U.S. to close..

[UFO]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

That’s another myth, Covid is NOT highly contagious, if it were then the infection rate would be very much higher than it is, almost a year into the disease.

Recent research from an Italian Cancer trial (they went back over the blood samples) shows that patients were showing antibodies for Covid19 as far back as September 2019 - Meaning it has been round a lot longer than we think and we are well over a year in if that's the case.


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/...OVfTLGwvhMHR_c

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I would be interested to know the rationale behind that particular move because on the surface, it completely fails the 'pub test'. I don't think even an Aussie pollie would have survived that move.

What was the secret that allowed them to keep their job after that cluster...k?

I wager it made someone money, contract between the health department and someone in the nursing homes or something.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

...snip

On edit, Covid is actually a very mild Pandemic, thankfully, there have been in the past actual real horrible ones, with massive death rates. To me Covid isn’t the boogey man many kept saying was, and they are still rallying behind that millions will die
“something” must be done.

However, Covid hopefully will be treated as a case study, a training exercise if you will. so that one day when the real no kidding new black death comes along we will execute a plan that is in place and all it needs is an execute order.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Excactly my thoughts!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . So here we are, several months later... and COVID-19 is still entering and ripping through these homes and hospitals. Has anyone seen any genuinely effective protection set up for these homes? Me neither.

I'm not sure how they're doing it, but nursing homes seem to be in very good shape throughout the Nordic region these days. You may recall that Sweden had a horrible wave of nursing home deaths in the spring; 6000 died. But although the infection rate is high again in Sweden (400 daily cases per million, second highest in the region), very few people are dying -- about 1 per million, about the same as Estonia, and 2.5x less than Germany, and 5x less than Lithuania. Altogether the death rates in the Nordic and Baltic countries are the lowest in Europe, with only Latvia and Lithuania at any even significant level.


There was a big debate in the Nordic countries about whether it is right to restrict visitation in nursing homes. In Sweden and Finland, visitation in nursing homes was stopped for a couple of months during the spring, and there was a huge outcry about it, with residents signing petitions and a lot of discussion. The point was many of these people are in their last months of life in any case, and a ban on visitation lasting even only a few months, may mean that many nursing home residents never see their loved ones again -- so finally it was decided that it was worth the risk to continue visitation rights.



Whatever they are doing now, it seems to be working well.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . It seems that some countries just can't manage spread with voluntary measures. There's just two settings there - exponential growth and mandated lockdown. It's like controlling engine speed by switching the fuel supply valve from full off to full on.

Sad if true, but possibly you are right. On the other hand, just never forget that outcomes and measures have little correlation in any case. It's really hard to say why this country has a good outcome and that one has a bad one. There are significant random elements in how these outbreaks occur. The Nordic and Baltic countries are a good laboratory for that. The measures have been almost the same in all of them all along, and almost absolutely identical since June. Yet Sweden had a big outbreak in the spring while the other Nordic countries were quiet, and then inexplicably, in August-September Denmark had by far the biggest outbreak in the region, which has since quieted down. Now Lithuania has one of the worst outbreaks in Europe. Why? Not because of any difference in measures.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As usual, we don't have to speculate. It's a hotly researched topic now. Here's the latest study from the University of Chicago:

Fear, Lockdown, and Diversion: Comparing Drivers of Pandemic Economic Decline 2020

As with other similar research, the findings show that the lockdowns actually contribute a significant, but still relatively small portion of the economic decline. Consumer behaviour in the face of the pandemic appears to be the larger factor.

Note that this study deals exclusively with businesses which rely on foot traffic -- it is an analylsis of foot traffic. That makes up no more than 10% of the economy.


There is a strong correlation between stay at home orders and unemployment rates:


https://www.aier.org/article/longer-...omic-outcomes/


Note also that discrete industries may suffer terrible harm directly from stay at home orders and travel restrictions. Obviously -- tourism. transportation, hospitality businesses, but also many others which depend on these. You can't switch these businesses on and off like a light switch -- once you kill them, they may not come back for years. So the long term harm, including long term unemployment of people working in these industries, will not be reflected in momentary statistics.


Note also that lockdowns may have little direct effect on educated white collar workers who can work from home, but devastating effects on the working poor in service industries which are ordered closed. So the overall, average statistics mask devastating effects on the most vulnerable.

