General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Snow Leopard on August 21, 2021, 10:28:56 am
Title: -
Post by: Snow Leopard on August 21, 2021, 10:28:56 am
-
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Sine on August 21, 2021, 11:21:44 am
Tbf NSW is barely in lockdown right now so the response is probably not enough.
Also, vaccinations are not mandatory in Australia and I don't think they will ever make it mandatory. However, they might limit what you can do if you aren't vaccinated which has been the case currently/in the past given the risk it may pose to others E.g. to enrol in school in Victoria you need to have an up to date immunisation history. Also when you are vaccinated you should still be wearing masks, social distancing given you can still get the virus, spread it but a lot less likely to die from it.
Quote
But most studies have found that COVID-19 is estimated to have a death rate between 1 and 3 per cent. Or, another way to look at it is that there is a survival rate of between 97 and 99 per cent.
I think 1% kind of assumes you have the health facilities and resources to cope with everyone who needs to be in ICU, if too many people are sick at the same time the death rate would be higher. Also, 1-3% of 8 billion is 80-240 million.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: PhoenixxFire on August 21, 2021, 11:40:15 am
- Doctors and other health professionals in Australia are unable to give advice about COVID-19 for fear of losing their registration with APHRA:
This is complete crap. aphra doesn't suspend registrations for giving advice about a disease - but they do require that all practioners follow standards, including around evidence based practice.
- Even medical professionals in New Zealand are speaking up about how vaccines shouldn't be mandatory: https://nzdsos.com/
And some people who are qualified as scientists claim that climate change isn't real. There are conspiracy theorists in every field.
Are you seriously trying to say that we should just cop a 1-3% death rate? That's a huge number of people. It is absolutely despicable to suggest that we should let hundreds of millions of people die so that you don't have to stay home.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: PhoenixxFire on August 21, 2021, 01:41:27 pm
Lol calm down, I never said that I don't want to stay home, I am very much following the laws.
I just think it's important to not just accept whatever the government and media tells you and to question it. There's nothing wrong with open debate. After all, COVID is not just something temporary, it is something we will have to learn to live with. The decisions made by our government is drastically affecting how we are living our lives. So why shouldn't we have a say in it?
The points you have mentioned in your post are not opinions that should be debated, they are facts. There is no debate about facts because they are true regardless.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: turinturambar on August 21, 2021, 02:38:36 pm
But most studies have found that COVID-19 is estimated to have a death rate between 1 and 3 per cent. Or, another way to look at it is that there is a survival rate of between 97 and 99 per cent.
Whenever I hear people questioning the seriousness of Covid-19, just about the only number looked at is the death rate. And, as other commenters have pointed out, that death rate for a novel and infectious disease is not good. But I think we also need to look at the effects on those who have survived. There are reports of heart damage, and of lung damage. There's long Covid: Some are still struggling with a range of weird and wonderful symptoms nearly 18 months after catching it. Those who have gone through ICU and ventilation and survived are more likely to have PTSD. I could go on, but it is those as much as the deaths that makes me think Covid-19 is a serious disease which should be taken seriously. And that remains true when a large percentage of the "most vulnerable" are vaccinated, hopefully reducing the death rate. The hope is that after much of the population is vaccinated that calculus will change (and our politicians have now in principle agreed on that), but we have to wait and see.
To Annika Smethurst's points, I agree to some extent: There are places where we probably could have found a better balance between compassion for individual circumstances and the need to protect the health of the community. But the broad sweep of restrictions is justifiable.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Geoo on August 21, 2021, 02:57:09 pm
The vaccines are also massively important to keeping our health system from being overrun. ICU beds can be filled up quickly from an outbreak, and since the covid vaccine prevents serious symptoms from occuring, it keeps people out of the icu. Look at the USA in Arkansas at the moment, they are having to turn away children from their pediatric ICU beds due to them being flooded with cases. It's gotten to a point where health staff are just waiting for a child to die to put a child in the ICU. Same thing with adult hospitals. The vaccine is not all about deaths.
I think it's fine that you're questioning what you're being told by the media and government. I believe people should be doing it more often (check out media watch on the abc), but it's also important to trust certified sources like our state/fed health departments and other credible institutions like the Doherty institute for example to come to your opinion, instead of misinformation spread throughout the internet. And like Phoenix said, your dealing with facts here, not opinions.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 21, 2021, 10:20:44 pm
We have seen what happens with countries that let people go 'free'. My opinion is either we do lockdown or we don't - any half measures, especially with this Delta variant, will serve only to frustrate people and do very little. Lock us down hard for a few weeks and we can go free again. If we have a clear end date, 'here are the restrictions and after x date we will let you free', perhaps people will keep the law.
Personally, I am getting vaccinated, as much for my own safety as it's a requirement to keep my job after the 17th of September. I've read of 'long COVID', and seen scans, and it's frankly terrifying. With multiple existing respiratory issues, I definitely do not want to catch COVID, if I can help it.
And 1-3% deaths, even that number: if everyone in Melbourne caught the virus, that's at least 50,000 people, and more when our healthcare systems are overrun, our staff go down with it, and there's not enough oxygen to keep everyone breathing.
I know. We are all frustrated. We all want to be free, to see other people, to go where we will. But do we want to pay the price in corpses?
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: turinturambar on August 22, 2021, 11:57:01 am
Lock us down hard for a few weeks and we can go free again. If we have a clear end date, 'here are the restrictions and after x date we will let you free', perhaps people will keep the law.
We can't set an end date, because we can't reliably predict the success of containment measures. Look at Victoria's situation: Last time round, in under two weeks we had every positive case in isolation while infectious. This time round, we're more than two weeks in, the number of positive cases not in isolation continues to grow, and it's not actually guaranteed that we can contain it.
And, while it's easy to blame people doing the wrong thing or breaking the law, lockdown restrictions of necessity allow some parts of the population more mobility than others, and if it gets embedded in those populations it will be harder to contain. Consider Sydney: an earlier lockdown might have stopped it seeding into the Western suburbs, but I gather once it was there pre-lockdown, a lot of the early spread was through permitted workplaces, and that wouldn't have been stopped by lockdown.
