Coronavirus (Covid19)

[Dutchy]

Hopefully this is the warning shot that stops the bloody planes coming in

Not going to happen and nor should it, however the way we handle it should be.

[am Bays]

Hopefully this is the warning shot that stops the bloody planes coming in

Won't stop the planes.

The old guy got it when he was in hospital in NSW.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

it's not known

"From genomic testing, South Australian authorities suspect the man contracted the virus in Sydney, but do not know where. There is no record of positive cases in the medi-hotel where he quarantined, nor any record of positive cases among staff at the hospital." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/ ... /100310002

He could've got it as part of the community spread that is currently occurring in NSW.

[am Bays]

Hopefully this is the warning shot that stops the bloody planes coming in

Not going to happen and nor should it, however the way we handle it should be.

Yep time for quarantine facilities in key southern states based on the Howard Springs model. Stop the medi-hotels. Let us travel and give them business and keep the economy moving

[Brodlach]

Testing line at the Repat is a third it was yesterday

[MW]

covid isnt going anywhere. Whats our trigger for "normality" when we can live with this virus in the community? certain % of vaccinated people?

[Dutchy]

Not a fan of Bolt, but this is a great article -

We’ve got to finally ask, now that 14 million of us are locked down: how many Australians can we let die so the rest of us can live free?

Would 10 deaths a day be too many? Five? Or one?

Or is that why millions of us can’t leave home? Why children in Victoria have already missed half a year of in-class schooling? Why thousands of businesses are ruined, and crying people ring psychologists and helplines saying they can’t cope?

All that, to stop even one Australian a day from dying of this virus?

If true, we’ll never again ask our army to fight for our freedom. We’d rather live in tyranny than have even one soldier die.

But look overseas. Britain on Tuesday recorded 96 people dying of the virus. No lockdown.

Germany had 13. No lockdown. Italy 10. No lockdown. The US had 36.

Many Australians are now so virus phobic that they’ll say, see, those figures prove we’re right to crack down so hard. Here, five people have already died in this latest outbreak, all in NSW. Too many! Without lockdowns, it would be even more.

That’s probably true. Sure, there may be better ways to fight this virus, but it’s a lie to say targeted lockdowns can’t limit infections.

Nor is it true that this virus is “just like the flu”. My daughter has it, and says it’s worse than any flu she’s known.

But the five deaths in this outbreak are like the 910 before. They’re overwhelmingly of the very old and vulnerable – two women in their 90s, a man in his late 80s, a man in his 70s and a 56-year-old woman who for some unexplained reason was not taken to hospital and was found dead at home.

None deserved to die, but all – I suspect – could have been better protected, not least by themselves. We’ve been told little about these dead, but at least one of the women in her 90s had not got herself vaccinated. Nor had 24 of the 27 people in intensive care in NSW.

How much longer should we be locked up to predominantly save people who will not save themselves?

I know, every death is sad. Yet we seem weirdly sorrier if someone dies of this virus.

We used to accept the 1000 to 2000 deaths each year from the flu as a fair price for the freedom to carry on.

We still consider the more than 1100 people who die on our roads each year an acceptable price for our freedom to drive. We think 6000 deaths from alcohol each year is a bargain for the freedom to drink.

Yet just one virus death of a 90-year-old is a national tragedy, to be announced at a press conference as justification for making Australians stay at home.

Blame much of this fear on the exaggerations of “experts”.

Victoria’s chief health officer, Brett Sutton, absurdly boasted that his restrictions last year saved the lives of 36,000 Victorians. Paul Kelly, Australia’s chief medical officer, last year predicted between 50,000 and 150,000 deaths.

Professor Raina MacIntyre, from the University of NSW, trumped them all, predicting “up to 400,000 people dying” from a virus that’s in fact killed fewer than 1000 of us.

When experts exaggerate danger so wildly, no wonder Australians accept even wilder precautions.

Yes, lockdowns can be needed when contact tracers or hospitals are overwhelmed, but most lockdowns this year were patently useless, with cities shut for just one or two infections.

Even today’s lockdowns cannot all be necessary. The South Australian and Victorian governments have locked down their whole states, even rural towns which have never had an infection, while NSW more wisely locked down only country areas – three – where there’s some real risk.

But Australians seem so blinded by terror that they can’t work out what risks are acceptable to avoid a lockdown.

That’s partly because those who suffer most from lockdowns are people we don’t see or hear.

I’m told horror stories every day by professionals whose job is to counsel the poor, disturbed, abused and lonely – often now cut off from meaningful contact with others by lockdowns that in Melbourne total 179 days already.

