Remove this Banner Ad

Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 3

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should the government contribute funds to a private school that isn't open?

Go further I reckon - give the public system access to the private school facilities, if they refuse to open.

Already happening with catholic school facilities (as the latter shrink) ...cant quite put my finger on why catholic schools are losing popularity
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

She parked her large arse in with the petrol head candidate in SA and a few other loonies down there in 2007 and 2013.
This reeks of sexism mate. You should be ashamed of yourself.

We shouldn't be rehashing this sort of bullshit in 2020.

Ps, SHY got 18 126 first preference votes at the 2019 federal election. I take it maths probably isn't your strong suit but maybe sharpen up a bit champ.
 
Last edited:
He seems far more intelligent than Abbott. He's basically parroting medical experts advice without question. If this was Abbott/Hockey I would've been extremely worried.
 
The dumb fu**nuts over at the IPA have already gone off message and turned on the LNP. Knives are out.

Its becoming increasingly obvious that many govts have completely overreacted to this.

Its also clear that the correlation between lockdown and deaths is nowhere near as rigid as these govts would have you believe.
 
He seems far more intelligent than Abbott. He's basically parroting medical experts advice without question. If this was Abbott/Hockey I would've been extremely worried.
That's his marketing background. As far as a human being is concerned, he is far more dangerous than Abbott - supremacists usually are far more dangerous than morons because they calculate every move in order to savage those who are inferior to them.

I'm willing to bet that if someone was lying on the footpath in distress and Abbott came across them, he'd render assistance. If it was Morrison in the same situation, he'd just walk across and steal the persons watch and wallet.
 
Its becoming increasingly obvious that many govts have completely overreacted to this.

Its also clear that the correlation between lockdown and deaths is nowhere near as rigid as these govts would have you believe.
You foolish, foolish person. If our capitalist pig dog of a Prime Minister had placed the safety of human beings and lives before the filthy lucre and completely shut down our boarders and shut schools and all places where the public gathers: if the dogwhistling morons that have been telling us of the imminent threat of a terrorist attack had put in place the proper contingency plans to mitigate chemical and biological attacks from such an eventuality which he and his "stop the boaats" dog-whistlers have been telling us was extremely likely since 9/11, 18 years plus ago and his much vaunted Border Police had stopped a great big whopping boaaat, from discharging it's cargo of infected humans into the community at large, we would be now looking at trying to ease restrictions domestically and getting business tentatively moving.

The harm to the economy and to people's health and welfare is as a consequence of Morrison's and the LNP's disgraceful ineptitude and short sightedness where making a buck now and to hell with the future, has meant that this crisis has had a far bigger impact than it ought to have had.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that we have you, an avowed Thatcherite whinging at how bad things are because of the disgraceful, single minded Thatcherite policies of the LNP over the years and what's worse, you are mouthing things like "many govts have completely overreacted to this". What an absolute disregard you show for human life.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Do we have any evidence to back this up?

Yes. See below re schools. If shutting down schools has very little effect than how does shutting down say book stores help?

The medical adviser in the UK has previously acknowledged shutting schools had limited benefits, in the end they did so primarily due to teacher absenteeism (and political pressure).


The UCL-led survey concludes that the evidence to support the closure of schools to combat Covid-19 is “very weak”, and statistics from influenza outbreaks suggest school closures “could have relatively small effects on a virus with Covid-19’s high transmissibility and apparent low clinical effect on schoolchildren”.
 
Yes. See below re schools. If shutting down schools has very little effect than how does shutting down say book stores help?

The medical adviser in the UK has previously acknowledged shutting schools had limited benefits, in the end they did so primarily due to teacher absenteeism (and political pressure).


The UCL-led survey concludes that the evidence to support the closure of schools to combat Covid-19 is “very weak”, and statistics from influenza outbreaks suggest school closures “could have relatively small effects on a virus with Covid-19’s high transmissibility and apparent low clinical effect on schoolchildren”.

That appears to be going smashingly for the UK
 
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that we have you, an avowed Thatcherite whinging at how bad things are because of the disgraceful, single minded Thatcherite policies of the LNP over the years and what's worse, you are mouthing things like "many govts have completely overreacted to this". What an absolute disregard you show for human life.

Latest govt advice in the UK is that the lockdown will kill up to 150k for a variety of reasons (eg a&e visits have plummeted so lots of conditions will go undiagnosed, lots of cancer patients arent getting treatments etc.

But hey stick to your ignorant dribbling.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Its from University College of London you absurd little twiglet.

And the article was posted in the Guardian.
In February, the Imperial College of London warned the White House that 2 million Americans could die if steps waern't taken immediately to mitigate the prospects of people being infected and one of those ways was to KEEP PEOPLE APART!

The Imperial College of London released a report on 16 March, 2020 entitled: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. It says in part:

"Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely. Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over. For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option.
We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed."


It re-enforces the need to KEEP PEOPLE AWAY FROM EACH OTHER OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES but of course, this is from a humanitarian and medical point of view where the number one objective is saving lives as opposed to the bean counters objective of making money and if lives are lost, BIG DEAL!
 
So if 20,000 die in a bad year with the flue, I take it 6,000 in a week for CoVid is not very good

No but there a large number of factors to consider many of which we dont know

One example - to shore up ICU capacity the NHS switched alot of elderly patients to private nursing homes (without testing them). No surprise whats happened as a result. In Spain and Italy up to 50% of deaths have apparently been in nursing homes.

The media are an absolute joke over the way this has been potrayed.
 
The Imperial College of London released a report on 16 March, 2020 entitled: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. It says in part:

You do realise their uk modelling vastly overestimated deaths due to using a mortality rate that was far too high?
 
No but there a large number of factors to consider many of which we dont know

One example - to shore up ICU capacity the NHS switched alot of elderly patients to private nursing homes (without testing them). No surprise whats happened as a result. In Spain and Italy up to 50% of deaths have apparently been in nursing homes.

The media are an absolute joke over the way this has been potrayed.

I assume you are referring to Fox?

It is governments making the decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top