Aussies: NSW Politicians, keeping ICAC in business

[karaddin]

You really think he would have made the announcement of the lock down while police were already on their way (and it was A LOT of police) to lock down a community of upper middle class white people? With no notice to stockpile supplies on a weekend day that would be the weekly shopping day for many, no reasonable supply of food, sanitary items (toilet paper, feminine hygiene, or relevant to the cause of the lock down soap and hand sanitizer), no consideration for the residents specific dietary needs or religious beliefs?

Everything about the inadequacies in the implementation are due to who was being targeted by it.

And again, genuine concern for the residents should have seen an increase in cleaning of common areas, not a lack of cleaning while getting all the residents to functionally gather in common areas to collect the inadequate supplies.

[karaddin]

Another point that was prompted by current treatment of those in the public housing but isn't restricted to it - people being forcibly detained for quarantine purposes have done nothing wrong. They aren't in prison and the people keeping guard on them need to stop fucking acting like they are.

The cops are searching food being sent to those in the blocks like they're prison guards searching for contraband and exactly the same was done by private guards on people being quarantined in hotels after the cruise ships etc. There is no justification and it's no one's business what they have. But it's creeping acceptance of the police state being able to do whatever the fuck it wants.

[ants]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Although I do agree on the searching of items.  No reason for that (that I'm aware of).  

[Paxter]

Lots of pressure on Andrews ATM. I'm not convinced it's entirely fair (towers debacle notwithstanding) - any Victorians prepared to look beyond Australia's borders will see a much a worse situation. Even much-lauded S Korea has triple the official death count. 

Personally I'm of the view that these sort of surges/flare-ups are inevitable, unless you are pursuing an elimination strategy that requires much stricter and longer shutdowns, as well as mass testing. If Australia wants elimination, fine, but just know it's not a simple matter to copy NZ, which was always going to have an easier time of it. 

[Jeor]

Yes, I think the criticism of Andrews is a bit over the top. There have been various bungles, but calls for him to resign and so forth are counterproductive. I get it, people are pissed, especially small businesses that might go bankrupt due to this second wave shutdown, and the scale of the shutdown (all of Melbourne) is massive. But I'm willing to bet there will be more outbreaks elsewhere, for various reasons of stupidity, and if politicians had to resign whenever an outbreak occurs that would be a pretty bad precedent.

[karaddin]

I view it as a coin flip as to whether Victoria or NSW was going to have a big flare up first and don't blame him at all for it, my criticism is restricted to the towers lockdown and the general heavy police attitude he's had on this and other issues in the past.

And it's not like that attitude is different in any other leader, the police minister in NSW is appalling.

I'm certainly not calling on him to resign, just to step back from that particular policy 

[Paxter]

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

And it's not like that attitude is different in any other leader, the police minister in NSW is appalling.

Haha don't get me started on him.  His own party seems to loathe him.

[brook]

Ha ha oh please get started! There is nothing she needs more than to have someone else supplement my regular “why David Elliott is the worst politician in NSW” rants. 

Good news is that after much messing around I get my kids back today. I fully expect NSW to announce tighter restrictions and probably hotel quarantine tomorrow (definitely by the end of the week) so I’ll be a lot less anxious once they are on that plane.

[Jeor]

I still have my fingers crossed that NSW might avoid a second outbreak. Notwithstanding that pub, it's been quiet the past 48 hours.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 7/12/2020 at 4:13 AM, karaddin said:

I view it as a coin flip as to whether Victoria or NSW was going to have a big flare up first and don't blame him at all for it, my criticism is restricted to the towers lockdown and the general heavy police attitude he's had on this and other issues in the past.

And it's not like that attitude is different in any other leader, the police minister in NSW is appalling.

I'm certainly not calling on him to resign, just to step back from that particular policy 

A coin flip, or inevitable that both would?

Quote

New South Wales has recorded 14 new Covid-19 cases overnight, with eight linked to a pub outbreak in Sydney as another pub closes, which authorities say is of national concern.

