PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   All borders to reopen. (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/632861-all-borders-reopen.html)

WingNut60 13th Jul 2021 14:56


Originally Posted by SOPS (Post 11078020)
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.

SOPS 13th Jul 2021 15:10


Originally Posted by WingNut60 (Post 11078034)
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.

Transition Layer 13th Jul 2021 15:21


Originally Posted by Icarus2001 (Post 11078008)
Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover.

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%.

Bend alot 13th Jul 2021 21:53


Originally Posted by Icarus2001 (Post 11078008)
Can we remember that 98% of COVID positive people recover.

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

(Not that I agree with your 98% figure)

Lead Balloon 13th Jul 2021 22:34


Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11077968)
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.

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.

Tucknroll 13th Jul 2021 22:49


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11078243)
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.

Climb150 13th Jul 2021 23:02


Originally Posted by Tucknroll (Post 11078251)
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.

Lead Balloon 13th Jul 2021 23:13

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.

Foxxster 13th Jul 2021 23:13


Originally Posted by Tucknroll (Post 11078251)
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.


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.

SHVC 13th Jul 2021 23:52

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.

dr dre 14th Jul 2021 00:14


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11078275)
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.

dr dre 14th Jul 2021 00:30


Originally Posted by Transition Layer (Post 11078045)
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%.

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.

SHVC 14th Jul 2021 00:34


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 11078283)
Don’t stir people up unnecessarily, there was one new case today and they were isolating throughout their infectious period.

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.

dr dre 14th Jul 2021 00:39


Originally Posted by SHVC (Post 11078287)
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.

MickG0105 14th Jul 2021 00:51


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11078243)
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.

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.

KRviator 14th Jul 2021 00:55


Originally Posted by Tucknroll (Post 11078251)
pretty callous mate.

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:

Originally Posted by Tucknnroll
whats a life worth then?

$50? $100? $10,000?

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.


Originally Posted by Tucknroll
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.

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.


Originally Posted by Tucknroll
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.

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.

ruprecht 14th Jul 2021 01:01


Originally Posted by MickG0105 (Post 11078292)
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.

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

MickG0105 14th Jul 2021 01:12


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 11078264)
It's called "reality", Tucknroll. It may be unpalatable, but executing the messenger won't change it.

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.

DirectAnywhere 14th Jul 2021 01:35


Originally Posted by ruprecht (Post 11078297)
You may not like to do it because it’s “too icky”, but rest assured we do it every day.

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.

MickG0105 14th Jul 2021 01:45


Originally Posted by ruprecht (Post 11078297)
You may not like to do it because it’s “too icky”, but rest assured we do it every day.

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:22.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.