am Bays wrote:Trader wrote:am Bays wrote:That's basically what NSW tried. it's the emergence of the, 3rd and 4th generation of spreaders (close contacts of generation one and two) of who aren't in isolation or having limitation on on their movements because their infection was unknown at the time is what is allowing to spread.
The quick hard lockdown helps gets it contained initially then you can start lifting in a controlled manner which is what Stevens and Marshall implied they would like to be able to announce on Tuesday
Trader you know that there are going to be negative tests on day one who on day five are possibly going to come back positive this may create more sites of concern.
Restrictions (preferred)/lockdowns help control the spread initially. The known unknowns out in the community when it first emerges.
As you said 100 pages back probably, the testing is only accurate to the to 48-72 hours before the swab, hence why the testing of contacts needs to occur several times over 14 days.
NSW lost control as they didn't chase down the close contacts. They blurred the line between contacts of close contacts and the general public. They haven't isolated rings 2 and 3.
We are different. As I said in my post, isolate rings 2 and 3, lock them up for 14 days and you'll get no complaints from me. But that's 4,000 people, not 1.5million.
Sure, if we lose control of the contact tracing and then can't be confident we have rings 2 and 3 under control, sure, look for some restrictions (like stage 2, 3 or 4) at that point in time.
We have the initial rings under control yet have still imposed stage 5 lockdowns on everyone.
Agreed, there will be more +ve cases come out who were -ve on day 1 and +ve on day 5 or even 13. But these are people from ring 2, at worst ring 3. None of them will come from ring 4, so why is ring 4 in stage 5 lockdown?
Ring 1, 2 and 3 can go into 14 day iso, ring 4 should have level 2 restrictions if they want added protection, not level 5.
I hear what you are saying I still don't think that controls effectively for the emergence of exposure sites in the initial phase of an outbreak with the contract tracing period where we know a fleeting contact could infect others (unexplained exposure of people sitting in different areas of AAMI stadium Melb). Or in other words we still don't know if we've identified all the relevant people in Rings two and three.
The ring four people you're identifying could actually have Ring two and three outliers still in them which is why I'm referencing the NSW example as you suggested
Where I think what you are suggesting has merit is a quicker transition out of lockdown/severe restrictions of those once there is greater certainty of containment.
Seriously I would like this to be over ASAP and life in SA can get back to what it was like in June this year. I want SANFL footy to return.
I have airfares booked and paid for, for September.....
Don't forget, that just cause someone is currently in ring 4, doesn't mean we can't move them into ring 1,2 or 3 in the future should they be identified at a later date.
The other thing I don't understand is why the last lockdown they only needed 3 days, yet this time they want 7?
Lets not forget, the only ring we have to identify is ring 1. Rings 2 and 3 are protections, if there are ring 3 people who are in ring 4, that's not an issue until they should have been ring 1 (are positive).
So far, everyone in ring 1 (the 15 positives), were all identified as having attended one of the two spreading events by Monday night, before the lockdown even started.
No one has been identified that we needed to post the lockdown starting.
So the lockdown could have been zero days and we would have been fine. Giving them a couple of days to find some more is one thing, but giving them 7 full days? Why?
And now that we are three days down the track, why is everyone in tier 4 still in lockdown?
Once again, not saying tier 2 or 3 should be let out early, leave them in 14 day iso. Also not saying we can't bring more people into tiers 1,2 or 3 if they happen to be identified over the coming days, but to keep 1.5m people in 7 day lockdown (and the threat of extension) is not proportional to a virus that 24,999 out of 25,000 healthy people survive.