I do believe Victoria's management of the virus is incredibly poor. The first resort in Victoria when we have 1 or 3 cases is always a lockdown, state wide too and often with little notice - Unnecessarily plunging certain parts of melbourne into lockdown. Some of my relatives live 400km away from Melbourne CBD in a very isolated town - they attend a school with a total enrolment less than 50 and they still have to go through restrictons and remote learning. The town they live in has never had a single covid case since this pandemic started.
I have been somewhat critical of how quick the government has been to include regional Vic in lockdowns. Releasing them after a few days this time round was a positive development, though obviously after the Shepparton cases they are now back in lockdown. Where you draw the boundary and whether cases in one part of regional Vic justify lockdown in a completely different part of regional Vic I don't know.
Melbourne is a different case. I am in a suburb that hasn't (yet) been affected: I don't think I've had a case or an exposure site within 10km of me all year. However, it's not hard to see that a case could get to me (via a permitted worker, for example). Last year, while there remained hotspots where case numbers were much higher, it crept across Melbourne in July, and from memory by end of July most postcodes had had at least one case. It's also a question of where you draw the lines, and how you stop it crossing those lines: Clearly, Sydney has found reason to add more LGAs to the "LGAs of concern with tighter restrictions" over time. Would some of that spread have been prevented if the new LGAs had originally had tighter restrictions? I don't know, but that's why Victoria is doing what they do.
As for the speed of going into lockdown, it raises considerable uncertainty and I don't like it. Giving regional Vic yesterday two hours notice for a mid-day lockdown was a new low. But what do you expect them to do? Let it spread for another week so we have enough notice? Look at Melbourne, look at ACT, look at NZ, look at Shepparton: In all those cases, one case detected has triggered the rapid detection of many more. I'd prefer that not to be so, but it is, and that's the situation they're trying to respond to.
Quote
This virus is going to be with us for a very long time, probably forever - do we really want to start making lockdowns a norm and have a thing called "snap" openings?
Right now, our phase is "desperately try to contain this until vaccination numbers are higher". That takes time. Yes, Covid may well be with us forever, but the hope is that it will be less serious for a better vaccinated population. Which we don't have yet.
Quote
We were actually in a moment were sex work was permitted but family visits weren't ;-;
The state government's re-opening plan prioritised business interests over family interests, and I wasn't entirely happy with that.
However, leaving aside all moral judgements about the relative worth of family time over sex work, the sex work is probably less risky for Covid spread because there is less of it. From a government perspective, home visits are considered risky because more people can be involved and because it is an environment where people are more likely to relax their guard because they feel safe. But, in addition to that, you have a large number of families across Melbourne who are likely to do family visits, and all it takes is for one or two of those somewhere around Melbourne to have unknowingly positive cases visit and it can set off significant spread before being detected.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Poet on August 22, 2021, 12:19:57 pm
I think this thread is something of an extremely volatile topic. No matter your position, you are speaking with consideration towards the privilege we hold in Australia, and the lives lost to this virus every day.
Your sociopolitical viewpoint can criticise the way that Victoria has handled this, but if we did not lockdown, we would be in the same position as NSW in a matter of days. That's just how it is.
There are 4.42 million dead worldwide from COVID. And those are only the medically confirmed cases. Every single one of those deaths was a person. A mother, a father, a son, a daughter. Someone's baby. Someone's best friend. Criticising a person or government for following evidence-based health advice in an effort to save lives that would have been lost is astounding to me. Perhaps it could be done in a fairer way, for example spot-lockdowns - but attempts at those, especially under the Delta variant, have proven ineffective.
Sex work being permitted whilst family visits are not is something brought up by a couple of people, and I do understand the confusion. However, sex work is permitted because it can be performed in a way that follows health advice - use of protection, face masks, and pre-entry COVID tests are all part of what brothels and workers must abide by. However, family visits are highly emotional and will not be performed in a safe or sterile environment. You wouldn't deep clean your house every day, or take a test before popping over to see your sister. A brothel will enforce that. It may not seem essential work to you, but please keep in mind that it is not an inconsistency. It is still an essential resource for many people who use it as an outlet. And it keeps our economy moving.
On another note, have a look at yesterday's protest:
I think we can all agree that these people are the ones putting lives at risk now. It will be a miracle if no new cases emerge from a protest cluster. This kind of behaviour is what had Melbourne locked down for over 100 days straight last year. And this is why state-wide lockdowns are needed. These people came from all over the map and are very boldly non-compliant. When there is a pandemic as severely infectious as this one, state-wide lockdowns aren't for those of us doing the right thing. They're for those who go out of their way to, ultimately, spread the virus where it had no business being.
This response is not disproportionate. It is preventative.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Professor Polonsky on August 22, 2021, 05:17:02 pm
I just think it's important to not just accept whatever the government and media tells you and to question it. There's nothing wrong with open debate. After all, COVID is not just something temporary, it is something we will have to learn to live with. The decisions made by our government is drastically affecting how we are living our lives. So why shouldn't we have a say in it?
You are saying "why not have a debate about it", but you are not making any coherent point. People in this spread defended our COVID strategy, and your response was "well let's have a debate!". Okay, what is the debate you want to have? No one is stopping you from making whatever point you like.
My 2 cents are these: COVID, and particularly Delta, spreads too quickly to allow outbreaks to be contained reliably without using harsh measures like lockdowns. So if you're going to be locking down anyway, the logic is to lock down early, which will hopefully allow you to get on top of the outbreak, rather than let it balloon and only then lock down. I think experience has consistently shown so far that early lockdowns are better. Almost every country in the world has adopted some suppression strategy - the question is at what point you start taking harsher measures to suppress the spread.
The alternative to suppression is essentially the "let it rip" strategy. People can choose to limit their movements, but that is not mandated by the government. Nothing stops hospital and ICU overruns. People will die, and people won't get medical care they need. Sweden is often cited as an example of this. Sweden has had almost 15,000 COVID deaths (the equivalent of Australia having over 36,000 deaths). Neighbouring Norway, with half of Sweden's population, has had 800 deaths. I think this is instructive.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: OckTheOctopus on August 23, 2021, 12:42:09 pm
I haven't read the entire thread (yet) but I'll throw in my opinion.
It's not that the government's response in disproportionate, its just that they screwed up at the start of the pandemic. Many "developing" countries like Vietnam and Cuba obliterated the virus and haven't gone into lockdown since iirc.
