Post by: Sine on July 19, 2020, 01:02:20 pm
There is already a COVID-19 thread relating to it's impact to education made by whys. You can find it HERE.
As for developments today for Australia: Those in Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire will be required to wear a face-covering when leaving home from Thursday. There will be fines of $200 for those who do not follow this rule.
Post by: whys on July 19, 2020, 01:38:51 pm
All in all a much-needed call.
Post by: TigerMum on July 19, 2020, 01:45:16 pm
Post by: Sine on July 19, 2020, 01:49:24 pm
I’m glad they made wearing facemasks compulsory. I’m just not sure how this might go down for those who can’t afford it, or what you’re going to do if there’s no more at the store (if it gets to that point) but you have to travel outside for school/work.Yeah, making sure everyone can get a face mask is a bit of a concern. Hopefully, there is some help to make sure that everyone can get access to them even if they can't afford it.
All in all a much-needed call.
However, I think they went with the term "face covering" so they allow people to use things other than masks such as scarves and bandanas which are better than nothing if someone can't get a mask.
Post by: turinturambar on July 19, 2020, 07:53:11 pm
As for developments today for Australia: Those in Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire will be required to wear a face-covering when leaving home from Thursday. There will be fines of $200 for those who do not follow this rule.
I've been interested in the discussion around masks since the US CDC (who had had similar guidance to Australia) flipped to recommending them (back in June?). I suspect it's a good idea in indoor spaces where consistent distancing is difficult, like the recommendation here in Victoria last week (?). However, my impression has always been that outdoors is considered much lower risk of transmission than indoors, plus in my experience it is usually much easier to keep appropriate distancing outdoors, and so I feel a blanket "outside the home" rule is probably going too far.
Particularly for exercise, while no activity is completely risk free, I have throughout assumed that it is very low risk when done solo and trying to keep distance from those encountered briefly on the way. It is also much more likely to be an activity where wearing a mask is (in their words) "impractical" or, in my opinion, at least a more significant restriction than wearing it in a supermarket, and with much less benefit to the community.
One practical implication for me is this: I walk (or sometimes run) to the grocery store. If I understand correctly, masks worn for a period of time get a bit wet and become less effective, and that probably happens faster with exercise. If so, wearing a mask to/from the grocery store would surely make that mask less effective in the grocery store - the place where I actually want it to be effective.
Oh, and one final concern is the possibility of masks making people feel safer than they actually are, and thus distancing less. If you are wearing a mask and can keep further away, do (even the magic 1.5m rule isn't about guaranteeing you are safe, just about reducing the risk that you'll catch anything).
Post by: whys on July 19, 2020, 08:01:10 pm
Oh, and one final concern is the possibility of masks making people feel safer than they actually are, and thus distancing less. If you are wearing a mask and can keep further away, do (even the magic 1.5m rule isn't about guaranteeing you are safe, just about reducing the risk that you'll catch anything).The point of masks is exactly that - it doesn't guarantee your safety, but it's better than nothing, similar to the 1.5m rule.
Even though transmission risk decreases outside when compared to indoor environments, there is still some risk present. Sure, it's a mild inconvenience to wear a mask (especially the exercise thing), but it's much better than wearing none at all. I agree that masks should not be compulsory when exercising, however I think it definitely should remain compulsory in any outdoor environment. The virus can very easily hang around in the air if someone with the virus coughs/sneezes/talks, so wearing a mask can help prevent them from spreading it.
I'm actually all for wearing facemasks outside the home for the reasons I've outlined above. If the point is to minimise the spread of the virus, then this is a step in the right direction. I'm unaware if Vic/Aus is going for the elimination strategy or the suppression strategy, but either way, wearing face masks will help prevent some of the spread. Especially things like community transmission due to catching COVID from random people as you go about your day.
Post by: K888 on July 19, 2020, 08:25:52 pm
One practical implication for me is this: I walk (or sometimes run) to the grocery store. If I understand correctly, masks worn for a period of time get a bit wet and become less effective, and that probably happens faster with exercise. If so, wearing a mask to/from the grocery store would surely make that mask less effective in the grocery store - the place where I actually want it to be effective.Have been wearing a mask in a physically active retail job for a few weeks with no issues. Idk what kind of heavy breathing people do to make their masks wet? If super concerned about your mask effectiveness, put a new one on at the supermarket, or maybe wear a scarf when walking to the supermarket and change to your surgical mask at the supermarket. The most important thing is that it's providing a physical barrier, and also reminding you to not touch your face. Might be time to switch your behaviours and opt to just walk to the supermarket if concerned about the implications exercise have on the effectiveness of your mask.
Oh, and one final concern is the possibility of masks making people feel safer than they actually are, and thus distancing less. If you are wearing a mask and can keep further away, do (even the magic 1.5m rule isn't about guaranteeing you are safe, just about reducing the risk that you'll catch anything).
Honestly I've found people keep their distance better when wearing masks. I think it helps people remember the times we're in. Maybe it's because the customers who have been wearing masks are more cautious people, but I've found them much better at maintaining social distancing. And I noticed when I started wearing a mask at work that I was more vigilant about keeping my distance from people too.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 20, 2020, 09:39:57 am
As for developments today for Australia: Those in Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire will be required to wear a face-covering when leaving home from Thursday. There will be fines of $200 for those who do not follow this rule.What about people with respiratory issues? It's bad enough breathing normally when walking, this is going to make it terrible.
Oh, and one final concern is the possibility of masks making people feel safer than they actually are, and thus distancing less. If you are wearing a mask and can keep further away, do (even the magic 1.5m rule isn't about guaranteeing you are safe, just about reducing the risk that you'll catch anything).Very true - and that isn't even addressing my main concern which is how on earth am I supposed to breathe with these things on...
MOD EDIT: merged double post
Post by: Sine on July 20, 2020, 10:22:27 am
What about people with respiratory issues? It's bad enough breathing normally when walking, this is going to make it terrible.Those with medical reasons are exempted.
EDIT: for completion the reasons for not wearing a face-covering that I know of are: medical reasons, under 12 years of age, a professional reason, when it is not practical (e.g. running). For some reasons I think you still need to be carrying one to wear when you can.
Post by: keltingmeith on July 20, 2020, 10:35:55 am
What about people with respiratory issues? It's bad enough breathing normally when walking, this is going to make it terrible.
Here's a source that agrees with Sine, and confirms that a mask should still be carried for situations when you can't physically distance. I imagine walking around without a mask will result in a fine unless you can provide a doctor's note or something, though, so I'd get into contact with your GP about this.
Particularly for exercise, while no activity is completely risk free, I have throughout assumed that it is very low risk when done solo and trying to keep distance from those encountered briefly on the way. It is also much more likely to be an activity where wearing a mask is (in their words) "impractical" or, in my opinion, at least a more significant restriction than wearing it in a supermarket, and with much less benefit to the community.
One practical implication for me is this: I walk (or sometimes run) to the grocery store. If I understand correctly, masks worn for a period of time get a bit wet and become less effective, and that probably happens faster with exercise. If so, wearing a mask to/from the grocery store would surely make that mask less effective in the grocery store - the place where I actually want it to be effective.
Oh, and one final concern is the possibility of masks making people feel safer than they actually are, and thus distancing less. If you are wearing a mask and can keep further away, do (even the magic 1.5m rule isn't about guaranteeing you are safe, just about reducing the risk that you'll catch anything).
You don't have to wear a mask when exercising, and instructions say that it's fine to not wear a mask outside if you're by yourself. You should still carry a mask with you (see above link) however so that it can be donned when you can't social distance anymore/have stopped exercising.
As for the points about complacency - I think this is a legitimate concern, and why the Government waited until now to actually put it in place. Like, it was obvious from the start that masks were likely going to stop the virus to some extent, even if they didn't know what extent. The problem is, if it's only 20% efficient, and people all of a sudden are way more comfortable not social distancing, then that extra protection is meaningless. I think they've decided to do it because the efficiency for two people wearing masks is high enough that even if they don't socially distance as a result, they still have more "immunity" to contagion.
And for those that don't think that PPE offering complacency is an issue: I've seen countless students get acid on their hands, but not doing anything about it because they're "wearing gloves". Gloves do not stop acid from burning your hands - in fact, plenty of acids will burn right through your gloves. The point is that the acid has to get through the glove before it reaches your skin, which gives you time to take off the glove and be safe - but even then, all it does is minimise damage, and you should still be washing your hand afterwards. People feel much less vulnerable when wearing PPE, so they partake in more risk-taking behaviour because they no longer perceive the risk as such.
Post by: brothanathan on July 20, 2020, 01:56:59 pm
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 20, 2020, 03:25:21 pm
Post by: keltingmeith on July 20, 2020, 03:42:53 pm
Asthma. Does that mean I have to wear a mask when, when I get out of breath, I can literally almost not catch my breath for quite a while, whatever amount of exercise I'm doing; it's bad enough just standing there in the train or whatever. That's what I want to know. I would like to be able to breathe outdoors.
