News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread II

[Snake_Baker]

No politically biased arguments can get around this.

 

[rickety]

Oh Christ, don't let the wokesters see you or they will be on to child protection!!!

Yeah he's a larrikin in the making already. Child protection brought him here ;-)

 

[7577969923]

No politically biased arguments can get around this.

View attachment 962573

These numbers are stark and to claim that Victoria has managed Covid19 badly should not be controversial and not even overtly political. There are 2 ALP led states and 2 ALP led territories that have done a far better job than Victoria. There are 3 Liberal-led states that have done a far better job than Victoria. T

 

[Snake_Baker]

These numbers are stark and to claim that Victoria has managed Covid19 badly should not be controversial and not even overtly political. There are 2 ALP led states and 2 ALP led territories that have done a far better job than Victoria. There are 3 Liberal-led states that have done a far better job than Victoria. T

it's just the truth and that's all there is to it.

ANYONE who defends it should be automatically classified as a zealot, and then ignored.

 

[giantroo]

 

[7577969923]

it's just the truth and that's all there is to it.

ANYONE who defends it should be automatically classified as a zealot, and then ignored.

Once you accept the data you dig in and look at what went wrong and the following things stand out:
We had a quarantine system for recognised high risk returning travelers that failed - infection was spread from those in quarantine to the community.
The testing system was to slow in turning around results (reports of 5 to 10 days were common).
People weren't self-isolating after being tested.
Our contact tracing system was poorly managed and failed to prevent a relatively small number of infections from hotel quarantine becoming a major outbreak in the state.
The home self-isolation and quarantine requirements were effectively an honour system and were not enforced - when they finally did do a meaningful check approximately a third of infected people were out and about.

Of course, there is lots of detail and nuance about how and why those things failed but in my view, they are the key pillars driving the massive differential in performance versus other states with near enough to identical circumstances and challenges.

 

[7577969923]

" Rejoice. Dan Andrews has destroyed the village to save it. "

A very thought-provoking and intelligent piece from Chris Uhlman in the Fairfax(do we still call them that?) press today. It really gets to the heart of the issues around the trade-offs being made right now and whether we are getting our priorities right.

Uhlman is one of the most rational and clear-eyed commentators we have on the political landscape. Even though he is married to a former ALP federal member I would defy anyone to infer a partisan leaning based on his work.

COVID-19 has hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people

As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Caracas]

These numbers are stark and to claim that Victoria has managed Covid19 badly should not be controversial and not even overtly political. There are 2 ALP led states and 2 ALP led territories that have done a far better job than Victoria. There are 3 Liberal-led states that have done a far better job than Victoria. T

Yes, it’s pretty clear that Queensland is taking the chocolates at this stage, followed by WA, SA, Tasmania, NSW with Victoria well and truly last.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

If they could just start reporting the non reclassified cases, that would be great.

Only NEW cases should matter.

 

[Caracas]

" Rejoice. Dan Andrews has destroyed the village to save it. "

A very thought-provoking and intelligent piece from Chris Uhlman in the Fairfax(do we still call them that?) press today. It really gets to the heart of the issues around the trade-offs being made right now and whether we are getting our priorities right.

Uhlman is one of the most rational and clear-eyed commentators we have on the political landscape. Even though he is married to a former ALP federal member I would defy anyone to infer a partisan leaning based on his work.

COVID-19 has hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people

As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.

www.smh.com.au

All good stuff. However, I do wish that people would stop dealing with this pandemic as if were over. On the face of it, that is by no means the case. No judgments can be made at this stage from any angle. When it is over, then and only then, can proper judgment be passed. Up until then, everything is just self-indulgent dross.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sbdan]

" Rejoice. Dan Andrews has destroyed the village to save it. "

A very thought-provoking and intelligent piece from Chris Uhlman in the Fairfax(do we still call them that?) press today. It really gets to the heart of the issues around the trade-offs being made right now and whether we are getting our priorities right.