I feel like the situation in Victoria is hopeless at this point. The only solution Andrews thinks he has is lockdown. Every time there is a few cases he throws us into lockdown again. There are other solutions maybe shut the damn borders for real this time and keep them shut. Maybe fund contact tracing teams. Maybe he doesn't realise that the cost of upgrading contact tracers is cheaper than freezing the economy.
Back to the Victoria lockdown, there is literally no compliance. People are in playgrounds in front of my house and police were filling up at a gas station at midnight and didn't arrest the others who were breaching the curfew. Protests are making things worse. The lockdown won't work if people don't care.
Using the "let it rip" strategy isn't great, as Professor Polonsky pointed out with Sweden, but why couldn't we have adopted a Cuba strategy? Stop the virus at the start and don't have to put up with it again, so much that Cuba is donating its doctors to countries that seriously need them.
I think the best strategy at this point would be to go on a vaccine blitz. Clearly the state governments can't handle this, so I think Canberra needs to sort things out for us. If we vaccinate more people then we would stop the spread and also stop the chance of a deadlier "Australia strain" from emerging.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Orb on August 23, 2021, 04:33:17 pm
The C-19 situation (government response, and lockdowns, etc) is far more complex than just saying "yes the lockdown is needed" because it helps save lives.
Tony Blakely (a leading epidemiologist) was one of the key supporters of the blanket lockdown last year (which worked quite well). Unfortunately, Delta is very different and Prof Blakely has proposed easing some restrictions and that we might have to live with ~500 cases a day or something in that vicinity.
Those in ardent favour of lockdowns discount the mental health impact that it's having on many Australians. I'm fortunately privileged enough in a situation where my mental health isn't adversely affected (i'm sad but i find myself able to get out of bed in the morning and have something to look forward to) - but many people are not.
Small business owners are facing options where they're racking up 5-6 figures of debt, employees of these businesses are facing themselves in situations where their employers can't afford their next paycheck and they have literally nothing to look forward to. Years of high school students find everything they enjoy about school wiped out, some forced to study on internet insufficient for them to connect to their school zoom, in a crowded house way too small to accommodate their family and likely eventuating into disproportionately affected educational outcomes. The people least affected are those living in comfortable rooms with parents willing to pay for additional out-of-school support and they indirectly benefit from reduced competition.
Yes, maybe exiting lockdown results in hundreds (and thousands) of true deaths but I'd contend that at this point many people are dying a non-physical death (debilitating impact to mental and financial health).
I was a huge supporter of the lockdown last year but the more I talk to people who have been severely affected by these lockdowns the more I understand that many of us who abide by regulations and support this are, in fact, heavily, heavily privileged. I've seen people suicide because of depression stemming from lockdown-related impacts (and this is something not reported because it's against the government's agenda). If you look at the volume of calls to mental-help related services, it's spiked considerably with every lockdown - and many of these cases irrespective of how much 'money' you invest in mental health services there are still hundreds, if not thousands of lives destroyed as a result.
I think COVID zero is a failed policy and honestly we just all need to vaccinated ASAP
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Bri MT on August 23, 2021, 05:02:28 pm
Imo worth noting that Prof Blakey also welcomed the harder restrictions the Andrews government recently announced and was only suggesting the easing to then catch at around 400 cases a day if after 2 weeks we aren't seeing numbers drop (unless I've missed some more recent news?)
Quote
"And I strongly support the Victorian government's strong stance to give it a really good push for two weeks,"
he isn't saying to drop it now.
^^ not trying to say that you were saying that Orb, but I know lots of people here won't be that on top of covid news & may not have the context behind it.
I'm trying to avoid talking on this too much otherwise I'll end up spending an hour here typing away but thought I'd quickly chuck that in.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Poet on August 23, 2021, 05:06:43 pm
Tony Blakely (a leading epidemiologist) was one of the key supporters of the blanket lockdown last year (which worked quite well). Unfortunately, Delta is very different and Prof Blakely has proposed easing some restrictions and that we might have to live with ~500 cases a day or something in that vicinity.
Imo worth noting that Prof Blakey also welcomed the harder restrictions the Andrews government recently announced and was only suggesting the easing to then catch at around 400 cases a day if after 2 weeks we aren't seeing numbers drop (unless I've missed some more recent news?)
I personally agree with the suggestion that after September a 'soft lockdown' would be more appropriate with consideration towards vaccination numbers and community wellbeing. This does have the potential to branch more into general Australian COVID-19 discussion rather than the specificities of this thread, so further theoretical discourse outside of this conversation can be continued here.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Sine on August 23, 2021, 06:21:22 pm
COVID-zero was definitely a possibility in Australia but slow actions for delta make it a lot tougher. I think people tend to forget that deaths/hospitalisations also impact the economy along with the population's mental health.
Anecdotes/feelings are fine I guess but If anyone is interested in whether lockdowns are actually worse than COVID-19 (based on the current available evidence) there is a paper on it in the BMJ https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/6/8/e006653.full.pdf
Quote
Using these data, we can see that New Zealand and Australia, two countries that imposed several lockdowns and heavy restrictions, experienced no excess mortality during 2020. Similarly, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand had either no excess mortality or only very modest increases in mortality during lockdown periods when there were few or no COVID-19 cases. Indeed, there are no locations in the dataset that experienced both excess mortality and lockdowns concurrently with low numbers of COVID-19 cases, which is what we would expect if lockdowns were independently causing large numbers of short-term deaths. Conversely, places with few COVID-19 restrictions such as Brazil, Sweden, Russia or at times certain parts of the USA have had large numbers of excess deaths throughout the pandemic.
Quote
Countries that imposed several strict lockdowns without experiencing large COVID-19 epidemics (eg, Australia, New Zealand) did not have large numbers of excess deaths. This provides strong evidence that lockdowns themselves are not sufficient to cause surges in deaths
Quote
There is consistent and robust evidence from many countries that government interventions to control COVID-19 have not been associated with increased deaths from suicide
Quote
It appears clear from evidence to date that government interventions, even more restrictive ones such as stay-at-home orders, are beneficial in some circumstances and unlikely to be causing harms more extreme than the pandemic itself.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Orb on August 24, 2021, 11:14:11 am
he isn't saying to drop it now. ^^ not trying to say that you were saying that Orb, but I know lots of people here won't be that on top of covid news & may not have the context behind it.
