Planet Rugby Forum

We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

Ah shit - that's bad news mate. Those frigging security guards need to be hung, drawn and quartered.

I think the problem is a bit bigger than just them. We didn't quite get a handle on this thing before opening things up. What is troubling is that the numbers are high, but almost all are asymptomatic and only really identified as a result of extensive testing. What does this mean for other states?

Clogs wrote:I think the problem is a bit bigger than just them. We didn't quite get a handle on this thing before opening things up. What is troubling is that the numbers are high, but almost all are asymptomatic and only really identified as a result of extensive testing. What does this mean for other states?

You would have to think that all states will have a 2nd wave. NSW has likely already got COVID spreading silently and undetected through their community. And QLD is opening our borders to NSW very soon, so there goes our run of good luck.

What will be interesting is to see if localised and regional resrtrictions are as effective as the 'one in, all in' approach that we took back in March.'

Red card, Melbourne. Six week suspension.

Clogs wrote:I think the problem is a bit bigger than just them. We didn't quite get a handle on this thing before opening things up. What is troubling is that the numbers are high, but almost all are asymptomatic and only really identified as a result of extensive testing. What does this mean for other states?

Nothing for SA.

We have had wide ranging tests from the start up until now. Nothing. Yesterday there were 2000 odd tests done, 30 days after the last local infection was recorded.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Clogs wrote:I think the problem is a bit bigger than just them. We didn't quite get a handle on this thing before opening things up. What is troubling is that the numbers are high, but almost all are asymptomatic and only really identified as a result of extensive testing. What does this mean for other states?

You would have to think that all states will have a 2nd wave. NSW has likely already got COVID spreading silently and undetected through their community. And QLD is opening our borders to NSW very soon, so there goes our run of good luck.

What will be interesting is to see if localised and regional resrtrictions are as effective as the 'one in, all in' approach that we took back in March.'

I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

I was thinking more the mental side of it. We are basically open here in SA. If we had to go back into lockdown, you start wondering how many times is this going to happen. Its not a once off lockdown anymore. Is it going to be up and down like this until we get a vaccine?

It could break people. It will definitely break some cafes/restaurants.

I just hope it stays largely localised to Melbourne.

Gotta love a Labour government

bravo wrote:Gotta love a Labour government

Agreed, the QLD Labor govt has done the best job fighting COVID in Australia

Between this and the recent branch stacking controversy.. labour in VIC are beyond fvcked..

Ali's Choice wrote:

bravo wrote:Gotta love a Labour government

Agreed, the QLD Labor govt has done the best job fighting COVID in Australia

Ali's Choice wrote:

Clogs wrote:I think the problem is a bit bigger than just them. We didn't quite get a handle on this thing before opening things up. What is troubling is that the numbers are high, but almost all are asymptomatic and only really identified as a result of extensive testing. What does this mean for other states?

You would have to think that all states will have a 2nd wave. NSW has likely already got COVID spreading silently and undetected through their community. And QLD is opening our borders to NSW very soon, so there goes our run of good luck.

What will be interesting is to see if localised and regional resrtrictions are as effective as the 'one in, all in' approach that we took back in March.'

I truly hope the localised works. For everyone's sake. Whilst it is shitty to happen again, I am happy to lockdown if it is effective.

bravo wrote:Gotta love a Labour government

Again, not sure how or why this virus has become a political thing?

kiap wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

bravo wrote:Gotta love a Labour government

Agreed, the QLD Labor govt has done the best job fighting COVID in Australia

bravo wrote:Between this and the recent branch stacking controversy.. labour in VIC are beyond fvcked..

Dan Andrews shits all over Michael O’Brian as a leader. I had to laugh watching O’Brian laying into Andrews after his press conference and then offering bipartisan support. What a f**king nob.

Andrews is a sure thing to win another term. In fact he should run for PM, speaking of which, has anyone seen ScoMo, he seems to be MIA again...

trapper wrote:

bravo wrote:Between this and the recent branch stacking controversy.. labour in VIC are beyond fvcked..

Dan Andrews shits all over Michael O’Brian as a leader. I had to laugh watching O’Brian laying into Andrews after his press conference and then offering bipartisan support. What a f**king nob.

