Coronavirus - Australia
-
@dogmeat Pretty sure the biggest factor is Australia did not have high community spread already. So the majority of cases came from overseas and hopefully the majority of them isolated preventing the spread. The rest of the country is doing enough to keep the spread number under 1 so the spread is slowing and new cases are dropping.
Not everyone needs to follow the rules, if enough do it the spread will slow.
-
Down to 91 new cases in NSW today, that's the first sub-100 number we've had in more than two weeks. In her presser the Chief Medico said rates of testing were still high, so it looks like it could be a reliable figure.
It seems with every passing day it's looking more likely we will avoid a US/Europe style medical catastrophe. Just the economic one to worry about, then...
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Down to 91 new cases in NSW today, that's the first sub-100 number we've had in more than two weeks. In her presser the Chief Medico said rates of testing were still high, so it looks like it could be a reliable figure.
It seems with every passing day it's looking more likely we will avoid a US/Europe style medical catastrophe. Just the economic one to worry about, then...
If you avoid anywhere near the figures from the world's covid19 hotspots I think you can consider yourselves fortunate. The sooner we can all get back to work the better
-
@rotated said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The Coalition will hurt from this for a long time.
Quite possibly, yes. But could this have been prevented? Certainly they should not have been allowed to disembark in the manner they did, but surely leaving them to become a floating hospital wouldn't have been ideal either.
The people that have contracted the illness and those that died would have still done that on or off the ship. Yes it would have halted the community spread, but it doesn't seem like that number is that high.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure what the perfect solution to Ruby Princess actually looks like, and whether it makes that much difference to our overall numbers and burden on the health system.
-
As at 6:00am on 3 April 2020, there have been 5,224 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Australia. There have been 248 new cases since 6:00am yesterday.
Of the 5,224 confirmed cases in Australia, 23 have died from COVID-19. More than 270,000 tests have been conducted across Australia.
-
@antipodean am i allowed to be buoyed by that? or, as all those that think a complete 1 month regimental lock-in is the only option tell me, i am kidding myself, and we are just setting ourselves up to be Italy 2.0
-
@mariner4life I think there's a clear trend. A complete lockdown isn't justified by either the numbers nor the trend.
I'd still like to hear from the government what success looks like and the criteria to relax these restrictions. What's not encouraging is the noises coming out of our elected leaders' maws:
“We haven’t even started to climb the curve…The evidence is telling me we’re about two or three weeks behind NSW and the peak could be July, August, September,” Ms Palaszczuk said.
The state’s border closure has been tightened today, and all interstate travellers are being turned around and sent home, unless they have an official permit.
She said the restrictions were likely to continue for six months.
Or this useless happy clapping fluffybunny:
Scott Morrison said his government did not have a benchmark on the number of active COVID-19 cases before the economy could be reopened as he ruled out reforming dividend imputation to pay off the debt incurred during the pandemic.
The Prime Minister said it “can’t be known at this point” whether the number of domestic COVID-19 cases needed to reduce to zero before restrictions were eased, given the potential for a second wave of the crisis.
He also said it was unknown whether Australia’s borders would need to be closed until a vaccine was developed, which experts predict could take six months.
-
i am astounded how flippantly they can chuck shit like that out. Yeah, look, just be aware you can't see your friends for 6 months. No biggy ya'll
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Or this useless happy clapping fluffybunny:
I'm finding the personal attacks on Morrison increasingly tiresome. I'm no great fan of his but he's been thrown the hospital pass of all hospital passes and so far the results indicate we've done pretty bloody well.
And clearly the leaders are taking their advice from the medicos, and given how quickly the situation is changing I'm not surprised they aren't giving a hard and fast date for this all ending. Who the hell knows?
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Or this useless happy clapping fluffybunny:
I'm finding the personal attacks on Morrison increasingly tiresome. I'm no great fan of his but he's been thrown the hospital pass of all hospital passes and so far the results indicate we've done pretty bloody well.