Again - if you have medical concerns, you don't have to wear a mask. Talk to your GP to get a certificate if you can if you really want to be sure you won't be fined, but you'll be allowed to not wear your mask if wearing one is causing you to have asthma attacks. That's a reasonable reason to not have to wear a mask.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 20, 2020, 05:35:24 pm
Post by: JR_StudyEd on July 20, 2020, 09:15:42 pm
Post by: K888 on July 20, 2020, 09:30:25 pm
I don't know if I'm being overly optimistic, but is there any good news?Whilst we're in the midst of quite a large increase in cases, us slowing down infections allowed our hospitals to prepare for COVID patients. Now the hospitals are well prepared and have enough equipment, etc. so with more patients coming into hospital they're able to receive a high quality of care and we're not short of beds or staff or drugs. The health system can deal with this (although we need to make sure we continue social distancing and being responsible to make sure our health system can continue to deal with this).
Whilst it's a really scary time we can be really happy and thankful with how well Australia has managed this compared to a lot of other countries.
There's also good news in terms of possible treatments coming through - you can read about the trials involving remdesivir, inhaled heparin, convalescent plasma, dexamethasone, etc. that are taking place worldwide (including at many hospitals in Australia) and showing some promising results in terms of helping treat really sick patients!
Post by: turinturambar on July 20, 2020, 11:08:06 pm
You don't have to wear a mask when exercising, and instructions say that it's fine to not wear a mask outside if you're by yourself. You should still carry a mask with you (see above link) however so that it can be donned when you can't social distance anymore/have stopped exercising.
This looks to me like the old version - for example, it still talks about it not being recommended for under 18 (rather than under 12 as the new one), and it says there's no enforcement (technically true for now, but taken with the other point probably shows it's just out of date). I'd prefer it if they'd just made those old recommendations mandatory because I agreed with more of their provisions...
Have been wearing a mask in a physically active retail job for a few weeks with no issues. Idk what kind of heavy breathing people do to make their masks wet? If super concerned about your mask effectiveness, put a new one on at the supermarket, or maybe wear a scarf when walking to the supermarket and change to your surgical mask at the supermarket. The most important thing is that it's providing a physical barrier, and also reminding you to not touch your face. Might be time to switch your behaviours and opt to just walk to the supermarket if concerned about the implications exercise have on the effectiveness of your mask.
I remember early on (e.g. months ago) reading 15 minutes presented as a magic number, but on reflection that was probably about single-layer, bandana type protections and not the multi-layer masks including water-resistant layer we are recommended. I wasn't speaking from personal experience of a mask getting wet. So probably my misunderstanding?
The point of masks is exactly that - it doesn't guarantee your safety, but it's better than nothing, similar to the 1.5m rule.
Even though transmission risk decreases outside when compared to indoor environments, there is still some risk present. Sure, it's a mild inconvenience to wear a mask (especially the exercise thing), but it's much better than wearing none at all. I agree that masks should not be compulsory when exercising, however I think it definitely should remain compulsory in any outdoor environment. The virus can very easily hang around in the air if someone with the virus coughs/sneezes/talks, so wearing a mask can help prevent them from spreading it.
There will always be another risk that can be mitigated, and most such mitigations come with a cost. Speaking purely probabilistically, the overall risk is much more likely to be reduced by mitigating a few significant risks (such as limiting public gatherings, requiring work and education from home where possible) than by mitigating a large number of small risks. And at some stage, the costs of mitigating a risk are going to exceed the potential benefits (though where that stage is is obviously debatable). I also suspect though am not sure that you get better public compliance with the big picture public health items if people don't get bogged down in lots of little details.
One of the things that has really frustrated me about the entire conversation around Covid-19 over the last few months is how frequently this has been ignored. Instead, discussion has often just focused on the cost, and if it is deemed sufficiently low then that's an acceptable sacrifice to demand (whether or not it is actually effective at reducing the public health risk). People who question those restrictions are cast as entitled whingers, sometimes as people who just want to fill our ICUs with patients, overload our health system, and kill people. It's a classic false dichotomy. The running debate about golf courses and fishing over the first lockdown was a good example. Neither of them are my hobbies, but I thought it quite likely that both could easily be practiced with negligible risk, and thus that it didn't matter how low the cost of giving them up was: The cost outweighed the benefit, and it was not reasonable to say that people who wanted to play golf wanted to put people in ICUs (though I think that was said or at least implied). And, lo and behold, this time round both those activities are permitted because they are now considered low risk. Throw in my repeated comment that I don't think people sufficiently factor in the effect of luck both on where transmission happens and how big a particular spike can grow, and it becomes much more difficult to say what effect each restriction had on the overall outcome.
That's general frustration, not intended as a criticism of you specifically. How it relates, though, is that in my situation I consider my exercise already a low risk activity, performed in a council in the far east with a very low number of (known) active cases, and with route and time chosen to try and minimise meeting other people (for reference, the last three times I have been out for exercise I have seen exactly two people, and had no difficulty distancing from them). As a result, I consider the benefit to the community at large of me wearing a mask while outdoors so vanishingly close to zero that it doesn't matter if the cost to me is low: It still outweighs the benefit, and there is no way reading the previous guidelines that I would even have considered wearing a mask recommended for my outdoor activities (grocery store etc. - yes, I did wear mask). Me working from home and avoiding all public and family gatherings has a far greater reduction in the risk of me both catching and spreading the disease than almost any combination of other measures.
On reflection, though, it's perfectly possible that most people have more contact with others when outdoors than I do...
Quote
I'm actually all for wearing facemasks outside the home for the reasons I've outlined above. If the point is to minimise the spread of the virus, then this is a step in the right direction. I'm unaware if Vic/Aus is going for the elimination strategy or the suppression strategy, but either way, wearing face masks will help prevent some of the spread. Especially things like community transmission due to catching COVID from random people as you go about your day.
Brett Sutton has talked about the possibility of elimination, but that has to be a national discussion, and last week it was sounding like both the PM and the NSW Premier didn't think elimination achievable or sensible (personally, I agree with driving it as close to zero as possible, but the wrong combination of human error and bad luck means I'm not sure elimination is ever 100% possible. Some of what people talk about as "elimination" sounds to me more like "aggressive suppression"). In practical terms, though, I don't think we're going to want to keep the Vic/NSW border closed longer than we can help, so I can't see us going for elimination unless they do. And their current restrictions seem to allow much larger gatherings than we were allowing at the end of June...
No hat no play? No mask no play - end of story.
I agree with Dan Andrews today that making masks mandatory is not a human rights issue (so long as there are appropriate exemptions for medical reasons, which there are). At the same time, the rules are put in place to achieve a specific purpose, and the restrictions should be proportionate to the benefits gained. Doesn't mean I won't follow the rules, just that I question their effectiveness in certain situations.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 21, 2020, 02:43:02 pm
On reflection, though, it's perfectly possible that most people have more contact with others when outdoors than I do...Generally the case with introverts... ;)
And by the way - I do think that people in the past would've done better with this because they had faith in God - something that this society nowdays has distressingly walked away from. What can they expect then? Faith in God, for one thing, will reduce anxiety about the pandemic, because we know that God is in control and we won't end up all dead forever. People were more law-abiding, too, when there was a reason other than fines for them to be law-abiding; they acknowledged (where now people don't) that God was in control and that we should please him. Not to mention the general societal shifts have been almost universally negative in recent years, seems to me. No offence meant to specific people.
Post by: whys on July 21, 2020, 03:05:11 pm
And by the way - I do think that people in the past would've done better with this because they had faith in God - something that this society nowdays has distressingly walked away from.I don't think 'distressingly' was the right word here... You do not need to believe in God(s) to have faith - the two are related but not inseparable. I don't understand why you think people embracing a life void of religion/God now is a bad thing. There is a lot to talk about here, but to remain pertinent to the thread, I'll abstain. To each, their own, and faith need not always be in God.
People were more law-abiding, too, when there was a reason other than fines for them to be law-abiding; they acknowledged (where now people don't) that God was in control and that we should please him. Not to mention the general societal shifts have been almost universally negative in recent years, seems to me. No offence meant to specific people.I don't know how far back in history you are referring to. However, I can say with confidence that in the past, punishments were worse. People were forced to abide by laws (some good, some not so good!). The past definitely would be horrible in this situation. In the past, people with mental disorders were locked in mental asylums. Doctors performed transorbital lobotomies for no apparent reason in many cases. Bloodletting to cure disease was a thing back then. Because back then, they did not have the knowledge and technological advances that we have today. Today, we recognise that mental health is a thing as it becomes less taboo in society. Today, we are working towards finding relevant cures for diseases instead of using random treatments that are now scientifically incorrect. I think that's a pretty good societal shift, don't you? People who feel their mental health is spiralling downwards amidst the flurry of the pandemic can get help. People who are infected with the virus self-isolate, and those with serious symptoms get external support.
