Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 3.

[TeeKray]

It’s more like, person A believes we should do what we can to save lives. Let’s all chip in and pay.

Person B believes it’s more important they make money than save lives. Why should I pay.

Lol. Paying your mortgage is not a team sport. Feeding your kids is not a team sport. Homelessness is not a team sport. Almost everyone would rather thousands of strangers die than lose their ability to make money. If you're one of the rare people with supreme virtue who wouldn't, I dip my freaking lid to you man.

 

[raptalia]

Lol. Paying your mortgage is not a team sport. Feeding your kids is not a team sport. Homelessness is not a team sport. Almost everyone would rather thousands of strangers die than lose their ability to make money. If you're one of the rare people with supreme virtue who wouldn't, I dip my freaking lid to you man.

I do not want to see innocent people die from starvation or COVID.

 

[davesnothere]

Another factor in your scenario is that the people with the power and influence over public health policy are Person A types: politicians, CMOs, medical professionals etc. I understand that they are trying to make decisions in good faith to protect the community but I can't help wondering whether their decisions would be different if their hip pocket was directly affected.

I lose money though lockdowns. I lose less though going hard and early. Anyone who doesn't want to lock down because they lose money should be spewing at what Gladys has done.

There is only one lever against covid. Social Distancing. Letting it loose in the community is not an option. I don't believe it's an option even once people are vaccinated. You go hard early and eliminate it. People move around with confidence. That is good for business.

I'm more than a bit fearful there's idiots out there who think vaccines are the answer and everything is OK once we reach a certain level of vaccination. Overseas pretty much everywhere suggests that's not the case. Total elimination on the other hand can work. That is going to be vaccinations/masks/lockdown where required along with being careful with quarantine and who we play with as far as international travel goes.

 

[Capital Power]

NSW 239 cases 35 in the community.

Might be a good time to consider a lockdown ...

 

[davesnothere]

NSW 239 cases 35 in the community.

I've got the possibility of about 150 in the community at some point.

35 partly
26 totally in the wild
98 under investigation ie probably in the wild but you can't prove it yet.

 

[VineValerian]

Might be a good time to consider a lockdown ...

Gladys was our country's saviour.
Wash your mouth out with soap you infidel.
She knows what is best. Australian of the year

 

[Festerz]

It’s almost as if the generalisations in this thread are ludicrous.

Yep.

But this sort of simplistic binary either/or left/right good/bad stuff is now the norm in public discussion when the truth is far more complex and nuanced.

Sadly it is because this simplistic type of us vs them analysis suits the politicians and the lazy media. And frankly, it suits most of us as well. Treating complex public policy issues such as the pandemic as if they were a footy game where we support either Team A or Team B is a lot easier than doing our own hard thinking and research on things. Odd, isn't it, that the development of the Internet has placed more data and facts at the hands of average citizens than at any time in human history and yet we seem more divided than ever as a community?

My own view is that now more than ever we are in need of a national leader to unite us as a nation rather than letting the states and petty parochial politics take centre stage. The PM did exactly the right things at the start of this pandemic in acting swiftly to close our national border and setting up a National Cabinet. But since then he has been unable or unwilling to do the things that a PM should be doing in terms of providing that national leadership in relation to securing adequate vaccines or fronting the nation via regular national weekly broadcasts to explain to the people what is happening and why (a bit like PMs have done in other times of crisis like WWII).

In the vacuum created by this lack of strong courageous national leadership and presence by our PM we have seen division and petty politics rule the day.

The PM has announced that we need to achieve an 80% vaccination rate to avoid further lockdowns and open up Australia to the world again. I just can't see how we are ever going to achieve that without strong and united national leadership.

 

[El Zorro]

Most of the tension is pretty simple really.

Person A is OK with lockdowns because they have a job that is unaffected by lockdowns. To Person A, it's a no brainer to lockdown for the days, weeks or months required to protect the health of others.

Person B is not ok with lockdowns because lockdowns destroy their ability to make an income. To Person B, the ability to put food on the table and pay rent/mortgage comes before the virtue of protecting community health.

The interests of Person A win out over the interests of Person B because Person A significantly outnumbers Person B. If 80% of society were Person B, this would be a totally different discussion and all of a sudden health outcomes would take a back seat.

Person A should have enough empathy to realise the fortunate situation they are in by comparison to Person B. Person B should understand that they're getting screwed over because they're in the minority - and that's just how life in a democracy works.

Please note I am not referring to the anti lockdown protesters here, those people are just anarchists.

