Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 2.

[gbear]

The woman is a complete and utter fruit cake.

 

[rocket18]

The family member might not have 50 attend their funeral. This lady may have been very very close to the relative and the relative wants to see her before he/she passes away. That's why its called a compassionate exemption. It could be the dying wish of the relative. Why shouldn't that be granted if it is reasonable and the UK lady has shown no symptoms of being infected?

Not that hard to understand, and death and love doesn't always have to be 100% logic.

She was quarantining, but was let out probably because the relative dying wasn't going to make it to day 15. Sometimes sick people rapidly deteriorate compared to what the doctor said a couple of weeks ago.

It seem odd that we insist Aussies have to follow protocols but overseas visitors do not.

Cast your mind back to when this first started, there was an elderly couple from the Riverland.

The old fella was really crook and didn't have long to live, he was taken to the RAH, his Mrs wasn't allowed to see him until she had two negative tests (spaced a few days apart, memories a bit vague on the exact details)

Essentially she was not able to see her dying husband until the protocols were over, I thought at the time "hope the old fellow holds on", luckily he did, she got to see him and he died a few days later.

And yet here we have a non-resident - sure come on in, don't worry about quarantining she'll be right. Nah the others in the hospital or nursing home won't mind.

And then we have 5 umpires from Victoria who can't get a border exemption to spend 2 hours with 20 extremely fit and extremely tested footy players.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And that is exactly what I am saying. She came from a high risk country and she should have had to follow the 14 day quarantine protocol.

I don't care about hoops and I'm not saying you eradicate the risk entirely, but there are mandated policies in place that we are supposed to follow and in this case they were not. I'm sure it is a sad case but there have been many sad cases which were told to suck it up when the country put a clamp on movement.

The government tells the public to follow the protocols but in the starting to look unseemly rush to loosen restrictions, government seems to be getting complacent too.

Careful St Nicola, that halo may tarnish.

So if day 4 of her 14 day quarantine, having shown no symptoms, she gets a phone call to say her relative will be dead in 3 days time, there is no flexibility? Bad luck, suck it up? We can't handle it?

 

[rocket18]

And that is exactly what I am saying. She came from a high risk country and she should have had to follow the 14 day quarantine protocol.

I don't care about hoops and I'm not saying you eradicate the risk entirely, but there are mandated policies in place that we are supposed to follow and in this case they were not. I'm sure it is a sad case but there have been many sad cases which were told to suck it up when the country put a clamp on movement.

The government tells the public to follow the protocols but in the starting to look unseemly rush to loosen restrictions, government seems to be getting complacent too.

Careful St Nicola, that halo may tarnish.

Exactly, part of travelling or living overseas is knowing you might not be able to get back in time to see a loved one who is dying or attend their funeral.

We went overseas last year for 2 months and we discussed it with our elderly parents before we went, we essentially said out "goodbyes" before we left.

 

[chiwigi]

So if day 4 of her 14 day quarantine, having shown no symptoms, she gets a phone call to say her relative will be dead in 3 days time, there is no flexibility? Bad luck, suck it up? We can't handle it?

Yes
and in this case it would have been the correct thing to do!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It seem odd that we insist Aussies have to follow protocols but overseas visitors do not.

Cast your mind back to when this first started, there was an elderly couple from the Riverland.

The old fella was really crook and didn't have long to live, he was taken to the RAH, his Mrs wasn't allowed to see him until she had two negative tests (spaced a few days apart, memories a bit vague on the exact details)

Essentially she was not able to see her dying husband until the protocols were over, I thought at the time "hope the old fellow holds on", luckily he did, she got to see him and he died a few days later.

And yet here we have a non-resident - sure come on in, don't worry about quarantining she'll be right. Nah the others in the hospital or nursing home won't mind.

And then we have 5 umpires from Victoria who can't get a border exemption to spend 2 hours with 20 extremely fit and extremely tested footy players.

Aussies are flying around with exemptions - following the protocols ie no need for quarantining - and other Aussies are flying around and having to quarantine. How do you account for that?? You must be really confused and upset that not everyone is treated exactly the same way.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

So if day 4 of her 14 day quarantine, having shown no symptoms, she gets a phone call to say her relative will be dead in 3 days time, there is no flexibility? Bad luck, suck it up? We can't handle it?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's sad and regrettable I know, but she won't be the first person to have a sad story to tell and she won't be the last.

And if she infects someone who is immuno-compromised and they die in a month? Is that an acceptable risk for a goodbye?

You said there are protocols and they should be followed. Granting exemptions is not following protocol.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You said there are protocols and they should be followed. Granting exemptions is not following protocol.

Actually it is. Exemptions are part of listed legal protocols under the Emergency Act Orders.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Actually it is. Exemptions are part of listed legal protocols under the Emergency Act Orders.

For sad stories? There was no reason for an exemption and one shouldn't have been granted.

As we have seen.