Yes agreed - what you've said is absolutely correct
COVID-zero was definitely a possibility in Australia but slow actions for delta make it a lot tougher. I think people tend to forget that deaths/hospitalisations also impact the economy along with the population's mental health.
Just look at the protests, the 'engagement parties' and the sheer number of people hanging out at pubs despite 'lockdown'. We aren't getting to COVID-zero because it relies on true obedience or draconian implementation (similar to China where if you break rules you cease to exist), neither of which we have in Australia/VIC. With a population of 5m+ and a largely emotionally exhausted population this was always going to be difficult with Delta and the cases aren't dropping despite a (pretty) tough lockdown. We have 50 new cases today, THIRTY-NINE who weren't isolating while infectious - this number has not dropped in 3 weeks
Ultimately I think to voraciously support the lockdown you are, very likely, privileged. It's easy to support these measures when we don't have a family to feed, aren't burning $15-20,000 of our life savings PER WEEK (i have friends with small businesses who have to pay their employees and that's their loss even after factoring in govt savings - they're on the verge of declaring bankruptcy/closing down something they've invested decades of their lives to). At the end of the day would you prioritise the health/lives of random strangers or the wellbeing of your family? Very easy to take a moral high ground here but it's far more complex than that. It's much easier to accept lockdown when your only losses are being forced to online learning, staying at home with parents, missing out on social events, etc
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: PhoenixxFire on August 24, 2021, 12:38:41 pm
^I think just claiming that none of us understand is an easy out.
A lot of the issues you've raised could be addressed whilst remaining in lockdown (although we'd need a competent government for that).
Lots and lots of people are going to struggle if we opened back up right now - it'd just be different people, and some of them would have been struggling regardless of covid and I think a lot of the coverage around people who are struggling due to lockdown is because it's people who previously thought it wouldn't happen to them. Especially the sudden concern from some areas regarding mental health and suicide where they previously didn't care.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Orb on August 24, 2021, 01:10:06 pm
^I think just claiming that none of us understand is an easy out.
The truth is it's not a claim - very, very few of us DO truly understand - not me, not you, not Dan Andrews nor Scomo - we don't understand the full complexity and there are thousands of people with completely different perspectives, agendas and lives. I have a very limited understanding of the situation and I frankly would be quite incompetent if I was placed in a policy role. Many people shitting on the government do not realise how difficult it is to find an optimal solution (and I personally don't think there is one - every decision made whether creating lockdown or not screws over thousands of Australians in favour of others - I think Dan Andrews is doing a pretty good job given the circumstances he's found himself in).
This actually spins into a whole another side issue and i'm going to just conclude with that the benefits of the lockdown isn't as black or white as many of us think it is
Last comment: I've always been pro-lockdown and pro-suppression but given a different hand of cards to play and a much less favourable situation I can truly emphasise with those who think that Australia's response is disproportionate (in a different situation, I'd think so too)
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: OckTheOctopus on August 24, 2021, 01:28:19 pm
A lockdown isn't effective if 1) It isn't being enforced and 2) Nobody cares. The lockdown strategy has expired with Delta. The only way out is with vaccines at this point. We can either lift lockdown and let thousands die but the economy survive or keep lockdown and let hundreds of people die and crash the economy.
Frankly the federal government should get involved. They have the resources Victoria doesn't. A good contact tracing team is a start.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Professor Polonsky on August 24, 2021, 02:53:04 pm
It's not that the government's response in disproportionate, its just that they screwed up at the start of the pandemic. Many "developing" countries like Vietnam and Cuba obliterated the virus and haven't gone into lockdown since iirc.
Using the "let it rip" strategy isn't great, as Professor Polonsky pointed out with Sweden, but why couldn't we have adopted a Cuba strategy? Stop the virus at the start and don't have to put up with it again, so much that Cuba is donating its doctors to countries that seriously need them.
Vietnam is in harsh lockdown right now. Cuba has 10,000 cases a day. No one has managed to consistently demolish this but China, and our state governments have done far better than anyone but China with a far more liberal and rights-respecting position. You'll always have the international border issue, and aside from dedicated quarantine facilities that the federal government has been too lazy to build, we've tried everything.
I feel like the situation in Victoria is hopeless at this point. The only solution Andrews thinks he has is lockdown. Every time there is a few cases he throws us into lockdown again. There are other solutions maybe shut the damn borders for real this time and keep them shut. Maybe fund contact tracing teams. Maybe he doesn't realise that the cost of upgrading contact tracers is cheaper than freezing the economy.
Vic's contract tracing team is massive and massively funded. It's also hitting all the benchmarks. There is no contract tracing deficiency anywhere in Australia, thanks to our state governments' response.
The decision to have lockdowns and shut borders is a national strategy, not a Vic one. Other states (bar NSW) go to lockdowns far more quickly than we do. And NSW kept its border closed to Victoria for 4 weeks after we recorded 0 cases in October 2020. Together, I'd argue Vic has gotten the balance better than any other state this pandemic.
I think the best strategy at this point would be to go on a vaccine blitz. Clearly the state governments can't handle this, so I think Canberra needs to sort things out for us.
The only thing constraining vaccinations is that the federal government didn't order enough supply. The state vaccination clinics are by far the most efficient way to deliver the vaccine.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: turinturambar on August 25, 2021, 12:47:17 am
The only thing constraining vaccinations is that the federal government didn't order enough supply. The state vaccination clinics are by far the most efficient way to deliver the vaccine.
I'll add an additional note to this: When, a month or two ago*, the federal government announced a Q4-heavy vaccination schedule they were relying on it peaking at a little over 2 million doses / week. I was skeptical of this because I knew that was a higher per capita rate than the likes of the US had peaked at. However, since then they have managed to bring Pfizer supply forward and encourage more people to get AZ (thanks, outbreaks...), the states and territories have used the increased supply, and we are approaching that 2 million a week. That is driven most notably by NSW (again, supply + serious outbreak). See this recent article. I am impressed and, TBH, happy to be proved wrong. Yes, there was early slowness, which as far as I could tell was a combination of logistics (always going to be tricky) and supply. Right now we might like it faster, but it's a large and complex exercise and we are in a reasonable position. And while we continue to open eligibility to new age groups I think demand is going to exceed supply for a while. At some point I expect we will get to the position other nations are in where supply is higher than demand, mostly because of hesitancy or outright refusal in those still unvaccinated, but also probably because of parts of the population that are harder to reach. I don't know when that point will be or what percentage of the population will be covered, but for now I would say we are doing better than I expected.
