News & Events Non-Football COVID-19 Discussions

Remove this Banner Ad

ScrappyCoCo said:
Say you catch covid and are vaccinated and it doesn't do much to you, but then next year you get it again (you have had you're booster shot) but are perhaps a bit more sick from a variant that stronger, then the following year you get a mild case...and so on. What happens after we have had it 10 times. We will be allowing it to come, and allowing us to get it multiple times. Will there be some sort of damage to our bodies that will eventually catch up with us and make really sick.
Click to expand...
No. The immune system doesn't work like that. Think of it like memories. For example - imagine yesterday you ate a really tasty looking jelly bean that was flavoured like a piece of dog s**t and you ate it and thought, "this is really gross I am never doing that again". But then next year you see a piece of dog s**t that looks delicious but that smells really similar to that jelly bean, and you take a really big sniff of it and it makes you a little woozy, but you remember that jelly bean flavoured dog s**t that you ate last year, and decide not to eat it because it was nasty. And then the year after that, you come across another similar piece of dog s**t that looks really tasty, but maybe this one is a different consistency, and so you have a little nibble, but then before you can go any further it triggers the memory of that dogshit flavoured jelly bean that you really didn't like, and you remember that it is a bad idea so you run away from that particular strain of dogshit.

its just like that.

The jelly bean is the vaccine, and covid is the dogshit.
 
Phone said:
the quarantine program gets 1/10 because it's pretty disgraceful that australian citizens are literally not allowed to get home because all the state and federal government leaders decided their citizens must be go into hotels, which happens to help subsidize the hotel industry.

failures around that go into deeper structural problems ie nsw had a better contract tracing system because nsw has a better health system as a result of victorian government restructures circa many years ago
Click to expand...
Yet diplomats can go home to quarantine. The last 3 cases here in the ACT have been diplomats flying in to Sydney and driving in private car to Canberra. Think Dan A did a great job controlling the spread in Victoria. Would be monumentally short-sighted to turf his government out because the outbreak happened on their watch. The thing about unprecedented events is that there isn't a blue print and mistakes are made. Look at Sweden....It's the response to mistakes that counts in terms of governance, and sport for that matter too. It's hard to learn from your mistakes if you are removed from your job.
 
DapperJong said:
That’s a fair point. I would still argue that if the ruby princess infections spread like vics did, we wouldn’t have been stamped with any type of “gold standard”. Both governments were reactionary.
Click to expand...

Common theme here however is the Federal Government's abdication of responsibility. With the ABF's role in the RP, roughly 600/800 deaths in Vic occurring in Federally managed aged-care homes and the fact that quarantine is a federal jurisdiction in the first place.

God only knows what situation we would be in if Scomo had his way and home quarantine was the standard instead of using hotels.
 
ant555 said:
Do not want to be political but I could not vote for Dan against anyone now. Their total arrogance and ineptitude put us back in lock down while the rest of the country was moving towards normal. Did a good job fixing the mess but they created the mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

I can't subscribe to this. Has the Andrews Government not shown competence by delivering the results it has in effectively achieving elimination from a position no other place on earth has really been able to come back from?

You can criticise the fact the outbreak occurred (I think equal parts bad luck mixed with imperfect planning) but, and since we're on a football forum, it would be like calling for Hardwick to be sacked after the 2017 premiership because the team was incompetent in 2016.

Besides, what, if anything, from the Opposition has shown in anyway that they would've been more adept at handling this, both before and after the second wave?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sameolds33 said:
Yet diplomats can go home to quarantine. The last 3 cases here in the ACT have been diplomats flying in to Sydney and driving in private car to Canberra. Think Dan A did a great job controlling the spread in Victoria. Would be monumentally short-sighted to turf his government out because the outbreak happened on their watch. The thing about unprecedented events is that there isn't a blue print and mistakes are made. Look at Sweden....It's the response to mistakes that counts in terms of governance, and sport for that matter too. It's hard to learn from your mistakes if you are removed from your job.
Click to expand...

So you really think it is okay for them to have set up a program that hired untrained security staff that did not even have any security training let alone training on procedure with infectious disease. I know someone from an employment agency that fielded calls from the security company these contracts where farmed out to and the calls where basically send us anyone you can find , we need numbers. The fact that it was farmed out twice to companies not recommended for government work is unbelievable in itself.

