breaking covid rules

[woodPixel]

The decision was announced by the Premier at the 20th August press conference and was slated to come into effect from Monday 23rd together with the curfew laws. I suppose it was to give people a small space of time to get things in order. I, for one, would prefer to see these changes come into effect from midnight on the day they are announced.

This is EXACTLY what happened in Wuhan. Exactly.

This is why the world now suffers.

[ian]

The decision was announced by the Premier at the 20th August [a Friday] press conference and was slated to come into effect from Monday 23rd together with the curfew laws. I suppose it was to give people a small space of time to get things in order. I, for one, would prefer to see these changes come into effect from midnight on the day they are announced.

I suspect that it's more a case of the decision [to lock down more strongly] was made a few minutes before the 11 AM press conference. i.e. the decision to lock down more strongly was not made far enough in advance (like one to two days) to allow the public servants involved the time they need to carefully craft the required lock down regulations.
Just look at what is happening with the "northern border bubble" -- the definitions of which people crossing the NSW-Qld border are considered "essential workers" changes every few days as the applicable regulations are "refined". I also note that while NSW Police may be working cooperatively with Qld Police, the border restrictions apply to people entering Qld, not those entering NSW.


"Dictator Dan" has locked parts of Victoria down five or six times already, so has the required regulations ready to go at essentially a moment's notice.
For NSW, the current lock down is their first experience of a state-wide lockdown and the last thing any of us need is for NSW Supreme Court to toss out a "lock down" regulation as being disproportionate to the threat posed by Covid.
But remember, as sovereign entities, the legislation in each state is sufficiently different as to require careful drafting in each separate case.

[ian]

I would have expected a lot of people to share your view, Ian, but that does not seem to be the case. There is a tremendous amount of debate on the matter and opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in support of the lockdowns and the drawbridge. Many more comments complaining that the government is too lax, especially where the are exemptions from the state border restrictions, and/or quarantine provisions.

Please note that my comments apply particularly to Tasmania which may be a little more insular than the mainland. I do not know of any surveys, but from discussions, my estimate is that at least 80%, possibly 90%, of people support the drawbridge.

the fact that 70 or 80 or even 90 percent of Tasmanians support border "the Tassie drawbridge" doesn't make those people right.

At its core, the Australia Constitution is essentially an agreement that all trade, commerce and intercourse between the states "shall be absolutely free". The principal of free trade requires that the "means of conveyance" be irrelevant and that people, goods, services and communications should move freely across state borders.

In Palmer vs WA, the High Court determined that the s.92 "absolutely free" arguments advanced by Palmer were not relevant to the constitutional question as to the validity of the WA's Emergency Management Act so struck down the s.92 challenge.


If the High Court ultimately determines that the Biosecurity Act and orders made under the several State's Health Acts can freely be used to prevent the interstate movement of people, then God help the Australian notion of what it means to be "free".

Understandable Ian, especially as it seems increasingly pointless, judging by other countries experiences. Hard lockdowns, border closures, are only delaying the inevitable spread. The thing that puzzles me is, what do they think they will do if they do crush the virus #'s to zero? The way they talk in their daily briefings, I get the feeling they think something magical will happen when they get to xx% vaxxed.

It's almost as if Australia is now a victim of its own success over the past year.

Worse.

Even if you are fully vaccinated, the probability that you will end up being so ill (from the Delta variant) that you require hospitalisation is around 1 in 15, and the probability that you will end up in the ICU is about 1 in 20 -- i.e. around 5%

Vaccination, whether with AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna, does not confer immunity from either infection or the ability to transmit the virus.

From what I read and hear on science based broadcasters, the Delta variant while a different more contagious form of the virus, is not a more infectious form of the virus.
(If people can distinguish the difference in meanings between "more contagious" -- e.g. spreads more easily -- and "more infectious" e.g. causes more infections.)

[Warb]

From what I read and hear on science based broadcasters, the Delta variant while a different more contagious form of the virus, is not a more infectious form of the virus.
(If people can distinguish the difference in meanings between "more contagious" -- e.g. spreads more easily -- and "more infectious" e.g. causes more infections.)

Contagious and infectious are often used interchangeably, even by official bodies. While that technically might be incorrect, in fact most data is showing that delta is far more contagious than previous variants, i.e. it spreads more easily.

