It's probably more correctly a personal liberty versus public health argument in that the lockdowns are being used to pursue public health outcomes. Thus it boils down to the discussion/debate that first started a few millennia ago when people first started organising themselves into societal groups - how you reconcile the trade-off between the individual and the group.

Unsurprisingly, some people are firm advocates for individual rights first, while others believe that the welfare of the group is more important. To tap Aurelius, it's the bee and the hive discussion. At the end of the day it comes down to personal values. And frankly who is anyone on this forum to tell anyone else that their values are wrong?

I think that it is fair to say that what some people see as an unreasonable imposition on civil liberties others see as a reasonable public health measure. Those pesky values again. You do you.

Trying to get good country-to-country spending comparisons is problematic for a number of reasons but Sweden's COVID spending in per capita terms appears to be not dissimilar to ours. As a proportion of GDP we have committed around 19 percent, a bit more than the UK, similar to Canada but significantly less than any of Japan, France or Germany.

In terms of how Sweden and Australia have ridden through COVID economically to date, we're doing better in terms of GDP growth (compared to Q4-19, our economy has actually grown to Q1-21; Sweden's (as are most developed countries') is still down) and unemployment (at 5.1 percent we're back to where we were coming into the pandemic whereas Sweden at 9.8 percent is stuck some 2+ percentage points higher than where their were coming in). Draw your own conclusions from that.

Vic and SA reporting new cases. This could be spreading country wide by months end.

Mr Spock may have been on to something when he said quite succinctly "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."

Just some food for thought.

Fly safe (when you can) and play hard (when you can)

Cheers Hoss

And then, of course, in the next movie you had Kirk saying that sometimes "... the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

You do you.

89 cases. Onya Gladys

And some of us are arguing that the response be the subject of a proper cost-benefit analysis. It's a completely uncontroversial concept applied in many other aspects of the workings of our society.

It may be that the real costs of the response outweigh the value of the lives saved. Or it may not be. And the real costs are not confined to just curtailed liberties.

(I was struck by the implications of a societal phenomenon of which I was not aware but recently heard explained by a doctor practising in the inner suburbs of Sydney: Many older people go to shopping centres to get warm, because they cannot afford to heat their homes. And well-known psychologist, social researcher and writer, Hugh Mackay, recently pointed out that the worst punishment we inflict on prisoners is solitary confinement. But we are effectively ordering all these old people to go into solitary confinement. At least prisons are heated. It reminds of that song by another well-known public figure: Ozzie Osbourne. "Killing ourselves to live.")

If Australia continues to stumble from outbreak and lockdown to outbreak and lockdown, without some clear and credible evidence of why it's all 'worth it', I fear that the 'circuit breaker' will be very, very ugly.

In some countries the worst punishment inflicted on prisoners is the death penalty. We officially took that off the table as a sentencing option over 35 years ago.

Your point being?

So,we now learn that the family in melbourne who returned from sydney broke their stay at home isolation requirements & the 3 removalists have varying stories on where they visited etc.
Im really curious how hard it is for people to understand exactly what 'stay at home' means.
I constantly see on here comments about how home isolation is the way to go & how it would be much better that having people in hotel quarantine.
I wouldnt be surprised to see them running to the media now with stories of how badly they have been treated.
The govt have said they wont be fined as they have been forthcoming about their movements,guess u dont have much choice after being caught red handed.

Good thing everyone will have had a vaccination by then!

Just needed a little outbreak to motivate people.

Can we hold a sweep on how long after the NRL settles in their hotels in Qld until AP suddenly finds a reason to close the border?
She’s not even a good actor… written all over her and JY’s faces tonight on the news.

No need for it to get ugly. Just get everyone (or at least 60% of the population) vaccinated. Stop the hysteria regarding the AZ vaccine and get on with it. It seems to be working out pretty well in the UK.

Australia is coming a very embarrassing 38/38 of OECD countries for full vaccination. Accept there is always some risk with every medicine we use and I say again, get on with it like the rest of the world. Nothing more needs to said!

A Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical.
If every state and territory declared 100 cases or even 500 cases and all the borders are open.
Which state would close their border to which state? Why would they do so? Every state is on an equal footing.
One state would complain "you can't close the border because your state is just as infected as ours".

Or let's say all the borders are shut. All state cases jump to 1000 then 2000. Then you could argue, the border is no longer a border
it's just an imaginary line.

Just noting that the formerly worst punishment we inflicted on prisoners, the death penalty, is precisely what gets put on the table as a possible outcome for at least some of "these old people" if we don't "effectively order all these old people to go into solitary confinement". It strikes me as somewhat odd that "well-known psychologist, social researcher and writer, Hugh Mackay," hadn't observed the incongruity in being so perturbed by the lesser of the two punishments.

