Is Dan Andrews doing the right thing?

[HappyHeart]

3 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Read my post again and you'll find out!

Best regards.

You don't think thats what they did? 

[Alan Collett]

8 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Sweden tried that

I'm not sure whether you've finished your sentence - but FYI I don't think I have yet advocated a complete hands off approach.

"Sweden has registered its lowest rate of positive coronavirus tests yet even after its testing regime was expanded to record levels in what one health official said was a vindication of its relatively non-intrusive Covid-19 strategy.

Over the past week the country carried out more than 120,000 tests, of which only 1.3 per cent identified the disease.

At the height of the pandemic the proportion was 19 per cent.

In the early months many critics argued that this approach was recklessly laissez-faire.

Some scientists predicted that as many as 180,000 people could die in a country of 10.2 million.

Those estimates proved to be drastically overblown: up to now there have been 5,838 Covid-19 deaths. In per capita terms this is the fifth highest death rate in Europe, behind only Belgium, the UK, Spain and Italy, but it has also fallen substantially since the summer. Only seven people died with the disease in the past week."

(Report dated 11 Sept 2020)

Best regards.

 

[Alan Collett]

1 minute ago, HappyHeart said:

You don't think thats what they did? 

Err - nope!

Best regards.

[HappyHeart]

Just now, Alan Collett said:

Err - nope!

Best regards.

What evidence do you have to say otherwise? 

[Alan Collett]

2 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

What evidence do you have to say otherwise? 

I don't follow your comment - sorry.

This is what I said: "I submit things could have been done differently in Victoria without so much collateral damage - eg locking down movements in and out of care homes without shutting down the economy, and having better tracing procedures."

Best regards.

[HappyHeart]

3 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

I don't follow your comment - sorry.

This is what I said: "I submit things could have been done differently in Victoria without so much collateral damage - eg locking down movements in and out of care homes without shutting down the economy, and having better tracing procedures."

Best regards.

I'm saying don't you think they did -'lock down movements in and out of care homes'? 

[Alan Collett]

5 minutes ago, HappyHeart said:

I'm saying don't you think they did -'lock down movements in and out of care homes'? 

Not " ... without shutting down the economy."

Best regards.

[HappyHeart]

Just now, Alan Collett said:

Not " ... without shutting down the economy."

Best regards.

I don't follow. You've not offered any ideas as to what they could have done differently to avoid that. Simply locking down care homes as a sole strategy you mean? What about the elderly and otherwise vulnerable in the community? 

[Alan Collett]

Just now, HappyHeart said:

I don't follow. You've not offered any ideas as to what they could have done differently to avoid that. Simply locking down care homes as a sole strategy you mean? What about the elderly and otherwise vulnerable in the community? 

 

Respectfully, you are kidding yourself if you think every life in the State can be saved by closing down the Vic economy ad infinitum.

There'll be nothing left to pay for health and social welfare if you do that.

While I acknowledge you might have a very different view and you may find my position a tad difficult to accept I suggest we - and I include the Andrews Government in this - stop being idealistic and start being a lot more realistic about what is acceptable.

And while we're discussing the "otherwise vulnerable" - what about those who are forgotten and suffering materially because of the general lockdown of the Vic economy?    Don't they count?   

Best regards.

[Marisawright]

36 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

I'm not sure whether you've finished your sentence - but FYI I don't think I have yet advocated a complete hands off approach.

"Sweden has registered its lowest rate of positive coronavirus tests yet even after its testing regime was expanded to record levels in what one health official said was a vindication of its relatively non-intrusive Covid-19 strategy.

Over the past week the country carried out more than 120,000 tests, of which only 1.3 per cent identified the disease.

At the height of the pandemic the proportion was 19 per cent.

In the early months many critics argued that this approach was recklessly laissez-faire.

Some scientists predicted that as many as 180,000 people could die in a country of 10.2 million.