Uhlman is one of the most rational and clear-eyed commentators we have on the political landscape. Even though he is married to a former ALP federal member I would defy anyone to infer a partisan leaning based on his work.

COVID-19 has hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people

As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.

www.smh.com.au

The Dan Fans will be at him, but Uhlman has written a couple of gutsy articles like this now & his eye has always been on the long term.

People must be made aware of other possibilities outside of the Victorian lockdown. There was a patch where if you opposed lock down, you were accused of murdering the elderly....I hope we are past that now.

 

[Tectonic]

If they could just start reporting the non reclassified cases, that would be great.

Only NEW cases should matter.

It seems that's the way the DHHS uses the data fortunately;

These are the numbers to watch in Victoria over the next few weeks

How the daily average case rate and the number of cases with an unknown source will set the pace for Victoria's reopening under the state's roadmaps.

www.abc.net.au

Victorian COVID-19 data | Coronavirus Victoria

Daily data updates on COVID-19 including graphs showing case numbers, location and age group

www.dhhs.vic.gov.au

^thats the number to watch

 

[7577969923]

All good stuff. However, I do wish that people would stop dealing with this pandemic as if were over. On the face of it, that is by no means the case. No judgments can be made at this stage from any angle. When it is over, then and only then, can proper judgment be passed. Up until then, everything is just self-indulgent dross.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Are you referring to something I have said? As I don't think I have implied that the pandemic is over.

I would disagree with the premise of your last two sentences.

 

[Tectonic]

So what I get from that is the new cases are actually the new cases but the (-x reclassified) is removed from previous tallies, not the new daily number.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

So what I get from that is the new cases are actually the new cases but the (-x reclassified) is removed from previous tallies, not the new daily number.

Sounds right, but subject to amendment if / when today's new cases are analysed for duplications (in which case, they're probably not new cases ...).

 

[7577969923]

Yes, it’s pretty clear that Queensland is taking the chocolates at this stage, followed by WA, SA, Tasmania, NSW with Victoria well and truly last.

I would argue that after the early debacle of the Ruby Princess NSW's management of the pandemic has been exceptional. They were the ones most at risk from the spillover of the third wave in Victoria but have managed to keep a whole range of spot fires from causing bigger problems. That they also managed to prevent the Ruby Princes cases causing a major outbreak in the state was an example of how much better their existing contact tracing capability was than Victoria's at the outset of the pandemic.
He faced less risk but I think McGowan also executed very well.

 

[7577969923]

If they could just start reporting the non reclassified cases, that would be great.

Only NEW cases should matter.

Only real cases should matter. I think Covidlive is just a private citizen pulling the data together and doesn't have access to the breakdown of reclassified cases. For the purposes of what we are facing reclassified cases are relevant if they impact the 14-day window.

 

[The Butcher]

" Rejoice. Dan Andrews has destroyed the village to save it. "

A very thought-provoking and intelligent piece from Chris Uhlman in the Fairfax(do we still call them that?) press today. It really gets to the heart of the issues around the trade-offs being made right now and whether we are getting our priorities right.

Uhlman is one of the most rational and clear-eyed commentators we have on the political landscape. Even though he is married to a former ALP federal member I would defy anyone to infer a partisan leaning based on his work.

COVID-19 has hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people

As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.

www.smh.com.au

I read it, I agree it is all heart. Looking at that piece in isolation, he wrote very emotivley and made many statements of certainty without much proof. I liked the part where he invoked sophists and false choices, right after declaring it a good idea to chuck a wall around aged care and liberate everyone else. False choice? Articles like this seem to imply that the reader doesn't need convincing of anything, faith in the authors opinion is enough. I'm out of touch, but if this is insightful and meaningful journalism.. I guess I just don't have the heart for it.