Just because in the past people more stringently abided by law and religion, doesn't mean they would be better placed in this situation. I'd say quite the opposite. I doubt they would have even detected this pandemic until it was too late. Today, we are in a much better position to deal with things the past would have struggled to rationally analyse and solve. Sure, some bad decisions have been made and some people decide not to behave appropriately, but as a country, we are much better placed than some other places in the world. Globally, some even more bad decisions have been made, but I really don't think it would have been any better in the past.
Post by: Poet on July 21, 2020, 03:21:34 pm
Generally the case with introverts... ;)This viewpoint is extremely subjective. It's an opinion, and one with no respect for fact and history. A faith in God is the reason many people are not following guidelines and pushing back against restrictions in the present; the most notable case being America. People use faith in God for their own convenience - cherry-picking, if you will, what is best for themselves and putting everyone around them at risk. Using faith as an excuse to ignore scientific protocol is naive and ill-educated.
And by the way - I do think that people in the past would've done better with this because they had faith in God - something that this society nowdays has distressingly walked away from. What can they expect then? Faith in God, for one thing, will reduce anxiety about the pandemic, because we know that God is in control and we won't end up all dead forever. People were more law-abiding, too, when there was a reason other than fines for them to be law-abiding; they acknowledged (where now people don't) that God was in control and that we should please him. Not to mention the general societal shifts have been almost universally negative in recent years, seems to me. No offence meant to specific people.
The past was not perfect either; I'm not sure if you've gotten to year 9 history yet, but the Black Plague of the 1340's killed 25 million people, approximately one third of Europe's population in that time. That's 1 in 3 people dead, most of whom believed in a God. Crime rates are irrelevant to the discussion. We're at a much better place now because of research and constant progress in medical fields, as well as societal advancement.
Evidence of this advancement includes the Australian Government's investment of $66 million in research for a COVID-19 vaccine. Quote health.gov.au on the 2nd June:
Quote
There are four target areas of research:
Investing in a vaccine for COVID-19
Investing in antiviral therapies for COVID-19
Clinical trials of potential treatments for COVID-19
Improving the health system’s response to COVID-19 and future pandemics
The projects outlined here build on $14.4 million of previously announced COVID-19 research investment, including into improving the way we diagnose the virus and how we care for patients with COVID-19.
Anyone have any information on newer research outcomes for a treatment?
Post by: keltingmeith on July 21, 2020, 04:18:51 pm
Faith in God, for one thing, will reduce anxiety about the pandemic, because we know that God is in control and we won't end up all dead forever.
I mean, y'know, unless this is another flood situation
The past was not perfect either; I'm not sure if you've gotten to year 9 history yet
Dude, you definitely could've been 100% less insulting in this statement.
Evidence of this advancement includes the Australian Government's investment of $66 million in research for a COVID-19 vaccine. Quote health.gov.au on the 2nd June:
Anyone have any information on newer research outcomes for a treatment?
I don't think we'll be seeing newer research outcomes for another month or so - 1.5 months is extremely short for scientific research, even in a pandemic. Note that people have been working on this since March and earlier, and even now we still aren't 100% sure on how those will turn out even after skipping some of the ethical steps required for testing. Hopefully by the end of next month we'll have an idea of what drugs will be most effective in fighting COVID-19.
Post by: turinturambar on July 22, 2020, 02:57:12 am
And by the way - I do think that people in the past would've done better with this because they had faith in God - something that this society nowdays has distressingly walked away from. What can they expect then? Faith in God, for one thing, will reduce anxiety about the pandemic, because we know that God is in control and we won't end up all dead forever. People were more law-abiding, too, when there was a reason other than fines for them to be law-abiding; they acknowledged (where now people don't) that God was in control and that we should please him. Not to mention the general societal shifts have been almost universally negative in recent years, seems to me. No offence meant to specific people.
Hmm. I ignored the bait on religion on a different thread, but can't help feeling it coming up a second time means this is specifically targeted at me. Without wanting to derail this conversation further, I'd point out that I've seen quite a few Christians talking about Covid-19 online, and I would say many of them are not just concerned but terrified, particularly in places like the US with far greater community spread than us. And they have every right to be - it's an uncertain and scary situation. The expectation that Christians should be less (visibly) anxious about difficult situations has been a serious mental health burden for some people I know.
While circumstances obviously change, I think it likely human nature is relatively constant over generations, so I'd be surprised if we're seeing a huge difference in compliance from other eras. People have always been good at justifying themselves deviating from standards, some more than others and some with more consequences than others. Right now (for obvious reasons) we are seeing lots of comparisons to the Spanish flu of 100 years ago. I'm not a historian and have not tried to put every 1919 story and meme in context, but it seems clear that not everyone followed the rules, and that people got sick of restrictions and flocked out after restrictions loosened, leading to a second wave.
I have come to believe as a generalisation that intrinsic motivations work better better than extrinsic motivations, whether those extrinsic motivations are rewards like public approval, money, or the approval of God or whether they are punishments like fines, public shaming, prison, or the disapproval of God. In other words, people doing things because they think it the right thing to do or because they want to. It's a very limiting and (I would say) negative view of humanity that people only do the right thing because of fear of external punishments like fines. It isn't true of me, and I'm pretty sure if I did a (remote) poll of my office I'd find the majority of my co-workers are fairly compliant because they're trying to do the right thing and because they want to keep themselves and their friends and relatives as safe as possible, not because they might be fined.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 22, 2020, 09:43:32 am
Hmmm, I don't think people liked what I said. And maybe I could have said it better; I meant no personal insult. I was not meaning in the middle ages, by the way. I was meaning a couple of generations ago.
There won't be another flood situation; God promised there wouldn't be. Also I said 'forever'; I meant, if you have faith in God, and are baptised, abide by his commandments, etc., then even if you die of the virus you'll be in the kingdom of God forever.
People use faith in God for their own convenience - cherry-picking, if you will, what is best for themselves and putting everyone around them at risk.Unfortunately, I would partly agree with you. However, I was meaning the people who really believe in the Bible and the whole of the teachings, and truly try to do what God tells us to, not for their own convenience. Also, I'm curious to know where you found/what you found about the faith meaning people push against restrictions?
Just out of interest, has everyone (Christian, I mean) missed that teaching back in the first five books (I can't recall which) about if people are unwell, they need to self-isolate? This teaching was way ahead of its time. The Law said if people were sick, to isolate themselves! I can't help feeling that this whole thing wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if people did follow that - even if it was only the people who did believe in the Bible who did it.
Post by: brothanathan on July 22, 2020, 12:56:05 pm
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 22, 2020, 01:08:45 pm
So, the assertion of it being in some ways draconian, is not exactly feasible in many cases..I don't understand what you mean?
Post by: Poet on July 22, 2020, 01:39:46 pm
-snip-
Hey Cat, let's please keep the discussion of religion to a minimum in this thread. If you would like to discuss any points further, my inbox is always open. :)
Today the Victorian state's cases have hit an all time high at 484. According to the Premier's address this afternoon, 53% of people who tested positive overnight did not self isolate in the interim between testing and results.
1800 675 398 was also the number given to call for a financial support package of $1500 for people who normally wouldn't be able to afford to isolate.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 22, 2020, 01:57:47 pm
did not self isolate in the interim between testing and results.I'm curious to know - what do they define as self isolation? If, hypothetically someone has symptoms of any description, are they meant to isolate even if for other reasons they are not getting tested at the time - and does it change when they do get tested? Are they allowed to go out of the house at all? And if they have medical reasons why not to wear a mask, is that ok, does it change anything?
Post by: Sine on July 22, 2020, 02:07:08 pm
Today the Victorian state's cases have hit an all time high at 484. According to the Premier's address this afternoon, 53% of people who tested positive overnight did not self isolate in the interim between testing and results.Also from 3810 cases between 7th-21st of July approximately 90% of people (3400 cases) didn't isolate between feeling sick with symptoms and getting the test which is very concerning.
1800 675 398 was also the number given to call for a financial support package of $1500 for people who normally wouldn't be able to afford to isolate.
Obviously, this is not about blaming anyone. There is a lot of talk about the reasons for this being financial due to casual and insecure work. The support package doesn't fix everything but hopefully more widespread knowledge of it will get more people staying home when sick.
I'm curious to know - what do they define as self isolation? If, hypothetically someone has symptoms of any description, are they meant to isolate even if for other reasons they are not getting tested at the time - and does it change when they do get tested? Are they allowed to go out of the house at all? And if they have medical reasons why not to wear a mask, is that ok, does it change anything?If anyone is sick the only reason you should be going out is to get tested. Then you should go straight back home without doing anything else.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 22, 2020, 02:53:40 pm
If anyone is sick the only reason you should be going out is to get tested. Then you should go straight back home without doing anything else.What about exercise?
