Otherwise, I think I'm a fan of the incoming restrictions? Idk, kinda hard to be a "fan", more like they just seem reasonable enough, I guess. There's not really much else they can do about it - I do hope people don't complain as much to Daniel Andrews about "how we should be allowed out" now that they know what happens if he does let people out prematurely and they don't follow social distancing 😏
I don't think people sufficiently factor in the influence of luck in how things go when numbers are small. Yes, mistakes were made here (in hotel quarantine most obviously), and the blame game has started on Victorian compliance generally, but I don't believe that Victoria are somehow 100 times worse at following the guidelines than everyone else, or that we eased restrictions prematurely when other states didn't (my memory is that in mid-May I thought we were in a better position than NSW, and they were easing restrictions faster than us).
The simple reality is that if the numbers are low, most people can break the guidelines most of the time and get away with it because they don't happen to come into contact with someone who has it. And for me in the Eastern suburbs it is probably still that way - there is a fair chance that I could break all the rules and still not come into contact with anyone having the disease, and thus not catch it (no, I'm not recommending breaking rules - just saying that a "personal responsibility" narrative doesn't take into account differences between individuals and states that have more to do with luck than culpability. Just because we want someone to blame doesn't mean the blame is actually fair).
So long as we keep the current "suppression rather than elimination" policy (which we kind of have to do) I'd be amazed if places like Sydney and Brisbane don't have spikes at some point in the next year when one or more things go wrong and a few cases slip under the radar for too long. And how big those spikes become depends on how well state authorities do test and trace after detecting it and how well people in the state are following guidelines - but it will also depend a lot on luck.
Yeah, the response was alright, but when they lifted restrictions last term, I was actually nervous that they were easing restrictions so fast, it's almost like the government wants a second wave (which they now got) At the same time I also understand the burden of the economic stagnation. But look, now the outcome is worst than what it would've been if they kept the restrictions, now the second wave has hit. A trend that I hope is only an anomaly.
As above, my memory is that we eased restrictions slower than other states, and the easing of restrictions was data driven and proportionate to the number of cases we then had. Just like this lockdown is data driven.
also, as much as i'm looking forward to going outside normally, i'm more looking forward to a time when the palpable state of constant stress and tension subsides and it will feel normal to accidentally brush past someone on public transport or at the shops and not freak out
Yes, and this has always been the problem with the argument "If you just re-open the economy, things will be back to normal". I suspect after a second lockdown we may be even more eager to get back to normal, but at the same time take longer to convince ourselves things are actually OK. Which is why the National Cabinet was trying to avoid re-opening and then closing again, though the level of community transmission makes this a more serious problem than we've seen so far and needs action.
I'm mostly satisfied with this response. I'm aware of the difference in danger/risk of COVID-19 among children compared to adults but I still find it weird that we can't gather in groups of three outside school but then spend hours each day in one room with over 20 people.
To be honest, I'm just happy that we aren't being sent home again, online SACs would have been an absolute nightmare.
The "children are safe, so don't close schools" (though young adults may be among the biggest spreaders) has always been an interesting argument, because there's such an age range in school-goers. I was interested that yesterday Brett Sutton acknowledged that attendees in upper high school had more "adult-like" transmission patterns at the same time as agreeing for Year 11 and 12 to return to school. Part of it was that they can get to school themselves and don't have parents mingling at drop-off etc., and part of it is of course that even if Year 12s are higher risk there are also considered to be more benefits from in-person learning for Year 12s.