vaccinated months ago. And NSW and Vic are all going to hit 90%, if we can't do the same then we have serious problems here. I note that Playford is still lagging behind so I haven't been right about that one yet but there's still hope with a concerted effort there. I like how standing alcohol consumption is now a high risk activity. Yeah it's contentious, the idea being that when people are standing they don't keep adequate distance. I know Christmas last year no place was observing capacity limits, police were turning a blind eye and it was a free for all. I suspect the same thing is going to happen this year. Went to a place in town a few months ago and they basically said if you're seated you don't need a mask (Even if you don't have food/drinks) but the minute you stand up put that thing on. We were standing up around a table with drinks and they said please be seated so we sat down (same distance to each other as we were when standing) but that made it all good. Funny rule that one aha
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSteven Marhsall can piss right off. This is the biggest cop out piece of shit announcement for when we hit 80% a month from now. Basically nothing AT ALL is changing when we hit 80% a month from now. Borders only open if the other place has no cases which is essentially identical to now really and we know transmission will increase with increased movement Same restrictions in pubs as now so performing arts and hospitality sector is still dead Can have 10 more people in the home than now which is so meh you may as well not announce it Masks still everywhere like now No restrictions for unvaccinated people until 90% over 12 gets vaccinated which basically will never happen. Some will say that's good and I guess I don't have a problem with it but many of us have spent 6 months fighting misinformation amongst people we know so the carrot on a string has now just been eaten by the donkey. Its a non-announcement Why are you making me defend Marshall? :laugh: Honestly its not a surprise. I actually expected us to be wearing masks for a lot longer. Travel between states provided they have 80%+ vaccination will be allowed. Probably means we'll be closed to WA and Qld for a few weeks until they hit their 80% marks but we'll be open to the rest. As for the arts and hospitality sector, blame the feds. We should have been vaccinated months ago. And NSW and Vic are all going to hit 90%, if we can't do the same then we have serious problems here. I note that Playford is still lagging behind so I haven't been right about that one yet but there's still hope with a concerted effort there. I like how standing alcohol consumption is now a high risk activity. Yeah it's contentious, the idea being that when people are standing they don't keep adequate distance. I know Christmas last year no place was observing capacity limits, police were turning a blind eye and it was a free for all. I suspect the same thing is going to happen this year. Went to a place in town a few months ago and they basically said if you're seated you don't need a mask (Even if you don't have food/drinks) but the minute you stand up put that thing on. We were standing up around a table with drinks and they said please be seated so we sat down (same distance to each other as we were when standing) but that made it all good. Funny rule that one aha Yeah the bar/restaurant mask rules are the oddest of them all. Not sure anyone else has noticed but the number of people wearing masks under their chin or nose as soon as they have entered a shop, if at all, has increased dramatically lately. Try walking anywhere with a baby and every single person who stops to talk to you takes their mask off to smile at the baby and get a reaction so they wear one when they are metres from people in aisles then take it off when they are in spitting distance. While I have voiced on here before that I think it's relatively pointless and I hate wearing them, I do wear masks and I do wear them as properly as anyone can wear them and I have never kicked up a fuss having to put one on. I just use these threads for discussing random thoughts or little idiosyncrasies/.neuroses
|
|
|
|