 

[raptalia]

I finally found the story on the SA Health stuff up buried on page 11 of this morning's Monopoly Mail.

AFL footballers stuff up with no consequences and it is front page and back page of the morning paper. The Government stuffs up with consequences and we have to search to find the story.

And what if the test was negative in Melbourne? How long between test and flying. Tests don't given instantaneous results. She was tested a couple of days before she flew out.

This is no Ruby Princess moment. There was no lies and deception. There was no potential carrier refusing to be tested because they were going to be charged an arm and a leg to see a doctor. Unlike the Ruby Princess passengers she was easily traceable.

Madam X was tested in Melbourne shortly after she arrived and the test returned negative so that was either a false negative or she had contracted the virus as she was leaving the UK which is possible given the hugs and handshakes of those she possibly farewelled at the airport. After less than seven days in quarantine she then got on a plane flew for 90 minutes to Adelaide and then tested positive when she arrived. In the meantime she was allowed to contact members of the public and airport staff. Why the first test in Melbourne was negative is a matter for debate but she should have been tested a second time before leaving Melbourne just as she was tested a second time when she got to Adelaide. It raises the question of the accuracy of some testing. False negatives are surprisingly high with some testing methods.

Questions about COVID-19 test accuracy raised across the testing spectrum

Diagnostic tests are no longer in short supply, but questions about their accuracy are growing.

www.nbcnews.com

The fact that Nicola Spurrier has flagged that the exemptions protocol for South Australia will be revised is in itself an admission that things could have been handled better. Maybe the review will be that there are no exemptions and that everyone has to serve 14 days in quarantine regardless. I could live with that.

In actual fact under the current SA Health guidelines any one arriving from overseas is supposed to spend 14 days quarantine in the city of arrival then another 14 days once they get to South Australia. Being a compassionate person I would concede waiving the second 14 days in compassionate cases but everyone should definitely serve 14 days and be tested twice at the city of arrival. If that had happened yesterday's setback would probably not have happened.

Footnote I read that a man in Queensland has tested positive post mortem despite showing no symptoms while living. His wife has susequently tested positive. The only predictable thing about COVID-18 is it's unpredictability. With that in mind 14 days in quarantine and two tests for all overseas arrivals is an essential imo.

 

[Andre]

So if day 4 of her 14 day quarantine, having shown no symptoms, she gets a phone call to say her relative will be dead in 3 days time, there is no flexibility? Bad luck, suck it up? We can't handle it?

Either say no, or implement proper procedures on travelling. She should have been escorted by someone in PPE from Melbourne to Adelaide, had to wear it herself and be seated more than 1.5 metres from anyone else on the plane. If those weren't able to be met, then she should have been denied being able to travel. Yes, it would have been sad, but with the figures on infections and deaths we've seen overseas someone being sad at not being able to say goodbye face to face doesn't override the safety of the community.

 

[raptalia]

So if day 4 of her 14 day quarantine, having shown no symptoms, she gets a phone call to say her relative will be dead in 3 days time, there is no flexibility? Bad luck, suck it up? We can't handle it?

and how many COVID-19 victims in Australia do you think have been forced to die without their loved ones by their bedside unable to touch and comfort them? This woman was on the other side of the world and we are moving heaven and earth and risking the health of the public to get her to her loved one's bedside. I do not say do not try but do not risk the safety of the population in doing it.

The fact is that Madam X has tested positive so it is unlikely that she will be by the bedside when her relative passes away. Unless of course SA Health intend to let her out of quarantine for a hospital visit.

 

[edgie]

Exemptions to attend funerals aren't uncommon. I've got a friend who now lives in the ACT who got an exemption to attend her grandfather's funeral, and she's not a 'friends in high places' type. You're only hearing about it now because this is the first time one of the exemptions has been granted to somebody who it turns out had the virus.

You fib

Everyone in the ACT would have friends in high places! What else would be the point of the ACT?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[manureid]

Also, do all the people on the plane, at the airport, whoever she came in contact with, now have to do a 14 day quarantine? You would be quite rightly pissed off if so.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Also, do all the people on the plane, at the airport, whoever she came in contact with, now have to do a 14 day quarantine? You would be quite rightly pissed off if so.

Unless they had an already set exemption as an essential worker, they would've been quarantining after arriving anyway even if she wasn't on the plane.

If they did have an exemption already in place, they'll probably just have to self isolate until their test results come back.

 

[Interstater]

I want to know how many other exemptions have been given.

Absolutely livid that we all have to be good little lemmings while others flaunt the rule.

Between Pauline Hanson, that senior advisor to big Boris and this I'm not convinced we are capable of doing enough to allow business as new usual to progress optimally. Imagine if this case triggers a cluster at a local Westfield and all planned business openings are put on hold. Who wears the cost of that?

Keep the bloody borders closed and make public any exemptions.

 

[raptalia]

Also, do all the people on the plane, at the airport, whoever she came in contact with, now have to do a 14 day quarantine? You would be quite rightly pissed off if so.

