The Reality of Living in Australia and Covid

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Most of the measures in NSW were/are voluntary.
In Melbourne at present this is a section of the health orders -- there are plenty of other ifs buts and maybes


'5 Direction — staying at home other than in specified circumstances
Requirement to stay at home
(1) During the stay at home period:
(a) an ordinary resident of the Restricted Area; or
(b) a temporary resident of the Restricted Area,
must not leave the premises where they are residing in the Restricted Area,
other (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)
than for one or more of the reasons specified in:
clause 6 (necessary goods or services);
clause 7 (care or other compassionate reasons);
clause 7A (care or compassionate reasons: child minding); clause 8 (work or education);
clause 9 (exercise or social interaction); clause 10 (other specified reasons); clause 10A (SARS-CoV-2 vaccination).'

Hardly a 'lockdown' - more just trying to stop the masses aimlessly wandering around. I don't know why people feel the need to use such emotive language. Sells Mr Murdock's newspapers I guess.

"Must not leave the premises"


Did you miss that?

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Must not leave the premises"


Did you miss that?

No, but you seem to have missed 'must not leave the premises where they are residing in the Restricted Area,
other than (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

There are heaps of other exemptions - including driving clean across town to indulge in a bit of horizontal folk dancing .

[Wotname]

Dunno if this link is paywalled for the northern hemisphere folk - it is in Oz. Dunno if I agree with it or not but nevertheless it seems relevant to the current discussion.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/09/07...NpIjecwdO7RPgA

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Dunno if this link is paywalled for the northern hemisphere folk - it is in Oz. Dunno if I agree with it or not but nevertheless it seems relevant to the current discussion.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/09/07...NpIjecwdO7RPgA

Hmmmm - Sweden with 40% of our population has had close to 15,000 deaths.
Being as I am 'of a certain age' I don't think much of their policies.
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/sweden/

Further note re Melbourne's 'stay at home' restrictions. The document runs to 33 pages of reasons you can go out.

[SV DINGO]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Hmmmm - Sweden with 40% of our population has had close to 15,000 deaths.
Being as I am 'of a certain age' I don't think much of their policies.
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/sweden/

Further note re Melbourne's 'stay at home' restrictions. The document runs to 33 pages of reasons you can go out.

Was't that the original intention of this virus , clean out some of the unproductive , non tax paying people.

As you most likely have seen already , it has now started in QLD. Few cases but i suspect this is now the start of it here.

You can run but you cant hide.

[RaymondR]

Things are threatening to get weirder in Australia.

Qantas have decided to move their point of departure from Australia for their flights between Australia and the UK and Europe from Perth to Darwin because of Western Australia's border closures. Consequently before to long the people of some of the Australian states will be able to travel internationally where they cannot travel interstate within Australia.

[goboatingnow]

WA does literally seem like it’s trying to leave the planet

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Yep, entrenched.

It's a matter of the nature of the creature. The right tends to laziness however the left is like bed bugs. You get one in the bed, the next day three, within a week hundreds and a serious infestation. It's the nature of the creature.

Or, As Arlo Guthrie wrote/sang:
“... there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
The shrink wherever you are, just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
Anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out.
You know, if One person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and They won't take him.
And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, They may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in Singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an Organization.
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said Fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and Walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement ...”

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

No, but you seem to have missed 'must not leave the premises where they are residing in the Restricted Area,
other than (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

There are heaps of other exemptions - including driving clean across town to indulge in a bit of horizontal folk dancing .

So you're arguing that the restrictions in Oz are not stricter than in Nordic countries?





This is not reflected in the Stringency Index, which for Australia is among the highest in the world, if not THE strictest in the world, compare to Nordic countries among the lowest, and has been during much of this year.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Most of the measures in NSW were/are voluntary.

Which ones in Sydney?

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

In Melbourne at present this is a section of the health orders -- there are plenty of other ifs buts and maybes


'5 Direction — staying at home other than in specified circumstances
Requirement to stay at home
(1) During the stay at home period:
(a) an ordinary resident of the Restricted Area; or
(b) a temporary resident of the Restricted Area,
must not leave the premises where they are residing in the Restricted Area,
other (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)
than for one or more of the reasons specified in:
clause 6 (necessary goods or services);
clause 7 (care or other compassionate reasons);
clause 7A (care or compassionate reasons: child minding); clause 8 (work or education);
clause 9 (exercise or social interaction); clause 10 (other specified reasons); clause 10A (SARS-CoV-2 vaccination).'

Hardly a 'lockdown' - more just trying to stop the masses aimlessly wandering around. I don't know why people feel the need to use such emotive language. Sells Mr Murdock's newspapers I guess.

Hi Ping
Hardly a lockdown?