So now we are in a spot where we will never know who made the decision. A mountain of lies at the "official " enquiry have been exposed but the one question remains and that is how did it get to the point it did ? This is more than just a mistake. If Dan had no idea who made the decision then who is actually running the state ? If he was not involved in making the decision or not informed / briefed about how the most important decision of the pandemic at that stage then WTF is going on ? Who exactly is running the state .They saw what happened in NSW yet the official program for handling quarantine for people coming into the state was more armature than shopping center security.
This is not just an error. It is total incompetence. Seems to me that putting efforts into blowing up the Labour right faction than the security detail of people coming into the country.

No there was no exact blue print but there was already an example of what happens when incompetent government departments can not work out a plan. What happened in NSW should have been the lesson. That was the lesson that needed to be heeded . That clear example showed why the hotel quarantine had to be as good as it could be. NSW handed over quarantine control to the police commissioner after their stuff up.

Of course then there is the fact that everyone just fronted the enquiry and gave evidence only to have to back track once evidence to the contrary kept coming to light and still is.

So do I think the Government should be thrown out ? No. The current Liberal party in Victoria is a bland clueless bunch who have no idea of how to read how the community feels and are continually off message. The fact that their message included us dropping lockdown early proves that. They are the most non inspirational bunch of politicians in the country.
However the casualty list from this debacle should be longer than the health minister and a few public servants. Dan Andrews should not lead the party to the next election. He should stand aside at some stage and take total ownership for one of the biggest political blunders in history. The Labour Party has done a decent job for Victoria and deserves to continue on but there has to be a proportional level of accountability for what happened.

And just to let people know other than being in lockdown on the weekend the pandemic has not effected me much. I actually had more work hours through most of it and MRS Ant did not lose any hours. We actually ended up saving money in the end. So I am not talking about this through the eyes of someone who lost their job / business or lost anyone close to me. I just expect my leaders to be able to come up with a plan that shows some level of professionalism.
I know they can not make all the decisions but before all of the quarantine was signed off it should have been gone over with a fine toothed comb. It was too big of a deal not to have. Now this may have happened if Dan and his group of 8 did not bypass caucus but we will never know.
 
The Prosecutor said:
I can't subscribe to this. Has the Andrews Government not shown competence by delivering the results it has in effectively achieving elimination from a position no other place on earth has really been able to come back from?

You can criticise the fact the outbreak occurred (I think equal parts bad luck mixed with imperfect planning) but, and since we're on a football forum, it would be like calling for Hardwick to be sacked after the 2017 premiership because the team was incompetent in 2016.

Besides, what, if anything, from the Opposition has shown in anyway that they would've been more adept at handling this, both before and after the second wave?
Click to expand...

Then you do not have high standards.
Bad luck ?
So what part of hiring a non preferred security group who then out sourced it to another which out sourced it to another who then proceeded to hire anyone they could find without training to guard what was the most dangerous thing that was to enter our state ? It is not even close to Richmond 2016.
Bad luck would have been a small slip up from a well trained security group. The whole exercise ended up being about a couple of security companies making a dollar rather than having the best system we could have. It seems no one bothered to have a decent review of the plan before it was in place. Is it unreasonable to think someone may have looked and though maybe a third party group was not the way to be going with security ?

I have already praised them for what they did since . There is no doubt they did a great job fixing the problem and standing their ground when the calls for exiting lockdown early came.

What the opposition would or would not have done is irrelevant other than they may well have looked a bit closer at what the NSW model ended up being after the Ruby Princess. I am no fan of the Victorian Libs . I do have an issue with us handling something so deadly in such an armature way. You do know we even went away from any emergency plan we had in place and from the back up in any government , that being caucus , which is supposed to examine such events before they are put in place ? The failings are on several levels.

Try saying oops to someone who lost a relative because of a "mistake" .
 
The Prosecutor said:
Common theme here however is the Federal Government's abdication of responsibility. With the ABF's role in the RP, roughly 600/800 deaths in Vic occurring in Federally managed aged-care homes and the fact that quarantine is a federal jurisdiction in the first place.

