Originally Posted by
dr dre
(snip)
People scoffed at this a few months ago. Now we’re on the cusp on achieving it.
(snip)
As much as conspiracy theorists would like to think that State premiers are doing this for delusional psychopathic reasons they are being advised to do this by the experts for good health and economic reasons.
(snip)
If we have a chance to get to zero, and it’s close, then take it.
Not a pilot; and usually politically quite left of centre. I am involved in COVID data work and advisory including analysis towards air travel reopening. I can say that 'zero' is a bloody-minded, aesthetic and egotistical choice by several state leaders and their close sets of advisors. Most certainly eradication is possible to reach. (Ironically, in the early days of COVID-19 the statistical and biosecurity guys about the place were often given a rough time by the health experts and epidemiologists for arguing that the actual data was showing we were nearly there back in May). But it is extremely difficult to sustain, and moreover tremendously costly to achieve and then re-achieve. The "premium" in long-term costs, in going from low to zero, is utterly disproportionate to the benefits (despite the calculations of Prof. Blakely -- synopsis of his article supporting eradication on health cost grounds is: let's poorly represent low-rate non-eradication approaches, and form a narrowly-focused cost function, and then seek to convince all and sundry that eradication is obviously the lowest-cost option)
Vic Govt's obsession with zero, rather than following the clearly sufficient and far more moderate NSW position, has cost Victoria dearly. For example, senior figures in mental health talk in private about widespread damage that will never be repaired. This has become the status quo without consultation with their populations, with patchy-at-best dialogue with the rank-and-file of the science community, without regard for the Commonwealth Govt position, and under State of Emergency powers that stifle constructive debate about what is best for a state or the country, because the executive don't have to listen, they can act with impunity.
It is ironic that despite Dan Andrews' constant claims about being driven by data and science, most certainly Vic Govt's approach was *not* data driven. Data-driven showed that every Australian state got COVID-19 rates from first wave peaks down to very low figures March-May 2020. That is eight experiments all showing the same result, done with relatively moderate restrictions through most of the period. NSW has then successfully put multiple outbreaks to bed with the same settings, Tassie put Burnie away pretty easily, and even VIC managed one or two wins. Then VIC had a spectacular series of well-documented failures starting mid-late May. (Sure, if you point an A380 at the ground, you will kill 550 people. What does that prove?) What seemingly has been quickly forgotten is that due to various factors (including what I believe is a reticence to be open with the public about some of the 'social indicators', and embarrassing systematic shortcomings that were not acknowledged and were quickly cascading) Victoria spent more than two weeks racking up scores of cases, before decisive action was taken. The initial action was late but correct. The last 6 weeks? Jesus wept.
Now with COVID nationally, without actually informing and asking the population about the options, we are at an analogous position to saying "sorry, we just can't trust our firefighters to put fires out, so we declare every day from November to March to be a Total Fire Ban, and closing all the National Parks: and you will support us, because you don't want anyone to get hurt do you?". It's fundamentalist logic that we expect to hear from Middle Eastern leaders or the dumbest parts of the USA. Thing is, winners are grinners unless your world has fallen apart in the process. There have been too many happily married 40-somethings making decisions for everybody else (says one of those people...). An almost voiceless 5%-10% of the population have been utterly smashed by this, and god help you if you are an Aussie wanting to get home or an overseas guest who didn't f*** off home when Scomo told you to (the multi-$B education export will *never* recover from our disregard and callousness). But yeah, winners are grinners.
I don't have much of a view on SA, although on first blush it might be overkill, and certainly the snap border closures were heartless and stupid acts which left many people isolated from their homes and lands.
I don't think the premiers are doing this for "delusional psychopathic reasons" but neither are they being rational, well-informed and holistic. Except in NSW/ACT it seems. The drive to reach zero, and be heroes/heroines like Jacinda, is no better than religious fundamentalism. You can have zero adultery too, if you work hard enough at it. The ends do not justify the means. Just because Dan and Mark and Anastasia etc "won" does not mean they have chosen the best path. We do not have a binary choice between NZ on one hand, and Sweden, the UK or the USA on the other.
The data shows that we all had a great and successful approach March-May but now the wheels are well and truly off. Yes it is better that the wheels rolled south to zero, rather than rolled north to infinity -- but they are still off. The majority of relevant scientists, sociologists, economists and data-wranglers are NOT being harnessed or listened to; and state and national strategy is a total shambles.