I think also of the children from loveless homes, supposedly now getting at-home schooling with the help of drunk, drugged, violent or just absent parents. How many are now lost to us or forever behind?

There’s no real life without risk. So how many deaths would we accept, just to live again?

[am Bays]

Not a fan of Bolt, but this is a great article -

There’s no real life without risk. So how many deaths would we accept, just to live again?

Agree the risk must be managed but is the risk acceptable when their are still critical known unknowns, i.e people out in the community who can pass it on and identified controls (checking in) not being followed and in some cases openly mocked on social media??

[Senor Moto Gadili]

covid isnt going anywhere. Whats our trigger for "normality" when we can live with this virus in the community? certain % of vaccinated people?

Surely the key is getting the vaccination rate to an acceptable level. England have 68% of adults fully vaccinated and they have relaxed their restrictions. We won't get to that level for quite a few months, so we will be able to learn from the English experience. Unless the Feds or States change their approach we are going to live with these lockdowns for a while yet. The Feds have finally acknowledged it is a race, but they are non committal on where the vaccination rate needs to be to avoid lock down.

[Apachebulldog]

Not a fan of Bolt, but this is a great article -

We’ve got to finally ask, now that 14 million of us are locked down: how many Australians can we let die so the rest of us can live free?

Would 10 deaths a day be too many? Five? Or one?

Or is that why millions of us can’t leave home? Why children in Victoria have already missed half a year of in-class schooling? Why thousands of businesses are ruined, and crying people ring psychologists and helplines saying they can’t cope?

All that, to stop even one Australian a day from dying of this virus?

If true, we’ll never again ask our army to fight for our freedom. We’d rather live in tyranny than have even one soldier die.

But look overseas. Britain on Tuesday recorded 96 people dying of the virus. No lockdown.

Germany had 13. No lockdown. Italy 10. No lockdown. The US had 36.

Many Australians are now so virus phobic that they’ll say, see, those figures prove we’re right to crack down so hard. Here, five people have already died in this latest outbreak, all in NSW. Too many! Without lockdowns, it would be even more.

That’s probably true. Sure, there may be better ways to fight this virus, but it’s a lie to say targeted lockdowns can’t limit infections.

Nor is it true that this virus is “just like the flu”. My daughter has it, and says it’s worse than any flu she’s known.

But the five deaths in this outbreak are like the 910 before. They’re overwhelmingly of the very old and vulnerable – two women in their 90s, a man in his late 80s, a man in his 70s and a 56-year-old woman who for some unexplained reason was not taken to hospital and was found dead at home.

None deserved to die, but all – I suspect – could have been better protected, not least by themselves. We’ve been told little about these dead, but at least one of the women in her 90s had not got herself vaccinated. Nor had 24 of the 27 people in intensive care in NSW.

How much longer should we be locked up to predominantly save people who will not save themselves?

I know, every death is sad. Yet we seem weirdly sorrier if someone dies of this virus.

We used to accept the 1000 to 2000 deaths each year from the flu as a fair price for the freedom to carry on.

We still consider the more than 1100 people who die on our roads each year an acceptable price for our freedom to drive. We think 6000 deaths from alcohol each year is a bargain for the freedom to drink.

Yet just one virus death of a 90-year-old is a national tragedy, to be announced at a press conference as justification for making Australians stay at home.

Blame much of this fear on the exaggerations of “experts”.

Victoria’s chief health officer, Brett Sutton, absurdly boasted that his restrictions last year saved the lives of 36,000 Victorians. Paul Kelly, Australia’s chief medical officer, last year predicted between 50,000 and 150,000 deaths.

Professor Raina MacIntyre, from the University of NSW, trumped them all, predicting “up to 400,000 people dying” from a virus that’s in fact killed fewer than 1000 of us.

When experts exaggerate danger so wildly, no wonder Australians accept even wilder precautions.

Yes, lockdowns can be needed when contact tracers or hospitals are overwhelmed, but most lockdowns this year were patently useless, with cities shut for just one or two infections.

Even today’s lockdowns cannot all be necessary. The South Australian and Victorian governments have locked down their whole states, even rural towns which have never had an infection, while NSW more wisely locked down only country areas – three – where there’s some real risk.

But Australians seem so blinded by terror that they can’t work out what risks are acceptable to avoid a lockdown.

That’s partly because those who suffer most from lockdowns are people we don’t see or hear.

I’m told horror stories every day by professionals whose job is to counsel the poor, disturbed, abused and lonely – often now cut off from meaningful contact with others by lockdowns that in Melbourne total 179 days already.

I think also of the children from loveless homes, supposedly now getting at-home schooling with the help of drunk, drugged, violent or just absent parents. How many are now lost to us or forever behind?