God only knows what situation we would be in if Scomo had his way and home quarantine was the standard instead of using hotels.
Click to expand...

Lets not leave out all the facts here.
Yes most deaths occurred in Private aged care homes that are under the Federal Governments jurisdiction .
The Federal Government has already owned that and not backed away.
What you are not saying is the fact that over 400 under Federal Government jurisdiction did not record deaths. Not that it is any consolation but it was a small number of poorly run centers that where the problem. There where a small number of rouge homes that should have been checked on more rigidly. There was also an issue with nurse to patient ratios the the Federal Government has also
There was also an issue with the Vic Department of Health withholding PPE equipment to some Private homes for fear someone would sell them.
Now the nursing homes where a * up and a royal commission had just been completed into them said as much but if the virus was not let out on mass then the majority would not have died. You can not poison someone without poison.

If Scomo had his way quarantine would have been done off shore but everyone did not like that. If quarantine was done at home it may have been easier to trace any outbreaks but like anything it would have had to have been done properly.

Seems the common theme here is the anti Liberal brigade have no issue with their party making one of the biggest blunder in political history and then just plainly lying about it at an official enquiry.
 
Last edited:
ant555 said:
So you really think it is okay for them to have set up a program that hired untrained security staff that did not even have any security training let alone training on procedure with infectious disease. I know someone from an employment agency that fielded calls from the security company these contracts where farmed out to and the calls where basically send us anyone you can find , we need numbers. The fact that it was farmed out twice to companies not recommended for government work is unbelievable in itself.

So now we are in a spot where we will never know who made the decision. A mountain of lies at the "official " enquiry have been exposed but the one question remains and that is how did it get to the point it did ? This is more than just a mistake. If Dan had no idea who made the decision then who is actually running the state ? If he was not involved in making the decision or not informed / briefed about how the most important decision of the pandemic at that stage then WTF is going on ? Who exactly is running the state .They saw what happened in NSW yet the official program for handling quarantine for people coming into the state was more armature than shopping center security.
This is not just an error. It is total incompetence. Seems to me that putting efforts into blowing up the Labour right faction than the security detail of people coming into the country.

No there was no exact blue print but there was already an example of what happens when incompetent government departments can not work out a plan. What happened in NSW should have been the lesson. That was the lesson that needed to be heeded . That clear example showed why the hotel quarantine had to be as good as it could be. NSW handed over quarantine control to the police commissioner after their stuff up.

Of course then there is the fact that everyone just fronted the enquiry and gave evidence only to have to back track once evidence to the contrary kept coming to light and still is.

So do I think the Government should be thrown out ? No. The current Liberal party in Victoria is a bland clueless bunch who have no idea of how to read how the community feels and are continually off message. The fact that their message included us dropping lockdown early proves that. They are the most non inspirational bunch of politicians in the country.
However the casualty list from this debacle should be longer than the health minister and a few public servants. Dan Andrews should not lead the party to the next election. He should stand aside at some stage and take total ownership for one of the biggest political blunders in history. The Labour Party has done a decent job for Victoria and deserves to continue on but there has to be a proportional level of accountability for what happened.

And just to let people know other than being in lockdown on the weekend the pandemic has not effected me much. I actually had more work hours through most of it and MRS Ant did not lose any hours. We actually ended up saving money in the end. So I am not talking about this through the eyes of someone who lost their job / business or lost anyone close to me. I just expect my leaders to be able to come up with a plan that shows some level of professionalism.
I know they can not make all the decisions but before all of the quarantine was signed off it should have been gone over with a fine toothed comb. It was too big of a deal not to have. Now this may have happened if Dan and his group of 8 did not bypass caucus but we will never know.
Click to expand...
No - the management of the hotel quarantine was terrible. As was the management of the Ruby Princess outbreak. I just thunk it's time to move on and deal with the other significant issues that follow the extreme measures that were necessary to contain the virus. Harping on about mismangement is a waste of energy. After the enquiry is complete that should be the end of it. It's more the baying for Andrews blood that I find self defeating. Victoria has a proven leader, worth supporting in what will continue to be difficult economic days ahead.

My point about the diplomats was to highlight the political overlay to the health directives.
 
sameolds33 said:
No - the management of the hotel quarantine was terrible. As was the management of the Ruby Princess outbreak. I just thunk it's time to move on and deal with the other significant issues that follow the extreme measures that were necessary to contain the virus. Harping on about mismangement is a waste of energy. After the enquiry is complete that should be the end of it. It's more the baying for Andrews blood that I find self defeating. Victoria has a proven leader, worth supporting in what will continue to be difficult economic days ahead.

My point about the diplomats was to highlight the political overlay to the health directives.
Click to expand...

Free pass then. No one held accountable. Doubt if this was a Liberal government you would be so charitable.
You know what annoys me more is the fact they have simply lied to the enquiry at every turn and then back tracked every time they have been caught out. Dan has said the buck stops with him but they have never owned it. They have never owned the flaws within their own party that caused the issue and I know for a fact there are plenty inside the Labour party that are 100% sure it would not have happened if caucus was able to sit and review.
If he was in a public job he would be sacked and possibly face criminal charges.
 
The Prosecutor said:
God only knows what situation we would be in if Scomo had his way and home quarantine was the standard instead of using hotels.
Click to expand...

This is from the initial hotel enquiry report.

2.1 Alternative locations for mandatory quarantine .
4. Having regard to the evidence particularly as it relates to infection prevention and control, and health and wellbeing issues, I have formed the view that any future Quarantine Program should provide for the option of people quarantining in their own homes, or at some other suitable residential premises, where the necessary assessments have been done, compliance and enforcement provisions are in place, the individual has received a formal explanation of the penalties for failing to comply and has signed an undertaking as to the conditions of home quarantining and acknowledgment of the penalties1 .

5. In my view, the powers under the PHW Act that were employed to give effect to the Hotel Quarantine Program are equally available to direct international arrivals to quarantine at home.

6. Moreover, the evidence to date leads me to the view that a period of quarantine served in the home would: A. likely be more consistent with, and successful in achieving, the fundamental aim of any quarantine program; namely to prevent or restrict the transmission of the virus by international arrivals into the community B. likely ameliorate the health and welfare consequences of mandatory quarantine served in a facility for many people to a considerable extent C. be consistent, perhaps even more so than quarantine served in a facility, with the rights and obligations vested by the Charter. 65Section 2 — Home-based model .

7. A model that has the option of quarantining in the home wherever this is assessed as suitable does not eliminate the need for designated facilities such as hotels from its overall operation. As was originally envisaged by the Victorian Government when it allocated $80 million to the emergency accommodation program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,2 and contemplated by the AHPPC’s advice to National Cabinet on 27 March 2020,3 hotels or similar facilities will be necessary for ‘high-risk’ cases and for those who are assessed as unable to safely quarantine in a private premises, be it their own home or some other suitable residence.

8. That said, the likely reduction in numbers requiring facility-based quarantine under such a model should have the collateral benefit of allowing for a more selective approach to which hotels or similar facilities are suitable venues for quarantine (that is, those with balconies, opening windows, dedicated open-air recreational areas and self-catering facilities).

9. My views as to the necessary considerations for such a model for quarantining at home wherever possible are set out below. These conditions and recommendations are to be read in conjunction with the overall recommendations contained in this Interim Report. 2.2 The potential to reduce the risks associated with a facility-based model

10. One of the foremost reasons for consideration of a home-based model is that, properly constructed and operated, it would be at least as effective as a facility-based model in achieving the primary objective of any quarantine system, being prevention of the further transmission of the virus.

11. One only has to look at the risks of infectious outbreaks in any healthcare facility to appreciate that putting infectious or potentially infectious people together and, of necessity, then having considerable numbers of workers of all types being required to come in and out of that facility, creates considerable complexity and risk. The evidence to this Inquiry makes that plain. There is a risk associated with concentrating large numbers of people who are infectious in a single environment. Specifically, there is a risk that they will infect one another, and that they will infect clinical and non-clinical personnel working within the quarantine facility.4

12. If one adds to this the increased risks of transmission by having people escorted in and out of the facility to provide for fresh air, smoking breaks and some exercise in order to address health and welfare needs, the case for an option for home quarantining in certain cases becomes stronger.

