Aussies: Football, Meat Pies, and Rampant SARS

[Stubby]

Happy New Year everyone!

One thing I'm hoping for in the NY is a return for empathy and consideration of others. Except for racist fascists. Fuck those guys.

[Paxter]

41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Because the federal government is trying to do absolutely nothing with respect to the pandemic so it can't be blamed, and then by virtue of being uninvolved somehow be able to claim all credit for success.

Fair enough. There is a bit of that in Canada too - let the states take the fall.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Paxter said:

Fair enough. There is a bit of that in Canada too - let the states take the fall.

I hope that didn't come across as unsympathetic to you, it's not. I hate that so many people are stuck unable to get home. I've seen some horror stories of people stuck in the UK without a job, a place to stay, the ability to work even if they could find a job and no idea of when they'll be able to get home. It's utterly fucked and we owe our citizens better.

That's why I'm so annoyed at people that don't get the importance of having the quarantine system open and accepting people.

[ants]

10 hours ago, Paxter said:

One thing I don’t understand is why the Australian govt hasn’t required a negative test for returning citizens. I don’t see it as an onerous requirement and I think it would reduce the pressure and risk for the states.

It's also because its a bit of a catch-22.  If someone returns positive because they've had to wait so long for a flight, whose fault is that?  There's or Australia's limited flight capacity? And that is a huge burden to then use the local health services when you've potentially closed your accommodation and everything else because you thought you were about to get on a plane.   

Its also a matter of timing.  One airline does use such tests, but people can then still turn up positive later.  You can have it but initially don't test positive. 

[Squab]

There are caps on the numbers of passengers coming into Australia from overseas. These are in place to ease pressure on state and territory quarantine facilities and are set by those authorities, not federally.

11 hours ago, Paxter said:

One thing I don’t understand is why the Australian govt hasn’t required a negative test for returning citizens. I don’t see it as an onerous requirement and I think it would reduce the pressure and risk for the states.

A negative test does not eliminate the need for quarantine.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

A negative test does not eliminate the need for quarantine.

I never proposed nor implied otherwise. The test would be in addition to quar.

I’m a proponent of quarantine.

[Paxter]

@karaddin, nah I get it. Just annoying that the Indian cricket team can get into Australia, but I can’t visit the country/state in which I was born and have family.

[Squab]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

I never proposed nor implied otherwise. The test would be in addition to quar.

I’m a proponent of quarantine.

Do you want more or fewer citizens returning to Oz? Because increasing the hurdles to get home will reduce numbers.

If quarantine is managed properly, and any breaches actually investigated (unlike Vic) and remedied, I don't see how testing beforehand will reduce pressure on the states, At the moment in Queensland (a state of over 5M people), hospitals and staff are not beyond capacity handling Covid. We currently have 17 cases with none in ICU. Maybe I have too much faith in our medical care but I would prefer Australians are treated here rather than elsewhere.

If we had Covid numbers like Canada (77k active) where they have implemented testing before flying into the country, I can see how that would be appropriate if not vital to try to reduce pressure on the healthcare system.

[Paxter]

2 hours ago, Squab said:

Do you want more or fewer citizens returning to Oz? Because increasing the hurdles to get home will reduce numbers.

I disagree. Less returning positive travellers equals less CV leaks from quarantine and more political support for increased flight caps, as well as a cheaper quarantine system (no need for so-called health suites).

As for Canada, their recent change has less to do with the health system and more to do with politics. Ontarians were furious about how busy Pearson airport was over NYE...

[Squab]

15 hours ago, Paxter said:

I disagree. Less returning positive travellers equals less CV leaks from quarantine and more political support for increased flight caps, as well as a cheaper quarantine system (no need for so-called health suites).

That may well be the way things should operate in a utopia. Unfortunately Australia is closer to (if not actually identical to) the Utopia you can watch on channel 2.

