Melbourne. Fvcked again. And again. And again.

[grievous]

The Northern Territory semi-secedes from the rest of Australia. Tells NSW and Vic you lot can fvck off for at least the next year and a half...

Id like to see the NT self fund themselves

[kiwinoz]

The velocity of money post the pandemic isn’t computable, only educated guesses can be made.

I'm sure you're familiar with stochastic models, and Monte Carlo simulations, to look at each of MVP and Q in combination.

They cant even estimate surplus/deficits when they are pulling the levers.

[Clogs]

The Northern Territory semi-secedes from the rest of Australia. Tells NSW and Vic you lot can fvck off for at least the next year and a half...

Id like to see the NT self fund themselves

Queensland too. Fvcking spongers!

[Clogs]

The dark and silent side of our virus that no one is speaking about...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-08/ ... s/12532040

[Ali's Choice]

The dark and silent side of our virus that no one is speaking about...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-08/ ... s/12532040

What is with your insidious advocacy of herd immunity? Lots of people are speaking about this. Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny and Peta Credlin talk about this almost every night on their Sky News shows. Miranda Devine writes about this regularly in her nationally syndicated opinion pieces. The Victorian Premier just yesterday announced a new program to support mental health.

[towny]

By way of context, those cases will seem really high by NZ standards but 322 yesterday was the lowest in 12 days while 331 today suggests the numbers are stabilising. It's also a long way off the recent couple of days where cases were over 700.

The deaths remain high though. 19 for two days in a row. Sadly the aged care residents are being claimed at a rate of knots.

Yep, and what is now even worse is that there appears to have been no plan in place to protect the most vulnerable. Just a one size fits all type solution.

What was the plan in previous years? Covid is deadly, but to the vulnerable, so is the flu. Last year in Australia we let did nothing and many more died.

People die of things. This year they aren’t dying of pneumonia at near the rates they used to. Oz hospitals likely have less patients than ever, because less people are sick now.

[towny]

The dark and silent side of our virus that no one is speaking about...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-08/ ... s/12532040

What is with your insidious advocacy of herd immunity? Lots of people are speaking about this. Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny and Peta Credlin talk about this almost every night on their Sky News shows. Miranda Devine writes about this regularly in her nationally syndicated opinion pieces. The Victorian Premier just yesterday announced a new program to support mental health.

There are lots of cost to shut-downs that are not economic. More sexual abuse, more domestic violence.....

Can not these costs be talked about when discussing the solutions? These are the things the Swede’s considered from the outset. I’m not saying they are right - and it’s different for all countries - but this isn’t a cost vs death trade-off. There are loads more other costs involved.

fwiw, I think NZ and Oz are doing the right thing going for eradication. Don’t shoot me.

[CrazyIslander]

Yeah being locked down is depressing. Apparently the quarantine hotels was a mad house hence the difficulty of keeping them in check. It's not so much about living conditions which was nice in a hotel. It was the knowledge that you can't leave it can mess you up mentally.

[Clogs]

The dark and silent side of our virus that no one is speaking about...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-08/ ... s/12532040

What is with your insidious advocacy of herd immunity? Lots of people are speaking about this. Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny and Peta Credlin talk about this almost every night on their Sky News shows. Miranda Devine writes about this regularly in her nationally syndicated opinion pieces. The Victorian Premier just yesterday announced a new program to support mental health.

There are lots of cost to shut-downs that are not economic. More sexual abuse, more domestic violence.....

Can not these costs be talked about when discussing the solutions? These are the things the Swede’s considered from the outset. I’m not saying they are right - and it’s different for all countries - but this isn’t a cost vs death trade-off. There are loads more other costs involved.

fwiw, I think NZ and Oz are doing the right thing going for eradication. Don’t shoot me.

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

[towny]

Is that crazy talk??

[Santa]

A weak economy has negative impacts on people's lives (e.g. life expectancy, violence, unfulfilled potential, mental and physical health). The lives vs economy types just want to ignore that simple FACT, but unfortunately for them it is one of the main reasons why you want to make economies richer and not poorer.

[grievous]

By way of context, those cases will seem really high by NZ standards but 322 yesterday was the lowest in 12 days while 331 today suggests the numbers are stabilising. It's also a long way off the recent couple of days where cases were over 700.

The deaths remain high though. 19 for two days in a row. Sadly the aged care residents are being claimed at a rate of knots.