* I'm losing track of time. Someone said the other day "It's nearly the end of winter", and I went "Surely not", then realised "Oh, yeah, I guess we are near the end of August..."
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: OckTheOctopus on August 25, 2021, 11:11:39 am
Vietnam is in harsh lockdown right now. Cuba has 10,000 cases a day. No one has managed to consistently demolish this but China, and our state governments have done far better than anyone but China with a far more liberal and rights-respecting position. You'll always have the international border issue, and aside from dedicated quarantine facilities that the federal government has been too lazy to build, we've tried everything. Vic's contract tracing team is massive and massively funded. It's also hitting all the benchmarks. There is no contract tracing deficiency anywhere in Australia, thanks to our state governments' response.
Welp. I haven't been keeping up with the news. Although pre-Delta when most of the world was in lockdown these countries were among the first to open and they didn't get back into lockdown (until as you said Delta came and screwed everybody over).
On that note, I suggest that people stop reading all the "OMG we got xyz cases today!" because its just depressing. My family is boycotting the news at the moment (except for the stuff about restrictions and dates for reopening, i.e. the essential stuff).
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: peterpiper on August 25, 2021, 02:30:17 pm
It's not that the government's response in disproportionate, its just that they screwed up at the start of the pandemic. Many "developing" countries like Vietnam and Cuba obliterated the virus and haven't gone into lockdown since iirc.
Vietnam is in harsh lockdown right now. Cuba has 10,000 cases a day. No one has managed to consistently demolish this but China, and our state governments have done far better than anyone but China with a far more liberal and rights-respecting position. You'll always have the international border issue, and aside from dedicated quarantine facilities that the federal government has been too lazy to build, we've tried everything.
Just to add on about the situation in Vietnam, for those who don't know, its facing a huge surge right now, in fact the hospitals are so incredibly overwhelmed, people in some neighbourhoods of Ho Chi Minh (the epicentre) and some other parts aren't even allowed outside for anything. About 300 people are dying almost every day. Food is delivered and essentials are provided from the government but it still leaves many people with not enough. People from the informal economy literally cannot afford anything because they have no income and can't work at home. My friends know a few people who would go like 50km into the city every day and sell whatever veggies they have growing in the backyard, which was just enough for them to get by. They were able to get by all those years, because it sustained them. Now, many like them are left with very little support because of an inadequate welfare infrastructure in the country. I don't know much about politics but it kinda urks me when colleagues at work would complain about "breathing but barely living" and "Melbourne is a laughing stock in the world." "Melbourne is the most lockdown city in the world." And my favourite "Australia's the only one going under lockdown all this time when every other country have moved on".
Increasingly, while I do still (would like to) believe in the goodness of humanity, the pandemic has highlighted just how common this attitude is among the general Australian public. We're so privileged to have things like welfare that we almost just take it for granted, including measures/facilities to stop a virus that could potentially kill us(??). I usually respect people's views but it's just hard not to notice the entitlement of some people, particularly those who support the anti-lockdown movement and believe our lockdowns have been infringing on their human rights (to be dicks).
Anyway, rant over, I'm just so tired of being surrounded by people (who mean well) who get their newsfeed from a block of text on their instagram from some personal fitness instructor this whoole lockdown lol ::) at first you practice some patience and wait it out, and then you begin to realise that it's a limited supply after hearing it over and over. We have so much to be grateful of yet we act like we deserve everything even during a global crisis. It's so deeply saddening to see.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Sine on August 25, 2021, 03:02:45 pm
Lots and lots of people are going to struggle if we opened back up right now - it'd just be different people, and some of them would have been struggling regardless of covid and I think a lot of the coverage around people who are struggling due to lockdown is because it's people who previously thought it wouldn't happen to them. Especially the sudden concern from some areas regarding mental health and suicide where they previously didn't care.
Yeah, that seems true. I think some of it (obviously not all) is some people's sense of entitlement and pre-pandemic feeling of being untouchable + It is usually these voices that get amplified by the media and not people who were struggling pre-pandemic and during it.
Ultimately, with opening up too early the burden of disease would disproportionately impact those of low SES, more likely to get infected, they already have higher rates of other illnesses and comorbidities so also have higher chances of dying with COVID-19.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: PhoenixxFire on August 25, 2021, 05:37:00 pm
While we are on the topic of lockdowns I thought I'd post something interest.
It seems that some other nations outside of Australia are ridiculing and laughing at our COVID-19 prevention strategies. I honestly thought it was pretty funny, but at the same time what he said was true.
Which is a claim to be taken with a grain of salt...
Either that, or... they could be right. Not to try and spread conspiracy theories, but it is also observable that places such as India deal better with it, who're more likely to have had things similar in the past. I don't know about you, but I think it entirely possible that China posts the true figures. If you know the consequences of breaking lockdown are a whole lot more than just a tap, or a fine, you're less likely to break the rules. Also it's possible that the virus got out of a lab or something where they were working on vaccines, and thus they had a head start on us.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: james.358 on August 29, 2021, 09:04:01 am
I hate getting involved in political discussions, especially on a forum like ATARNotes. But come on Rebel News is a pathetic source of information, probably even more biased than Sky News if that's even possible. It's literally founded by people who think Murdoch's news aren't extreme enough for them - an outlet spewing alt right propaganda:
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Rebel News is a Canadian far-right political and social commentary media website operated by Rebel News Network, Ltd. It has been described as a "global platform" for the anti-Muslim ideology known as counter-jihad. It was founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley.
From Media Bias Fact Check:
Quote
Gavin McInnes, the founder of the far-right neo-fascist organization Proud Boys, was also a contributor and subsequently let go after controversy and brought back in 2019. According to MacLean’s The Rebel is a part of the Alt-right and sympathetic toward white nationalists.
Yes, the lockdown is affecting us, some more than others, but anything we're losing now - money, school, even mental health - will eventually recover. But nothing can bring someone's life back.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Professor Polonsky on August 29, 2021, 03:43:09 pm
I don't think anyone doubts lockdowns have adverse health consequences. There is a wide consensus among policymakers - with some exceptions like certain US states and Sweden - that lockdowns are the better alternative.