 

[7577969923]

I read it, I agree it is all heart. Looking at that piece in isolation, he wrote very emotivley and made many statements of certainty without much proof. I liked the part where he invoked sophists and false choices, right after declaring it a good idea to chuck a wall around aged care and liberate everyone else. False choice? Articles like this seem to imply that the reader doesn't need convincing of anything, faith in the authors opinion is enough. I'm out of touch, but if this is insightful and meaningful journalism.. I guess I just don't have the heart for it.

It's an opinion piece and even so had plenty of facts. As for proof, show me where there is proof for anything to do with this pandemic? If you think that throwing a wall around aged care and liberating the rest is a false choice, make your case.

 

[75-77-96-99]

If they could just start reporting the non reclassified cases, that would be great.

Only NEW cases should matter.

i said that in an earlier post a couple of pages back - if its reclassified then it does not have to be reported. just say 32 cases and u dont have to have a separate tally in brackets.

 

[DesertRoo]

No politically biased arguments can get around this.

View attachment 962573

This alone should lead to a royal commission. No skirting about it anymore.

and that’s even before calling for extraordinary powers and then sidelining the experts for why those extraordinary powers exist.

 

[The Butcher]

It's an opinion piece and even so had plenty of facts. As for proof, show me where there is proof for anything to do with this pandemic? If you think that throwing a wall around aged care and liberating the rest is a false choice, make your case.

To the second part, the case is that doing one does not impact on doing or not doing the other. False choice.

I guess I'd like to see some supportive substance given to help the reader buy the assertions. In opinion puff like this couldnt they throw in some links to more in depth work that helped them form their opinions? I guess the people consuming the opinion columns have their feelings of trust developed for the authors and the publishers don't feel the need to establish it over and over again in the hope of convincing new readers. Anyway im not consuming so my opinion matters little.

 

[7577969923]

To the second part, the case is that doing one does not impact on doing or not doing the other. False choice.

I guess I'd like to see some supportive substance given to help the reader buy the assertions. In opinion puff like this couldnt they throw in some links to more in depth work that helped them form their opinions? I guess the people consuming the opinion columns have their feelings of trust developed for the authors and the publishers don't feel the need to establish it over and over again in the hope of convincing new readers. Anyway im not consuming so my opinion matters little.

I think a lot of reader's eyes may glaze over a bit reading too much-supporting material as well. I kind of like the way that the Washington Post does this in their opinion columns where they will link back to another source article when they make a claim, even if it is from another publication. They don't provide much in the way of supportive evidence in the column itself but it is there for the curious reader. They would make a statement like "witnesses have confirmed the allegation that Trump called fallen servicemen "losers'" and just put a hyperlink on the last four words.

I'm not sure it is a false choice but I would agree with the propositions it oversimplifies the choice we are faced with. If it was easy to throw a "ring around aged care" we should have done it already. That's not to say it is impossible at all and many facilities have done a fantastic job but it is not the type of policy prescription that politicians like because it needs to be executed extremely well, every day, and at every individual facility. Much easier to order the whole population into lockdown.

 

[Themanbun]

It's an opinion piece and even so had plenty of facts. As for proof, show me where there is proof for anything to do with this pandemic? If you think that throwing a wall around aged care and liberating the rest is a false choice, make your case.

I've made my case several times.

Economic data out of Europe suggests that the key driver of economic decline during COVID is the extent of the outbreak, not the extent of the lockdown. I have linked this at least once here.

Comparative global mental health data suggests that the key driver of mental health decline during COVID is the outbreak, not the lockdown responses to it. Not sure I linked it, but I mentioned somewhere here than Sweden's 'lifeline' calls spiked by 60 per cent, Australia's 30 per cent.

I've linked CDC data here which shows that although deaths for people aged under 65 are low, hospitalization rates are still a significant cause for concern and could collapse our entire health system.

I have linked growing evidence that people who are hospitalised yet don't die are at what I think is an unacceptable risk of long term damage. Let along the unknown long term effects.

I've also made the point, although that's one I made with rhetoric rather than evidence, that identifying and isolating the 'vulnerable' is much more difficult in practice than we are led to believe.