I agree with this. Lockdowns should have been an emergency measure in the early stages of the pandemic. The federal government failed person B on at least 3 issues: poor quarantine, slow vaccination and cutting job keeper too soon. If people need to stop working due to federal government * ups, they should at least be paid. As a person A, I would be happy to pay additional emergency taxes to make sure person B is protected and we get out of this asap. But I would not trust this government with my money.

 

[raptalia]

So, all organised and professional sport is cancelled in Brisbane...

Unless of course you are the NRL.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

How the * does that work?


From our point of view it is just as well we are out of Queensland because had we stayed and played at Metricon we may not have got a quarantine exemption to re enter SA. The NRL teams will remain in quarantine in Queensland so it is not going to make much difference to them. That said there does seem to one set of rules for the AFL and another for the NRL.

 

[edgie]

It's almost as if not many people here have lived below the poverty line in Australia.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Imagine deeming the younger generation essential workers, not allowing them to be vaccinated and then getting angry when they're transmitting the virus

 

[Marat]

So the NRL gets the green light in Queensland in the same way “Ring of Steel” Dan gave the go ahead for the tennis. Like good fascists everywhere they know a bit about circuses and the masses

 

[edgie]

The reversal of progressive/conservative split with this is fascinating.

Normally conservative: This must suck for those without means to make it through periods without income, I can understand the desperation.
Normally progressive: Everyone has suck it up and get on with it and stop being selfish, there's no excuse for disobeying the law and our superiors.

Also the balance restored to physical health having clear priority over mental health.

 

[edgie]

I agree with this. Lockdowns should have been an emergency measure in the early stages of the pandemic. The federal government failed person B on at least 3 issues: poor quarantine, slow vaccination and cutting job keeper too soon. If people need to stop working due to federal government fu** ups, they should at least be paid. As a person A, I would be happy to pay additional emergency taxes to make sure person B is protected and we get out of this asap. But I would not trust this government with my money.

As person B I'd be happy to pay more tax as a % as long as that filters up, the tax rates we pay now are historically generous as s**t across the board, but it is impossible for me to not agree with the last sentence.

 

[backtozero]

Also the balance restored to physical health having priority over mental health.

When all is said and done the mental health crisis will dwarf the impact of covid itself, if it hasn't already.
But you can't talk about that.

 

[VineValerian]

So, all organised and professional sport is cancelled in Brisbane...

Unless of course you are the NRL.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

How the fu** does that work?


From our point of view it is just as well we are out of Queensland because had we stayed and played at Metricon we may not have got a quarantine exemption to re enter SA. The NRL teams will remain in quarantine in Queensland so it is not going to make much difference to them. That said there does seem to one set of rules for the AFL and another for the NRL.

Queensland is a rugby State, after all is said and done.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Total elimination on the other hand can work. That is going to be vaccinations/masks/lockdown where required along with being careful with quarantine and who we play with as far as international travel goes.

It's a bit late for that. With nearly 200 million cases worldwide the cat's well and truly out of the bag and this will be around for the next 100 years like the flu. We can't stay isolated from the rest of the world forever. The only way out is herd immunity through immunisation and the likelihood that the virus will continue to mutate into more contagious but less deadly strains.

 

[Marat]

When all is said and done the mental health crisis will dwarf the impact of covid itself, if it hasn't already.
But you can't talk about that.

It’s an inconvenient truth. I’m in Sydney. If you live alone you are effectively in solitary confinement with no end in sight. Gladys to her credit has introduced a new rule whereby solitary dwellers can have a bubble with one other solitary dweller. Cant help but feel the policy change may have been triggered by a spike in self harm and hospital admissions

 

[edgie]

When all is said and done the mental health crisis will dwarf the impact of covid itself, if it hasn't already.
But you can't talk about that.

Eh.

It's a fine line to walk, personally I support the hard choice of looking after the physical first, but like I said, it's the reversal from the kind of crowd where mental health is usually a big important issue that needs more priority, fervently supporting measures currently in place that work against it, that have adopted an attitude that comes down to 'please look after yourself and get help, but also toughen up and stay home for everyone else'.

It's ******* easy from the cheap seats of considering oneself a centrist to comment on this s**t but.

 

[raptalia]

I lose money though lockdowns. I lose less though going hard and early. Anyone who doesn't want to lock down because they lose money should be spewing at what Gladys has done.

There is only one lever against covid. Social Distancing. Letting it loose in the community is not an option. I don't believe it's an option even once people are vaccinated. You go hard early and eliminate it. People move around with confidence. That is good for business.

I'm more than a bit fearful there's idiots out there who think vaccines are the answer and everything is OK once we reach a certain level of vaccination. Overseas pretty much everywhere suggests that's not the case. Total elimination on the other hand can work. That is going to be vaccinations/masks/lockdown where required along with being careful with quarantine and who we play with as far as international travel goes.