Andrews is a sure thing to win another term. In fact he should run for PM, speaking of which, has anyone seen ScoMo, he seems to be MIA again...

Isn't Victoria the most population-dense state?

It's just bad luck, not bad leadership a la Scomo

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

You keep beating this drum - it has happened now, it's not punishment, the Lockdown happened under the best advice, which was consistent with Medical Advice.

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Mate, we have no idea what the long term complications from getting covid are. Might be nothing like the flu, but there is some evidence to suggest some lasting damage might be taking place.

Too many unknowns and too many risks to just let it wash over 'non-vulnerable' people.

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:

trapper wrote:

bravo wrote:Between this and the recent branch stacking controversy.. labour in VIC are beyond fvcked..

Dan Andrews shits all over Michael O’Brian as a leader. I had to laugh watching O’Brian laying into Andrews after his press conference and then offering bipartisan support. What a f**king nob.

Andrews is a sure thing to win another term. In fact he should run for PM, speaking of which, has anyone seen ScoMo, he seems to be MIA again...

Isn't Victoria the most population-dense state?

It's just bad luck, not bad leadership a la Scomo

As with so many things, it isn't simply a failing of one thing or another or just simply bad luck. It is a combination of a number of things. Dan Andrews had, prior to easing of restrictions, been in my opinion the best leader when it came to managing this crisis. He then seemed to be under pressure from the other states because they had eased restrictions and we hadn't. So two week before school holidays were about to start, he eased restrictions and sent the kids back to full time school. 12 schools have now popped up as having infections. And only because they had family members tested. So he could have waited 2 more weeks until school holidays and we would have had another 4-5 weeks of reduced public transport trips, teachers being forced to go into schools etc. We have also had big family gatherings etc since the easing of the restrictions. A big mess up.
Then we had a few protests. And subsequently had positive tests from there. Then we had private security company paid to provide minimum wage security guards with no statutory authority to look after hotel quarantined return travellers. No oversight and or checking in on them either. Cluster fvck.
So, here we are. Worse than when this thing started. Having to go around again. I think this is his last chance at getting this right. There won't be a third lock down. After this 6 weeks, if there is another fvck up, there will be pitch forks and torches at the steps of parliament down here. Fingers crossed we get through this ok.

Muttonbirds wrote:Red card, Melbourne. Six week suspension.

Firm but fair

Sensible Stephen wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Mate, we have no idea what the long term complications from getting covid are. Might be nothing like the flu, but there is some evidence to suggest some lasting damage might be taking place.

Too many unknowns and too many risks to just let it wash over 'non-vulnerable' people.

I appreciate your concern. Just sanity check the 'some evidence' vs media hype. I recall the media going into overdrive about how this isn't just an 'old person' disease and then playing the gut wrenching images of the poor kid in the UK dying alone in ICU and making the link that this is what also happens to young people. I am still angry at how they used that scenario to cause fear.

Use the data to guide you. What % of those that have been infected have now got/had complications. Get that data and let's start dissecting and discussing.

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Careful Clogs, you don't want to let facts get in the way.

The politicians were given the worst case scenarios by the medicos and, in the face of media hype over-reacted.

Looking at the result from the medico's POV, its fantastic, great, and couldn't be a lot better. A world leading success story.

Looking at it from a multi-discipline POV it is a clusterfuck. The economy has been trashed, in circumstances where with only a small increase in pain, in need not have been so badly affected.

The problem is that no politician - in this media driven democracy - has the strength of character or leadership to get up and say -

"We have decided that we can accept 1000 deaths instead of 100. We are doing this because we don't want to go into an economic blackhole that will take a generation to recover from. So, a few of us are going to have to take one for the team."

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

I am finding myself in agreement. If the virus acts the way the data shows what I have seen from the UK, then it is clear that there are vulnerable people in our community that need to, and can actually be protected by them self isolating. I am asthmatic and will personally be self isolating. However for the vast majority of fit healthy young people this virus doesn't seem to be posing too much of a risk of dying. Why should they be locked down for 6 weeks?