Five attended the Crossroads Hotel in Sydney's Casula and three are contacts of cases who were at the hotel. They are all isolating.

Thirteen coronavirus cases have now been linked to the Sydney pub.

The question is whether NSW acts fast to avoid the Vic situation or will just coast along until NSW starts seeing 100+ cases per day?

Is not pursuing elimination because it requires a longer, stricter lockdown false economy? I would argue Aussie could have pursued elimination if it had wanted to, because proportionally Aussie was performing better than NZ for most of our lockdown period. If you have to have a series of lockdowns over an extended period because you are only pursuing suppression / control is this worse than one long hard lockdown at the start? Also is it really an all / almost all or nothing situation? Perhaps every country that does not achieve elimination will end up basically being Sweden. The only thing Sweden did wrong, potentially, was not protect it's elderly population adequately. Do what's necessary to not overwhelm your hospitals and medical supplies, but don't go crazy with the controls.

And if a vaccine is several years away rather than just around the corner even countries that have achieved elimination may well end up having to become Sweden. I don't want to do that yet, but it's a possibility that we will have to seriously consider if 2021 hits and all prospective vaccines are showing signs of being ineffective. NZ can't really function economically without a foreign tourism or international student sector. So we can only keep non-residents out for so long and we need a plan to re-open with or without a vaccine. Students can quarantine for 14 days no problem, though having the quarantine space is a bit of an issue. But tourists can't exactly do that.

[Impmk2]

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A coin flip, or inevitable that both would?

The question is whether NSW acts fast to avoid the Vic situation or will just coast along until NSW starts seeing 100+ cases per day?

Is not pursuing elimination because it requires a longer, stricter lockdown false economy? I would argue Aussie could have pursued elimination if it had wanted to, because proportionally Aussie was performing better than NZ for most of our lockdown period. If you have to have a series of lockdowns over an extended period because you are only pursuing suppression / control is this worse than one long hard lockdown at the start? Also is it really an all / almost all or nothing situation? Perhaps every country that does not achieve elimination will end up basically being Sweden. The only thing Sweden did wrong, potentially, was not protect it's elderly population adequately. Do what's necessary to not overwhelm your hospitals and medical supplies, but don't go crazy with the controls.

And if a vaccine is several years away rather than just around the corner even countries that have achieved elimination may well end up having to become Sweden. I don't want to do that yet, but it's a possibility that we will have to seriously consider if 2021 hits and all prospective vaccines are showing signs of being ineffective. NZ can't really function economically without a foreign tourism or international student sector. So we can only keep non-residents out for so long and we need a plan to re-open with or without a vaccine. Students can quarantine for 14 days no problem, though having the quarantine space is a bit of an issue. But tourists can't exactly do that.

I'm not really convinced it would've needed to be stricter, simply a few weeks longer. Elimination certainly happened with the lockdown policy as it stood in all states and territories barring NSW & Vic. Though the Victorian situation atm may well have happened anyway as it was due to a failure in quarantine which wasn't immediately picked up.

I don't think anyone foresaw the lockdown being as effective as it was in crushing the curve, and having committed to a suppression strategy the political will just wasn't there to go the one step further. But yes, in hindsight, if we're going to dance between lockdown and opening for the next 6 months elimination may well have been worth going for. Hopefully by that stage at least it should be pretty clear if any of the vaccine candidates in human trials are effective.

In the worst case if nothing else we will have bought a few months to get PPE stockpiled, beds ready, and more information on the treatment severe cases. And authorities here seem slowly to be coming around on mask use in outbreak situations - something which most western countries weren't doing at the start of the epidemic. So don't think the time spent is a waste whatever happens. Many lives will have been saved.

 

[karaddin]

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A coin flip, or inevitable that both would?

The question is whether NSW acts fast to avoid the Vic situation or will just coast along until NSW starts seeing 100+ cases per day?