There’s no real life without risk. So how many deaths would we accept, just to live again?

Yes i am a fan of my mate Bolt been following him for years.

Key points from article

We used to accept the 1000 to 2000 deaths each year from the flu as a fair price for the freedom to carry on.

Blame much of this fear on the exaggerations of “experts”.

But Australians seem so blinded by terror that they can’t work out what risks are acceptable to avoid a lockdown.


Its a shame some of the lefties on here and the rest of Australia do not read his investigative articles for a bit of insight and alternative point of view.

All are too busy and good at attacking the man and not the story.

[Apachebulldog]

On a lighter note how is every one coping being at home RUOK ???

This old bloke has dug out his Call of Duty and Battlefield V and is having a great time.

[amber_fluid]

On a lighter note how is every one coping being at home RUOK ???

This old bloke has dug out his Call of Duty and Battlefield V and is having a great time.

I’m a bit bored so:

A4A2382E-10F3-49B4-8306-B4F524673782.jpeg (84.62 KiB) Viewed 6996 times

[Apachebulldog]

This i think might explain Daisys previous article why so many people are ending up in hospital in the UK from Delta 21 Virus.

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/pfizer- ... dy-1034695

[locky801]

On a lighter note how is every one coping being at home RUOK ???

This old bloke has dug out his Call of Duty and Battlefield V and is having a great time.

I'm fine, my work intake has doubled, working harder now than pre lockdown, last 2 days 5 jobs each day, love it

[whufc]

Not really anything ground breaking and as already anticipated by some on here, the Governments plans are for a very cautious approach to easing the restrictions.

The best we can hope for next week is to be reduced down to level 4.

This comes from as close to the horses mouth as you get.

[amber_fluid]

Not really anything ground breaking and as already anticipated by some on here, the Governments plans are for a very cautious approach to easing the restrictions.

The best we can hope for next week is to be reduced down to level 4.

This comes from as close to the horses mouth as you get.

Can’t see them reducing to level 4 next week.
The following week maybe?

[gadj1976]

Not a fan of Bolt, but this is a great article -

We’ve got to finally ask, now that 14 million of us are locked down: how many Australians can we let die so the rest of us can live free?

Would 10 deaths a day be too many? Five? Or one?

Or is that why millions of us can’t leave home? Why children in Victoria have already missed half a year of in-class schooling? Why thousands of businesses are ruined, and crying people ring psychologists and helplines saying they can’t cope?

All that, to stop even one Australian a day from dying of this virus?

If true, we’ll never again ask our army to fight for our freedom. We’d rather live in tyranny than have even one soldier die.

But look overseas. Britain on Tuesday recorded 96 people dying of the virus. No lockdown.

Germany had 13. No lockdown. Italy 10. No lockdown. The US had 36.

Many Australians are now so virus phobic that they’ll say, see, those figures prove we’re right to crack down so hard. Here, five people have already died in this latest outbreak, all in NSW. Too many! Without lockdowns, it would be even more.

That’s probably true. Sure, there may be better ways to fight this virus, but it’s a lie to say targeted lockdowns can’t limit infections.

Nor is it true that this virus is “just like the flu”. My daughter has it, and says it’s worse than any flu she’s known.

But the five deaths in this outbreak are like the 910 before. They’re overwhelmingly of the very old and vulnerable – two women in their 90s, a man in his late 80s, a man in his 70s and a 56-year-old woman who for some unexplained reason was not taken to hospital and was found dead at home.

None deserved to die, but all – I suspect – could have been better protected, not least by themselves. We’ve been told little about these dead, but at least one of the women in her 90s had not got herself vaccinated. Nor had 24 of the 27 people in intensive care in NSW.

How much longer should we be locked up to predominantly save people who will not save themselves?

I know, every death is sad. Yet we seem weirdly sorrier if someone dies of this virus.

We used to accept the 1000 to 2000 deaths each year from the flu as a fair price for the freedom to carry on.

We still consider the more than 1100 people who die on our roads each year an acceptable price for our freedom to drive. We think 6000 deaths from alcohol each year is a bargain for the freedom to drink.

Yet just one virus death of a 90-year-old is a national tragedy, to be announced at a press conference as justification for making Australians stay at home.

Blame much of this fear on the exaggerations of “experts”.

Victoria’s chief health officer, Brett Sutton, absurdly boasted that his restrictions last year saved the lives of 36,000 Victorians. Paul Kelly, Australia’s chief medical officer, last year predicted between 50,000 and 150,000 deaths.

Professor Raina MacIntyre, from the University of NSW, trumped them all, predicting “up to 400,000 people dying” from a virus that’s in fact killed fewer than 1000 of us.