And clearly the leaders are taking their advice from the medicos, and given how quickly the situation is changing I'm not surprised they aren't giving a hard and fast date for this all ending. Who the hell knows?
agree with both comments, however
i wouldn't mind at least some clarity around the situational requirements that bring about an end to the restrictions. They don't have to know when that will be, but surely they have some sort of idea of what the situation has to look like before we can have some shit back. I would find the fact that they don't reasonably alarming.
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Or this useless happy clapping fluffybunny:
I'm finding the personal attacks on Morrison increasingly tiresome. I'm no great fan of his but he's been thrown the hospital pass of all hospital passes and so far the results indicate we've done pretty bloody well.
And clearly the leaders are taking their advice from the medicos, and given how quickly the situation is changing I'm not surprised they aren't giving a hard and fast date for this all ending. Who the hell knows?
agree with both comments, however
i wouldn't mind at least some clarity around the situational requirements that bring about an end to the restrictions. They don't have to know when that will be, but surely they have some sort of idea of what the situation has to look like before we can have some shit back. I would find the fact that they don't reasonably alarming.
Sometimes you don't have all the answers. But there are still ways to sound knowledgeable and reassuring even when that is so. I don't think ScoMo is good at that
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
i am astounded how flippantly they can chuck shit like that out. Yeah, look, just be aware you can't see your friends for 6 months. No biggy ya'll
A comment I read elsewhere made a pertinent point these politicians seem to be missing; it's all very well making these statements when you don't feel the effects. When your pay cheque is assured. When you consider yourself essential. What about the millions affected for so long?
It's going to damage vastly more people than it's going to save.
@barbarian I've been a critic of Morrison's a lot longer than the Covi 19 pandemic and I also stuck up for him during the bushfires.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@barbarian I've been a critic of Morrison's a lot longer than the Covi 19 pandemic and I also stuck up for him during the bushfires.
OK great, but I think calling him a 'useless cnut' is pretty rough. But whatever.
It's clear to me that politicians are employing the classic tactic of 'under-promise and over-deliver'. They are setting expectations that it will be a long time, in the hope that it can be resolved faster and they receive some credit.
While the timeline is clear enough (Morrison has said six months plenty of times) I agree that the benchmarks for restrictions lifting are unclear. Is it a flatline of cases? Is it zero active cases?
Because they run the risk of seeing cases fall but restrictions remain strict. People will start to flout them (especially in non-metro areas) and then police will impose fines and you have a recipe for a real shitstorm.
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
OK great, but I think calling him a 'useless cnut' is pretty rough. But whatever.
Here's a compromise - you don't have to call him that.
It's clear to me that politicians are employing the classic tactic of 'under-promise and over-deliver'. They are setting expectations that it will be a long time, in the hope that it can be resolved faster and they receive some credit.
That thinking is the problem; attempting to gain political capital from a problem.
While the timeline is clear enough (Morrison has said six months plenty of times) I agree that the benchmarks for restrictions lifting are unclear. Is it a flatline of cases? Is it zero active cases?
So the timeline is irrelevant if there aren't markers for success. If specific criteria aren't set, we don't know how long and this level of isolation isn't good in the short term and disastrous the longer it continues. The mere suggestion that people couldn't congregate in groups larger than two people outside for six months should have someone involuntarily committed.
-
Have discovered a really good summary of relevant data on the Fin Review website.
Australia has 191 ICUs with a 2378 intensive care beds. The maximum surge capacity available would increase this to 4261 beds. There are 2184 ventilators nationally which will be increased to 4815. NSW has 854 ICU beds and 730 ventilators. This can be increased to 2579 beds and 1716 ventilators. (NSW data is used as it is the best available)
Currently there are 43 ICU cases in NSW with 20 on ventilators (roughly 3% of our ventilator capacity).