Vic returns fewer O/S travelers than NSW but has had the worst quarantine debacle in the country. During Covid, Dictator Dan along with many of the other Vic pollies received an 11.8% pay rise then front up to the investigation into said debacle and they all pull the shaggy defence. And it works... unless you're an economist where the damage to the economy and soaring debt has lost Vics AAA rating.  Harsh lockdowns in Vic may well result in businesses closing but Dan's popularity increased (at least if you believe twitter and the media). Annastacia Palaszczuk increased her majority due to strict border controls, even closing it completely to other states for longer than anywhere else; except WA where I don't see a change of government happening. Parties are being rewarded for stricter border measures and larger spending rather than increased migration and fiscal conservatism. 

[ants]

Governments are being rewarded for prioritising the protection of their citizens.  

[karaddin]

45 minutes ago, ants said:

Governments are being rewarded for prioritising the protection of their citizens.  

Which is exactly why shutting people out of their home state is so off base for me, as that's crossing a line where you're no longer protecting all your citizens

[Paxter]

2 hours ago, ants said:

Governments are being rewarded for prioritising the protection of their citizens.  

And for preserving high-profile sporting events.

[ants]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Which is exactly why shutting people out of their home state is so off base for me, as that's crossing a line where you're no longer protecting all your citizens

Not in my book.  Everyone knew the risks, those travelling should have known and had a plan. 

[karaddin]

12 minutes ago, ants said:

Not in my book.  Everyone knew the risks, those travelling should have known and had a plan. 

If they're following the advice on the Victoria travel advice website they have done their due diligence. That's the source of truth for travel advice and it doesn't matter if comments had been made elsewhere, you can't rely on people having seen it if it's not on the source of truth.

NSW is fucking huge and the communications before the closure had focused on Greater Sydney. People that were not far across the border were nowhere near any hot spot. 

[Paxter]

40 minutes ago, ants said:

Not in my book.  Everyone knew the risks, those travelling should have known and had a plan. 

I can see the “let the buyer beware” argument. But I can also see the “let’s stop pretending this is a purely state issue and coordinate better” argument.

ETA: The restrictions for the SCG test are getting almost laughably more serious each day. Just play with an empty stadium.

[ants]

My view is that everyone knows border restrictions can occur, and that flare-ups (or worse) can occur.  If you leave your home, you're taking a risk. 

Its not about who lives where.  Its about where you're at and the risk you bear of carrying it somewhere else. It's why I've got limited sympathy for those overseas; yes we should be helping them come home (and quicker), but priority has to be to protecting the current people at home.  That isn't because citizens in Australia (or in WA, or Qld, whatever) are more "worthy" or something.  Its because the cold hard science says that you need to limit mobility during a pandemic.  That people moving around has consequences.  And we need to limit those consequences.  

[Paxter]

29 minutes ago, ants said:

My view is that everyone knows border restrictions can occur, and that flare-ups (or worse) can occur.  If you leave your home, you're taking a risk. 

Its not about who lives where.  Its about where you're at and the risk you bear of carrying it somewhere else. It's why I've got limited sympathy for those overseas; yes we should be helping them come home (and quicker), but priority has to be to protecting the current people at home.  That isn't because citizens in Australia (or in WA, or Qld, whatever) are more "worthy" or something.  Its because the cold hard science says that you need to limit mobility during a pandemic.  That people moving around has consequences.  And we need to limit those consequences.  

Cold hard science also says don’t bring a thousand foreign tennis players to Australia. But we need that for normalcy.

[ants]

53 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Cold hard science also says don’t bring a thousand foreign tennis players to Australia. But we need that for normalcy.

Yes we do.

Every decision has been weighed against other elements.  Or we'd just do a 12 month total lockdown and shut our borders to all ships and planes.  Its why I'm still keen to get Aussies from overseas back, when the simplest solution would be to say stuff them.  The difference Aussie rules made being played again was huge on the mental welfare of lots and lots of Australians.  I'm not sure the tennis will be quite the same, but at a level for future planning you can't afford to lose these events.  

[Paxter]

So the weighing game: how does AFL (no international travellers or risk to the community with no cases in QLD) compare with the Open (1,000+ foreigners needing quarantine exemptions to train and play tennis)? How will those exemptions work when highly transmissible virus strains are in play?

And what about the 1,000+ Australians who can’t re-enter and have their hotel quarantine paid for them like the tennis players?

There’s no right or wrong answer, but I think various points of view are defensible. Not saying yours isn’t either.