And again. Before you react angrily to what I have posted, I am basing my opinion on data I have seen about Covid Deaths and age groups from the UK.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2Fpeop ... 52020.xlsx

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
You keep beating this drum - it has happened now, it's not punishment, the Lockdown happened under the best advice, which was consistent with Medical Advice.

Actually it was the best medical advice. The best economic advice would be different.

Ellafan wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Careful Clogs, you don't want to let facts get in the way.

The politicians were given the worst case scenarios by the medicos and, in the face of media hype over-reacted.

Looking at the result from the medico's POV, its fantastic, great, and couldn't be a lot better. A world leading success story.

Looking at it from a multi-discipline POV it is a clusterfuck. The economy has been trashed, in circumstances where with only a small increase in pain, in need not have been so badly affected.

The problem is that no politician - in this media driven democracy - has the strength of character or leadership to get up and say -

"We have decided that we can accept 1000 deaths instead of 100. We are doing this because we don't want to go into an economic blackhole that will take a generation to recover from. So, a few of you are going to have to take one for the team."

Well on at least one of your points I think we are in furious agreement. The media have been absolutely fvcking appalling in their reporting hyping/sensationalising/comparing challenging premiers and chief medical officers and putting unreasonable pressure on them in these extraordinary times. Disgusting even.

For mine, we now have a huge amount of data available to us. We should be able to count on our politicians making better decisions as a result. And it isn't about accepting 1000 deaths instead of 100. It is about balance and making sure we don't have any more deaths than we need to. Apart from it being inevitable and all.

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

You keep beating this drum - it has happened now, it's not punishment, the Lockdown happened under the best advice, which was consistent with Medical Advice.

So you don't think my idea has merit. Even with the data? You believe the 100% lockdown is the only way to go?

Ellafan wrote:

Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
You keep beating this drum - it has happened now, it's not punishment, the Lockdown happened under the best advice, which was consistent with Medical Advice.

Actually it was the best medical advice. The best economic advice would be different.

Yeah, I just dont agree with that.
We dont really know what the true extent of this pandemic might have been had we let it run its course. We still dont. The US had some lockdown and have recorded 130k deaths. That is recorded. Its quite possibly 200k or more given the level of under reporting. With a mortality rate of 0.5% to 1%, that means 20m to 40m people have had the virus. And its accellerating there. What happens when 150m people have had it and the deaths are no longer 200k, but closer to 2m? Sure they are older people. But dont forget that many of those that dont die end up with a life long disability.

If that happens in Australia (and it still might) then we would be looking at somewhere between 50k and 100k deaths. Plus a huge number of disabled people with significant lung damage or other issues that are being noted.

I am of the opinion that the economy will be hammered if we allow that to happen. I think it would be hammered more than by going into lockdown. The economy has taken a hit and we are in recession now. But its one we can come out in a reasonable shape. Lets not forget the economy was shakey leading in to this.

Clogs wrote:

Ellafan wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

Careful Clogs, you don't want to let facts get in the way.

The politicians were given the worst case scenarios by the medicos and, in the face of media hype over-reacted.

Looking at the result from the medico's POV, its fantastic, great, and couldn't be a lot better. A world leading success story.

Looking at it from a multi-discipline POV it is a clusterfuck. The economy has been trashed, in circumstances where with only a small increase in pain, in need not have been so badly affected.

The problem is that no politician - in this media driven democracy - has the strength of character or leadership to get up and say -

"We have decided that we can accept 1000 deaths instead of 100. We are doing this because we don't want to go into an economic blackhole that will take a generation to recover from. So, a few of you are going to have to take one for the team."

Well on at least one of your points I think we are in furious agreement. The media have been absolutely fvcking appalling in their reporting hyping/sensationalising/comparing challenging premiers and chief medical officers and putting unreasonable pressure on them in these extraordinary times. Disgusting even.

For mine, we now have a huge amount of data available to us. We should be able to count on our politicians making better decisions as a result. And it isn't about accepting 1000 deaths instead of 100. It is about balance and making sure we don't have any more deaths than we need to. Apart from it being inevitable and all.