Yep, and what is now even worse is that there appears to have been no plan in place to protect the most vulnerable. Just a one size fits all type solution.

What was the plan in previous years? Covid is deadly, but to the vulnerable, so is the flu. Last year in Australia we let did nothing and many more died.

People die of things. This year they aren’t dying of pneumonia at near the rates they used to. Oz hospitals likely have less patients than ever, because less people are sick now.

What on earth are you trying too say?

[Ali's Choice]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

[bimboman]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

Human society has been doing this since time began. We don’t as societies spend unlimited funds and time keeping people alive.

[Clogs]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

You have become a vacuous sound bite.


And I have to say that what you have posted here is actually a bit sick. In other words you have crossed the line here.

[towny]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

I am not willing to be on the same side of any argument with bimbo.... but he has a point.
More than 1000 people die on the oz roads every year - this could be reduced to zero. We could do this. Zero road deaths in 2021 is absolutely achievable.

We could do this several ways:
- Ban cars and jail anyone who drives one
- Impose a 10km/h speed limit and pay for a police officer to stand every km of road with a radar gun
- Shut down all the petrol stations

But we don't. These 1000+ lives are considered by society who makes the choice that this is worth it. Every choice has a trade-off, and we would rather have automative transport in our society even though we know it will kill lots of people. These trade-offs include economic benefit/loss, convenience and lots of other things. It is not simply a thing about cost vs lives. Not close.

Another trade-off is that we do not permanently lock-down our society to protect the old and vulnerable from the flu. Every year it kills lots of people. It is not as contagious or deadly as Covid, but it does kill loads of people and our society does little. Last year, thousands in Australia died from respiratory illnesses caused from viruses than 2020 - no one blinked an eye. This year 300 deaths is a travesty that should have been avoided. But those deaths in 2019 could have been avoided. Of course, we didn't consider the trade-off worth it.

I am NOT saying that oz should open up and let the virus take its toll, so don't attack a strawman. fwiw, I believe that Australia and NZ chose the right paths for them. What I am saying is that all choices have trade-offs and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider all costs when making decisions like this. Unfortunately, we too simply turn this into a binary decision, where anything other than unquestioned compliance is seen as heresy to the righteous cause.

There is no vaccine on the horizon. Most of the World is going to have to deal with this virus, and we are going to have to be willing to consider the trade-offs. This is a complicated issue and there is no room for ideological purity.

[towny]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

You have become a vacuous sound bite.


And I have to say that what you have posted here is actually a bit sick. In other words you have crossed the line here.

Please. The 'line' is paedo. We all know that.

[6.Jones]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

I am not willing to be on the same side of any argument with bimbo.... but he has a point.
More than 1000 people die on the oz roads every year - this could be reduced to zero. We could do this. Zero road deaths in 2021 is absolutely achievable.

We could do this several ways:
- Ban cars and jail anyone who drives one
- Impose a 10km/h speed limit and pay for a police officer to stand every km of road with a radar gun
- Shut down all the petrol stations

But we don't. These 1000+ lives are considered by society who makes the choice that this is worth it. Every choice has a trade-off, and we would rather have automative transport in our society even though we know it will kill lots of people. These trade-offs include economic benefit/loss, convenience and lots of other things. It is not simply a thing about cost vs lives. Not close.

Another trade-off is that we do not permanently lock-down our society to protect the old and vulnerable from the flu. Every year it kills lots of people. It is not as contagious or deadly as Covid, but it does kill loads of people and our society does little. Last year, thousands in Australia died from respiratory illnesses caused from viruses than 2020 - no one blinked an eye. This year 300 deaths is a travesty that should have been avoided. But those deaths in 2019 could have been avoided. Of course, we didn't consider the trade-off worth it.

I am NOT saying that oz should open up and let the virus take its toll, so don't attack a strawman. fwiw, I believe that Australia and NZ chose the right paths for them. What I am saying is that all choices have trade-offs and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider all costs when making decisions like this. Unfortunately, we too simply turn this into a binary decision, where anything other than unquestioned compliance is seen as heresy to the righteous cause.

There is no vaccine on the horizon. Most of the World is going to have to deal with this virus, and we are going to have to be willing to consider the trade-offs. This is a complicated issue and there is no room for ideological purity.