What isn't considered enough by those who say "lockdowns have negative consequences" is that most of those negative consequences will also be realised (and likely in worse ways) if we don't lock down. How many people do you think will be skipping optometry and dentistry appointments if there were tens of thousands of cases? What do you think hospitals being overwhelmed will do to those who require urgent care, whether for COVID or non-COVID reasons? The examples keep on piling on, and they're worse than the adverse outcomes of lockdowns.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on September 01, 2021, 04:52:01 pm
This theory is why countries like Sweden have had well over 1 million cases and will reach 15,000 deaths. It's dehumanising of you to just dismiss that number with claims like this:
Quote
“The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label,” the Scientific American reported Thursday. “The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”
Of course a person who has already contracted the virus will have natural immunity!! That's how our bodies work. The point of vaccines is to approximate this, and create a barrier without contracting the virus at all. A virus, mind you, that creates long-term adverse health affects previously unknown to us last year. We've known the science behind vaccines for over 200 years. We use them for all sorts of diseases. COVID is no different - same as the flu, polio, smallpox, or tetanus, the vaccine is a preventative measure that will mitigate the effects of the virus if ever contracted - and provide you with a higher chance of never contracting it at all.
Also, lockdowns in Australia began last year in March. The website you're quoting was developed mid-October 2020, and even then our top epidemiologists and sociologists would have likely considered this. GB Declaration also claims to have thousands of signatures from health professionals, but includes naturopaths and names that support other theories such as population cleansing - which is a conspiracy theory with roots in racism and xenophobia.
It's amazing that this discussion has gone from using biased Australian media sources to biased international sources in an effort to criticise. Lockdown is flawed for sure - and you can hate the way Australia has handled it - but it's better to have a look at real statistics and independent studies than opinion pieces.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: james.358 on September 02, 2021, 01:22:16 pm
Just adding to this, the "solution" proposed by the GB Declaration isn't a solution for us, its a solution for businesses. For one, it is a statement issued by the American Institute for Economic Research (a libertarian think tank). I think that tells you all you need to know about their motives. It is something mainly touted by politicians (including Trump), not health experts and has been thoroughly debunked before even the existence of the Delta variant.
Quote from: From Wikipedia:
It was roundly condemned by many public health experts. Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert appointed by the White House, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific. Tyler Cowen, a libertarian economist at George Mason University, wrote that while he sympathizes with a libertarian approach to deal with the pandemic, the declaration was dangerous and misguided.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on September 02, 2021, 03:43:44 pm
Yes, that might be a good solution if everyone was to survive. Some will not survive contact with the virus. Some will be permanently damaged by it. It's true they are less likely to get it again, but that's sorry comfort for those who won't get anything at all ever again, and their grieving families.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: blueycan on September 05, 2021, 10:28:25 am
Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.
However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.
The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. It is not okay.
Even the levels of ivermectin for approved human uses can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners. You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death.
Around the same time, a controversial paper which had not yet been peer reviewed and was later retracted entirely, claimed large reduction in mortality among COVID-19 patients given ivermectin. Although the study didn’t make the cut for publication in a scientific journal, it helped popularize ivermectin in Latin America.
As the efficacy and safety of ivermectin continued to be tested in clinical trials across the world, the results of a November 2020 publication led by Egyptian researcher Ahmed Elgazzar renewed interest in the drug’s potential. The preprint study claimed substantial recovery among COVID-19 patients given ivermectin in the early stages of infection and a reduction in mortality exceeding 90 percent. But ethical concerns led to the paper’s withdrawal in July this year.
I have no medical knowledge but I don't think we should be promoting the use of an animal de-wormer to treat COVID. It doesn't make sense to me why people would be drawn to taking treatments like Ivermectin with virtually no proven benefits attached to them in the context of treating COVID instead of the vaccines that have been tested rigourously. If you are skeptical of the vaccine that has been developed using decades worth of research, wouldn't you apply some of that skepticism to this random medication that just appeared in the conversation of treating COVID?
I appreciate that Snow Leopard is aiming to provide different resources of information from medical professionals in the industry– however I and I think many other people on here would prefer to listen to the medical advice of our local government and hospitals than from a random doctor on YouTube who makes bogus claims about vitamins directly preventing COVID whose comment sections are filled with right-wing COVID deniers or anti-vaccine believers. I understand that this is a platform for debate, and please, adjust or delete my posts if I'm wrong, but I think it's irresponsible to spread misinformation or potentially harmful theories that could influence someone to seek this kind of treatment, which could put them in serious medical danger.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Geoo on September 05, 2021, 02:47:17 pm
Yes.... Because why take a free, tested vaccine when I can take horse deworming medication that's expensive, not well tested for covid, and putting people in the hospital:
It's just the new hydroxychloroquine..... there's nothing wrong with trying to find new treatments or preventatives for covid, but they should be tested, actually work and come from recommended sources of information like our TGA or FDA from the USA.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Sine on September 05, 2021, 04:32:45 pm
What has changed in our approach to COVID? Doesn't seem like much to me. - We're still counting COVID cases,
SARS-COV-2 isn't the only infectious organism we count cases for? Every year the number of flu infections gets counted (amongst plenty other infections) and for certain viruses/bacteria which spread quickly and can be fatal we do the same contact tracing approach to limit spread just on a smaller scale.
still rush into lockdowns as our first and only solution
Not the only solution and neither the first, we have vaccination/social distancing/getting tested when sick. Even when we aren't in lockdown people are continuously getting tested (even when there are 0 cases in a state) and social distancing.
still see vaccines as our main way out of this pandemic (it seems like we're gonna need multiple booster shots for even this to be attained in the long run if we look at Israel)
Again not something new, SARS-COV-2 isn't the only thing we get vaccinated for and yes may need boosters.
Yes.... Because why take a free, tested vaccine when I can take horse deworming medication that's expensive, not well tested for covid, and putting people in the hospital:
It's just the new hydroxychloroquine..... there's nothing wrong with trying to find new treatments or preventatives for covid, but they should be tested, actually work and come from recommended sources of information like our TGA or FDA from the USA.