The permitted reasons you listed for leaving are subject to multiple restrictions in this 33 page government “Stay at Home Directions” document you quoted only a tiny portion of:
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/de...reas-no-23.pdf

For the average person the reasons for leaving home have been very limited. These are a few examples:
- Most shops are shut.
- Only single parents and authorised workers who can’t supervise their children at home can access childcare.
- Schools are open only for children of essential workers.
- Only essential workers are permitted to work away from home.
- Only one person from a given residence per day may leave the premises once per day to shop for necessary goods.
- There is a 9pm-5am curfew in place.

The above document is dated the 23rd September. The restrictions were more extensive up until recently (eg travel was limited a 5 km radius not 10 and the only socialising possible was with one nominated partner if living alone, exercise was limited to an hour a day, etc).

After nearly 8 months in total of severe restrictions, I am sure Melbourne residents would not agree with your statement that this was “hardly a lockdown”.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Hmmmm - Sweden with 40% of our population has had close to 15,000 deaths.
Being as I am 'of a certain age' I don't think much of their policies.
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ountry/sweden/

Further note re Melbourne's 'stay at home' restrictions. The document runs to 33 pages of reasons you can go out.

In order to compare the quality of Sweden's and Australia's respective pandemic policies you would have to somehow evaluate all their consequences, including harm to young people, the poor, etc. and then evaluate the real significance of the death rates -- that is, how many people who died were just about to die anyway. And even then there are random factors of luck and individual circumstances involved, so it's really hard to do this kind of comparison. And the pandemic isn't even over yet. So I think it's early to have this discussion.


Sweden has not experienced any measurable excess death for the past year and a half on a demographic basis, which seems to indicate that a great proportion of the dead are people who were about to die anyway (a big proportion of the Swedish deaths took place in nursing homes, the protection of which was majorly bungled at the beginning of the pandemic). And despite all of that, the death rate in Sweden is better than the European average, so better than nearly all of the European countries which implemented stricter measures. In this part of the world the Swedish approach is mostly considered to be quite successful -- wise and balanced, and many of Sweden's initial measures were quickly adopted by other countries. Certainly that is the overwhelming opinion among the Swedes themselves, who mostly consider themselves to be exceptionally lucky.


An easier case for the Nordic system of moderate, mostly voluntary pandemic measures is Finland, which with basically the same measures as Sweden has had the lowest or lowest but one or two death rate in all of Europe. But of course -- if some bad luck (timing of spring break) and big mistakes (nursing homes) made the outcome in Sweden worse than it could have been, in Finland some bits of good luck probably are also at play in the exceptionally good results here.



The Australian approach has in its favor an exceptionally low death rate (so far), and theoretically, the possibility of releasing restrictions during times when the virus has been eradicated. The second part of this however is disappearing as restrictions stay in place for longer periods of time than planned as eradication has not in fact taken place as planned and due to the late start with vaccination. The social and economic costs of the measures are still unknown and won't be known until this is really over. Good news for Oz is that vaccination continues at an amazing pace giving real hope that all the vulnerable can be protected before the virus gets out of hand, therefore giving the possibility of ending the restrictions before the costs are unbearable.



So I think the jury is really still out about all of this. We'll have a better feel for it in a year or two, and I hope the world will learn and take lessons from different countries about what worked well and was worthwhile, versus what was very costly and without corresponding effect. I'm sure the experiences in practically every country can give useful lessons for the future. Hopefully the world will handle the next pandemic with a much greater base of knowledge than we had going into this one.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In order to compare the quality of Sweden's and Australia's respective pandemic policies you would have to somehow evaluate all their consequences, including harm to young people, the poor, etc. and then evaluate the real significance of the death rates -- that is, how many people who died were just about to die anyway. And even then there are random factors of luck and individual circumstances involved, so it's really hard to do this kind of comparison. And the pandemic isn't even over yet. So I think it's early to have this discussion.


Sweden has not experienced any measurable excess death for the past year and a half on a demographic basis, which seems to indicate that a great proportion of the dead are people who were about to die anyway (a big proportion of the Swedish deaths took place in nursing homes, the protection of which was majorly bungled at the beginning of the pandemic). And despite all of that, the death rate in Sweden is better than the European average, so better than nearly all of the European countries which implemented stricter measures. In this part of the world the Swedish approach is mostly considered to be quite successful -- wise and balanced, and many of Sweden's initial measures were quickly adopted by other countries. Certainly that is the overwhelming opinion among the Swedes themselves, who mostly consider themselves to be exceptionally lucky.


An easier case for the Nordic system of moderate, mostly voluntary pandemic measures is Finland, which with basically the same measures as Sweden has had the lowest or lowest but one or two death rate in all of Europe. But of course -- if some bad luck (timing of spring break) and big mistakes (nursing homes) made the outcome in Sweden worse than it could have been, in Finland some bits of good luck probably are also at play in the exceptionally good results here.



The Australian approach has in its favor an exceptionally low death rate (so far), and theoretically, the possibility of releasing restrictions during times when the virus has been eradicated. The second part of this however is disappearing as restrictions stay in place for longer periods of time than planned as eradication has not in fact taken place as planned and due to the late start with vaccination. The social and economic costs of the measures are still unknown and won't be known until this is really over. Good news for Oz is that vaccination continues at an amazing pace giving real hope that all the vulnerable can be protected before the virus gets out of hand, therefore giving the possibility of ending the restrictions before the costs are unbearable.