Absolutely right. There's a lot of emotion about saving lives, but what gets blurred is how to save the most lives. The closure of our economic system has a cost in lives. It may be the cost of lives is greater by shutting it down. It's profoundly illogical that one way of saving the most lives is considered to be ideologically correct, while others are off limits for discussion.

[Clogs]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

You have become a vacuous sound bite.


And I have to say that what you have posted here is actually a bit sick. In other words you have crossed the line here.

Please. The 'line' is paedo. We all know that.

Oh he headbutted that line in the George Pell thread too...

[towny]

Do you mean have a nuanced discussion because this is a lot more complex than economy vs lives?

You've been demanding that the old and sick be sacrificed for the greater economic good since this pandemic began, yet you constantly boast about nuance. You're the least nuanced poster on this thread.

I am not willing to be on the same side of any argument with bimbo.... but he has a point.
More than 1000 people die on the oz roads every year - this could be reduced to zero. We could do this. Zero road deaths in 2021 is absolutely achievable.

We could do this several ways:
- Ban cars and jail anyone who drives one
- Impose a 10km/h speed limit and pay for a police officer to stand every km of road with a radar gun
- Shut down all the petrol stations

But we don't. These 1000+ lives are considered by society who makes the choice that this is worth it. Every choice has a trade-off, and we would rather have automative transport in our society even though we know it will kill lots of people. These trade-offs include economic benefit/loss, convenience and lots of other things. It is not simply a thing about cost vs lives. Not close.

Another trade-off is that we do not permanently lock-down our society to protect the old and vulnerable from the flu. Every year it kills lots of people. It is not as contagious or deadly as Covid, but it does kill loads of people and our society does little. Last year, thousands in Australia died from respiratory illnesses caused from viruses than 2020 - no one blinked an eye. This year 300 deaths is a travesty that should have been avoided. But those deaths in 2019 could have been avoided. Of course, we didn't consider the trade-off worth it.

I am NOT saying that oz should open up and let the virus take its toll, so don't attack a strawman. fwiw, I believe that Australia and NZ chose the right paths for them. What I am saying is that all choices have trade-offs and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider all costs when making decisions like this. Unfortunately, we too simply turn this into a binary decision, where anything other than unquestioned compliance is seen as heresy to the righteous cause.

There is no vaccine on the horizon. Most of the World is going to have to deal with this virus, and we are going to have to be willing to consider the trade-offs. This is a complicated issue and there is no room for ideological purity.

Absolutely right. There's a lot of emotion about saving lives, but what gets blurred is how to save the most lives. The closure of our economic system has a cost in lives. It may be the cost of lives is greater by shutting it down. It's profoundly illogical that one way of saving the most lives is considered to be ideologically correct, while others are off limits for discussion.

And more than 'lives'.
- Kids aren't going to school. Will this have a lasting effect?
- Sexual abuse is spiking as is domestic abuse
- Kids in some countries aren't getting nutrition. School was the one place they got fed a proper meal.
- Older unemployed people are at risk of being permanently locked out of the workforce
- People leaving University aren't getting hired. Will this gap have a permanent effect?
- Companies are dying and will not return. Will this devastate towns and communities? What will happen to the workers - will they be employed again?
- Industries are being decimated and will not return. Will this permanently impact the growth of developing nations?

If this is a rugby game, we are nowhere near half-time. To me, 'the world' keeps acting like this is a temporary thing that we will be through in a little while. We keep planning NH rugby tournaments and booking Lions tours to Africa. Work is no different. My wife wants to book a holiday to Thailand in February, or maybe Australia. Is she farkin' High?!

There's no vaccine. We need to have proper discussions about how the world is going to move forward. The time for panic is over.

[6.Jones]

It has to be said though that the majority of expert opinion is that the track we're on now is the right one.

[wamberal]

One factor that must be taken into account is that we just do not know what the long term ill-effects of infection are on even young people. I understand that some people who contract the infection suffer serious long term problems. We are still in the very early days of our living with this virus, it is far too early to make predictions about the true economic costs of every possible action scenario.

It seems to me that the most rational approach is to assume that infection simply must be avoided, even at high short-term economic cost. The long term costs could be very significant, we just do not know.

[MungoMan]

One factor that must be taken into account is that we just do not know what the long term ill-effects of infection are on even young people. I understand that some people who contract the infection suffer serious long term problems. We are still in the very early days of our living with this virus, it is far too early to make predictions about the true economic costs of every possible action scenario.

