Originally Posted by
exfocx
You love to quote numbers, yet you have shown a potential lack of understanding of the data / stats you quote. You still haven't responded to my request on your av life expectancy misunderstanding!
Because the numbers are what they are. They don't lie. As for your fascination with my lack of reply, I hadn't bothered to reply because no matter the expected life expectancy when you attain 80 years of age, you are (typically) still retired, (typically) not contributing to the economy beyond your groceries and fuel purchases and arguing over whether you would expect to die at 86 or 96 or any particular age doesn't contribute to the issue whereby the average age of COVID deaths (in Australia) at the time of writing is 86 years old. Even if we accept the US data, it would mean an effective saving of what? 2,3, maybe 5 years at whatever the life-year-cost is, which renders your point essentially, meaningless in context.
Originally Posted by exfpcx
Everyone seems to expect the Best Possible Outcome, economically and infection / deaths etc, that just isn't possible given that it appears to be a very difficult to model precisely.
Everyone except the CHO's, who seem to be only focused exclusively on the worst possible outcomes. "What
if it gets into WA, and what
if there is an outbreak and what
if that outbreak becomes uncontrolled then it
could be catastrophic....yadda yadda."
Yes,
if it met
all those conditions, I agree. But the chances of that happening, with proper precautions taken, are slim. That has been found, legally, in the Palmer trial. Dual engine failures on a turbine twin, wile extremely rare, still happen, but with proper precautions they are allowed to fly several hours away, overwater even, from the nearest suitable diversion airport, even though a dual failure could
still occur.
Originally Posted by
exfocx
Just so you understand, as Paul Bongiorno points out at the New Daily, international quarantine is a Federal responsibility.
It does not matter
whose responsibility it is. Because, as above, the data doesn't lie. If you have nearly 2/3rds of international arrivals coming in via NSW, then you need more staff to manage those arrivals, and those additional staff have a higher chance of being infected with COVID and thus passing it to their close contacts. We've seen recent cases in the NSW Health System where ED staff have caught it, and they are arguably the most experienced front-line workers in the state when it comes to infection control.
If we accept the premise that it is a federal responsibility then the Federal Government owes a duty to the residents of NSW (and others where the %age is disproportionate) to hold the other states to account over their penalising those residents. It is all well and good for the Qld CHO to declare "We won't open the border until there is 28 days of no community transmission", but conventionally overlook the number of arrivals. Were NSW to outlaw international arrivals completely, like Tasmania has done, then sure, they could
easily achieve that figure. But there's next to no possibility while there is chance of infection through the hotel quarantine program.
Qld has locked out ACT residents even though they have a better track record than Qld. "Oh, but they commute from
outside the ACT
into the ACT, and they could bring the Pestilence with them" says Dr Young. I invite you to look at
the NSW COVID Map by postcode, scroll down to Canberra and select the recent button. No recent cases within cooee, yet they are still locked out of Qld.
"Border closures are based on risk!" Pigs asre they are. As
Chronic Snoozerposted above
"It's risk avoidance not risk management. Like aviation, things would all be a lot safer if we just all stayed at home.". After-all, Qld has recent confirmed cases of COVID, we should lock down the state to make sure those AFL players don't catch it in their 5-star luxury quarantine hotel...