All borders to reopen.
Yes, clearly evidenced elsewhere. But likely the nebuliser helped it spread significantly.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The (Christmas) Northern Beaches outbreak, source remains undetermined.
This is the same person that owned the nebuliser, who would already have medical issues may asthma something unknown to the public. Nothing too see here cant blame every ICU case on C-19
Last edited by SHVC; 10th Feb 2021 at 19:43.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the MEL Holiday Inn outbreak. To be fair, the same nebuliser driven outbreak (assuming that's what happened) could have happened in any other state undertaking hotel floor Q ( NT, not looking at you 
). Personal baggage from your flight is certainly not searched in WA. Had he sick man arrived into Perth with his nebuliser, the same infection would have happened to a similar number of people and they may have been worse off with (until last week) no community mask wearing and limited testing.
SOPS - if you read the fine print of most the states, such exemptions have always been in the fine print. I'm not as intricately familiar with SA's as I have been with every other state, but I'd be surprised if it was different.
). Personal baggage from your flight is certainly not searched in WA. Had he sick man arrived into Perth with his nebuliser, the same infection would have happened to a similar number of people and they may have been worse off with (until last week) no community mask wearing and limited testing.SOPS - if you read the fine print of most the states, such exemptions have always been in the fine print. I'm not as intricately familiar with SA's as I have been with every other state, but I'd be surprised if it was different.
In the early days of the pandemic nebulisers were banned for use in many hospitals, as were 'aerosol generating procedures'. I doubt in this case it could have been avoided. Someone got sick, maybe they already had respiratory issues and had their own nebuliser, which they used, leading to this spread in a place not designed to contain aerosols.
If however, the scenario was that the patient tested positive, became unwell and then was GIVEN this treatment by authorities... then that is a massive clusterf*ck on behalf of the VIC Health team/ whoever manages HQ at the moment, seemingly against their own hospital procedures.
Please cite your expert reference for the correct number.
"More than one" is a meaningless but nefarious answer.
Well, considering the WA CHO testified in court that their health system can successfully manage 500 new cases per day the answer is obviously not "1". That would utilise 650 hospital and 124 ICU beds, but would remain within the capability of the WA health system. That being the case, I would say anything more than 500 new cases per day, based on a population of 2.66 million should be the trigger to require a lockdown, because anything less than 500 can be managed by the (existing) health system. Your reference is Palmer v Western Australia (No 4) [2020] FCA 1221 [86].
If you want to extrapolate that to other states, on the assumption all health systems have the same capacity, that is 1,200 cases a day for Mexico and 1,500 for NSW. And that's per day remember....
If you want to extrapolate that to other states, on the assumption all health systems have the same capacity, that is 1,200 cases a day for Mexico and 1,500 for NSW. And that's per day remember....
That would utilise 650 hospital and 124 ICU beds, but would remain within the capability of the WA health system.
substantially increase the burden upon the health system.
Pretty sure most WA residents would rather see their Aunty Doris have a hip replacement than 500 new cases per day.
But then, that'd be OK, wouldn't it?
While you, Clive and Beryl may agree, apparently the Federal Court of Australia did not.
Originally Posted by WingNut60
But then, that'd be OK, wouldn't it?
My point is, if the Government has had a financial model for acceptable risk (including death) v reward for decades, and they threw it out the window for COVID. However, the Government - of all persuasions - is happy to rake in the billions of dollars from tobacco excise, despite knowing it is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in Australia.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't forget, nor intentionally omit it. You asked for a specific number of cases, I gave what Iconsider to be a reasonable number of cases based on testimony from a state CHO
These numbers would remain within the capacity of the Western Australian health system to manage, but would substantially increase the burden upon the health system.
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Perth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with having active covid cases, regardless of borders, is that it kills demand. People are generally not willing to take the risk - especially so for corporate travel. Without corporate travel the golden triangle - and many other routes would be half, if not less, their standard capacity - and we can forget about yield
That your figure of 500 new cases per day should not be used as a threshold for a lockdown as you’ve taken it in isolation from the rest of the summation. There would be a significant impact on the provision of WA’s health services well before that figure is reached.
The issue with having active covid cases, regardless of borders, is that it kills demand. People are generally not willing to take the risk - especially so for corporate travel. Without corporate travel the golden triangle - and many other routes would be half, if not less, their standard capacity - and we can forget about yield
This slowdown of aviation is because of a worldwide health crisis and it’ll be over when the health crisis is no longer an issue, not borders.
Lets get one thing straight...
Since the prohibition on cruise ships and an isolated case or two on cargo ships, there is only one other way that the country is now subjected to receiving infected individuals - international air travel.
That firstly means that bleating by international pilots and airlines is just that - self interested crap. The Federal Government and the states have already been overly generous, in my opinion, in permitting any international arrivals of passengers at all.
Given that generosity, it is even worse when we hear International pilots carping about lockdown conditions, etc., when the need for such measures is directly caused by their employers activities.
It should also be of interest to domestic RPT pilots because without the constant stream of infected individuals from overseas we would have beaten this virus by now and could have reopened the whole domestic RPT and tourism market
My suggestion is that there should be only two quarantine locations Christmas and Manus Islands. No one gets to land here unless they are tested Covid free for fourteen days.
Since the prohibition on cruise ships and an isolated case or two on cargo ships, there is only one other way that the country is now subjected to receiving infected individuals - international air travel.
That firstly means that bleating by international pilots and airlines is just that - self interested crap. The Federal Government and the states have already been overly generous, in my opinion, in permitting any international arrivals of passengers at all.
Given that generosity, it is even worse when we hear International pilots carping about lockdown conditions, etc., when the need for such measures is directly caused by their employers activities.
It should also be of interest to domestic RPT pilots because without the constant stream of infected individuals from overseas we would have beaten this virus by now and could have reopened the whole domestic RPT and tourism market
My suggestion is that there should be only two quarantine locations Christmas and Manus Islands. No one gets to land here unless they are tested Covid free for fourteen days.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, considering the WA CHO testified in court that their health system can successfully manage 500 new cases per day the answer is obviously not "1". That would utilise 650 hospital and 124 ICU beds, but would remain within the capability of the WA health system. That being the case, I would say anything more than 500 new cases per day, based on a population of 2.66 million should be the trigger to require a lockdown, because anything less than 500 can be managed by the (existing) health system. Your reference is Palmer v Western Australia (No 4) [2020] FCA 1221 [86].
If you want to extrapolate that to other states, on the assumption all health systems have the same capacity, that is 1,200 cases a day for Mexico and 1,500 for NSW. And that's per day remember....
If you want to extrapolate that to other states, on the assumption all health systems have the same capacity, that is 1,200 cases a day for Mexico and 1,500 for NSW. And that's per day remember....
As long as this thing is allowed to replicate, like in Europe it can and will mutate (remember not that long ago viewed as unlikely) and possibly come up with something that can defeat our efforts at vaccination.
Then its back to square one.
I don't want to go all the way back to square one. Do you?