Contagious means it spreads between people, infectious means it causes an infection (disease). By definition, if it spreads it does so by infecting and so whenever I read "more infectious" I simply interpret it is an inaccurate phrasing of "more contagious". However "more infectious" could refer to the more rapid reproduction of the virus; the data I have seen suggests that delta reproduces far more rapidly than previous strains, and this is suggested to be the reason it is more contagious - a far smaller "dose" is required to guarantee the survival of the virus and its subsequent attack on the body.

There is also the question of the impact of the virus and the severity of symptoms. The data I have read (for example the CDC quoting Scottish and Canadian data) suggests that delta is likely to be more "harmful" than other variants, causing more symptoms and a greater rate of hospitalisation and death. As discussed in a previous post, the difficulty arises because the "total" (un-processed) numbers that are published in the media do not give a true representation of reality. For example, when covid "alpha" first appeared we were completely unprepared. No masks, no isolation, no vaccination and no idea how to treat the patients. Compare that to the current situation, where we have a great deal of experience of dealing with covid, we have masks, lockdowns, social isolation, a fair percentage of people are vaccinated or (possibly) immune through prior exposure. We have now spent nearly two years manufacturing ventilators, training medics and exchanging information about how to combat the disease. Also, being brutally honest, worldwide (not so much in Australia) many of the "easy targets" for covid have already succumbed. So the delta variant is facing a far more "battle hardened" version of the human race (again, not so much in Australia!). Numbers reflecting totals therefore do not give an accurate picture. It is my suspicion, given the data I have seen, that delta is indeed more contagious AND more harmful than alpha, and the only reason that the "total" numbers do not reflect this is that we are slightly better prepared and the (forgive me) "easy targets" have already fallen.

[Lappa]

"Dictator Dan" has locked parts of Victoria down five or six times already, so has the required regulations ready to go at essentially a moment's notice.
.

Victoria has now been locked down longer than London

[Warb]

I'm getting more and more annoyed by media interviewers trying to push people in to giving definitive answers of "guarantees", and then criticising them later for being "liars" when things don't pan out. It's even more disturbing that so many people seem to jump on the bandwagon, claiming that some individual is a "liar" because what they said was later changed. What is wrong with these people? They clearly have no grasp of the reality of the situation! There is almost nothing in the world that can be guaranteed. Things change, situations evolve and this results in plan changes. If someone says they will arrive at 9am to help, but they have a flat tyre and don't turn up until 10am, should we berate them as a "liar"? Apparently so! When the school bus, which is supposed to arrive at 7.45am, doesn't arrive until 8am because a kid was travel-sick, or another parent was running late, should we make social media posts calling the bus driver a liar and demanding they be sacked?

All those people are trying their best, but changing circumstances result in plans and dates being modified. The politicians are no different. They are taking advice, making decisions and hoping that things go to plan. Sometimes things don't. Sometimes people don't do what they are told, so the desired outcome isn't achieved. Sometimes the best modelling in the world turns out to be inaccurate. If you push someone into giving an absolute response, you are doing so either in the hope you will be able to criticise, or because you have no understanding of what is happening.....

[The above does not excuse all errors, by the way, but a plan changing due to unforeseen events is not "lying"].


On another note. Things I'm surprised I haven't yet seen in the media, number 1:

"Long Novid" - the symptoms of anger, lethargy, despair etc. caused by extended periods of lockdown in areas that don't have cases.

[GraemeCook]

Victoria has now been locked down longer than London

So true, and it shows in the numbers.

Allowing for the differences in population, one measure is covid deaths per million of population:

• United Kingdom - 1,928
• Australia - 38

Essentially, Australia has been 50 times more effective at preventing covid deaths than Britain.

Australia has had too many covid deaths, 984 officially, but if we had avoided lockdowns and had been as effective as Boris then perhaps the death toll would now be approching 50,000! The lockdowns are a pain; the alternative is a lot worse.

There have also been wide variations between the states and even between regions within a state. The figures below are current:

Covid 24-8-21.jpg

[ian]

Things I'm surprised I haven't yet seen in the media, number 1:

"Long Novid" - the symptoms of anger, lethargy, despair etc. caused by extended periods of lockdown in areas that don't have cases.