[El Pinguino]

What it is to live in a covid free country of 25 million people...

https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-release...ctorian-border

This was a pussy compared with the Federation drought or the many we have had since...

[El Pinguino]

Meanwhile more good news from the Australian state of Victoria ... which has a population of about one million more people than the small country of Finland... and was the state hardest hit by Covid.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...21-p56gop.html

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Meanwhile more good news from the Australian state of Victoria ... which has a population of about one million more people than the small country of Finland... and was the state hardest hit by Covid.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...21-p56gop.html

You have nearly zero infections yet you are required to wear a mask at all times OUTDOORS? That's seems rather OTT.

That's great that you've eradicated it (for now). The big question is -- at what cost. In some cases some initial but short term big cost could be worthwhile if you can then live free of restrictions for months or years while other countries are still struggling. Could be.

But how do you keep borders closed to keep it that way -- I don't know. Maybe an extremely remote island country like NZ or Oz can do it at an acceptable cost. This is pretty much impossible in Europe.

[El Pinguino]

Australia is a continent... not an island..... and in this day and age not remote.
Moving right along....
The 'at all times outdoors' was a bit of a moveable feast... the only times I have worn one was when shopping ... from car to shop and back to car. Not when visiting friends or working cattle or stuff...
Was out for lunch two days ago... Browns Winery at Milawa.... masks from car to socially distanced table... bit of bollocks really but didn't cause me any serious pain....
A good comparison with Oz is Chile... desert to the north, Andes to the east and ocean to the west... they could have shut that country up as tight as drum and sorted it but they failed....
Why?

[Wotname]

Just to be clear, the mask thing applied only Melbourne / Victoria and only recently. Masks are pretty rare in the rest of Downunder (maybe a bit more common in Sydney - but I'm not there to report accurately).

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You have nearly zero infections yet you are required to wear a mask at all times OUTDOORS? That's seems rather OTT.

That's great that you've eradicated it (for now). The big question is -- at what cost. In some cases some initial but short term big cost could be worthwhile if you can then live free of restrictions for months or years while other countries are still struggling. Could be.

But how do you keep borders closed to keep it that way -- I don't know. Maybe an extremely remote island country like NZ or Oz can do it at an acceptable cost. This is pretty much impossible in Europe.

Pretty much what happened in China at a bigger scale. Quarantine will probably be in place for the foreseeable future.

No need for masks outside though.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Just to be clear, the mask thing applied only Melbourne / Victoria and only recently. Masks are pretty rare in the rest of Downunder (maybe a bit more common in Sydney - but I'm not there to report accurately).

Zakery.... If I go over the border to Albury... no masks.....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Seriously, it's often been raised, over the last several months, that instead of lockdowns and other measures aimed at the whole public, there should be focused measures to protect the most vulnerable - most obviously seniors and the chronically-ill, in long-term care, retirement homes, etc.

So here we are, several months later... and COVID-19 is still entering and ripping through these homes and hospitals. Has anyone seen any genuinely effective protection set up for these homes? Me neither.

Maybe you haven't seen it because you're not looking for it. Or it doesn't fit the agenda of your sources of information. Beats me, but I do have some first-hand information that contradicts your unresearched assumptions. But only because my 95 year-old(!) father landed himself in a Fla. care facility back in February after taking a bad fall. He would undoubtedly appreciate my adding that he fell outside a well-touted French restaurant where he was meeting one of his (several) 'younger' gals, this particular one being "only" 83. On a Saturday night, of course.

Glue factories, boxcars, equating resistance to mask wearing with killing the elderly? Suggesting that anyone who properly cites the obvious balancing that policies have to try and achieve don't care about the elderly or the poor? Really guys??

So here's what I know, based on personal observation, many conversations with administrators and staff, written policies, and weekly letters that the facility is required to send out with updates. All of these Covid-related restrictions apply specifically to elder care facilities in the state of Fla. and some nationwide, and they all cite both mandates and recommendations from federal (CDC & Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), state, and local authorities. Most significantly, they prohibited all outside visitation starting way back on March 15th, and only partially reinstated it with significant restrictions (outside only, 2-person limit, masks, social distancing, etc.) recently on Nov. 1st. They have also been testing everybody (patients & staff) 2x/week for at least the past 3 months. Needless to say, the severe restrictions on visitations has been a tough and in many cases tragic scenario for all too many elderly and their families.