Exactly right. No one likes to lock down but there is right and an idiotic way to go about it. As Western Australia then Victoria and South Australia did it and as Queensland have done it is by far the less damaging way. The evidence is there for all to see, go early, go hard and in a couple of weeks maximum it is over.

Of course if they can fix the leaks from the hotel quarantine system the chances of lock downs would probably be eliminated but that is another issue.

The modelling from the Doherty institute predicts Australia will need to be 80% fully vaccinated before we can open up and avoid lockdowns. At the current rate this will take until February next year. So, we have another six months of potential lockdowns to endure. Let us hope those who control the largest state economy in the Commonwealth have learned something from the past six weeks! it is important to all of Australia that they handle future outbreaks more efficiently.

 

[backtozero]

Eh.

It's a fine line to walk, personally I support the hard choice of looking after the physical first, but like I said, it's the reversal from the kind of crowd where mental health is usually a big important issue that needs more priority, fervently supporting measures currently in place that work against it, that have adopted an attitude that comes down to 'please look after yourself and get help, but also toughen up and stay home for everyone else'

The issue for me is that you're not even allowed to discuss the negative impact of lockdowns without being branded as selfish and uncaring for the sick and old or someone that just cares about the economy first and foremost. As with most societal issues that get politicised, there's no room for nuanced discussion.
How many youth suicides do we need to see before stepping back and questioning if this snap lockdown strategy is the right one? And its not going away quickly. Future generations will be paying for this for a very long time.

 

[edgie]

The issue for me is that you're not even allowed to discuss the negative impact of lockdowns without being branded as selfish and uncaring for the sick and old or someone that just cares about the economy first and foremost. As with most societal issues that get politicised, there's no room for nuanced discussion.
How many youth suicides do we need to see before stepping back and questioning if this snap lockdown strategy is the right one? And its not going away quickly. Future generations will be paying for this for a very long time.

And that those disregarding health orders the most (not financially secure, and or not white) are usually the demographics the pro lockdown people usually campaign on behalf of.

 

[Festerz]

The issue for me is that you're not even allowed to discuss the negative impact of lockdowns without being branded as selfish and uncaring for the sick and old or someone that just cares about the economy first and foremost.

Yep.

Economics has always played an important role in public health care. It is not an either/or proposition - governments are always balancing the costs of providing alternative potentially life saving health care options vs other alternatives such as building roads, spending more money on defence or social welfare or lower taxes. If this were not the case then every single cent of federal, state and local government spending would be allocated to hospitals, prescriptions and health care centres no matter the cost and no government in the world, regardless of their political colour has ever done that.

Those politicians and public figures stating that the mere thought of just thinking about the huge immediate and long term economic cost of imposing large lock downs lacks compassion are being completely disingenuous and deliberately divisive.

Health experts argue and the evidence shows that lockdowns provide the best chance of beating covid-19 and saving lives in the absence of a high vaccination rate, particularly as the virus mutates. But there can be no denying that these lockdowns also impose severe economic and social stress on large numbers of people in our community. The provision of public funds to help people through these lock downs makes both economic and social sense.

But the provision of multi billion dollar government subsidy payments to businesses and workers whose livelihoods are adversely impacted by these lockdowns does not just impose a huge public debt burden on future generations of Australians. It also substantially lessens the capacity of Federal and State Governments to respond to future pandemics or national emergencies. These are issues that will be with us long after the threat from covid-19 subsides.

To not discuss these issues openly and honestly seems to me to be absolutely reckless. And yet for purely political reasons it is something that neither the PM nor the Federal Opposition Leader have the courage and honesty to do so.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[chiwigi]

When all is said and done the mental health crisis will dwarf the impact of covid itself, if it hasn't already.
But you can't talk about that.

There have been hundreds of articles on it.
Here’s one. We won’t know if it would have dwarfed allowing Covid to run rampant on the population as measures were taken to prevent it, but if you’re suggesting allowing a hundred thousand Australians to die by doing nothing would have had no negative effects on mental health then I think you need to re-think that.

Whatever was done or not done was always going to have a negative effect because it’s a s**t situation!

Thailand for example are using morgues that haven’t been needed since the tsunami.

Tackling the mental health impact of the COVID-19 crisis: An integrated, whole-of-society response

The COVID‑19 crisis has heightened the risk factors generally associated with poor mental health – financial insecurity, unemployment, fear – while protective factors – social connection, employment and educational engagement, access to physical exercise, daily routine, access to health services...

www.oecd.org