Also when something is on the TGA it is listed for specific indications (so just being on the TGA isn't enough to say it will work for a specific disease such as COVID-19) so if you look up Ivermectin you will see the topical form indicated for a certain type of skin inflammation and the oral form for some parasites.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Professor Polonsky on September 05, 2021, 08:37:13 pm
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein never said this, which sets the scene for the rest of your post.
I am not going to engage with most of the rest of your post, because you hadn't engaged with what anyone else has written, rather only continuing with your tirades. I will make two points with regards to ivermectin:
1) The reason it is not used is quite clear: there is no robust evidence that it works. There isn't some conspiracy by big pharma to stop you accessing it. We simply don't know that it works, and instead in the US people who have used animal preparations for it have ended up hospitalised. We have plenty of evidence vaccines work.
2) The admins of this board should probably consider the implications of having this misinformation published here.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on September 07, 2021, 10:24:34 am
2) The admins of this board should probably consider the implications of having this misinformation published here.
Well, at least this last post has been hidden because too many people have disliked it. Ivermectin has had some Israeli testing from what I've heard which has had positive results. Not enough to give any clue as to dosage, though, which renders it all but useless for the general population. And there are to the best of my knowledge now better drugs that are more effective anyway. I could be wrong though.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: OckTheOctopus on September 07, 2021, 02:19:19 pm
From what I heard Pfizer is working on COVID tablets (not sure if they gave up yet either), so I don't think that they would be considering anything new unless they can get a lot of purchases from it (and not a few people on YouTube who claim it works).
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Unwonted on September 07, 2021, 11:04:10 pm
Our response to Coronavirus is indeed disproportionate.
Constructing and reconstructing narratives. Secret arrangements.
Same old shit.
Liberty vs. Equality.
Aristocracy vs. Meritocracy.
Society is flawed.
Proportionate responses are virtually impossible.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: K888 on September 29, 2021, 07:59:28 pm
While mainstream media may not be fully reliable, neither is a few selected sources from Twitter.
People are entitled to individual opinions but that does not represent what their profession or what the majority of people may think.
I work in the healthcare sector. We are preparing for our system to be placed under real pressure and for it to be very strained in having to deal with the combination of COVID + regular hospital admissions. We are being asked to upskill so we can provide vaccinations to try and prevent this. We are being redeployed to areas we do not usually work in so that we can keep the healthcare system running and not buckle.
This is not a disease we can allow to run wild - we have seen what has happened overseas when this happens, and the serious consequences in regards to mortality as well as ongoing health concerns for those who do survive COVID.
All choices come with consequences (both positive and negative). Don't expect to make a choice and experience absolutely no consequences.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: tiredandstressed on September 29, 2021, 10:34:55 pm
The very fact that you sourced a tweet from a member of the Liberal Council demonstrates your lack of understanding of peer-reviewed research and evidence. You have already been criticised by numerous users who have exposed the flaws in your argument, but it is very clear you come from a place of entitlement. As many users have demonstrated COVID-19 has had significant implications for society, our healthcare system cannot keep up with the demand, resources are being exhausted and our poor healthcare works are overworked and exhausted, but despite the relentless protests that obnoxiously comes from a place of ignorance, still, healthcare works continue to do their work, out of their sheer passion for helping others and health, and to me that's admirable.
Take some time to read some journal articles and see how that enlightens your ignorance because your vendetta on here is tasteless and abhorrent. The actions of the protests prose a health risk and all in all, achieve nothing. I don't want to bash you since I think you come from a place of ignorance but you should take the time to re-read some of the comments on this thread, of people who have taken the time to read your remarks with the hope to educate you for the better.
Lockdowns and the vaccine aren't perfect, no one is claiming that it is. But right now, in this current climate, vaccinations have been proved by again peer-reviewed literature (not a tweet, not a biased article written by ruthless conservatives) that being vaccinated leads to reduced transmission and improved patient outcomes. Lockdowns aim to minimize the spread of infection, reduced contact means reduced infection. The reason you can speak so bluntly about the numbers is probably since you haven't had anyone close to you suffer from COVID or die from it, but the reality is in Australia alone, thousands of families have had to see a member of the family pass away due to COVID, and yet you should no compassion to them. Yet, if the roles were reversed you would frown against anyone who downplayed the virus if you directly saw the consequences COVID can have.
Overall, take some time to get educated and not be brainwashed by politically biased articles written by ill-hearted and uninformed journalists spreading hysteria, when during these times we need to support each other to see the light under the tunnel. I hope for your sake, you try to do better and learn more. Since this 'debate' of yours has been unproductive and it is clear you are not willing to acknowledge the other side.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: tiredandstressed on September 29, 2021, 11:56:18 pm
You seem to be ignorant of the mental health issues these lockdowns are triggering. Which are also straining the health care system
Don't you find it funny, that the tweets you pulled out had nothing to do about mental health, your argument is sloppy, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Spreading misinformation can only lead to disaster, so maybe think twice about the sources you are believing in. As for mental health, yes I agree the lockdowns have had significant consequences to Victorian's mental health but so has COVID, could there have been a better response from the government, most likely. Although this debate has raised some fair and 'questionable' points, ultimately actions against the government are not going to achieve much, there should be greater interventions in place to protect Victorian's mental health, and I do hope the government does indeed consider their approach of ending lockdown. Nonetheless, promoting therapeutics and articles that are not backed up by peer-review literature is not helpful.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: turinturambar on September 30, 2021, 12:48:31 am
You can stay home if you want, just don't expect the majority to after nearly 2 years.
This is exactly the problem with treating a community problem as an individual problem. This is a common line in some parts of the US, and I know people in the US who were as careful as they could be, who restricted their movement far more than I did in lower-Covid Australia, and still caught it - some with serious consequences. Why? Because of greater community transmission rates within the US, some of it caused by people resisting the most basic of precautions due to partisan politics.
Greater community transmission increases the risk to just about every individual in that community, and there are limits to how much individual precautions can reduce that risk. Greater case numbers also increases the burden on the healthcare system, which will affect everyone requiring hospitalisation, not just those hospitalised due to Covid.
(Oh, and it's not just the healthcare system - a large percentage of the population voluntarily reducing their activity and staying home because of fear of an infectious disease doesn't do wonders for the economy either...)
Quote
We are just avoiding the inevitable at this stage.