Is not pursuing elimination because it requires a longer, stricter lockdown false economy? I would argue Aussie could have pursued elimination if it had wanted to, because proportionally Aussie was performing better than NZ for most of our lockdown period. If you have to have a series of lockdowns over an extended period because you are only pursuing suppression / control is this worse than one long hard lockdown at the start? Also is it really an all / almost all or nothing situation? Perhaps every country that does not achieve elimination will end up basically being Sweden. The only thing Sweden did wrong, potentially, was not protect it's elderly population adequately. Do what's necessary to not overwhelm your hospitals and medical supplies, but don't go crazy with the controls.

And if a vaccine is several years away rather than just around the corner even countries that have achieved elimination may well end up having to become Sweden. I don't want to do that yet, but it's a possibility that we will have to seriously consider if 2021 hits and all prospective vaccines are showing signs of being ineffective. NZ can't really function economically without a foreign tourism or international student sector. So we can only keep non-residents out for so long and we need a plan to re-open with or without a vaccine. Students can quarantine for 14 days no problem, though having the quarantine space is a bit of an issue. But tourists can't exactly do that.

I said first because yeah, I do think if we're going to lift lock down then further flare ups are inevitable. I also think that while there's a lot of pressure against it, we really should slam back into lock down as soon as there's an indication of a flare up. NSW should be making that call today, it gives the time for full track and trace and if it's contained it would only bad to be a week or two.

Instead we'll probably put it off all week and call it either Friday or next Monday and wind up in it for much longer. Sometimes you just need to be decisive and I think this is one of those times.

[Paxter]

I know we usually keep this thread Aussie-centric...but big news across the ditch with the NZ Opposition Leader resigning just over two months out from a general election (and not long after taking the job).

Pretty crazy how things have transpired over there. Ardern was a shock winner in 2017 and is in office mainly because of Winston Peters' support. The Nationals only lost a net three seats and are still the biggest party in parliament. But now it seems like the Nationals are in complete disarray and it's possible that Labour could govern in its own right!  

[The Drunkard]

On 7/13/2020 at 12:56 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Is not pursuing elimination because it requires a longer, stricter lockdown false economy? I would argue Aussie could have pursued elimination if it had wanted to, because proportionally Aussie was performing better than NZ for most of our lockdown period. If you have to have a series of lockdowns over an extended period because you are only pursuing suppression / control is this worse than one long hard lockdown at the start?

I would probably agree. I can't remember the timing so don't know if it was already loose in NSW and Victoria by the time the government was taking it seriously, but if there was that chance to control community transmission early and we blew it, then it was a mistake not to go for elimination.

WA's starting to lift a lot of internal restrictions so it will be interesting to see if there is some undetected amount of community transmission ready to flare up again. 

[Stubby]

17 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

I would probably agree. I can't remember the timing so don't know if it was already loose in NSW and Victoria by the time the government was taking it seriously, but if there was that chance to control community transmission early and we blew it, then it was a mistake not to go for elimination.

WA's starting to lift a lot of internal restrictions so it will be interesting to see if there is some undetected amount of community transmission ready to flare up again. 

I've spoken to a couple of medical friends in the last week or so who have said we have had basically no community transmission here in WA.  They reckon every case has been traced to a traveller of some sort.

Personally, I'm hoping that stays the same.  But it seems our isolation has been good for something at long last.

[ants]

On 7/13/2020 at 2:56 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

A coin flip, or inevitable that both would?

The question is whether NSW acts fast to avoid the Vic situation or will just coast along until NSW starts seeing 100+ cases per day?

Is not pursuing elimination because it requires a longer, stricter lockdown false economy? I would argue Aussie could have pursued elimination if it had wanted to, because proportionally Aussie was performing better than NZ for most of our lockdown period. If you have to have a series of lockdowns over an extended period because you are only pursuing suppression / control is this worse than one long hard lockdown at the start? Also is it really an all / almost all or nothing situation? Perhaps every country that does not achieve elimination will end up basically being Sweden. The only thing Sweden did wrong, potentially, was not protect it's elderly population adequately. Do what's necessary to not overwhelm your hospitals and medical supplies, but don't go crazy with the controls.