Post by: brothanathan on July 22, 2020, 02:55:04 pm
I don't understand what you mean?
I don't wish to clarify it, as it's off topic. Feel free to PM though.
Post by: eloisegrace on July 22, 2020, 02:59:32 pm
What about exercise?
Not if you have gotten a test recently. I got a test two weeks ago and we were specifically instructed to not go out. Exercise is not an excuse. While exercise is important, you could potentially be infecting other members of the community that could seem fine but be vulnerable. If you need to exercise, you can use your backyard or do at home workouts. There are other ways to get exercise if you have been tested.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 22, 2020, 03:01:37 pm
Post by: Sine on July 22, 2020, 03:07:06 pm
Would that non-allowance of exercise be also held if the individual has things that mean they really need quite a lot of exercise?example?
anyway, as eloisegrace has already said although it can be somewhat limiting for some people you can try to get some exercise at home or out in your backyard
Post by: keltingmeith on July 22, 2020, 03:08:39 pm
Would that non-allowance of exercise be also held if the individual has things that mean they really need quite a lot of exercise?
You work around it. If you're sick, you're putting others at risk - no ifs, ands, or buts. This may involve exercise being done around the house, in your backyard, etc., just not walking around the streets. If you're unsure of things you can do, you can very easily get in contact with a bulk-billing doctor over the phone in a matter of minutes (no joke - I once had a meeting at 12, woke up at 11, needed to see a doctor before 12, and got one) who you can talk to about your situation and for them to give you advice on things you can do.
As stated before, masks don't prevent COVID-19 - they help mitigate the risk. We want that risk to be 0 - so, if you have the virus, you going out (even while socially distancing, wearing a mask, etc.) will still cause that risk to be not 0.
Post by: Poet on July 22, 2020, 03:09:33 pm
Would that non-allowance of exercise be also held if the individual has things that mean they really need quite a lot of exercise?Just beaten by keltingmeith
That's a very rare case, but the wait period for testing stands between 2-5 days, meaning that even dedicated athletes or those in need of physiotherapy will be able to complete in-home exercises till their results get back. If anyone had special circumstances, it's their individual responsibility to adhere to the guidelines set in place for the well-being of everyone - not just themselves.
Post by: eloisegrace on July 22, 2020, 03:10:23 pm
Would that non-allowance of exercise be also held if the individual has things that mean they really need quite a lot of exercise?Can't think of anything that would mean that you could leave the house for exercise while waiting COVID test results. Even if someone does need exercise, there are ways that it could be done. We all have had to get a little creative during quarantine and exercise is no different.
I read something today that 53% (or around this figure) of COVID positive tests did not self isolate while awaiting results which is probably a factor in why cases are not decreasing after being in lockdown for nearly 2 weeks already.
EDIT: sine , keltingmeith and poet got to it first
Post by: keltingmeith on July 22, 2020, 03:30:35 pm
Just beaten by keltingmeith
I'd like to say I'm the speed-posting master, but Sine's clearly the real MVP
Post by: Sine on July 22, 2020, 06:15:39 pm
Talking about not self isolating. 200 in QLD have gone missing while self-isolating?!! What is this??I think this is just the headlines running. I believe those "missing" are people who when entering QLD lied about where they will be quarantining. So when police came around to check on them they weren't there.
Post by: brothanathan on July 22, 2020, 06:37:24 pm
I think this is just the headlines running. I believe those "missing" are people who when entering QLD lied about where they will be quarantining. So when police came around to check on them they weren't there.
Still a concern though. Shouldn't they be quarantining in the place they live? The focus shouldn't be human rights and preserving our democracy. It's a highly transmissible virus, period. Unless they're thinkin, me life's done already. Might as well live it how I want
Post by: keltingmeith on July 22, 2020, 07:22:12 pm
The focus shouldn't be human rights and preserving our democracy
I mean, no, you're way off here. The preservation of human rights and democracy should be a critical thought on everyone's mind - the fact that there's a virus going around should not affect whether someone feels they're being treated fairly or whether they still have a voice in this country. You have the right to be able to speak up and say, "I don't think this is being handled in a beneficial way".
The problem here isn't these people thinking about human rights or democracy, it's about them choosing to ignore guidelines that benefit the masses. Taking action is different to taking voice, and we should not live in an environment where you are not allowed to take voice - and the moment you let people think they have no voice, is the moment that you spur them to take action, which is what we don't want in this case. People feeling they had no voice is what led to the #BLM protests (I mean, ignoring the institutionalised racism, but having no voice is one of the reasons that existed, so I stand by my point) - they weren't being heard, so they took action. Now, I'm not here to play a blame game (particularly when there's no evidence linking the protests to the current outbreak), but even with COVID running rampant - ESPECIALLY with COVID running rampant - it is important that people feel like they still have a voice, and that they are retaining their basic human rights. We do not live in communist China, we should be allowed to speak up against the Government.
Post by: sweetiepi on July 22, 2020, 08:03:56 pm
This is something that's kinda interesting to note imo
Post by: whys on July 22, 2020, 09:01:16 pm
What would be a beneficial way in your opinion? What do you think the majority would see as beneficial? Elimination would be seen as eroding our rights; neo-communism. The current Dandemic approach is already being labelled as such. How should the Government be handling our current situation? If we are not to follow other democratic countries who have successfully eliminated the virus through semi if not sternly totalitarian measures?Ordering restrictions for a lockdown is not the government's desire to control citizens, it's an attempt to give some degree of safety for those who are at risk, and to minimise the spread to prevent the loss of more lives. I don't know about you, but I have never felt that the government was trying to take away my rights - any sensible human being would sacrifice a bit of time outside and follow the rules (this is in general - there are, of course, exceptions to rules in certain cases) if it meant we were protecting those around us and helping to ease the burden on the country's healthcare and hospitals. In this case, I don't think describing it as totalitarian is accurate, because we can still speak up against the government and we still retain our rights. There will always be objectors - those who don't want to comply with the rules. But these rules were put in place to protect us and those around us, not with some sort of ulterior motive (well, I'd like to believe this anyway). The government was by no means perfect with their decision making, and I can see what you mean. Yes, it may seem like they're controlling us, but they don't exactly have another choice. As responsible, well-informed citizens, all we can do is abide by the rules.
(This is just what I think, feel free to contend.)
Post by: brothanathan on July 22, 2020, 09:50:33 pm
The government was by no means perfect with their decision making, and I can see what you mean. Yes, it may seem like they're controlling us, but they don't exactly have another choice. As responsible, well-informed citizens, all we can do is abide by the rules.
(This is just what I think, feel free to contend.)
If only we all could think this way, at least until the pandemic ends... but like what keltingmeith contends, we aren't a communist country on paper, so to speak. If we could just settle our ideological differences, just for now...
Post by: Sine on July 23, 2020, 12:31:37 pm
In addition to the above, there was more support announced today. $300 available when someone gets tested but they need to meet the same eligibility criteria for the scheme that Poet outlined.
Today the Victorian state's cases have hit an all time high at 484. According to the Premier's address this afternoon, 53% of people who tested positive overnight did not self isolate in the interim between testing and results.
1800 675 398 was also the number given to call for a financial support package of $1500 for people who normally wouldn't be able to afford to isolate.Also from 3810 cases between 7th-21st of July approximately 90% of people (3400 cases) didn't isolate between feeling sick with symptoms and getting the test which is very concerning.
Obviously, this is not about blaming anyone. There is a lot of talk about the reasons for this being financial due to casual and insecure work. The support package doesn't fix everything but hopefully more widespread knowledge of it will get more people staying home when sick.
Post by: keltingmeith on July 23, 2020, 12:42:04 pm
What would be a beneficial way in your opinion? What do you think the majority would see as beneficial? Elimination would be seen as eroding our rights; neo-communism. The current Dandemic approach is already being labelled as such. How should the Government be handling our current situation? If we are not to follow other democratic countries who have successfully eliminated the virus through semi if not sternly totalitarian measures?
I think you have a few false-equivalencies there. It's not about what you allow people to do or not do - it's that you allow them to be heard, and have open channels and communication. For example, people complain that they can't afford to lockdown - Government puts in loan programs to help them out. People note that it doesn't make sense to not be allowed activities like fishing where you won't come into contact with anyone - Government allows people to go fishing. We're not in a totalitarian environment, people still have a voice and are being heard.
If only we all could think this way, at least until the pandemic ends... but like what keltingmeith contends, we aren't a communist country on paper, so to speak. If we could just settle our ideological differences, just for now...
... Are you trying to suggest we ARE a communist country? I'm a little confused.
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 23, 2020, 02:45:48 pm
example?Case in point: recovery from spinal surgery where the doctors say at least an hour's walking a day.
Post by: K888 on July 23, 2020, 02:52:47 pm
Case in point: recovery from spinal surgery where the doctors say at least an hour's walking a day.People under these circumstances would be liaising with their treating health professional to find a work around.
