Generic Virus Thread

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

The question asks 'would you support the closure of international borders to all foreign travellers and returning Australian citizens?' - I think my paraphrase was reasonable to be honest.

I suspect if you separate those two groups (foreign travellers and returning citizens) then ask them as two separate questions you may get a different answer (possibly a very different answer).

Hence I don’t believe you can reasonably conclude that “two thirds of Australians don’t think that Australian citizens should be able to return to the country”.  

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I suspect if you separate those two groups (foreign travellers and returning citizens) then ask them as two separate questions you may get a different answer (possibly a very different answer).

Hence I don’t believe you can reasonably conclude that “two thirds of Australians don’t think that Australian citizens should be able to return to the country”.  

Well, the question wording is 'and' not 'or', but fair enough, it certainly isn't the very best survey design. I would be interested in what you think about the broader point - from where I'm sitting it looks like the reaction by both the Australian public and government has been very much on the draconian side, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

[LondonLax]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, the question wording is 'and' not 'or', but fair enough, it certainly isn't the very best survey design. I would be interested in what you think about the broader point - from where I'm sitting it looks like the reaction by both the Australian public and government has been very much on the draconian side, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

I think Australia’s reaction to COVID is draconian but it’s also easy for me to say having essentially been unaffected by the virus despite living in a country that has maintained a ‘light touch’ approach. 

Being an Australian who lives in Sweden I keep an interest in both countries and it is fascinating to see how much more fearful of this virus Australians have been. A day where more than twenty COVID deaths are recorded in a day is considered an enormous story (I think it has only happened twice). Meanwhile during the height of the outbreak in Sweden deaths per day were reaching over 100, despite Sweden having a much smaller population, and yet the Swedes seemed happy with the government response. 

I can understand why Australians are keen to maintain the relative success they have had so far. However I also suspect people championing maintaining restrictions in the hope of staying relatively clear of the virus are being a bit naive with how long they will need to keep this up.  

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think Australia’s reaction to COVID is draconian but it’s also easy for me to say having essentially been unaffected by the virus despite living in a country that has maintained a ‘light touch’ approach. 

Being an Australian who lives in Sweden I keep an interest in both countries and it is fascinating to see how much more fearful of this virus Australians have been. A day where more than twenty COVID deaths are recorded in a day is considered an enormous story (I think it has only happened twice). Meanwhile during the height of the outbreak in Sweden deaths per day were reaching over 100, despite Sweden having a much smaller population, and yet the Swedes seemed happy with the government response. 

I can understand why Australians are keen to maintain the relative success they have had so far. However I also suspect people championing maintaining restrictions in the hope of staying relatively clear of the virus are being a bit naive with how long they will need to keep this up.  

Yes, that's what I'm driving at - it's an understandable reaction from a psychological point of view to clamp down extra hard to keep successes, but I'm not sure how long-run healthy it is, both because as you say government and public may not be able to maintain these measures, and because it looks from afar to be creating/feeding into a cramped conservative mindset that is suspicious of immigration and the world beyond the border. I don't know enough about Australian media to know if the international comparisons people are mainly getting are the US and the UK, but if so it would make even more sense to want to avoid the disasters that came from the aimless, disorganised and frankly half-assed responses in these countries.

[LondonLax]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, that's what I'm driving at - it's an understandable reaction from a psychological point of view to clamp down extra hard to keep successes, but I'm not sure how long-run healthy it is, both because as you say government and public may not be able to maintain these measures, and because it looks from afar to be creating/feeding into a cramped conservative mindset that is suspicious of immigration and the world beyond the border. I don't know enough about Australian media to know if the international comparisons people are mainly getting are the US and the UK, but if so it would make even more sense to want to avoid the disasters that came from the aimless, disorganised and frankly half-assed responses in these countries.

Well yes, in a way you create a rod for your own back because there is no point putting the hard work in for month after month to keep things under control if you then decide to relax things and it was all for nothing. Essentially you have to see it through, even if it becomes a significant social and financial cost. 

However it is also difficult to argue with a total mortality measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands. That’s thousands of families who have not had to bury a relative in the last few months (if they were allowed to attend a funeral at all). Not to mention potential long term health issues associated with survivors. Social or economic costs are not nearly as easily quantifiable and tangible as a mortality rate.

 

 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't know enough about Australian media to know if the international comparisons people are mainly getting are the US and the UK

I think that's exactly right and astute. I'm not there now, but whenever I have been there in recent years the US and UK featured significantly in the TV and radio etc. news coverage. Obviously nearer nations too, but the media is pretty anglo/US angled on a lot of stuff.

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that's exactly right and astute. I'm not there now, but whenever I have been there in recent years the US and UK featured significantly in the TV and radio etc. news coverage. Obviously nearer nations too, but the media is pretty anglo/US angled on a lot of stuff.

It’s also fairly insular. The rest of the world is a long way away and it can feel it at times. 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Well yes, in a way you create a rod for your own back because there is no point putting the hard work in for month after month to keep things under control if you then decide to relax things and it was all for nothing. Essentially you have to see it through, even if it becomes a significant social and financial cost. 

However it is also difficult to argue with a total mortality measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands. That’s thousands of families who have not had to bury a relative in the last few months (if they were allowed to attend a funeral at all). Not to mention potential long term health issues associated with survivors. Social or economic costs are not nearly as easily quantifiable and tangible as a mortality rate.

 

 

Yes, I agree that the massively lower mortality rate is the most important thing by far. And I'm not trying to be a 'virus truther', downplay the seriousness of the epidemic or pretend that our response is anything anyone should be copying in any way. But I do think there's a danger in becoming too draconian and paranoid. I'm certainly not convinced that putting bracelets on people who have tested positive or banning most/all international travel are necessary measures, and they would come with their own harms.