When experts exaggerate danger so wildly, no wonder Australians accept even wilder precautions.

Yes, lockdowns can be needed when contact tracers or hospitals are overwhelmed, but most lockdowns this year were patently useless, with cities shut for just one or two infections.

Even today’s lockdowns cannot all be necessary. The South Australian and Victorian governments have locked down their whole states, even rural towns which have never had an infection, while NSW more wisely locked down only country areas – three – where there’s some real risk.

But Australians seem so blinded by terror that they can’t work out what risks are acceptable to avoid a lockdown.

That’s partly because those who suffer most from lockdowns are people we don’t see or hear.

I’m told horror stories every day by professionals whose job is to counsel the poor, disturbed, abused and lonely – often now cut off from meaningful contact with others by lockdowns that in Melbourne total 179 days already.

I think also of the children from loveless homes, supposedly now getting at-home schooling with the help of drunk, drugged, violent or just absent parents. How many are now lost to us or forever behind?

There’s no real life without risk. So how many deaths would we accept, just to live again?

Yes i am a fan of my mate Bolt been following him for years.

Key points from article

We used to accept the 1000 to 2000 deaths each year from the flu as a fair price for the freedom to carry on.

Blame much of this fear on the exaggerations of “experts”.

But Australians seem so blinded by terror that they can’t work out what risks are acceptable to avoid a lockdown.


Its a shame some of the lefties on here and the rest of Australia do not read his investigative articles for a bit of insight and alternative point of view.

All are too busy and good at attacking the man and not the story.

I don't disagree with Bolt on that article. I think he's spot on.

Having friends in the health system, they do make a good point. Lockdown also means those that need care get it, rather than have everyone carrying on normally and potentially injuring themselves and chocking up emergency wards with 'non critical injuries' whilst Ambulances are also taken off the road catering for these matters. Additionally, if we weren't in lockdown and the emergency wards were overrun with Covid patients and those people that suffer heart attacks, strokes etc, wouldn't be able to get care at all. I'm paraphrasing their sentiments. Ultimately it becomes a balance between how many we can live with (as per Bolt's article) but what strain does that put on our health care system and then who dies as a result of not being able to be cared for because they are not a Covid related illness? Do those stats matter?

[am Bays]

Not really anything ground breaking and as already anticipated by some on here, the Governments plans are for a very cautious approach to easing the restrictions.

The best we can hope for next week is to be reduced down to level 4.

This comes from as close to the horses mouth as you get.

Can’t see them reducing to level 4 next week.
The following week maybe?

I can see level four next week based on todays figures and if tomorrows figures are similar. At the very least council areas where there are no known covid exposure sites (country SA will have the restrictions eased).

[amber_fluid]

Not really anything ground breaking and as already anticipated by some on here, the Governments plans are for a very cautious approach to easing the restrictions.

The best we can hope for next week is to be reduced down to level 4.

This comes from as close to the horses mouth as you get.

Can’t see them reducing to level 4 next week.
The following week maybe?

I can see level four next week based on todays figures and if tomorrows figures are similar. At the very least council areas where there are no known covid exposure sites (country SA will have the restrictions eased).

Hope you’re right but tomorrow’s numbers are the key here.

[locky801]

Not really anything ground breaking and as already anticipated by some on here, the Governments plans are for a very cautious approach to easing the restrictions.

The best we can hope for next week is to be reduced down to level 4.

This comes from as close to the horses mouth as you get.

Can’t see them reducing to level 4 next week.
The following week maybe?

I can see level four next week based on todays figures and if tomorrows figures are similar. At the very least council areas where there are no known covid exposure sites (country SA will have the restrictions eased).

Hope you’re right but tomorrow’s numbers are the key here.

I'm betting zero for tomorrow

[am Bays]

[

Having friends in the health system, they do make a good point. Lockdown also means those that need care get it, rather than have everyone carrying on normally and potentially injuring themselves and chocking up emergency wards with 'non critical injuries' whilst Ambulances are also taken off the road catering for these matters. Additionally, if we weren't in lockdown and the emergency wards were overrun with Covid patients and those people that suffer heart attacks, strokes etc, wouldn't be able to get care at all. I'm paraphrasing their sentiments. Ultimately it becomes a balance between how many we can live with (as per Bolt's article) but what strain does that put on our health care system and then who dies as a result of not being able to be cared for because they are not a Covid related illness? Do those stats matter?

As someone who works in health care safety and quality that's the crux of the matter. Trying to get the balance right by having capacity in our system to manage all health care needs, trying to minimise avoidable hospital presentations. Remember the a moth ago ramping cade whites at the major Adelaide hospitals (RAH, FMC and LMH)