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So the timeline is irrelevant if there aren't markers for success. If specific criteria aren't set, we don't know how long and this level of isolation isn't good in the short term and disastrous the longer it continues. The mere suggestion that people couldn't congregate in groups larger than two people outside for six months should have someone involuntarily committed.
But we still don't know a whole lot about this disease, so how can you set down markers and stick to them?
The one thing worse than avoiding targets is setting targets and then having to change them as new information is presented. For example, I'm not sure we even know if people who have had the disease cannot get it again. That's a pretty huge fact to consider in developing a strategy to come out of this.
So while I understand the restrictions are frustrating on a number of levels, do Governments have a choice? On the one hand they have a raft of social/economic issues, and on the other hand they have a medical catastrophe that we are seeing in US/Italy etc.
This idea they somehow don't know that people are going to struggle in isolation for six months is ludicrous. Of course they know that.
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So the timeline is irrelevant if there aren't markers for success. If specific criteria aren't set, we don't know how long and this level of isolation isn't good in the short term and disastrous the longer it continues. The mere suggestion that people couldn't congregate in groups larger than two people outside for six months should have someone involuntarily committed.
But we still don't know a whole lot about this disease, so how can you set down markers and stick to them?
The one thing worse than avoiding targets is setting targets and then having to change them as new information is presented. For example, I'm not sure we even know if people who have had the disease cannot get it again. That's a pretty huge fact to consider in developing a strategy to come out of this.
So while I understand the restrictions are frustrating on a number of levels, do Governments have a choice? On the one hand they have a raft of social/economic issues, and on the other hand they have a medical catastrophe that we are seeing in US/Italy etc.
This idea they somehow don't know that people are going to struggle in isolation for six months is ludicrous. Of course they know that.
We shouldn't downplay the size of this crisis on every level. This is the Kobayashi Maru of crises for world governments
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So the timeline is irrelevant if there aren't markers for success. If specific criteria aren't set, we don't know how long and this level of isolation isn't good in the short term and disastrous the longer it continues. The mere suggestion that people couldn't congregate in groups larger than two people outside for six months should have someone involuntarily committed.
But we still don't know a whole lot about this disease, so how can you set down markers and stick to them?
The one thing worse than avoiding targets is setting targets and then having to change them as new information is presented. For example, I'm not sure we even know if people who have had the disease cannot get it again. That's a pretty huge fact to consider in developing a strategy to come out of this.
So while I understand the restrictions are frustrating on a number of levels, do Governments have a choice? On the one hand they have a raft of social/economic issues, and on the other hand they have a medical catastrophe that we are seeing in US/Italy etc.
This idea they somehow don't know that people are going to struggle in isolation for six months is ludicrous. Of course they know that.
It's relatively simple to me:
Restriction level defined by
- New case numbers ≤ number
- Total case numbers in ICU ≤ number
That permits it to change as required. I expect that would be vastly more acceptable to the populace knowing that if they do as asked the restrictions will be lifted but with the caveat if it looks like it's going pear-shaped they need to be implemented again.
It also needs to be reiterated that we aren't Italy. Our countries are not analogous for Covid 19 purposes so we should stop mentioning it.
-
@antipodean hospitalization and ICU numbers are hugely important. If those numbers start to climb steeply we have big problems. But I guess the hard part is working out how far up the road we need to look to see the problem coming
-
So my not lockdown update - there's been a huge reversal in lockdown-ness today. Darling Harbour was busier today than it has been in at least two weeks, yep the Commbank smokers/vaporers were puffing away in their groups, there was an increase in 'foreigners' (backpacker types, not the good ones like me), and there were quite a few families in Tumbalong park. Even the traffic in Pyrmont was busier.
I didn't see any police today.
Highlight of my walk, two cycle food couriers, riding the same distance and about 2km's an hour managed to collide with each other. I regularly have to avoid getting hit by these types when out walking so I couldn't hide my smirk. The good thing about it is that usually these tow would have fired up at each other but they both just said sorry and carried on their way.