I would swear that I have seen such a "diagnosis"

[ian]

Allowing for the differences in population, one measure is covid deaths per million of population:

• United Kingdom - 1,928
• Australia - 38

Essentially, Australia has been 50 times more effective at preventing covid deaths than Britain.

of course, the corollary is that the population adjusted infection and death rates are so very very low, that its only the current non-outbreak that is causing people to consider to be vaccinated. And according to Warb, the pharmacy's customers are still asking for the Pfizer "the safe one" rather than accepting the safe vaccine that is available.

[ian]

Australia has had too many Covid deaths, 984 officially, but if we had avoided lockdowns and had been as effective as Boris then perhaps the death toll would now be approaching 50,000! The lockdowns are a pain; the alternative is a lot worse.

There have also been wide variations between the states and even between regions within a state. The figures below are current:

Covid 24-8-21.jpg

Increasingly, I'm finding these sorts of "league tables" to be of only marginal utility.


Don't forget, that once Boris was "convinced" that achieving herd immunity by letting Covid rip was a really bad idea (and I suspect his advisors might have had to channel Yes, Prime Minister to convince him) he did lock London down.


Sweden, which from what I read has adopted a "low touch" approach, might be a better example -- 109,779 cases per million, and 1438 deaths per million.


Serum testing in LA county suggests that 1 in 2 Americans have been exposed to the virus, so that would adjust the US's numbers to 500,000 cases per million.



IMO, in Australia it's well beyond time that we stopped reporting raw case numbers, and instead focused on the impact the endemic is having on the health system.

Unfortunately for Australia, our various governments used the period (March 2020 to June 2021) when we were all exalted to help flatten Covid's pandemic curve, to not even think about, let alone plan for, what must come next.

From what I can see from this distance, there has been no attempt to bolster the various health system to cater for a permanent increase in hospitalisations due to Covid infections -- even with a high level of vaccination, 1 in 15, perhaps as many as 1 in 10 people infected with Covid will require hospitalisation.
Where is the Government's plan to permanently increase (and staff) the number of hospital beds that will be required? From what I can see it hasn't even been considered.


Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the rest of the world has accepted that Covid is now endemic.

But I'm reluctant to group New Zealand with Australia. NZ, being NZ, have probably started on bolstering their health system to cope.

[ian]

I'm getting more and more annoyed by media interviewers trying to push people in to giving definitive answers of "guarantees", and then criticising them later for being "liars" when things don't pan out.
[snip]
All those people are trying their best, but changing circumstances result in plans and dates being modified. The politicians are no different. They are taking advice, making decisions and hoping that things go to plan. Sometimes things don't. Sometimes people don't do what they are told, so the desired outcome isn't achieved. Sometimes the best modelling in the world turns out to be inaccurate. If you push someone into giving an absolute response, you are doing so either in the hope you will be able to criticise, or because you have no understanding of what is happening.....

the Military fully accept that the best plan will never survive the first shot

[woodPixel]

First - Imagine 50,000 dead Australians from COVID.

Second - S92 of the constitution is a mess. Here is an excellent synopsis: https://auspublaw.org/2020/06/border...-constitution/

[GraemeCook]

... Increasingly, I'm finding these sorts of "league tables" to be of only marginal utility. ...

An inconvenient truth!

... Don't forget, that once Boris was "convinced" that achieving herd immunity by letting Covid rip was a really bad idea (and I suspect his advisors might have had to channel Yes, Prime Minister to convince him) he did lock London down. ...

Meanwhile, 130,000 Brits died.

And yesterday, there were only 31,914 new cases and 40 deaths. Hardly getting on top of the problem.

[Warb]

And according to Warb, the pharmacy's customers are still asking for the Pfizer "the safe one" rather than accepting the safe vaccine that is available.

It is being reported that there are 10,000 AZ vaccination appointments cancelled EVERY DAY in Victoria, because people would rather wait for Pfizer.

[Bushmiller]

Much of the attitude towards this pandemic depends on what is considered acceptable. Australia really has said that even a single death is unacceptable while some countries, such as the US, the UK and many others have taken the deliberate approach reminiscent of "natural attrition." Other counties have had this attitude forced upon them: Brazil for example.

One of the early concerns apart from death and unpleasant illness was the overspill of health facilities. I think Ian mentioned this and much of our efforts at constraining the virus were to prevent the health facilities becoming overwhelmed. Triage was a real fear and one that no health system should be confronted with. We do seem to have forgotten that. Dying out on the pavement in the forecourt of a hospital seems an inglorious way to depart.

Regards
Paul