Separately, it is also notable that nearly four decades ago we determined that the death penalty should not be countenanced for even the most heinous crimes yet in some quarters that is exactly what has been seen as an acceptable outcome for entirely innocent people so that we can avoid public health measures that temporarily impact civil liberties. That strikes me as a tad incongruous but I expect that others will have no issues with reconciling that. You do you.

Yeah but that’s the whole point.
right now everyone in Sydney has a 10km imaginary line around their place of residence.
They way you break a pandemic is to stop the spread of the virus. You can do that through vaccination or by reducing contact between people. That’s it. Those are the options.

The vaccine rollout has been a mess, the only other option is to limit the movement and contact that people have with each other.

This isn’t a conspiracy for the government to take control. I guarantee they’re having a far worse time than previous governments who just needed to worry about whether to build a new stadium, or which rich political sponsor they were going to have dinner with this week.

Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover.

There isn’t enough research done on the long term effects of Covid for you to make that assessment.

I know some one with long Covid. It’s not pleasant. I wish I did not have to wait another 3 weeks for my second AZ.

You don't need to wait.
My SIL (age 69) rang yesterday and asked if she could have her 2nd A-Z early - 8 weeks in.
Yes. No problem.
Got her 2nd A-Z this morning.

Thanks for the info.

Don’t forget…all deaths “with Covid” (not from) are counted.

Bur not all Covid cases are counted. So there’s no way in hell the mortality rate is actually 2%.

Another way to look at it, is 1 in every 50 positive cases don't recover!

(Not that I agree with your 98% figure)

So the little old lady sitting alone and freezing in her home, who'd rather go to the warm shopping centre to meet her friends and take the risk of contracting C-19, would be 'sentenced to death' if she made that choice? If yes, presumably it would be her doing the sentencing? I know what my dearly-departed Granny would have said and done about all this. Her life; her choice.

But back to the point you keep avoiding.

Would you advocate that our society spend - let's pluck $100 Billion - to save one innocent life? Yes or no.

Would you advocate that our society spend $100 Billion to save two innocent lives? Yes or no.

Three? Yes or no.

If you've answered 'yes' to all of the above, we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you've answered 'no' to all of the above, what is the number at which your answer changes from a 'no' to a 'yes' and what is the basis for the change at that number?

We as a society make decisions about how much to sacrifice to save lives, all day, every day. That's why we have a road toll. It could be zero, but the cost of making it zero outweigh the astronomic costs of doing it. We could build unsinkable ships and uncrashable aircraft. We could put every life-saving drug on the pharmaceutical benefits list.

pretty callous mate.

whats a life worth then?

$50? $100? $10,000?

how much money would you want the government to spend if it was spending it to save your child’s life?

It’s different when it’s not a faceless person.

And your granny wouldn’t have just been risking herself, she would be risking others. So I don’t care too much for the ‘my life, my choice’ idea.

It's not callous, it's called a rational view point. Rational view points are pretty lacking these days with the Govt trying to pander to every fringe group it can. Get everyone vaccinated and open back up. If you don't Australia risks become a economic backwater.

It's called "reality", Tucknroll. It may be unpalatable, but executing the messenger won't change it.

I know people who can't afford a life saving drug and I know why the government hasn't put it on the pharmaceutical benefits list: Cost.

a ridiculous argument.

I sure hope you have never had an overseas holiday or have ever bought anything but a basic second hand car or own a nice big tv or any other item that isn’t necessary for basic survival. Because if you have or do, you have chosen your own self gratification over saving lives. Especially those of children in third world countries. Just think how many lives 10,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 dollars would save there.

how callous of you. Oh, it’s ok because they are unseen.


see how that works. Oh and it isn’t up to government to look after that, you are perfectly able to give to charities.

How long will it be before WA and SA close off to Vic? They’re getting steady cases again. One more tomorrow and Dan will do a sharp quick snap lockdown for three days.

Don’t stir people up unnecessarily, there was one new case today and they were isolating throughout their infectious period.

That old chestnut. Have a look at the excess mortality charts:

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic

Excess Deaths Associated with Covid 19

As far as true infection fatality rate goes Australia has been very thorough at testing, tens of thousands of tests whenever there’s an outbreak, so it’s likely we can record most infections when one occurs. And with 30,000 cases and 900 deaths that’s about a 3% IFR.

But we already know that, regardless of the IFR,
the pandemic has had consequential effects on excess mortality and health systems where it has been allowed to run unchecked in unvaccinated populations.