13. Where a person can safely quarantine at home this avoids the risk of putting that person in physical proximity with others who are suspected of having COVID-19. It also reduces the number of workers required in the quarantine facility, thereby reducing the number of people potentially being exposed to the risk of contracting the virus.

14. Such a program needs to include substantially improved communication methods to ensure people understand the gravity and nature of directions issued pursuant to s. 200 of the PHW Act (Directions), and the very substantial consequences of non-compliance with them. It also needs to involve robust methods for monitoring compliance with Directions, and heavy penalties for non-compliance with them. 66Section 2 — Home-based model 2.3 Health and welfare concerns and the Charter

15. Being able to quarantine at home lessens the potential impact on people’s health and wellbeing that might otherwise occur as a result of their 14-day containment in a hotel room, which is currently the most likely quarantine facility. It also addresses concerns raised by DHHS witnesses and others about the need to balance the impact of obligations under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities with the need to protect the health of all Victorians.5

16. It was variously said that people would have felt less vulnerable to infection in their own homes; they would have felt more comfortable and less anxious, better equipped to care for children, and better able to manage pre-existing physical and mental health conditions.6

17. Mr Hugh de Kretser, Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre, gave evidence to the Inquiry about his experience as a returned traveller detained at the Rydges Hotel in Carlton between 27 June and 9 July 2020, with his wife and children.7 He also provided an insightful submission to the Inquiry, drawing upon his professional familiarity with human rights law. Mr de Kretser observed that detention, in particular the detention of children, is a serious restriction upon human rights that should only be used as a last resort.8 He further observed that detention in any form involves risks around safety, mental health and mistreatment, and that detention in a quarantine facility carries additional risks of virus transmission to otherwise healthy people who are being detained, as well as to personnel.9 He submitted that requiring a person to quarantine in their own home will reduce risks to that person’s safety and welfare and to personnel but may carry with it increased risks to the community.10

18. Dr van Diemen received advice about the human rights considerations associated with the issuing of individual detention notices at the time the Hotel Quarantine Program commenced. That advice relevantly concluded: Accordingly, hotel detention for international arrivals constitutes a reasonably necessary course of action in the current exceptional circumstances. On current medical evidence, it is also the least restrictive means reasonably available to stem the spread and effect of 2019-nCoV, particularly since less restrictive measures for international arrivals previously proved ineffective, with some persons returning from overseas failing to self-isolate in their homes for 14 days — in clear defiance of previous directions — thereby causing the further spread of the virus.11

19. An ability to have had a closer examination of the evidence as to ‘non-compliance’ provides a better understanding of what needs to be addressed to establish a sophisticated, well supported home-based model. 20. Ms Pam Williams, DHHS COVID-19 Accommodation Commander, expressed the view that the program could have adopted a more nuanced assessment of the balance between transmission risk and guest health, wellbeing and human rights.12 21. In my view, a more nuanced and informed assessment of the capacity and suitability of each returning traveller or international arrival to home quarantine would be consistent with the Charter requirement to take the least restrictive means reasonably available in reducing the risk to public health. 67
 
Interim report is here for anyone interested. Recommendations only at this stage.

www.quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au

Reports

This page contains reports handed down by the Board of Inquiry.
www.quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au www.quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au
 
ant555 said:
Free pass then. No one held accountable. Doubt if this was a Liberal government you would be so charitable.
You know what annoys me more is the fact they have simply lied to the enquiry at every turn and then back tracked every time they have been caught out. Dan has said the buck stops with him but they have never owned it. They have never owned the flaws within their own party that caused the issue and I know for a fact there are plenty inside the Labour party that are 100% sure it would not have happened if caucus was able to sit and review.
If he was in a public job he would be sacked and possibly face criminal charges.
Click to expand...
I think Gladys has done a good job in NSW since the Ruby Princess.Good enough to be re-elected notwithstanding the boyfriend biz which would otherwise have brought her down.
 
I don't think I can bring myself to praise Dan for the job he and his staff did.

At best, they've broke even. Messed up, then fixed it, with Victorians bearing the brunt of it.

Honestly, I wouldn't be as disgruntled if they were upfront about their mistakes and took more ownership throughout, being clear that the steps taken were to mitigate the scenario they caused.