It could just be that they have to walk around their house for an hour or else their treating health professionals would figure out other forms of exercise if necessary.
Post by: Lear on July 23, 2020, 03:26:44 pm
Case in point: recovery from spinal surgery where the doctors say at least an hour's walking a day.
Most surgery involves some level of immunosuppression due to a few factors. While I have 0 insight to this nor the knowledge to say this is definitely true, it seems reasonable that healthcare professionals would be advising against these individuals from going far outside of home to exercise anyway during a pandemic.
It seems your ‘quite a lot of exercise’ isn’t very common anyway if spinal surgery is the first example that comes to mind.
In any case, delving into such particulars is really unhelpful. The rules that have been implemented aren’t aimed to consider every single individuals circumstances and possible exception. They are there to simplify what is expected of the public so there is less friction in following those rules. Absolutely there is still room for the very rare exceptions and you’d expect a big chunk of common sense to be applied when considering those. I just find it pointless going on about ‘well what about x’ huh?
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 23, 2020, 03:37:59 pm
It seems your ‘quite a lot of exercise’ isn’t very common anyway if spinal surgery is the first example that comes to mind.It came to mind because it's the case I have... despite the surgery having been awhile ago (several months) I still need the daily exercise to help with recovery.
Point taken, though. Thanks.
Post by: keltingmeith on July 23, 2020, 05:38:23 pm
No, but as you said, people are ignoring the guidelines. If we continue to see any single form of authority as brutal, we're just givin a bad rep as a nation. That most of us don't give a crap about those who seriously place their health first. St*ff shit.
That's not what I said. I mean, I don't disagree with the fact- there are certainly people who are ignoring guidelines - but that's not what I said. And I'm going to be honest, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore?
All I was trying to say is that it's important for the Government to not take a totalitarian stance, because they'll lose the willingness of the nation. Sure, maybe 5% or so of people aren't interested in listening (and they may be loud, but I think you'll find they aren't as big as they sound - though time will tell, given that masks only became compulsory to wear today), but most people are - and if the Government took a totalitarian stance, they'd lose the support of the people and the proportion that do comply would start to go down. How the Government is currently handling the situation, I think is fine - there are guidelines in place. It's up for businesses to interpret how those guidelines are used, and for the individual to interpret them for their own safety. Police will fine people who don't comply in public, sure, but that's very different to living in a dictatorship.
Post by: K888 on July 23, 2020, 05:46:30 pm
Post by: sweetiepi on July 23, 2020, 05:49:53 pm
Was heartening to see everyone wearing masks today when I had to leave the house for an appointment. Restored a bit of my faith in people :)Same goes with the tram and trains I've been on today! 😊 was surprised to see no noses poking out either 😅
Post by: angrybiscuit on July 23, 2020, 06:36:29 pm
Was heartening to see everyone wearing masks today when I had to leave the house for an appointment. Restored a bit of my faith in people :)Was also pleasantly surprised to see the whole school nice and covered up :)
Reminder: Though masks are compulsory, this should not create a false sense of security or create complacency. Social distancing and staying at home when you can is still our best bet from slowing the spread and reducing the rate of transmission.
Post by: brothanathan on July 23, 2020, 06:50:32 pm
That's not what I said. I mean, I don't disagree with the fact- there are certainly people who are ignoring guidelines - but that's not what I said. And I'm going to be honest, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore?
Firstly, I can see why it's hard to sense someone's tone via text and just throwing comments around doesn't help.
Oh, here's what I was referring to:
The problem here isn't these people thinking about human rights or democracy, it's about them choosing to ignore guidelines that benefit the masses
Anyways.. I wasn't arguing anything in the first place. I feel sorry that you took it that way. To make my comments more inquisitive, what do you mean by the masses?
Sure, maybe 5% or so of people aren't interested in listening (and they may be loud, but I think you'll find they aren't as big as they sound - though time will tell, given that masks only became compulsory to wear today), but most people are
We'll see about that too.
Loving your input by the way :)
Post by: turinturambar on July 24, 2020, 10:31:16 pm
Of course, I am not recommending leaving your house between test and diagnosis or after diagnosis. Whether legal or not, at minimum you would be laying yourself open to prosecution in the court of public opinion. But when Dan Andrews talked today about fining people who were not present when someone turned up to present their positive test, I'm not sure I can see a basis in the directions for doing that (yet, anyway). The directions for diagnosed persons don't apply to them until a diagnosis has been delivered to them, and even if they did apply, those directions include reasons for leaving the house, including exercise.
OK, story time: I've said earlier in the thread that I am quite able to choose a time and place to walk where I will see no-one. In March I had something, probably flu, that didn't really line up with the then talked about symptoms for Covid-19. As I hadn't returned from overseas, I wasn't eligible for testing, but the expectation was that I didn't have it. On days when I felt I needed a walk and felt up to it, I took a walk. And saw no-one. I would have no problem with anyone waiting for a test result or diagnosed with Covid-19 doing the same, so long as they were suitably careful and it was permitted by the regulations (which currently it seems it is). If health authorities don't want that to happen, they should change the regulations.
One other point: I noticed that today the National Cabinet reaffirmed that suppression, not elimination, was the goal. Though their gold standard for suppression seems to be "no community transmission", which in practical terms is surely close to elimination?
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 25, 2020, 11:46:23 am
Thanks for the information, turin.
Hopefully yesterday's slight decrease is the beginning of the end... of COVID-19, not freedom :).
Post by: keltingmeith on July 25, 2020, 07:30:02 pm
Firstly, I can see why it's hard to sense someone's tone via text and just throwing comments around doesn't help.
Oh, here's what I was referring to:
Anyways.. I wasn't arguing anything in the first place. I feel sorry that you took it that way. To make my comments more inquisitive, what do you mean by the masses?
We'll see about that too.
Loving your input by the way :)
By masses, I mean the population at large - most people in the city.
Surely we should try and eliminate... otherwise isn't this just gonna keep on going and stop us from going overseas and whatever?
Thanks for the information, turin.
Hopefully yesterday's slight decrease is the beginning of the end... of COVID-19, not freedom :).
Because elimination means a lot more than what you think it means, and it is way WAY harder to do and manage. You make the point that if we eliminate, we'd be able to go overseas a lot more easily - but that's just plain false. Elimination means that we'd have to hard lock our country from the outside world until COVID-19 is gone EVERYWHERE. Elimination would mean no opening borders, because opening borders would allow COVID to come back, and then we'd be back in hard lockdown to cause re-elimination.
However, if we aim for suppression, then once we've stopped the growth rate in the country, we can re-open the borders. Once we've removed community transmission, we can go back to allowing international travel and trade, and then just keep everything at stage 1 restrictions. Elimination would mean no restrictions, but it would also mean no outside world, which would COMPLETELY ruin the economy and isn't worth it.
Potentially, your idea of elimination is just what we're aiming for with suppression?
Post by: K888 on July 25, 2020, 09:44:40 pm
Take the wins where you can :)
Post by: eloisegrace on July 25, 2020, 09:51:22 pm
More uplifting news: there have only been 36 deaths due to influenza in Australia this year, compared to 430 at the same time last year! School closures, social distancing and hand hygiene are contributors to the lower numbers of influenza, and the huge thing is 2 million more vaccines have been given than last year already!!We love good news! I was talking to my dad about this driving to school and technically we have saved lives during this pandemic (or at least less people have died which is nice :))
Take the wins where you can :)
Post by: Sine on July 28, 2020, 12:23:11 pm
Currently, there are 14.2 million confirmed cases and 600,000 deaths worldwide.In terms of the world now there are 16.4 million confirmed cases and over 650,000 deaths.
In terms of Victoria, the biggest focus of today that I saw was that now elective surgeries (apart from category 1 and very urgent category 2) are being suspended in order to get medical staff into the private aged care facilities that have not been able to control the spread.
Post by: K888 on July 28, 2020, 12:57:36 pm
In terms of the world now there are 16.4 million confirmed cases and over 650,000 deaths.Just to clarify, I believe the elective surgery suspension is only happening in Metropolitan Melbourne and the Mitchell Shire, across public and private hospitals. Surgery is going ahead as planned in regional hospitals.
In terms of Victoria, the biggest focus of today that I saw was that now elective surgeries (apart from category 1 and very urgent category 2) are being suspended in order to get medical staff into the private aged care facilities that have not been able to control the spread.
Post by: AngelWings on August 02, 2020, 04:10:24 pm
Hopefully the new restrictions will make a dent in positive case numbers after 2-3 weeks.
Post by: Sine on August 02, 2020, 05:25:42 pm
Going to be interesting how these new Stage 4 (Metro Melbourne + Mitchell Shire) and Stage 3 restrictions (Regional Victoria) play out and how well this will be enforced.Definitely needed these new restrictions (although would've thought it was warranted a few weeks ago). However, whether the general public actually abides by the rules will be the biggest factor on whether we can drive the numbers down. If everyone follows the rules I think the 6 weeks will be enough.