Im not at all, it’s the new country we live in. Constantly shutting borders over a few cases because they could potentially lead to a mass breakout of 20. Having border papers to cross into another city, a test just to leave the airport.

They won’t close up for cases isolating throughout their infectious period. Just restrictions on those who’ve been to an exposure site.

When there’s unlinked cases spreading throughout the community that’s when restrictions tighten, both in the state and out.

When it’s spreading unchecked due to an incompetent government (Gladys) and a population that isn’t taking stay at home orders seriously (Sydney) then you get hard borders.

Okey doke, before you light too many more candles at the altar of cost-benefit analysis, let's be very clear on its shortcomings broadly and more specifically when applied in regimes such as public health, environmental matters or cultural issues. In order for CBAs to be performed properly, both sides of the equation, the costs and the benefits, must be expressed in a common measure. That common measure is typically dollars, often dollars as Net Present Value in order to address timing factors.

Broadly, CBA loses its objective utility whenever the analysis has to include non-market factors, that is, elements that are not marketed, not openly and routinely bought and sold, such that their dollar value cannot be determined objectively. When CBAs have to include factors such as lives (public health), something like air quality (environmental management) or say a cave of historical significance (cultural issues) the value assigned to those factors is arbitrary. And as soon as you introduce that arbitrariness into the equation, the utility of CBA breaks down. It is no longer a cut-and-dried objective analysis, it is now just an articulation of subjective values.

If you want to get into a your values versus someone else's values debate, fine and beaut, but don't try to dress that up under the veil of an objective tool like CBA. And no, I'm not going to play The Price Is Right - Human Life edition. While I may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer I am most assuredly not dumb enough to step out onto that slippery slope. If you want to assign a dollar value, knock your socks off. My only caution would be to watch your footing because it's a long way down.

Not at all. Realistic, and financially responsible, I would argue. There comes a point at which we, as a people, have said "enough is enough", which in turn gives the answer to your question below:As of August, 2019, the average "Healthy adult, with 40 years ahead of them" was valued at $4,900,000 AUD. Call it a round $5.0M in 2021 dollars. That's not a figure I've plucked out of my asre - that is the official "Value of a Statistical Life" from the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, and is used to judge everything from "Do we build a new bridge to save that hazardous water crossing?" to "Will we make this an AD or is it 'acceptable' to kill 'x' number of passengers because it'll cost too much?" It is not a new concept!

But...The concept itself has been thrown out the window for Covid, with no explanation given as to why it is now deemed ok to spend double, maybe triple that amount to save a significant number of people who, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't even be valued at that $5.0M figure due to their age.

No, it isn't. If you allow emotions to cloud your judgement when dealing with decisions such as that, you do what ScoMo, et al have done. Run up a massive bill, or expend enormous resources for no significant benefit as opposed to making a rational, informed judgement.

Then take some responsibility for your own health. If you don't want to run the risk of Covid, wear a mask, wash your hands, carry your own sanitizer, and do what you can to minimize your risk, instead of expecting society to do so for you.

You may not like to do it because it’s “too icky”, but rest assured we do it every day.

I know that response was to another comment but let's apply that reality test. Under the reality of the Federal government's paper thin parliamentary majority, the Constitution's division of powers between the Federal government and the States, and the current state governments can you articulate for us an alternative public policy approach that would have had even a ghost's chance of being enacted. Like it or lump it, here in the real world the guillotine test for public policy is implementability - can it be made real.

Happy to be proven wrong on this but there appeared to be a manifest lack of sufficient political support for alternative approaches to the pandemic for said alternative to get implemented. You can say that your 'unicorn' of an alternative approach would have been far superior on every dimension to the camel that we've got but the camel is what was realistically achievable, the unicorn is imaginary.

Precisely. This is what health economists do every day - they assign a $$ value to human life. You can guarantee the Doherty Institute will be looking at precisely these kinds of issues as part of their ‘four phase plan’ modelling. We need to have a detailed and nuanced national debate about what the future is going to look like - something that seems all but impossible in modern Australia.

Do you use the statistical life value of $5m for a 35 year old in good health or do you have a different value?

not sure why anyone is using a 35 year old.

the average age of WuHu flu deaths here is 82, same as the uk and representative of world wide figures.

I would think the statistical value of a 82 year old is somewhat less than 5 million.

perhaps use that number instead.

oh and many if not most people who die of WuHu are most certainly not healthy but have significant co morbidity factors.

I am not making an assessment, I am quoting the inverse of the Case Fatality Rate, the survival rate if you will. How many of the 98% who recover suffer "long Covid"?

The lowest CFR I could see is Qatar at 0.3% and most are between 1 & 2 %.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality