Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Australia PM shuts down bars, restaurants and gyms and blames it on the public

Our Prime Minister yesterday announced that from midday today bars, restaurants and gyms would close indefinitely because "...extra measures are regrettable but a result of Australians not taking the situation seriously."
What a tool - blame it all on the public!

The cure could cause more long term suffering than the virus, businesses going broke, unemployment, loss of income.

You mean like the NSW health officials that released cruise liner passengers that had exposure to the COVID virus without any checks?

How stupid was that!

You folks down there have some work to do before the next election. Your PM has moron chip problem.

At least the Aussies aren't as dumb as the Canadians. I hope. Meaning the ones who voted for Trudeau.

Public spread the virus, not the Government.

What Morrison did, was a significant effort, to protect the public from itself.

It's happening the world over.

Sorry your government's concern & forced protection has inconvenienced you.

You live in Inala, don't you ?

If you think so !

Yes, he's against leftist socialism.

Don't see that as a bad thing, myself.

YMMV

Yes, because you guys, at least, gave Obama 2 terms with a majority !

You missed my point. I am all for the restrictions and it makes entire sense to do it. Our PM had to enforce them irrespective otherwise he would be negligent. Blaming the entire public for the decision is idiotic. Yes there are a minority who don't comply but I'm not one of them, just like the majority.

There are negative repercussions for the restrictions and our PM is setting up blame avoidance now by saying it was our fault that the restrictions were introduced in the first place. That's weak. If he treats all of us like a bunch of morons well we elected him - was that also a moronic decision?

OK, so maybe if I changed 1 line of my reply to reflect the "emotional panic" world wide.

What Morrison did, was a significant effort, to protect the conforming Johnny public from the idiotic nonconforming public.

Somehow, the Government/s have to convey that the population is both the risk, & also the reward.

Some "Richards" not taking the situation seriously, endangers everybody.

We've been in "self isolation" for 2 weeks & the .Gov has just announced another 2 weeks.

I own a small business, that has been considered an "essential" service, but due to the Isolation orders, are running at about 40% of normal business.

The more "Richards" out there, the longer all businesses & their employees suffer.

KInda. He had to implement the restrictions irrespective of the Richards - there's always going to be Richards. Saying he had to implement the restrictions because of the public non-compliance is incorrect - he had to implement them anyway, and would be negligent if he hadn't. Blaming the public as a trigger for the restrictions was wrong.

He should have simply said that we have to have these tighter restrictions to minimise the spread of the virus, and that's it. Non-compliance is a separate issue, but the general public do comply. He can abuse away on the non-compliant.

Any further restrictions would be for failure to control the spread, and not non-compliance. Non-compliers need to be dealt with accordingly. Currently we are allowed to travel locally to get to work if necessary, to go grocery shopping, get petrol, visit the doctor etc but are otherwise supposed to stay home. We can go outdoors for physical activity providing we maintain a safe social distance, and can't congregate in groups bigger than 2 people. There are still risks in doing these compliant activities. I dare say, without all the facts though, that the compliant risk may be greater than the risks from the non-compliant mainly because of the numbers involved - vastly more compliant than not (not saying that we might as well be non-compliant). Touching shopping trolleys, touching petrol pumps, exchange of cash and coin - these are still risks at this level of restriction.

Edit - Oh and the PM is now responsible for ensuring a system for compliance with restrictions whether he chooses to delegate that role to the state police (case at the moment) or at a national level (army etc) - not sure who has what powers, but that could change anyway.

If this report proves to be the case it's goodbye to Australia's economy;

Australians could be in cooped up in isolation until long after Christmas - with strict social distancing measures for up to two years''

''Australians have been warned they could be cooped up in their homes until well after Christmas, while social distancing measures could last as long as two years.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison warned on Friday Australians could expect six months of stringent social distancing measures as the national infection rate dropped to under 10 per cent.

But infectious disease expert Professor Peter Collignon said COVID-19's seasonal nature meant the number of cases may not reduce significantly until the spring.''


'You know what the bad news is? We're going to have to do a lot of this social distancing for another 18 months to two years,' Professor Collignon, from the Australian National University, told news.com.au.

'This virus is not going to go anywhere soon. We'll have a reprieve next spring because there's less transmission of viruses in summer.'

He added the virus would continue to have an effect in Australia until a cure is found.''

Hasn't made one iota of difference to me...I still don't go anywhere.

If only we were all in that position.

Ironically those areas hit hardest now by the virus may fare better in the near future - they will have developed their herd immunity while it is still going through our herd. They can get up and running earlier but at the cost of a higher number of deaths (20-25%? go into ICU, 10-15%? are saved as a result, I'm not sure of the figures).