So I think the jury is really still out about all of this. We'll have a better feel for it in a year or two, and I hope the world will learn and take lessons from different countries about what worked well and was worthwhile, versus what was very costly and without corresponding effect. I'm sure the experiences in practically every country can give useful lessons for the future. Hopefully the world will handle the next pandemic with a much greater base of knowledge than we had going into this one.

Good stuff. I do think these last two years will be poured over and analysed . There is no doubt that severe lockdowns have fallen out of favour generally and are unlikely ever to arise again

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In order to compare the quality of Sweden's and Australia's respective pandemic policies you would have to somehow evaluate all their consequences, including harm to young people, the poor, etc. and then evaluate the real significance of the death rates -- that is, how many people who died were just about to die anyway. And even then there are random factors of luck and individual circumstances involved, so it's really hard to do this kind of comparison. And the pandemic isn't even over yet. So I think it's early to have this discussion.


Sweden has not experienced any measurable excess death for the past year and a half on a demographic basis, which seems to indicate that a great proportion of the dead are people who were about to die anyway (a big proportion of the Swedish deaths took place in nursing homes, the protection of which was majorly bungled at the beginning of the pandemic). And despite all of that, the death rate in Sweden is better than the European average, so better than nearly all of the European countries which implemented stricter measures. In this part of the world the Swedish approach is mostly considered to be quite successful -- wise and balanced, and many of Sweden's initial measures were quickly adopted by other countries. Certainly that is the overwhelming opinion among the Swedes themselves, who mostly consider themselves to be exceptionally lucky.


An easier case for the Nordic system of moderate, mostly voluntary pandemic measures is Finland, which with basically the same measures as Sweden has had the lowest or lowest but one or two death rate in all of Europe. But of course -- if some bad luck (timing of spring break) and big mistakes (nursing homes) made the outcome in Sweden worse than it could have been, in Finland some bits of good luck probably are also at play in the exceptionally good results here.



The Australian approach has in its favor an exceptionally low death rate (so far), and theoretically, the possibility of releasing restrictions during times when the virus has been eradicated. The second part of this however is disappearing as restrictions stay in place for longer periods of time than planned as eradication has not in fact taken place as planned and due to the late start with vaccination. The social and economic costs of the measures are still unknown and won't be known until this is really over. Good news for Oz is that vaccination continues at an amazing pace giving real hope that all the vulnerable can be protected before the virus gets out of hand, therefore giving the possibility of ending the restrictions before the costs are unbearable.



So I think the jury is really still out about all of this. We'll have a better feel for it in a year or two, and I hope the world will learn and take lessons from different countries about what worked well and was worthwhile, versus what was very costly and without corresponding effect. I'm sure the experiences in practically every country can give useful lessons for the future. Hopefully the world will handle the next pandemic with a much greater base of knowledge than we had going into this one.

Exactly right. Having witnessed how my own two late-teenage kids were shafted pretty severely the last 18 months now followed by the same sh*tty polarizing discussions they're having re the vaccine as can be seen here on CF, we should not be too smug about how 'we minimized' covid deaths (or in many cases, minimized the number of deaths of people who happen to have covid).

The youth may not have been killed by covid, but for sure something died (a little bit) in them too, something we as mostly entitled middle age CF commentators would do well to recognize. Losing a few years of your life at 70+ is one thing, losing a few years while in the prime of your life is quite something else. I don't think many of us here would have been that accommodating to drop whatever fun things we were doing aged 18.

So maybe I should start a thread "What were you doing at 18?", let it run for a while and then announce, well folks the current cohort of 18 year olds had all those fun activities snatched away from them.

[pdjb]

History is repeating itself, Germany, control the population thur propaganda

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

Exactly right. Having witnessed how my own two late-teenage kids were shafted pretty severely the last 18 months now followed by the same sh*tty polarizing discussions they're having re the vaccine as can be seen here on CF, we should not be too smug about how 'we minimized' covid deaths (or in many cases, minimized the number of deaths of people who happen to have covid).

The youth may not have been killed by covid, but for sure something died (a little bit) in them too, something we as mostly entitled middle age CF commentators would do well to recognize. Losing a few years of your life at 70+ is one thing, losing a few years while in the prime of your life is quite something else. I don't think many of us here would have been that accommodating to drop whatever fun things we were doing aged 18.

So maybe I should start a thread "What were you doing at 18?", let it run for a while and then announce, well folks the current cohort of 18 year olds had all those fun activities snatched away from them.

It is not just the 18 year olds who have essentially lost years of prime life throughout the lockdowns, it is a couple of entire generations. I think the effects for many will flow on for years to come.

I believe we have paid and will continue paying an exceptionally high price per life year possibly saved.
An unprecedented amount.

SWL