Those estimates proved to be drastically overblown: up to now there have been 5,838 Covid-19 deaths. In per capita terms this is the fifth highest death rate in Europe, behind only Belgium, the UK, Spain and Italy, but it has also fallen substantially since the summer. Only seven people died with the disease in the past week."

(Report dated 11 Sept 2020)

Best regards.

 

So I deduce from this treat you think we should have followed Sweden’s example and accepted a high death rate at first, as an acceptable price for maintaining the economy?

[HappyHeart]

11 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

 

Respectfully, you are kidding yourself if you think every life in the State can be saved by closing down the Vic economy ad infinitum.

There'll be nothing left to pay for health and social welfare if you do that.

While I acknowledge you might have a very different view and you may find my position a tad difficult to accept I suggest we - and I include the Andrews Government in this - stop being idealistic and start being a lot more realistic about what is acceptable.

And while we're discussing the "otherwise vulnerable" - what about those who are forgotten and suffering materially because of the general lockdown of the Vic economy?    Don't they count?   

Best regards.

So what strategy do you advocate? Specifically? 

[Alan Collett]

1 minute ago, HappyHeart said:

So what strategy do you advocate? Specifically? 

I refer you to my earlier post.

My present view is that in the absence of a vaccine in Q1 of 2021 we accept that we have to live with this virus among us, because there's a real risk we'll see a third wave once everyone has relaxed over our summer, as we are presently witnessing in the old country.

Or we will find ourselves going backwards economically as a nation, with a deep recession and all that ensues.

Best regards.

[Alan Collett]

10 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

So I deduce from this treat you think we should have followed Sweden’s example and accepted a high death rate at first, as an acceptable price for maintaining the economy?

Maybe.  

The judgment of history will tell who got it right and who didn't.

So much hope and decision making is being pinned on a vaccine.    I hope one comes along - really I do.    But what happens if it doesn't?   Maybe then countries such as Sweden will be seen to have got it right.

Best regards.

[Marisawright]

12 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Maybe.  

The judgment of history will tell who got it right and who didn't.

So much hope and decision making is being pinned on a vaccine.    I hope one comes along - really I do.    But what happens if it doesn't?   Maybe then countries such as Sweden will be seen to have got it right.

Best regards.

Whether it’s the right strategy or no, the reality is that few politicians would be brave enough to say to voters, “You just have to accept that you’re going to lose a few loved ones to this virus, trust us you’ll be glad we let them die in the long run”. 

[rtritudr]

2 hours ago, Alan Collett said:

I submit things could have been done differently in Victoria without so much collateral damage - eg locking down movements in and out of care homes without shutting down the economy, and having better tracing procedures.

You can't lock down care homes by just stopping visitors, you have to keep all the staff members onsite too.  This does work as one care home did exactly that at the height of the pandemic in France and there were zero cases and deaths at that particular home.  The staff members volunteered in that case.  Also in that case they only had to stay in the care home for a few weeks because the whole country locked down at the same time.

How much are we paying these age home workers and would they really volunteer to stay away from their own families for potentially months at a time?

[rtritudr]

1 hour ago, Alan Collett said:

I'm not sure whether you've finished your sentence - but FYI I don't think I have yet advocated a complete hands off approach.

Sweden's approach is anything but hands off.  They just didn't need to get their police involved because the Swedes are extremely pliant.  For example, public gatherings over 50 have been banned in Sweden since March and they have no plans on relaxing that for the foreseeable future.  For comparison Auckland NZ will start to allow public gatherings up to 100 as of this Thursday, while NSW currently only allows gatherings up to 20.

Many businesses simply can't operate profitably when you can't host events for more than 50 people.  In Melbourne there is at least an end-date in sight while if you're running a business in Sweden that relies on events you might as well get out of the country.

[rtritudr]

1 hour ago, Alan Collett said:

So much hope and decision making is being pinned on a vaccine.    I hope one comes along - really I do.    But what happens if it doesn't?   Maybe then countries such as Sweden will be seen to have got it right.