Only three options to end the pandemic: eradication (not likely, too widespread), vaccine (estimated 18 months away) or herd immunity (relies on most people becoming infected and remaining alive, and I think this may be between 60-80% of the population - would this happen in one season?).

Who knows what the toll of long term shutdown will be?


Edit - The government is intending to release information on the modelling forecast today.

A fourth option would be the development of an effective treatment for the disease. There seems to be some promise of that, whether by way of hydroxychloroquine (perhaps combined with other drugs), ivermectin or perhaps something else. If people can be treated effectively, and if there's enough of the treatment to go around, then development of herd immunity could become a quicker and safer option.

Good point, I missed that one.

So the brakes come off self-isolation when either:
- COVID-19 eradicated (not likely now), or
- effective treatment, or
- effective vaccine, or
- effective herd immunity

The term effective has an acceptable mortality rate behind it - surely that must be already defined somewhere. The flu has an acceptable mortality rate but at what rate is the acceptable line drawn?

Sweden has a different approach to the virus crisis;

''Sweden is adopting a 'flexible' coronavirus response and betting on 'social obedience'

Rather than telling people what to do — or, worse, telling them off — the Government is asking Swedes to do the right thing, and giving them the liberty to prove they are responsible citizens. While the Government has taken some measures, such as limiting social gatherings to 50 people and closing high schools and universities, experts say it is betting on Sweden's "social obedience". But that's a lot of trust to put in your people at a time of global pandemic, and a gamble that could have catastrophic consequences.

By his own account, Mr Magnusson, 30, is an example that the 'recommendations, not restrictions' approach can work. "I used to go to the gym three to four times a week, but I haven't been there since the pandemic ramped up," he said.''


Because Sweden's Government has taken a vastly different, more flexible approach than many Western countries, including its Scandinavian neighbours, he sometimes feels "torn".

"If it turns out that Sweden gets through this pandemic quite alright, this will be a stroke of a genius," he said."It could [also] be that Sweden is just three weeks behind Italy and it'll hit us like a sledgehammer." If Mr Nordenberg has his doubts, his 74-year-old father Richard, a former navy pilot, puts unwavering trust in the Swedish Government's "very reasonable strategy". He said rather than isolating the whole society, the Government has put the onus on the elderly, asking them to stay home.


Magnus Barnell thinks the world will benefit from trying different approaches for any future events. "If it shows that our approach ultimately also can work, then it means that we can return back to normal society," he said.

"Whereas if it shows it doesn't work, then you will see more states becoming very restrictive [in future events]."His wife, Nele, hopes that if at any point the Government realises the country is on the wrong trajectory, it changes course immediately.

"But at this point I don't think they have to take any harsher measures. I do believe that if they see things are changing, I believe that they would change their strategy," she said. 'People will not tolerate a complete lockdown'

Interesting, but they do already have a relatively high infection rate (could be because of high testing rates) and also a relatively high death rate.

I'm not sure how they would quantify "If it turns out that Sweden gets through this pandemic quite alright...". Sounds like they value freedom quite highly. But who knows, they may get through this quicker than others, develop the herd immunity and suffer less financial impact (at a higher mortality rate?).

I guess we'll know in the long term. Personally, I like their approach. Despite an initial spike in deaths, it may be a better strategy in the long run.

Yeah, sounds kind of cruel, but I tend to agree with you. In the long term that may be the best approach, but, like you said, we'll find out later what was the best approach.

It seems like we have put the "brakes on" so hard down here that we're actually getting no where useful, and possibly opening ourselves up for long term pain - no herd immunity and hanging out for a effective vaccine or treatment that may possibly never eventuate. Social impairment, market shutdown, financial collapse etc death by long term quarantine. COVID-19 looks to be around for a while.

It sounds harsh, but there is a bit of argument from emotion involved. Naturally nobody wants their grandparents to die, but there must be a balance between preserving the economic system from near collapse and preventing too many deaths in an initial spike. I mean, we do accept road deaths, industry, etc.

Reported world wide infection rate 0.026% of total population

Reported world COVID-19 death rate 0.0016% of total population.

Without quarantine would it have been 10 times worse? Still small percentages.

Is the infection rate 10 times higher than reported? Still small percentages.



Without herd immunity how many more re-infections are we going to have, how many more shutdowns, where will the stimulus money come from?

I thought we were slamming the brakes on too hard here in Australia but maybe it's a world wide error, although the countries worst hit now will probably get back to normal quicker. Quarantine at a country border level until a vaccine is developed (if ever) - sounds like long term hiatus of the tourism industry.


We were told that the quarantine was to slow the spread of the virus so the health care facilities wouldn't be overwhelmed but it's now morphed into trying to stop the virus completely. Can't really blame anyone I suppose, no one has gone through this event this way before - experts can only be guided from previous events.