I don't think I need to repeat myself again, and you're probably sick of hearing it, but there is an alternative case.

Economics and IR is my wheelhouse and I think that given Victoria's history (>700 cases per day whilst already in a form of significant restriction) that the risk of infection blowing out of control blows the economics arguments out of the water.

The only argument I see merit in is the ethical argument in relation to personal liberty, in which case as I've stated before, I respect the argument as logically consistent, but I don't see eye to eye with it.

The economics and mental health arguments in particular always compare the 'effect' of the lockdown versus the pre-pandemic baseline, or comparative to countries which haven't had huge outbreaks (or fail to account for the nuances in some countries where the population has pretty much placed itself in voluntary lockdown). They rarely take into account the real risk that the economy will plunge anyway, and evidence is showing roughly to the same degree, if the virus runs rampant.

 

[7577969923]

I've made my case several times.

Economic data out of Europe suggests that the key driver of economic decline during COVID is the extent of the outbreak, not the extent of the lockdown. I have linked this at least once here.

Comparative global mental health data suggests that the key driver of mental health decline during COVID is the outbreak, not the lockdown responses to it. Not sure I linked it, but I mentioned somewhere here than Sweden's 'lifeline' calls spiked by 60 per cent, Australia's 30 per cent.

I've linked CDC data here which shows that although deaths for people aged under 65 are low, hospitalization rates are still a significant cause for concern and could collapse our entire health system.

I have linked growing evidence that people who are hospitalised yet don't die are at what I think is an unacceptable risk of long term damage. Let along the unknown long term effects.

I've also made the point, although that's one I made with rhetoric rather than evidence, that identifying and isolating the 'vulnerable' is much more difficult in practice than we are led to believe.

I don't think I need to repeat myself again, and you're probably sick of hearing it, but there is an alternative case.

Economics and IR is my wheelhouse and I think that given Victoria's history (>700 cases per day whilst already in a form of significant restriction) that the risk of infection blowing out of control blows the economics arguments out of the water.

The only argument I see merit in is the ethical argument in relation to personal liberty, in which case as I've stated before, I respect the argument as logically consistent, but I don't see eye to eye with it.

The economics and mental health arguments in particular always compare the 'effect' of the lockdown versus the pre-pandemic baseline, or comparative to countries which haven't had huge outbreaks (or fail to account for the nuances in some countries where the population has pretty much placed itself in voluntary lockdown). They rarely take into account the real risk that the economy will plunge anyway, and evidence is showing roughly to the same degree, if the virus runs rampant.

Your assumptions are based around the continuation of incompetence by the Victorian government, a reckless opening up, and the idea that this is proposing a let it rip strategy. None of those things are or should be true. NSW has shown that it is possible not to have hard lockdown and prevent moderate numbers of cases from surging into a wave. If after all this time and all that we have learnt the Andrews government still doesn't have the fundamentals of response in place to deliver such an outcome they should be dismissed from office and face criminal negligence charges.

I have studied a fair bit of economics myself and would dispute your assertion that outbreak trumps lockdown as the driver of economic outcomes. I would say that is purely a function of the depth and length of the lockdown versus the extent of thee viral outbreak. The impact on a significant proportion of the businesses in Victoria and a significant proportion of employees is so severe that it will decimate the economy if it stretches out for much longer. How long would it take our state economy to recover if we lost 30% to 40% of our hospitality businesses, and a major chunk of our bricks and mortar retail? It would devastate employment in the state for several years and cause a major crash in the commercial property sector.

I also think you don't have enough data to be confident in your assertions on mental health. I am not dismissing it as a possibility but your example is an extremely narrow set of data in what is a very complex and multi-layered issue.

Can we get away from the notion that it is a binary choice between an extended period of hard and lengthy lockdown and the virus running rampant? There is a whole range of different scenarios and possibilities. We are now in a position where we should be exploring those possibilities and looking to the fastest way to safely open up our economy and manage risk at the same time. Our Government is not doing that.