If a vaccine doesn't come along then Sweden will be screwed because they'd have to live with a 50-people limit forever, that is if a second wave doesn't hit them first this winter.

[rtritudr]

53 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Whether it’s the right strategy or no, the reality is that few politicians would be brave enough to say to voters, “You just have to accept that you’re going to lose a few loved ones to this virus, trust us you’ll be glad we let them die in the long run”. 

Right, and Donald Trump is brave enough to say that and he might even get reelected.

[Marisawright]

8 hours ago, rtritudr said:

Right, and Donald Trump is brave enough to say that and he might even get reelected.

Well not quite.   Donald Trump says there's nothing his government can do to prevent the illness and death, "it is what it is".   He does not say, "well, we could do x y and z to reduce the death toll, but we've decided it's best for the economy to let people catch it."   

[NicF]

Interesting article on the ABC this week about how harsh lockdowns may actually be better for the economy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-21/why-harsh-covid-19-lockdowns-are-good-for-the-economy/12683486?section=analysis

[Alan Collett]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/melbourne-uni-chief-says-victoria-must-address-difficult-ethical-questions-20200919-p55x82.html

University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maskell says Victoria needs to address a question that has hung uneasily over our COVID-19 response: what is our tolerance for death in this global pandemic?

“The question everyone is skirting around here is what is the appetite in any country for disease and mortality associated with this virus,’’ he told The Sunday Age.

“Every answer to that question is valid in one way or another. If you were to say we have no appetite whatsoever for any deaths from this virus, that is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but you have to take that position knowing the consequences.

“If that decision stops people dying now from the virus, what are the economic consequences of that for people and how will that play out in terms of future mortality? It would be crazy if, hypothetically, we stop 100 people [dying] from the virus but over the next two years, 200 people died from [the effects of] poverty and mental health."

Hope all are staying healthy!

Best regards.

[Marisawright]

27 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/melbourne-uni-chief-says-victoria-must-address-difficult-ethical-questions-20200919-p55x82.html

University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maskell says Victoria needs to address a question that has hung uneasily over our COVID-19 response: what is our tolerance for death in this global pandemic?

“The question everyone is skirting around here is what is the appetite in any country for disease and mortality associated with this virus,’’ he told The Sunday Age.

“

Indeed.  And clearly, the whole of the rest of Australia, and New Zealand, have spoken - they have no tolerance for deaths from Covid.  Whether that makes sense or not, it is what has happened, and none of those Premiers is going to change their mind now - they have too much to lose.

I stand by my view that if Victoria were to decide to ease restrictions and tolerate a rumbling level of infections, the state would remain locked off from the rest of Australia and New Zealand for many more months - meanwhile they will all form a cosy bubble between themselves and possibly some Pacific nations which we'll get left out of.  I can't see how that will help.

[Rallyman]

10 hours ago, NicF said:

Interesting article on the ABC this week about how harsh lockdowns may actually be better for the economy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-21/why-harsh-covid-19-lockdowns-are-good-for-the-economy/12683486?section=analysis

Sorry but it’s nonsense in some ways , great for the folks over in WA but who in Melbourne does this help , our friend has lost her business built up over 15 years because of covid she’s not bothered about the price of iron ore,

[Rossmoyne]

On 21/09/2020 at 18:54, Marisawright said:

Sweden tried that

And apparently it seems to have worked..... should we have gone that way too?   I have no views either way... just playing the devils advocate here.

[rtritudr]

1 hour ago, Rossmoyne said:

And apparently it seems to have worked..... should we have gone that way too?   I have no views either way... just playing the devils advocate here.

Many people don't appreciate how tough the Swedes are at social distancing.  Public gatherings over 50 have been banned since March and they have no plans at all on relaxing that.  Auckland NZ for example will allow public gatherings up to 100 as of this Thursday while the rest of New Zealand will have no limit at all.  NSW on the other hand still has a limit of 20 for public gatherings.

If you are a wedding planner in Sweden, you might as well pack up and go because chances are you won't be back in business any time soon.