We are in the middle of a vaccination program, now going at speeds that rival the fastest anywhere in the world, with the aim of significantly reducing the risk of Covid-19 to individuals and society as a whole. There is nothing "inevitable" about the result - different choices could well mean very different numbers of unvaccinated people infected and thus very different risk profiles for individuals, for the healthcare system, and for society as a whole.
I don't like lockdown. I suspect you would find a majority on this thread don't like lockdown. But given the significant progress that has been made and is being made with vaccination, it seems like the wrong time to give up now.
Finally, you seem to be presenting a false dichotomy where either every action of the government is 100% correct or we should just get rid of lockdowns and free everybody. We don't have to agree with every single government decision to think that the general approach is wise in response to the current situation.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: lm21074 on September 30, 2021, 01:17:04 am
could you please address the double standards? Which protests and gatherings are allowed and which aren't.
For what it's worth, the way the news team behind that story wished to report both gatherings was for dramatic appeal to get their viewers to watch it. Both gatherings were technically 'not allowed', but one was centered around defying public health messaging around vaccination and amplifying negative attitudes around vaccines using the guise of healthcare workers. which might be passed onto the general public more readily (we also have not much information on whether they were all healthcare workers or not). As you would know, protests, including those about COVID restrictions in recent days have turned violent, which has justified the imminent police presence compared to what was seen with the footy fans. If you watch the full story, it goes on to show people celebrating in their homes within restrictions, which is what the reporter was referring to and is not shown in the Tweet. We also don't know about other details including if the police were aware of this gathering or showed up later, impacting on how they could have enforced the restrictions. I think we need more context here.
I appreciate we all have different views, but this is a reminder to all to abide by the forum rules and keep discussion on this volatile topic civil and respectful.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Snow Leopard on September 30, 2021, 09:45:10 am
Greater community transmission increases the risk to just about every individual in that community, and there are limits to how much individual precautions can reduce that risk. Greater case numbers also increases the burden on the healthcare system, which will affect everyone requiring hospitalisation, not just those hospitalised due to Covid.
(Oh, and it's not just the healthcare system - a large percentage of the population voluntarily reducing their activity and staying home because of fear of an infectious disease doesn't do wonders for the economy either...)
Are you not contradicting yourself here?
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: heids on September 30, 2021, 03:03:36 pm
@tiredandstressed, I'm concerned that this thread is simply bolstering each side's opinions and increasing the divide. Suggesting that someone is ignorant, uneducated, selfish, without conscience, should become a better person, etc, is unlikely to do any good to anyone. Ideally, language should focus on the issue/argument (e.g. importance of peer-reviewed sources, or why X source is unreliable and biased), rather than the individual (e.g. "your lack of understanding", lots of sentences starting with "you").
I do agree that misinformation is dangerous, particularly anti-vaccination misinformation, but I really don't think that all/most protesters are selfish or have bad motives.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: turinturambar on October 01, 2021, 01:30:31 am
I don't think so. The bigger picture part of the story is the question of whether the real problem is a dangerous and contagious virus (which lockdown restrictions are attempting to contain) or whether the real problem is unnecessary and unacceptable government overreach (shown in lockdown restrictions). And there is probably some of both, but I believe the real problem is the virus, and that, broadly speaking, our current set of restrictions are necessary for controlling the virus, and without those control measures we would have a bigger problem on our hands.
This applies to economic arguments too. If the real problem was the restrictions, then immediately after easing them we would see the economy and life return to normal. Looking around the rest of the world, I don't think that's true. We've seen places that eased restrictions and then had to reimpose them. We've seen places that removed restrictions, but many individuals have been more cautious with their activity, particularly if case numbers rose as a result of restrictions being removed. That has an effect on the economy. One of the goals of getting higher vaccination numbers and lower case numbers (the lower case numbers in part through our current lockdown) is to give individuals less reason to worry and more chance to act normally and safely (though personally I don't think we'll be completely back to "normal").
The mental health issue is a real issue. I'm certainly not denying it. And it's not an individual issue - it's a community issue. It's something that I gather is expected to continue to affect many for years. However, like the economic case, I don't think it's something we can consider without considering the virus. If case numbers rise sharply, many people will find it harder to cope. With Victoria's leap in numbers today I could see it on the ABC live blog and in the people I interacted with (electronically). If someone close to you becomes seriously ill or dies, that will have a mental health impact, and higher case numbers will mean that happens to more people. Being on a ventilator will have a mental health impact. And an overloaded hospital system will have a significant mental health impact on the workers within that hospital system. From this recent article:
Quote
A recent survey of more than 7800 Australian health care workers, most of whom were based in Victoria, found more than 40 per cent had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder by the final stages of the state’s second wave (although few recognised them as such).
I'm not going to try and weigh up the costs of different strategies to find the perfect strategy for either the economy or for mental health. It's way above my pay grade. Maybe we could find different tradeoffs that are a bit better, maybe we couldn't. But I think it's important to remember that, at least in my view, the real problem is the virus. I would love to be able to go back to a world much more like late 2019. But we can't. Every approach has costs and places burdens on the entire community (though those burdens are unequally distributed, and different approaches may shift burdens to different parts of the population).
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: Professor Polonsky on October 04, 2021, 05:41:45 pm
I do agree that misinformation is dangerous, particularly anti-vaccination misinformation, but I really don't think that all/most protesters are selfish or have bad motives.
The protests are literally the neo-fash astroturfing tho.
Title: Re: Australia's response to Coronavirus is disproportionate
Post by: blueycan on October 04, 2021, 05:49:10 pm
If we take a look at the actions of these protestors, and their public backgrounds as reported on by the news, some of the recent demonstrators and organisers of these demonstrators have extreme right-wing or even Nazi-level affiliations. September's anti-lockdown "protestors" who also proceed to defy mask mandates, litter and urinate on places of public importance, abuse police officers, horses and reporters DO have bad motives, and unfortunately, they made up the majority of the demonstration.
I understand that it's important to remain objective on a platform such as AN, with respect to the community guidelines. But it's inevitable to have some sort of opinion on the necessity or validity of these protests during these times. The actions I have mentioned above are selfish– I have relatives and relatives of friends who are construction workers who are embarrassed by the selfish nature of the guise of a construction worker protest, when in reality, it was joined by anti-lockdown conspiracists looking for another outlet.