To put the 40,000 UK deaths into context, in Winter of 2018/9 we had 45,000 excess deaths from a nasty bout of seasonal flu. Not saying these CV deaths aren’t tragic and that the actions taken haven’t been essential to stop it being much worse but let’s not think we can stop old, frail people from dying from something. CV is now with us, like AIDS, like flu, like cancer and we need to get used to it. After 35 years we still don’t have an Aids vaccine. I hope we get a CV vaccine but don’t rely on it.

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

We had lockdown in the UK and so far 44k have died. So on that basis lockdown was a waste of time even though it was projected anything up to 500k would have died if we hadn't. Is that you point ?

Clogs wrote:If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Has there been anywhere in the world that has been able to successfully implement this strategy you are suggesting? Because I'm just not sure how this could possibly work? I can see that as one of the resident loony conservative Australian posters, you are delighted by today's lockdown news because it gives you a chance to promote ultra-conservative herd immunity conspiracy theories and troll Victoria's Labor Premier.

As an aside, where is Scott Morrison? On holiday? He demands that we praise him when things go well with managing COVID-19, but he goes AWOL when the news isn't so positive.

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

And what are your qualifications which inform your opinions?

Mullet 2 wrote:

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

And what are your qualifications which inform your opinions?

Being, by some margin, the most intelligent poster that PR has ever had.

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

Can you please show us an example of a country or jurisdiction that has successfully slowed the spread COVID 19 using only localised lock-downs, rather than a more general approach?

Anonymous. wrote:

Clogs wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Sensible Stephen wrote:I think thats the worry. They won't be. People are exhausted. A second lockdown will be much harder to do than the first.

I think we need to keep things in perspective, we've still only had 106 deaths in total nationally. That's how many deaths the UK is recording per day, and they have opened up their economy and are encouraging people to rush to the pubs and to the beach.

Here is the remarkable thing in the UK. Of the 44 odd thousand deaths attributable to Covid, only 168 people aged 35 and under have died. That is a staggeringly small number of deaths for such a large proportion of the population.
If you were to measure 50 and under then it is slightly higher at 1821 deaths out of 44 odd thousand.

If that same demographic impact plays out in Australia, surely it would make more sense to let anyone under 50 continue on as per normal and anyone from 50 to 60 decide on whether to self isolate or not, then anyone over 60 should look to go into quarantine.

Less impact on the economy, little impact/risk on those going about things as per normal, and significantly reduced risk of impact to those most vulnerable. In fact the most vulnerable (over 70) are all mostly retirees anyway. Lets protect them and assist them during this tough time rather than say lockdown the entire population?

We had lockdown in the UK and so far 44k have died. So on that basis lockdown was a waste of time even though it was projected anything up to 500k would have died if we hadn't. Is that you point ?

I see the problem with the point you are trying to make. Projections. We now have a lot more data. A lot more than when we started. We shouldn't be using the same projections to make/shape our decision making now. Dan Andrews is at least taking some of that on board and hasn't gone for a State Wide lockdown. Why? well if people in Shepparton aren't infected why lock them down? Terryfinch has posted what we should be looking at doing. Dramatically ramp up testing, identify those that are ill. Isolate them. Trace those they have come into contact with. Isolate them too. Lockdown? Perhaps not so much...

Ali's Choice wrote:

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

Can you please show us an example of a country or jurisdiction that has successfully slowed the spread COVID 19 using only localised lock-downs, rather than a more general approach?

South Korea appear to have been very successful with their approach similar to what terryfinch is suggesting?

Ali's Choice wrote:

terryfinch wrote:

Clogs wrote:We go into another lockdown from midnight tomorrow. 6 more weeks. Fvck!

In my opinion the wrong approach. This virus is now a fact of life. It doesn’t go away. Lockdown is too blunt an instrument. Track, trace and localised lockdowns (places of work, tower blocks, ....) seems the most practical way to go, keeping a lid on it that way. Wide scale lockdowns cause too much damage.

Can you please show us an example of a country or jurisdiction that has successfully slowed the spread COVID 19 using only localised lock-downs, rather than a more general approach?

That is basically what most countries in Europe are now doing and they seem to be managing ok so far.