But when the finger was wagged at the public in the face of such political inadequacy...that I cannot abide.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You know how they say society is only ever 3 missed meals from anarchy?

Right now it feels like we are only ever 20 cases and 3 days from a cluster f&_k border shut down and lock down

Now that the 'new normal' can lock us down at any time I reckon the three day rule is alive again. Should I book that trip to Tassie? Eh should be fine.. haven't had a case in months...3 days left bzzzt 15 cases pop up in Melbs somewhere.

Reckon travel insurance companies the share of choice right now
 
Howard Moon said:
You know how they say society is only ever 3 missed meals from anarchy?

Right now it feels like we are only ever 20 cases and 3 days from a cluster f&_k border shut down and lock down

Now that the 'new normal' can lock us down at any time I reckon the three day rule is alive again. Should I book that trip to Tassie? Eh should be fine.. haven't had a case in months...3 days left bzzzt 15 cases pop up in Melbs somewhere.

Reckon travel insurance companies the share of choice right now
Click to expand...

And you have proven to be right.
We where going to go to Sydney for New Year again. Lucky we decided to go to Torquay instead.
 
My 2 bobs worth is NSW should've done a week long SA style lockdown a few days ago, and they might've done if not this time of year (despite SA not doing the full 6 days). In the process all close contacts, and contacts of contacts, were put into isolation.

It gives contact tracers time and space to do their job and isolate the cases to locations with more certainty than lockdowns of council areas.

All of Australia should've learned from Victoria where the progressive lockdown path is flawed due to how transmissible the virus is. I can't see Victoria going softly this time round and it will be interesting to see the approach over the coming days.

For the sake of all Victorians I hope it's quashed promptly. As much as I love to bag Vics as much as they do us, you've had a hell of a 6 months that I wouldn't wish upon anyone (unless you can isolate that to Carlton supporters but even then it's questionable)
 
Howard Moon said:
by first line do you mean, front line worker - or do you mean first with hand up to get when they can?

its a no from me on both, but you probably knew that
Click to expand...
Front line worker. Curious their thoughts.

I have no idea what you're thinking Howie, bizzare response. Would've thought you'd have said yes, why do you say no?
 
boncer34 said:
Front line worker. Curious their thoughts.

I have no idea what you're thinking Howie, bizzare response. Would've thought you'd have said yes, why do you say no?
Click to expand...

you know renowned board tinfoiler and all that. although I've been superseeded of late

I dunno, i'm not saying we have been sold a turkey as such, but the media (and to an extent the government), when we were at our lowest ebb, locked down, in the depths of a pandemic despair kind of dangled the notion in front of us that the vaccine will be our savior. From there people who were distraught, locked away and desperate for normality grabbed onto the hope that we can all go back to normal and travel and party like normal once the magic vaccine arrives.

anytime you'd chat with someone - oh its ok, the vaccine will be here soon

I'm just not sure it's going to do any (or some) of that - it's no magic bullet.

Sure it may stop the vulnerable from dying - thats a tick, but its not going to make anyone who has had the jab any less able to carry and pass on the virus so in that respect it may even be more dangerous because someone might say ok, ive been jabbed, no mask for me, i can do as i want im now bullet proof.

We still have to exercise common etiquette like washing hands, covering mouth when coughing .....(which is frighteningly uncommon)

I guess i kind of look at it like the flu jab, it never stops the flu from ravaging winter, people still get the flu - but it does stop vulnerable people from dying, hence the vulnerable take it.

That said, i think ive got a very robust immune system, i eat well, im rarely sick. (i hardly go out in public) I dont think i need it at this point in time - if i need to keep wearing a mask on a train to work, so be it.

If in time results come in to say its is the magic bullet ill revist.

I know theres nothing people hate more than an Antivaxxer who thinks he knows more than the scientists and is jeopardising herd immunity so i know this is just an opinion i hold, and im immunised otherwise.. but i'm happy that we still have a choice in this matter and ill exercise it while i can.

how bout yourself
 
I am hoping to get in as we do work in aged care. It is already mandatory to have a flu vaccination prior to site access. I have put my feelers out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top