Hopefully the new restrictions will make a dent in positive case numbers after 2-3 weeks.
The problem I had with stage 3 restrictions was that they were always talking about how you can only go out for "essential" things but then you have all these non-essential shops opened. Speaking to a few people who work in retail stores (which they thought were not essential but stayed open) they said they had heaps of people coming in and buying random unnecessary stuff just to "get out of the house".
What are everyone's opinions/thoughts on the new restrictions?
Post by: J_Rho on August 02, 2020, 05:55:52 pm
Definitely needed these new restrictions (although would've thought it was warranted a few weeks ago). However, whether the general public actually abides by the rules will be the biggest factor on whether we can drive the numbers down. If everyone follows the rules I think the 6 weeks will be enough.Quite happy with these restrictions (as a regional vic resident), I went to officeworks so i could get school supplies and there were SO MANY people just out and about! and on top of that i think I saw one person wearing a mask :/
The problem I had with stage 3 restrictions was that they were always talking about how you can only go out for "essential" things but then you have all these non-essential shops opened. Speaking to a few people who work in retail stores (which they thought were not essential but stayed open) they said they had heaps of people coming in and buying random unnecessary stuff just to "get out of the house".
What are everyone's opinions/thoughts on the new restrictions?
Post by: K888 on August 02, 2020, 06:54:45 pm
The problem I had with stage 3 restrictions was that they were always talking about how you can only go out for "essential" things but then you have all these non-essential shops opened. Speaking to a few people who work in retail stores (which they thought were not essential but stayed open) they said they had heaps of people coming in and buying random unnecessary stuff just to "get out of the house".This was a huge struggle for me. Working in retail, I have hated going in to work because I felt we weren't an essential business (because we're not) so it was very hard for me to serve people when the fact we were open in the first place was so fundamentally wrong to me.
It was really disheartening when my company came out and said they would only shut if the government forced them to. Even tonight they've said we're staying open until further details come out - why can't they just do the responsible thing and shut from now, given they know we'll be shut down over the next few days.
Post by: J_Rho on August 02, 2020, 09:37:35 pm
My dad was in contact with someone that recently tested positive. I live in the same house, have no symptoms, can I go to school to collect my books and materials for online learning?
Obvs the ideal would be to isolate, but tomorrow is the only day I can get stuff from school so I'm stuck in between a rock and a hard place, if there is no rule about this.
I want to isolate but I need to collect textbooks and stuff out of my locker. Im trying to find if theres a rule for close contacts of close contacts but struggling
Post by: K888 on August 02, 2020, 09:59:02 pm
Does anyone know the official rule about this??Hope I can help - the official line is if you're two degrees (or more) removed from a positive case you don't have to self-isolate. If your dad tests positive then you will have to isolate until you get tested and return a negative result. But for now, if you don't have symptoms, you're ok to go to school and collect your books :)
My dad was in contact with someone that recently tested positive. I live in the same house, have no symptoms, can I go to school to collect my books and materials for online learning?
Obvs the ideal would be to isolate, but tomorrow is the only day I can get stuff from school so I'm stuck in between a rock and a hard place, if there is no rule about this.
I want to isolate but I need to collect textbooks and stuff out of my locker. Im trying to find if theres a rule for close contacts of close contacts but struggling
Source: have spoken to the covid hotline & have read statements by the premier that address this
Post by: keltingmeith on August 03, 2020, 03:01:58 am
Two nights ago, at 3 am, they started blasting club music. I thought I was hearing things, but one of my housemates came out and was like, "yeah no, I hear it, too". We then looked out back, and there was even a light show and we could hear multiple voices. Just as we finished reporting to the police, music turned off - they said they couldn't do anything because we couldn't confirm it was a mass gathering. THEN the neighbours did it again 15 minutes later
And now my sleep schedule is a bit screwy, if you couldn't tell by me posting at 3 in the morning 😏
Post by: J_Rho on August 03, 2020, 06:57:42 am
Hope I can help - the official line is if you're two degrees (or more) removed from a positive case you don't have to self-isolate. If your dad tests positive then you will have to isolate until you get tested and return a negative result. But for now, if you don't have symptoms, you're ok to go to school and collect your books :)Thank you!!
Source: have spoken to the covid hotline & have read statements by the premier that address this
Edit: Mum called the hotline and got a completely different answer! She got told that anyone (regardless if the are not showing symptoms) who lives with someone who had contact with a confirmed positive also needs to isolate.
Now time to work on my accio skills so i can some how collect all my stuff from school
Post by: K888 on August 03, 2020, 10:11:29 am
Thank you!!Hmm, how interesting! They must have updated their recommendations since I spoke to them (which was probably 2 weeks ago now, so understandable given the current circumstances). Good thing your mum called the hotline!
Edit: Mum called the hotline and got a completely different answer! She got told that anyone (regardless if the are not showing symptoms) who lives with someone who had contact with a confirmed positive also needs to isolate.
Now time to work on my accio skills so i can some how collect all my stuff from school
Are you able to get someone to do a contactless drop off to yours with your books? Otherwise I guess you'll have to wait to see if your dad returns a negative result.
Post by: keltingmeith on August 03, 2020, 03:13:38 pm
Original Post
Post by: sweetiepi on August 03, 2020, 05:26:04 pm
https://twitter.com/p_pappa/status/1290128400103792642?s=19https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/guide-business%E2%80%93%20stage-4-restrictions-doc here's the DHHS release for what's open and not :)
We have a leak. This is looking big
Post by: K888 on August 03, 2020, 06:16:10 pm
https://twitter.com/p_pappa/status/1290128400103792642?s=19Yep, this isn't fully accurate. Eg: butchers and such are remaining open.
We have a leak. This is looking big
Definitely recommend people refer to the DHHS website to find out what is and isn't included in stage 4 shut down per insanipi's post :)
Post by: Joseph41 on August 04, 2020, 11:45:23 am
We aren't allowed to exercise anymore :'(
If isolating.
Post by: keltingmeith on August 04, 2020, 12:24:54 pm
Yep, this isn't fully accurate. Eg: butchers and such are remaining open.
Definitely recommend people refer to the DHHS website to find out what is and isn't included in stage 4 shut down per insanipi's post :)
Yeah, I fell asleep before I could amend the post. Doing now
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 04, 2020, 01:02:14 pm
We aren't allowed to exercise anymore :'(WHAT?!?! Is that saying we literally can't go outside our block???
Post by: Joseph41 on August 04, 2020, 01:02:48 pm
WHAT?!?! Is that saying we literally can't go outside our block???
If isolating.
Post by: keltingmeith on August 04, 2020, 01:21:33 pm
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 04, 2020, 02:16:11 pm
Post by: keltingmeith on August 04, 2020, 02:55:13 pm
Ok, thank you... I got scared there for a moment, that's all. Nice clear explanation. It just threw me.
Yeah - this is why it's super important to NOT spread misinformation (let me just go kick myself again for not editing my post earlier - we all make mistakes and are not being reproach, oops). Not even out of "protecting the government" or "stopping alerting the sheeple" or whatever other thing is being said about what the "government isn't telling us" - it's to avoid scaring people, just like you were scared a moment ago. (Also, this isn't me calling anyone out or saying anything directly at you - it's just a general observation)
Post by: Sine on August 05, 2020, 11:58:10 am
Here is the journal article: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/victorias-response-resurgence-covid-19-has-averted-9000-37000-cases-july-2020
For reference the basic reproduction number (R0) is how many new cases are likely generated via one case in a population. i.e. how many people does someone with COVID-19 give it to during their infection. Before the lockdowns it was 1.75 (on average 1 person spreads it to 1.75 people) and after the number was 1.16. So from this it seems like the lockdowns were effective but just not enough. If we are able to get the R0 value below 1 we would be able to see a drop in new cases each day.
From the article:
Quote
Assuming a 4-day generation interval as reported (4), these growth rates correspond to effective pre- and post-intervention reproduction ratios (Reff) of 1.75 and 1.16.
Quote
The model projected 27,000 cases (95% CI: 17,000 to 45,000) would occur from July 1 to 30 if the growth rate had continued unchanged (Reff 1.75), as opposed to the 8,314 cases diagnosed in Victoria during this period.
Quote
Our results show that the control measures introduced by the Victorian Government in early July were highly effective in reducing the resurgence in COVID-19 transmission, leading to a reduction in Reff from an estimated 1.75 to 1.16. Despite this reduction, Victoria is still experiencing a slow but significant ongoing post-intervention growth in cases. To achieve a genuine “flattening of the curve” (Reff<1), a further 14% reduction in transmission is needed.
Quote
In conclusion, the control measures introduced in Victoria from 1 July reduced the transmission of COVID-19, averting 9,000–37,000 infections between 2 and 30 July. Importantly, however, there remains small but significant ongoing growth with further work needed to bring the Victorian epidemic under control. A broader and sustainable effort, involving community and government together is needed to optimise the uptake of all of the non-pharmaceutical interventions available to us.