[Davkaus]

Quote

 

The government is set to make a major U-turn by announcing that wearing face masks will be near mandatory in communal areas of secondary schools, according to sources.

Tes understands that both Public Health England and the Department for Education have signed off on this new policy.

An announcement could come as soon as this afternoon, sources say.

It comes as it was announced that secondary students in Scotland will have to wear face coverings in school corridors and communal areas from Monday. 

Regarding a U-turn in England, Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union said: "This was probably inevitable following the announcement that it had been mandated by the Scottish government and following the advice from the World Health Organisation on the need for masks.

"What would be nice though is if on major changes like this we didn't first of all have denial and then a U-turn from the Department for Education which creates needless uncertainty and further reinforces the impression that they are all over the place."

 

https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-exclusive-england-set-u-turn-masks-schools

Gavin Williamson hasn't denied this yet, so it's not certain to happen. 

[fightoffyour]

More U-turns than the Transfagarasan Highway

[chrisp65]

What are the chances there is sufficient ppe stock available for all secondary school pupils to have several masks a day, 5 days a week?

I can feel a lucrative new order coming down the line for Dominic’s favourite jigsaw manufacturer or biscuit brand.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What are the chances there is sufficient ppe stock available for all secondary school pupils to have several masks a day, 5 days a week?

I can feel a lucrative new order coming down the line for Dominic’s favourite jigsaw manufacturer or biscuit brand.

Or even a company made off the shelf for such a purpose about ten minutes from now, with shareholders that just happen to know people

[LondonLax]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, I agree that the massively lower mortality rate is the most important thing by far. And I'm not trying to be a 'virus truther', downplay the seriousness of the epidemic or pretend that our response is anything anyone should be copying in any way. But I do think there's a danger in becoming too draconian and paranoid. I'm certainly not convinced that putting bracelets on people who have tested positive or banning most/all international travel are necessary measures, and they would come with their own harms.

Just to add some background on those two issues, the restrictions on travel relate to Australia’s policy on quarantine. All new arrivals in the country are bussed from the airport to spend two weeks confined in a hotel (at the travellers expense) before they are allowed to enter the wider country. This policy is largely why numbers of infections have stayed relatively low this far. 

However if travel is unrestricted and hundreds of people are landing each day it quickly becomes impossible to find secure hotel space to store them all for the two weeks required so the government have had to put a cap on numbers (it’s also almost impossible to leave the country as it is feared people will then add to the numbers when they return). The cap was then lowered when an outbreak from a quarantine hotel in Melbourne occurred and Melbourne was no longer considered an option for arrivals to be stashed. (The result is that whilst you need a large plane to make the distance the plane can only carry a small number of passengers and is mostly empty so the operators only accept business class ticket holders to keep the flight financially viable.) 

The quarantine bracelet suggestion came about from the recent outbreak in Melbourne. When people are diagnosed as infected they are required to stay at home for two weeks until they are clear. However when authorities did random spot checks on those supposedly at home quarantining a third of them were not there. That naturally frustrated people who felt the country was making significant sacrifices and a large number of people were putting that at jeopardy. 

[Demitri_C]

Just seen on facebook that brum is on verge of going on another lockdown

Edited August 25, 2020 by Demitri_C

[Xela]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Just seen on facebook that brum is on verge of going on another lockdown

Hope not. As they'll probably just do a blanket lockdown for any house under the Birmingham City Council area, even if some areas have virtually no cases, like Sutton Coldfield. 

[villakram]

This is what you get when cases are confused with deaths and/or hospital admissions. Nonsense policies driven by worry about liability.

[Davkaus]

Imagine my surprise that responses to the ludicrous post on the previous page have just been ignored.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Imagine my surprise that responses to the ludicrous post on the previous page have just been ignored.

It's becoming quite the fashionable thing to do in these parts I've noted of late

 

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Just to add some background on those two issues, the restrictions on travel relate to Australia’s policy on quarantine. All new arrivals in the country are bussed from the airport to spend two weeks confined in a hotel (at the travellers expense) before they are allowed to enter the wider country. This policy is largely why numbers of infections have stayed relatively low this far. 

However if travel is unrestricted and hundreds of people are landing each day it quickly becomes impossible to find secure hotel space to store them all for the two weeks required so the government have had to put a cap on numbers (it’s also almost impossible to leave the country as it is feared people will then add to the numbers when they return). The cap was then lowered when an outbreak from a quarantine hotel in Melbourne occurred and Melbourne was no longer considered an option for arrivals to be stashed. (The result is that whilst you need a large plane to make the distance the plane can only carry a small number of passengers and is mostly empty so the operators only accept business class ticket holders to keep the flight financially viable.) 

The quarantine bracelet suggestion came about from the recent outbreak in Melbourne. When people are diagnosed as infected they are required to stay at home for two weeks until they are clear. However when authorities did random spot checks on those supposedly at home quarantining a third of them were not there. That naturally frustrated people who felt the country was making significant sacrifices and a large number of people were putting that at jeopardy. 

Thanks for the additional context. I don't think any of these ideas or policies are bad in themselves, but somehow accumulated together they seem too draconian to me.

[LondonLax]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks for the additional context. I don't think any of these ideas or policies are bad in themselves, but somehow accumulated together they seem too draconian to me.

I don’t think the bracelet thing was ever implemented as far as I’m aware, it was more of a thought bubble. I know Singapore had people in quarantine download an app which would monitor the whereabouts of their phone during the period and they were also randomly checked on to make sure they were not just leaving their phone at home.