And if a vaccine is several years away rather than just around the corner even countries that have achieved elimination may well end up having to become Sweden. I don't want to do that yet, but it's a possibility that we will have to seriously consider if 2021 hits and all prospective vaccines are showing signs of being ineffective. NZ can't really function economically without a foreign tourism or international student sector. So we can only keep non-residents out for so long and we need a plan to re-open with or without a vaccine. Students can quarantine for 14 days no problem, though having the quarantine space is a bit of an issue. But tourists can't exactly do that.

I'm not sure if it would have been possible.  Remember, the virus does take a week or so to spread from person to person.  Which means to get daily new cases over 100 in early July means that with an R of 2 ** things started going pear shaped in early May.  What's more, they then had to continue to go pear shaped.  The hotel quarantine may have caused a lot of cases, but to get to our current new cases level plenty in the community must have been failing to do their bit.  

All of which is to say that it feels like it was spreading regardless, and with the high asymptomatic rate (which initially scientists weren't aware of and didn't think would be a major spreader), it is unlikely that outside of very closed systems like New Zealand that eradication could be achieved.  And this all assumes it doesn't sneak back into New Zealand anyway.  We're a long way to go before we know what the "right" approach was.  If a vaccine or cure aren't discovered, we may have to learn how to live with it, and maybe history will indicate other approaches would have been better. 

 

** Note, I made up the R of 2 as an example.  I don't know if anyone really knows what it is.  It may be a lot less, which extends the timelines out. 

[The Anti-Targ]

18 hours ago, ants said:

I'm not sure if it would have been possible.  Remember, the virus does take a week or so to spread from person to person.  Which means to get daily new cases over 100 in early July means that with an R of 2 ** things started going pear shaped in early May.  What's more, they then had to continue to go pear shaped.  The hotel quarantine may have caused a lot of cases, but to get to our current new cases level plenty in the community must have been failing to do their bit.  

All of which is to say that it feels like it was spreading regardless, and with the high asymptomatic rate (which initially scientists weren't aware of and didn't think would be a major spreader), it is unlikely that outside of very closed systems like New Zealand that eradication could be achieved.  And this all assumes it doesn't sneak back into New Zealand anyway.  We're a long way to go before we know what the "right" approach was.  If a vaccine or cure aren't discovered, we may have to learn how to live with it, and maybe history will indicate other approaches would have been better. 

 

** Note, I made up the R of 2 as an example.  I don't know if anyone really knows what it is.  It may be a lot less, which extends the timelines out. 

It always felt to me that NZ doing a hard lockdown, with a very high level of compliance and enforcement, and not too much community spread at day 1 of lockdown meant elimination was achievable. I also thought Australia was in a similar state at the same time we went into lockdown, and proportionally throughout the whole lockdown period Australia's numbers looked better than ours.

We were pursuing elimination, while Australia was not but it appeared Australia was doing better with a lighter form of lockdown. Over this side of the Tasman this lead to those who placed more value on the economy to start making waves about easing lock down earlier, comparing the lockdown to a society so risk averse that it would cap speed limits to 30km/h to eliminate road deaths but destroy the economy in the process. The public response to calls from one side to ease off early in the interests of the economy was a pretty overwhelming "you can fuck right off with that idea". So public support for elimination was extremely high. And I think to pursue a stamping out policy for this disease you need a high level of public support. We also had ex-politicians (who have not one clue about infectious disease or epidemiology) saying elimination isn't possible, and that politician went completely silent the day after they made that statement (you may remember him as the MP who got a dildo thrown at him, which made it all the way to John Oliver's Last Week tonight). If you don't have the public support, you will get a high rate of non-conformance and not much social pressure on the rule breakers to step into line. So the NZ public and most of academic health / public health was generally right on board with the govt's elimination goal.