Post by: keltingmeith on August 08, 2020, 07:30:42 am
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 08, 2020, 11:35:24 am
Post by: keltingmeith on August 08, 2020, 11:43:27 am
Post by: Poet on August 08, 2020, 12:20:49 pm
Anyone else struggling to watch the toll this seems to be taking on Dan Andrews? Like damn, I almost feel like he's lost years off of his life the way the press are hounding him over things he can't answer (something something damn Murdoch press something), I just want to give him a big hug :'(Definitely. The guy hasn't had a single day off in literally months. Imagine waking up every morning knowing that you have to stand in front of your people and give them news they criticise you for when hindsight is always 20/20. I wouldn't be able to do it, and I applaud his stamina and strength. The decisions he's made as a leader show that he cares for the lives of the people he leads.
466 new cases in Victoria today, with 12 deaths overnight including a man in his 30s. That's a frightening number to be faced with every day for the next 2 weeks, but hopefully it drops significantly after that and stage 4 (Metro) and stage 3 (Victoria) can be lifted within the prospective time-frame.
Post by: Sine on August 08, 2020, 03:52:13 pm
466 new cases in Victoria today, with 12 deaths overnight including a man in his 30s. That's a frightening number to be faced with every day for the next 2 weeks, but hopefully it drops significantly after that and stage 4 (Metro) and stage 3 (Victoria) can be lifted within the prospective time-frame.I think the restrictions will be enough to cause a drop in cases/deaths over time.
A big challenge will be when we get our new cases/death numbers down and people start crying to have everything opened up. I would still want to be very cautious and slowly open up what we can given an outbreak can occur at any time. Also, if we open up before it is completely eliminated we should be prepared for the possibility of a "3rd wave".
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 08, 2020, 06:10:08 pm
I think the restrictions will be enough to cause a drop in cases/deaths over time.The restrictions will only be enough if everyone abides by them... we need to eliminate, not just get back down to 20s or something, or there will be a third wave.
A big challenge will be when we get our new cases/death numbers down and people start crying to have everything opened up. I would still want to be very cautious and slowly open up what we can given an outbreak can occur at any time. Also, if we open up before it is completely eliminated we should be prepared for the possibility of a "3rd wave".
Also, we just don't know enough about this disease to make truly informed decisions!
Post by: keltingmeith on August 11, 2020, 07:54:23 pm
Post by: a weaponized ikea chair on August 11, 2020, 08:04:49 pm
After over 100 days of no community transmission, New Zealand suddenly has 4 cases appear out of nowhere - all in the same house. Just another example of why eradication may not be as feasible as some think, regardless of how much it's wanted. What do others think of this insane news?Sorry if I come off too strong in my opinion but:
I think people need to stop thinking that one day the virus will magically disappear and everyone will live happily ever after. This will not happen, at least any time soon. As long as there is testing, you will find cases. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks we should stop testing *cough* trump *cough*, but this virus is here to stay for at least another six months or more until a vaccine is discovered. Here's what I think will happen: I don't think this virus will ever go away. I think it will just be something that we have to live with forever, kinda like with the "flu season" but with the "coronavirus season".
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on August 11, 2020, 09:31:09 pm
Post by: turinturambar on August 11, 2020, 09:42:57 pm
Apart from being a new strain, is there anything different about this one to SARS? I mean, we got rid of that.
Absolutely. SARS was somewhat more deadly, but less contagious, and in particular lacked the killer feature of Covid-19: Presymptomatic transmission. As a result it was (I understand) much easier to track (temperature checks, for example, as well as contact tracing when case numbers were small), and we only know of a little over 8,000 cases worldwide. Incidentally, MERS is another coronavirus that is further along that spectrum - more deadly, but harder to catch.
Post by: K888 on August 11, 2020, 09:50:42 pm
I'd definitely recommend reading scientific journals and information from reputable websites though to get more information, and not just take whatever is said on AN as fact.
Post by: eloisegrace on August 11, 2020, 10:22:48 pm
i know i have made a few speculations and i could be wrong for all i know but i am basing this of the 7 day average trends and the time since lockdown and masks have been enforced
Post by: Sine on August 13, 2020, 12:27:29 pm
I feel like it is less about the new cases and the way that they respond (e.g. going straight back into lockdown for Auckland). It was always a possibility it would come back to NZ given they were still bringing in return travellers and imports. However, being 3 months COVID-19 free and going back into lockdown is better than giving up and letting the virus spread.
Some people use the term eradication poorly but I think they mean no community transmission which is fair and what we should aim for in Australia.
Post by: keltingmeith on August 13, 2020, 12:33:11 pm
I want to be very clear on this - while the idea sounds hopeful, there's a lot of reasons to think this is not the vaccine that will save us. I've very specifically chosen that article to link the information here, because the title itself already identifies an issue with the vaccine - they skipped important human trials, and only did testing on less than 200 people - that's a really, really, REALLY small amount for medical research. The current plan is to effectively use the entire Russian populace as their stage 3 testing, which is testing to make sure that the vaccine is effective across a wide group of people and to check for any disadvantageous side-effects.
Tbh, normally I wouldn't spread this information, but I'm putting it here so that I can warn people not to be hopeful - because I imagine this information will be doing the rounds nearly everywhere soon enough.
Post by: turinturambar on August 29, 2020, 11:16:57 pm
This is why I've repeatedly questioned whether elimination (rather than aggressive suppression) is even possible. It is not acceptable to keep people out who have a right to be in Australia (I'm already not happy with the limits on number of people returning and with how people on temporary visas have been treated). And no quarantine system, no matter how carefully run, is ever going to be 100% perfect. Maybe our quarantine system in Victoria was worse than others - I haven't been keeping up with the inquiry too closely, though it sounds like some bad stories have been coming out - but I believe most or all of our cases originally trace back to one or two quarantine breaches, and we know of multiple quarantine breaches in other jurisdictions. Maybe we handled those worse, or maybe we just got unlucky.
But to me the more concerning thing is how the contact tracing etc. worked after the breach, because NSW's experience - difficult, but just about keeping on top of numbers - is much more how I expected Victoria's to go.
Post by: K888 on August 30, 2020, 11:14:06 am
But to me the more concerning thing is how the contact tracing etc. worked after the breach, because NSW's experience - difficult, but just about keeping on top of numbers - is much more how I expected Victoria's to go.This reflects the capacity and structure of the respective health departments imo. NSW and VIC have differently structured departments and health systems.
I also think NSW have had the benefit of seeing the second wave in VIC and realising they needed to pre-emptively boost their contact tracing teams, whereas in VIC it's all been reactive to the situation. In VIC I don't think we've been helped by complacency from how we managed the first wave - we just assumed what we were doing would be fine for the second wave, which hasn't been the case.
Post by: Sine on September 02, 2020, 12:15:34 pm
Obviously, none of this is unexpected but it probably should also be noted Australia was in a per capita recession around 2018/2019.
Any thoughts on this?
Posting in this thread for now but may split later if necessary.
Post by: turinturambar on September 02, 2020, 06:30:59 pm
Everyone will probably be hearing about this everywhere today. Australia is "officially" in recession, for the first time in nearly 30 years, following a 0.3% drop in GDP in the March quarter and a 7% drop in GDP for the June quarter.
Obviously, none of this is unexpected but it probably should also be noted Australia was in a per capita recession around 2018/2019.
It's also worth noting that we were expecting a GDP drop in the March quarter as a result of the summer bush-fires before Covid-19 really hit Australia. If anything, the early panic buying of toilet paper and other such essentials reduced the March quarter drop, and IIRC in a "normal" year March quarter might have dropped more, but June quarter probably a lot less.
At least we got our government surplus this year, because that's all that counts, right? :P
What's that? We didn't get it? Are all the sacrifices going to be for nothing?
Post by: eloisegrace on September 06, 2020, 11:27:35 am
Post by: Sine on September 06, 2020, 01:07:52 pm
Dan Andrews is speaking at midday with a proposed roadmap for Victorians. Any guesses as to what this will be?Roadmap has been released now
https://www.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-covid-19-restrictions-roadmap-metro-melbourne?fbclid=IwAR2w54dqIxmvialnruAS2hT-V35dLtNBRHgr26R4mhQB52LlNHivtNV6CZE
Looks like they have opted for case average AND time trigger points to move through the stages of "reopening".
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Post by: J_Rho on September 06, 2020, 02:15:16 pm
Post by: Sine on September 23, 2020, 04:06:29 pm
The government suggested they will be easing restrictions on Sunday (and possibly be more relaxed than anticipated in the "roadmap").
What changes, if any, outside the normal "roadmap" would everyone like to see?