It seems to me that the most rational approach is to assume that infection simply must be avoided, even at high short-term economic cost. The long term costs could be very significant, we just do not know.

I was thinking just yesterday about another disease the long-terms results of which could be just as bad or worse than the immediate: rheumatic fever.

As you’d almost certainly be aware, that cut a lot of lives short by way of heart damage making itself known sometimes decades after the disease had run its course.

[Bindi]

There's 3 extremely promising vaccine candidates in phase III trials now (Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer) and one about to start (Novovax - this one is looking particularly good). Vaccines that make it to Phase III have a very high chance of succeeding.

Suppressing the virus until a vaccine is available is absolutely the right approach. Hurd immunity is insane in comparison (lots of dead people which also leads to massive mental health impacts in friends and family, lower antibody titre, so may not provide great resistance, unknown impacts of the disease for those who do overcome it - the list goes on).

[Blackrock Bullet]

One factor that must be taken into account is that we just do not know what the long term ill-effects of infection are on even young people. I understand that some people who contract the infection suffer serious long term problems. We are still in the very early days of our living with this virus, it is far too early to make predictions about the true economic costs of every possible action scenario.

It seems to me that the most rational approach is to assume that infection simply must be avoided, even at high short-term economic cost. The long term costs could be very significant, we just do not know.

Is that the most rational approach on a public policy basis?

My understanding of tail risks from that Taleb paper was that you must take drastic measures at 1,000 deaths which is fair enough. But once you have assessed the near term death rate and assess the initial impact of the virus, you have to make medium term plans. Are unknown long term side effects of a virus we are still learning about really cause for continued drastic measures and go forward decision making?

What we know is that the only way to get to Covid Zero is to catch it early on and have a severe lockdown to eradicate infection. Then you try and control your borders (which comes at a cost). This has been shown to fail though eventually, New Zealand again seeing this again today despite their best efforts. So you lockdown again, again taking on that cost. In order to minimise infections therefore, you keep having to repeat this process (and it will be more regular in countries other than NZ due to having land borders et cetera), hopefully with shorter cycles but continued costs. The costs of this are difficult to measure. The argument is that you enjoy freedom in between the Covid spikes, but again that is limited. You can’t travel, and there are reasons beyond a holiday to travel (see the WHO’s advice against travel bans generally). You still have a lot of your economy shut down. In the longer term, other economic pressures may emerge to erode the quality of life.

The upside is that after doing this for a few months, a vaccine may be available and if there are long term consequences to the virus, you avoid that. Along with the main thing of saving some lives (some just by months). The downside is that without a vaccine, you are in trouble. If herd immunity exists, you are not going to see it and there will be non stop shutdowns.

The other side of course Sweden. A likely more sustainable approach if a vaccine is not available. It’s hard to judge the costs vs eradication, you can make the argument that things like tourism will be shut down anyway due to fear. But again, in the longer term it may be more sustainable. Without a vaccine, it will be the approach that best works in a globalised world. Eradication worldwide without a vaccine or enough people catching it and enjoying long term immunity is a pipe dream. The downside is increased death in the near term, possible long term health impacts and potentially no long term immunity.

A lot of countries are lying awkwardly in the middle of both approaches. Too scared to go either way and sitting in the middle, likely suffering worse economic consequences (in the short term) than NZ or Sweden. The issue is now not what was decided months ago, but what to decide now. Given the progress with a vaccine, it might be worth it to wait it out now and take that risk. I’m not sure that the longer term unknown consequences should be accounted for, it doesn’t seem sound on a public policy basis. Right now, either way you should be trying to have the medical infrastructure in place and shielding in place for the known at risk people. Known knowns and all that shit.

[towny]

It has to be said though that the majority of expert opinion is that the track we're on now is the right one.

Imo, Australia is, NZ is, Sweden is.

Not sure about the rest.

[shanky]

There's 3 extremely promising vaccine candidates in phase III trials now (Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer) and one about to start (Novovax - this one is looking particularly good). Vaccines that make it to Phase III have a very high chance of succeeding.

Suppressing the virus until a vaccine is available is absolutely the right approach. Hurd immunity is insane in comparison (lots of dead people which also leads to massive mental health impacts in friends and family, lower antibody titre, so may not provide great resistance, unknown impacts of the disease for those who do overcome it - the list goes on).

Thanks

What’s the simple story with vaccines?

Will all three ‘likely’ work? Or is it an odds game (maybe only one works)

What about Putin’s vaccine? Any good?