So have all of these federal, state and local rules & regs been effective? Don't know and, unlike others, wouldn't want to make assertions as if they were facts when they would only amount to mere assumptions. I can only speak to my father's facility which has thus far had 20+ positive cases amongst the staff (who come and go) but zero patients who have become infected (thankfully). Much of this is no doubt influenced by the facility itself, i.e. how well they sanitize and interact with patients with proper PPE gear. Certainly worse results elsewhere within and outside the state of Fla, but as has been pointed out numerous times, Covid doesn't always lend itself to neat correlations as much as some would like it to, all too often for partisan purposes of course.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A long read on Snopes, if you're interested.

The mitigating factors include:

• the order was for stable and recovering patients to be moved to nursing homes, in order to leave more hospital beds available for acute and critical cases
• at the time of the order (Mar 25), there were no overflow capabilities online yet
• at least 13 other states had also issued the same directive
• asymptomatic and post-illness spread wasn't fully understood
• tests were in short supply, so homes were directed to not test transferred patients
• a lot of staff were testing positive; they were certainly a cause too.

It certainly seems short-sighted and incompetent to have sent potentially infected patients into nursing homes. The most innocent explanation is the fog of war.

The sort of spin which helps make politicians into heroes. Just read that Gov. Cuomo will be awarded for an Emmy (not kidding but could be faux news). Seems appropriate since so many people liked his "performance" during his daily pressers, notwithstanding the decisionmaking you're referring to. Also presents a nice contrast with the rather bungled performance of the big guy in DC. Iow, it all fits political narratives quite nicely but not necessarily the truth.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

On the other hand, just never forget that outcomes and measures have little correlation in any case. It's really hard to say why this country has a good outcome and that one has a bad one. There are significant random elements in how these outbreaks occur.

Infected people spread the virus to other people. Period (... give or take some mink, or maybe the household kitty). If you can stop or reduce the interactions that transfer the virus, you reduce the spread. Is this in doubt?

There's no magic involved. If measures aren't producing reductions, it's because the measures are insufficient, or because people aren't following them. It's really "hard to say" whether something worked or not if no-one's yet done the analysis, which is admittedly difficult if we lack sufficient data about interactions.

Note also that discrete industries may suffer terrible harm directly from stay at home orders and travel restrictions. Obviously -- tourism. transportation, hospitality businesses, but also many others which depend on these. You can't switch these businesses on and off like a light switch -- once you kill them, they may not come back for years. So the long term harm, including long term unemployment of people working in these industries, will not be reflected in momentary statistics.

Note also that lockdowns may have little direct effect on educated white collar workers who can work from home, but devastating effects on the working poor in service industries which are ordered closed. So the overall, average statistics mask devastating effects on the most vulnerable.

No sh!t.

You can press pause if the businesses and their workers can be supported over the required period of restriction. Plus, I seem to have greater faith in the resilience and entrepreneurship of most business people than you do. If there's people with an idea and initiative, and consumers with discretionary income, and some capital, they always find each other.

Here in Toronto, we've had a surge, hospitals are approaching their limits, and another lockdown has just been imposed. It's not quite as brutal as in the spring, but it's hard enough, especially in the vital sales period before Christmas.

I'm starting to get the idea that you're opposed to lockdowns. Now, you've had COVID, and know people who had it. You claim to be concerned about it, but you have only negative things to say about mitigation efforts, except for the idea that we should all turn into Scandinavians.

We have approx 6 months to slog through before vaccine uptake becomes significant. We have the task of keeping the COVID spread low enough to maintain viable healthcare systems and low numbers of death and disability. The only tools right now seem to be restrictions (up to and including lockdowns), and supports for people and businesses most harmed. If these are unacceptable to you, please provide alternative ideas. If you think that 'we' should simply grit our teeth, impose no serious restrictions and bear the COVID toll (and by 'we', we're referring to the working poor who are deemed cannonfodder essential workers, and healthcare workers who get to enjoy 6 more months of 12 hr shifts, overtime, 6 PPE changes an hour, and triaging), please say so. Say the words.