I do think if Australia had decided to go for elimination at the same time as NZ (late March) it could have been achieved. But it could be that the govt read the public mood correctly and concluded that there would not be enough public support for the measures necessary for elimination and that the attempt to eliminate would have a high probability of failure and thus the higher cost of elimination may not achieve the benefit. I think there is a cultural difference between Australia and NZ in terms of the individualism-collectivism scale. New Zealand, I think, is more collectivist than Australia. And I think elimination is more easily achieved in a more collectivist society. There is the difference that States have much more control about what happens than the federal govt in Australia, whereas our national govt has total control. But in a collectivist society that would be less of an issue as the States and federal govt would get together and agree a unified approach, which did not seem to be on the cards. 

Will it leak out of quarantine here? The govt certainly seems to be preparing the country for that possibility. They are talking about city / regional lockdowns and other potential measures for if the disease leaks out of quarantine. We are bringing thousands of people back from overseas including form countries where the disease is running rampant. We are on course for the disease to pop up outside of quarantine. The govt will be hoping it doesn't happen before the September election. But I just hope that the govt and Ministry of Health have a really solid plan for what to do when it happens.

The vaccine news is looking more hopeful right now. So for now sticking to elimination the the right move for NZ, IMO. I will very quickly change my mind, however, if vaccine news ends up being disappointing. The lucky thing for the govt is that bad news on vaccine is not likely to come before the election, but good news might. 

[AndrewJ]

No real disagreement to the bulk of your post, AT - but I'm curious as to the conclusion you drew at the end. I would have thought positive signs of a vaccine means elimination becomes less important - ie we can muddle through until we get the vaccine. I struggle to see why an imminent vaccine would make elimination more desirable.

 

[karaddin]

If I may attempt to answer for AT - if we are going to get a vaccine within a reasonable time table then every life that is lost between now and then which could have been saved by a hard lockdown & elimination strategy is a life that shouldn't have been lost. If there is no vaccine coming, then there is nothing to delay and hold out for - at some point some people are going to deal with the infection and its going to suck, a lockdown that causes substantially increased economic pain and social isolation (which can and does cause mental health issues for some) but can't ultimately save those lives isn't buying much.

Unless you're willing to functionally permanently shut down international travel, which at this point no one seems to view as an option.

Personally I'm still much more leaning to elimination as well and wish we'd followed the NZ approach, at least until we've actually got answers about this virus and its long term impact beyond just the mortality rate, and whether lasting immunity is something that can even be obtained via surviving infection. Pursuing elimination if a vaccine isn't coming might not be the best exchange, but letting the virus blitz through your population due to the assumption that you'll go through "temporary pain" (read: a lot of death and a metric fuckton of long term health impacts) in exchange for a much faster path back to a fully functional economy turns out to be orders of magnitude worse if none of those survivors are actually immune to further infections. So just play it safe, everyone is suffering the economic hit at the moment, the right wing* need to accept that this is not a situation that capitalism is suited to and we need some hard core socialism while dealing with this problem even if its temporary, and wait until we know for sure.

*Yes this is the sticking point, they will not accept that which is why after a couple of months of being forced to consider some socialism, a bunch of our governments are looking much more like they're just going to throw the public into the meat grinder. If the socialism is allowed to succeed the people might want to keep it after all. US Colleges encouraging teaching staff have their wills up to date is pretty fucking somber.

[ants]

I'd disagree.  In a world with no vaccine, your options are either a hard lock down to save lives followed by strong monitoring and enforcement, or accept you'll lose many lives and have significant economic damage.

In a world with a vaccine, the decision becomes a balancing act between the economic damage and lives, because the economic damage also costs lives.  It's much more of a balancing act, and a softer lockdown that mostly suppresses it, especially early when building defences/researching/building PPE stockpiles etc., could be the best approach.