[towny]

When can we expect our vaccine dose?

[shanky]

No vaccine for you!

[Bindi]

There's 3 extremely promising vaccine candidates in phase III trials now (Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer) and one about to start (Novovax - this one is looking particularly good). Vaccines that make it to Phase III have a very high chance of succeeding.

Suppressing the virus until a vaccine is available is absolutely the right approach. Hurd immunity is insane in comparison (lots of dead people which also leads to massive mental health impacts in friends and family, lower antibody titre, so may not provide great resistance, unknown impacts of the disease for those who do overcome it - the list goes on).

Thanks

What’s the simple story with vaccines?

Will all three ‘likely’ work? Or is it an odds game (maybe only one works)

What about Putin’s vaccine? Any good?

Don't know anything about Putin's vaccine. Don't think there's been any papers and they haven't done any proper trials. Could be lucky though.

As for the other candidates, they could easily all work to a degree. The Oxford one looks the weakest, but it's an approach they've been working on since SARS and MERS, so safety profile is well known. Moderna's and Pfizer's are new approaches only successful in animas so far, but will revolutionise all vaccine development if they work (they're fully synthetic - just need the viral genome sequence to design, and sequencing/design only takes days). They differ in the carrier used - Pfizer's looks slightly better due to a better non-antibody immune response. Novovax uses recombinant proteins (also synthetic, but longer development time) and an adjuvant that gives a really strong immune response. All the vaccines produce loads of antibodies (compared to people who have actually had the disease). No really nasty side effects for the doses they're using in Phase III so far, so all are likely relatively safe.

[shanky]

I had no idea that adjuvent was an actual word

Thanks.
Fingers crossed.

[Farva]

Saw Bill Gates speaking the other day. He was confident that we would have one vaccine this year and a couple more in the first six months of next. It would take some time to roll them out though.

So the optimist in me says that short term suppression / elimination for the next 6 months and we are (relatively) home free.

[Harveys]

No vaccine for you!

[Slim 293]

Saw Bill Gates speaking the other day. He was confident that we would have one vaccine this year and a couple more in the first six months of next. It would take some time to roll them out though.

So the optimist in me says that short term suppression / elimination for the next 6 months and we are (relatively) home free.

Yeah, but... 5G mind control?

[Farva]

Saw Bill Gates speaking the other day. He was confident that we would have one vaccine this year and a couple more in the first six months of next. It would take some time to roll them out though.

So the optimist in me says that short term suppression / elimination for the next 6 months and we are (relatively) home free.

Yeah, but... 5G mind control?

I have recently discovered my cousin is an anti vaxxer, and she and her husband post a lot about how we need to open back up again.
My optimistic self gets stretched at times...

[Pat the Ex Mat]

Saw Bill Gates speaking the other day. He was confident that we would have one vaccine this year and a couple more in the first six months of next. It would take some time to roll them out though.

So the optimist in me says that short term suppression / elimination for the next 6 months and we are (relatively) home free.

Yeah, but... 5G mind control?

We laugh but there is already massive push-back on vaccines from the usual suspects......

They might end up meeting Darwin sooner

[guy smiley]

In hat appears to be an awkward development for Muttonbirds in particular, NZ has announced stage three lockdown in Auckland and stage two nationwide. Apparently a household in Auckland has returned positive test results.


That’s a bit shit.

[shanky]

No vaccine for you!

[Slim 293]

Saw Bill Gates speaking the other day. He was confident that we would have one vaccine this year and a couple more in the first six months of next. It would take some time to roll them out though.

So the optimist in me says that short term suppression / elimination for the next 6 months and we are (relatively) home free.

Yeah, but... 5G mind control?

I have recently discovered my cousin is an anti vaxxer, and she and her husband post a lot about how we need to open back up again.
My optimistic self gets stretched at times...

I have an old friend on Facebook who I haven't seen in person in over a decade, who helps keep me up to date with all the crazy covid-conspiracy goings ons...

I believe the "Biosecurity Act of 2015" is the new legislation that the sheeple need to wake up to.

[Farva]

In hat appears to be an awkward development for Muttonbirds in particular, NZ has announced stage three lockdown in Auckland and stage two nationwide. Apparently a household in Auckland has returned positive test results.


That’s a bit shit.

Should have gone to stage 4. Perhaps for the next 6 months. Need to go hard and early.
I’m only trying to save lives.