Originally Posted by
Bend alot
Again I thank you for putting in a effort in your reply.
I will start with Sweden - The Swedish constitution prevents a lock-down in peace time. The government agency responsible :- in this case the Public Health Agency must initiate all actions (recommendations) to prevent the virus in accordance with Swedish law. The Swedish public is expected to follow a series of "NON- VOLUNTARY" recommendations from the responsible government agency. On 18 March, the Health Agency recommended that everyone should avoid travelling within the country, on 13 May this "recommendation" was softened to "commonsense travel" 1-2 hrs from home. This was mostly lifted about 3 months later on 13 June. Mobile phone tracking revealed most people followed the recommendations.
I could be mistaken, but that sounds like the lock-down you are having when you are not having a lock-down.
It is worth noting Sweden does not have internal borders unlike Australia, it is about double the size of Victoria with roughly double the population.
Sweden certainly has a high number of deaths (even following recommendations) it is very high compared to other Nordic countries. On current measurable data the slump in the economies is similar with other Nordic countries and without sign it will improve faster than other countries. Sweden had schools and universities closed and other measures were taken, but most think it was mostly a free to do anything approach because the government did not (could not) make rules.
In Australia we have known via many media reports that our aged care has been very bad, highlighted by numerous current affairs shows over more than a decade - WE have done nothing to address this, the old Jack system at play.
That said 2017-18 more than 1.2 million people received aged care services (over 65) only 7% (84,000) accessed residential aged care (aged care homes).
22% (264,000) accessed subsidised support at home.
71% (852,000) without subsidised support at home.
So the vast majority of the vulnerable elderly people live at home and get visited by age care worker/s varying times a week mostly by staff on close to the minimum wage. While it is easy to lock-down an aged care home, that will only protect around 7% of that group (age only) of vulnerable people. The rest are spread throughout the community and with restrictions removed will be exposed to greater community transmission - age care workers, home delivery, medical visits, gardener, plumber are all a greater risk of transmission to them than now.
Then there are the other vulnerable groups - one being around 800,000 Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people.The science over the last 6 months proves we do not have enough evidence on what has worked, heard immunity is a perfect example or if it is possible to catch the same strain twice? Obviously after 6 months it is not possible to know what long term health impacts are on mild severe cases after recovery. Even the at risk age ranges from 50 to 60 and 70 (a lot of people 50 up to 69).
I am not sure we have the ability or the resources to protect the vulnerable, it is a far greater task than locking up the aged care facilities. If of course there is sincerity in protecting all the vulnerable in a partly humane way.
I am also guessing that most of Australia's individual wealth is held by around the 60ish age group - might not be the best idea economically, to isolate them - that could be a spectacular backfire.
Thanks to you as well for a considered response!
The only reason I use Sweden is because the data is useful because they didn’t have a hard lockdown. So if you’re looking for a comparison there’s not many other options.
That being said, the Swedish Government has acknowledged their own failings in managing the aged care sector.
- More than 50% of deaths were in aged care homes
- 90% of deaths were aged over 70.
- in Victoria something like 90% of the deaths so far are in aged care homes.
In Australia most people only go in an aged care home for the last few years of their lives. So yes there may only be a couple of hundred thousand in those centres but taking the measures I have suggested above would make a significant difference to the death rate from COVID. It also has the convenient side effect of better protection during the annual flu season!!! Which also rages through aged care homes, it’s just not reported daily every winter by the Premiers....
Australia is in a different position to other countries. It’s an acknowledged advantage (in various Govt health reports) that being an island, relatively well isolated from the rest of the world, means in ANY outbreak of disease, Australia fares better than most other countries. Even if we do NOTHING.
This natural advantage should drive our response. A strong and well managed international quarantine system should have been the focus back in April/May. BUT at the same time, the public needs to be made aware it’s not 100% secure. The inevitable will happen and the virus will get out.
This is where public education comes in. Masks should be mandatory in all public areas across Australia regardless of current case numbers. I think the fact you are told to wear a mask is a constant reminder of what we are all up against. To me anyway, it makes you a bit more cautious, more likely to use sanitiser regularly.
In some ways I think the constant daily briefings by Premiers may actually be a bad thing. There has to be “Covid fatigue” creeping in now. But more importantly, if you get specific information on deaths etc broken down by suburb, how many of us think “that’s not where I live, it’s all good!”
If the public message was:
”it’s in the community, wear a mask etc, avoid going out if you are vulnerable”
How many of you would act differently if the warnings were more general and the onus was on you to protect yourself?? (In the absence of specific suburb information).
Contact tracing (aka NSW) needs more resources. Jumping on the virus when it pops up requires effort. Victoria has thoroughly failed in this regard. This focus combined with a well run quarantine system should keep the daily case numbers well within the capacity of our health systems. These are probably the two MOST IMPORTANT things that our various governments can do right now.
While all this is going on, resources can be allocated to protecting the over 70’s as mentioned. Building a system that keeps as many of them safe as possible (at home as well). Improving home delivery, medical visits etc as mentioned before. Thus again protecting them as much as possible when the inevitable happens and the virus appears in their town or suburb.
As for internal (state) borders. I don’t believe QLD will be able to sustain it’s border policy. The east coast (QLD/NSW/VIC) are to well connected and have large border communities to make this a practical long term solution.
Palaszczuk is wrong in this aspect, especially with her requirements to open up again (no transmission for 28 days). On the other side, Western Australia is completely different. There are no large border towns and far less reliance on imports/exports to the eastern states. McGovern is right to point out that outbreaks in mining camps would have a significant affect on the state economy. You only need to look to Brazil to see what that looks like. So in the medium term I think the political pressure will continue to grow on QLD until they align with NSW/VIC. But I think WA will continue to do their own thing for a long time yet.
As mentioned, if you want to really learn something, look at the actual government reports for various countries around the world. Even here in Australia there are reports put out every year on respiratory diseases. There’s an annual influenza report as well. Don’t just go with the narrative driven by hysterical media and poll driven Premiers. There is a lot of really good information out there RIGHT NOW that can explain some really useful options to fight Covid.