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on September 23, 2020, 05:13:41 pm
Great to see that the numbers are going down in Victoria but there is still a long way to go so hopefully we don't get complacent.I want to be able to see my immediate family. I understand reasoning as to why they wouldn't allow family gatherings, but still. :)
The government suggested they will be easing restrictions on Sunday (and possibly be more relaxed than anticipated in the "roadmap").
What changes, if any, outside the normal "roadmap" would everyone like to see?
Post by: Coolgalbornin03Lo on September 23, 2020, 05:20:28 pm
What changes, if any, outside the normal "roadmap" would everyone like to see?
5km bubble removed so my mum can get something from the shops for me! (It’s not essential). other than that I don’t really care, people are overrated :P except on zoom you can shut the laptop lid if there’s a conversation and you don’t feel like it lol
Post by: Bri MT on September 23, 2020, 05:37:38 pm
Great to see that the numbers are going down in Victoria but there is still a long way to go so hopefully we don't get complacent.
The government suggested they will be easing restrictions on Sunday (and possibly be more relaxed than anticipated in the "roadmap").
What changes, if any, outside the normal "roadmap" would everyone like to see?
It'd be cool to have household bubbles implemented early since being in a sharehouse + no intimate partner means I haven't been able to visit anyone. I understand that might not be feasible but yeah that.
Post by: keltingmeith on October 27, 2020, 03:33:31 pm
On top of that, still only allowed up to 10 in a public space - but no more household limit on the 10!! This is very nice. This is very happy making me. Can finally meet up with all my friends.
Also, twitter is great right now. #NoBeersForScotty and #NoBeersForNewsCorp are both trending, and it's hilarious
Post by: sweetiepi on October 27, 2020, 03:34:57 pm
In Melbourne, you can have 1 visiting event per day with up to 2 adults (and any dependents that need to come) from the same household per day. This means that if you visit your friend, you can't visit any other house, and they can't have anyone else visit. Slightly more complicated than the bubble IMO, but the flexibility is really nice - particularly being in a sharehouse.Also trending was Kmart and #GetOnTheBeers 😂
On top of that, still only allowed up to 10 in a public space - but no more household limit on the 10!! This is very nice. This is very happy making me. Can finally meet up with all my friends.
Also, twitter is great right now. #NoBeersForScotty and #NoBeersForNewsCorp are both trending, and it's hilarious
Post by: AngelWings on October 27, 2020, 05:37:22 pm
Also trending was Kmart and #GetOnTheBeers 😂How about doughnuts and related hashtags? I heard that doughnuts were free at a couple of places yesterday to celebrate the lack of new cases, but not sure if truth or myth.
On a public transport note of things, literally the next day after Dan Andrews mentioned “businesses can reopen” (this morning), the train was the most packed I’ve seen it in months. (I’ve been taking public transport regularly during the entire pandemic, as I’m an “essential worker”.) That says a lot.
Granted, the train was 5 mins late, but for a train before peak hour and on a relatively OK (not too busy, not too empty) line, it was strange to not get a socially distanced seat and have to stand for once.
I just hope the coronavirus cases don’t rise much again with the (somewhat gradual) reopening of metro Melbourne.
Post by: sweetiepi on October 27, 2020, 07:23:38 pm
On a public transport note of things, literally the next day after Dan Andrews mentioned “businesses can reopen” (this morning), the train was the most packed I’ve seen it in months. (I’ve been taking public transport regularly during the entire pandemic, as I’m an “essential worker”.) That says a lot.This is why I'm rerouting myself out of the city for the rest of the week, because I'm terrified of being back to packed trains (I'm going to swap out at North Melbourne and go via Upfield line instead of via Flinders/Loop). Both my trains today were empty, and so was the bus to/from Royal Park though, so hopefully still as good tomorrow!
It appears that "peak" time where it's not so distanced on my line is around 2:30ish atm - which makes sense given I think that's when most inner-city kids knock off haha.
I just want to go to my grandma's - I can't recall a single time I've seen her this year, even before COVID :(
Post by: sweetiepi on October 28, 2020, 08:37:31 am
Post by: Sine on October 28, 2020, 11:59:00 am
Day 1, peak hour of new rules: there's a few more people on my train (I count 11 including myself at Footscray), but all properly distanced. Shame that a few people still have their noses out of masks though.Hopefully, everyone maintains social distancing and continue to wear masks. I think with social distancing people generally do it when it is really easy to do with a small amount of people but once it starts getting more crowded people tend not to go out of their way to make distance.
Post by: turinturambar on October 28, 2020, 09:54:04 pm
How about doughnuts and related hashtags? I heard that doughnuts were free at a couple of places yesterday to celebrate the lack of new cases, but not sure if truth or myth.
I didn't hear about the donut thing till yesterday, went looking in my local grocery store, and found some Halloween donuts. Maybe a mixed message, but they're really nice donuts :)
Quote
On a public transport note of things, literally the next day after Dan Andrews mentioned “businesses can reopen” (this morning), the train was the most packed I’ve seen it in months. (I’ve been taking public transport regularly during the entire pandemic, as I’m an “essential worker”.) That says a lot.
Hopefully, everyone maintains social distancing and continue to wear masks. I think with social distancing people generally do it when it is really easy to do with a small amount of people but once it starts getting more crowded people tend not to go out of their way to make distance.
I think if we ever get the fabled "office workers able to work from home can return" message, like was originally planned for July, we may have masking on trains but won't have capacity for social distancing. But I'm assuming the government will be even more cautious with that than they were in June, so who knows when or if it will happen.
Post by: blueycan on November 05, 2020, 10:35:33 pm
Post by: Sine on November 06, 2020, 03:01:27 pm
Not Aus related but the US has reported 102,831 new COVID-19 infections as of today. Their first six-figure number since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.Record was broken again today: 118k cases
Post by: Sine on November 11, 2020, 01:40:12 pm
Post by: Ujiron on December 24, 2020, 05:00:46 am
Post by: AngelWings on December 24, 2020, 10:54:36 am
Any news on the new virus in UK? Is it really bad there?Did you mean the new strain of COVID-19 in the UK?
Here’s a link to an article about it, but basically it’s currently believed to have originated from South Africa, some travellers who came from Britain have got said strain in Australia (but AFAIK, they’re in quarantine) and it’s said to be 70% more transmissible (i.e. 70% more likely to “catch” it).
In terms of situation in UK, they’ve been coming in and out of lockdown. Case numbers are still worsening there. Here’s an article on the situation there. :(
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on February 12, 2021, 02:08:00 pm
Post by: Duck Tails on February 12, 2021, 02:16:20 pm
Any much news on the new lockdown in Victoria?
5 day lockdown. Stage 4 restrictions (only leave home for 4 essential reasons) from midnight tonight.
Well this is shit.
Post by: s110820 on February 12, 2021, 03:21:27 pm
5 day lockdown. Stage 4 restrictions (only leave home for 4 essential reasons) from midnight tonight.
Well this is shit.
Oh wow that definitely sucks. I feel really bad for you guys :(
Post by: Sine on May 27, 2021, 12:21:57 pm
- The usual 4 reasons to leave home + for vaccination
- Masks to be worn at all times (except for when you are at home)
- Exercise/Shopping limited to a 5 Km radius
- Shopping limited to 1 person per day for each household
- Childcare/Kinder to remain open
- Schools close (except for some select children)
Post by: Stormbreaker-X on May 27, 2021, 05:32:30 pm
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on May 27, 2021, 09:02:56 pm
Post by: Sine on June 28, 2021, 06:59:06 pm
Post by: fun_jirachi on June 28, 2021, 07:09:14 pm
Definitely hearing of struggle and/or outcry depending on who you ask. And judging by the amount of toilet paper left in supermarkets, everybody's gone a bit too hard on the laxatives
Post by: Coolmate on June 28, 2021, 07:48:53 pm
How is everyone in NSW feeling?
It has been ok, I miss the gym, but I am rediscovering old hobbies and learning new things that I have wanted to learn before and starting some projects as well. Masks are starting to feel like second nature as well
Coolmate 8)
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 20, 2021, 12:27:34 pm
How is everyone feeling about it?
Post by: lm21074 on July 20, 2021, 12:43:37 pm
Post by: pans on July 20, 2021, 01:06:20 pm
So, Victoria's under another seven days of lockdown, eh?
How is everyone feeling about it?
actually.. pretty good. more time to watch drama and do methods XD. However, its a pity that we are experiencing heavy rain and cant go out for nice sunny walks :(
Post by: The Cat In The Hat on July 20, 2021, 01:18:06 pm
As a Year 12, I'm glad that this lockdown hasn't fallen on a SAC heavy week but I'm also struggling to stay engaged in remote learning.That sounds really tough... it is tough to stay engaged. I hope you find a way that works.
Post by: Nomsie on July 21, 2021, 11:55:10 pm
How is everyone in NSW feeling?
Definitely stressed, with trials right around the corner and all these concluding events I was not expecting it to end like this :(