Particularly if you were one of the 750 Qantas staff who had to quarantine a few weeks back.

 

[Capital Power]

You fib

Everyone in the ACT would have friends in high places! What else would be the point of the ACT?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Unless living 600m above sea level counts, I can assure you I do not. I am now questioning my existence.

 

[OneGreatClub]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's sad and regrettable I know, but she won't be the first person to have a sad story to tell and she won't be the last.

And if she infects someone who is immuno-compromised and they die in a month? Is that an acceptable risk for a goodbye?

You said there are protocols and they should be followed. Granting exemptions is not following protocol.

Even worse, the elderly relative is in a nursing home...just imagine if covid19 got a hold in there.

 

[Andre]

Even worse, the elderly relative is in a nursing home...just imagine if covid19 got a hold in there.

Doubly crazy. Someone isolating, whether from another state or local shouldn't be allowed near a nursing home or hospital to visit anyone. This has been bungled every step of the way.

 

[Lawnchair Larry]

Here is some data I picked up from the NSW assessment of Spanish flu out break of 1919.
We dont want this to happen again.
Our sophistication is just so much improved over that time, when they could not assess "Confirmed Cases", but instead all they could do was count body bags.
About 12000 people died Australia wide from Spanish flu, with about 6000 of them in NSW.
In the end they just gave up the ghost - unsurprising since the war had just ended with 60000 Aussies dead.
It was a time when contagious diseases were more the norm.
These points were made in the following reference:
http://theconversation.com/lockdown...oronavirus-might-play-out-in-australia-138429

The plots below for the NSW Spanish flu data were regenerated from the following scratchy reference:
https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20080410052741/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/83132/20080410-1521/influenza_report_full_36
It shows 2 consecutive 10 week periods of infection - the 2nd twice as dangerous as the first.
In terms of calender dates the disease is ridiculously similar to our current state. Whether the second round is a seasonal (winter) thing, or whether the guard was let down to instigate the 2nd infection period is up for debate. Maybe both.
Here is a time frame analysis taken from The Conversation reference above, which you can match up with the plots below:

[TD valign="bottom"]At the end of February, NSW lifted most restrictions.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]In mid-March, new cases began to rise.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]government delayed reimposing restrictions until early April, allowing the virus to take hold.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]After ten weeks the epidemic seemed to have run its course,[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]as May turned to June, new cases appeared.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The resurgence came with a virulence surpassing the worst days of April.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"] NSW cabinet decided against reinstating restrictions, but urged people to impose their own restraints [/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]After two unsuccessful attempts to defeat the epidemic - at great social and economic cost - the government decided to let it take its course.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The second wave’s peak arrived in the first week of July[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]Like its predecessor, the second wave lasted ten weeks.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]But this time the epidemic did not return.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]More than 12,000 Australians had died.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The NSW government’s decision not to restore restrictions saw the epidemic “burn out”, but at a terrible cost in lives.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]That decision did not cause a ripple of objection.[/TD]

I think most of us knew that the Spanish flu was a "2 peak" thing, but what I did not realise was the change in demographic of those who died in the second wave (taken from the above government reference). If this type of circumstance arose again there are only 2 options: taking out more boomers or capturing the younger demographic. You need to ask yourself: "Are you feelin lucky?"

 

[manureid]

Marshall on the woman:


He said he did not have specific details of the reasons for the woman’s visit, but said she “has gone through an extraordinary journey” and “unfortunately with this current situation she won’t be able to fulfil that mission”.

So as expected, cannot visit the relative anyway. And they are not admitting an errors. Of course.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Here is some data I picked up from the NSW assessment of Spanish flu out break of 1919.
We dont want this to happen again.
Our sophistication is just so much improved over that time, when they could not assess "Confirmed Cases", but instead all they could do was count body bags.
About 12000 people died Australia wide from Spanish flu, with about 6000 of them in NSW.
In the end they just gave up the ghost - unsurprising since the war had just ended with 60000 Aussies dead.
It was a time when contagious diseases were more the norm.
These points were made in the following reference:
http://theconversation.com/lockdown...oronavirus-might-play-out-in-australia-138429

The plots below for the NSW Spanish flu data were regenerated from the following scratchy reference:
https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20080410052741/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/83132/20080410-1521/influenza_report_full_36
It shows 2 consecutive 10 week periods of infection - the 2nd twice as dangerous as the first.
In terms of calender dates the disease is ridiculously similar to our current state. Whether the second round is a seasonal (winter) thing, or whether the guard was let down to instigate the 2nd infection period is up for debate. Maybe both.
Here is a time frame analysis taken from The Conversation reference above, which you can match up with the plots below:

[TD valign="bottom"]At the end of February, NSW lifted most restrictions.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]In mid-March, new cases began to rise.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]government delayed reimposing restrictions until early April, allowing the virus to take hold.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]After ten weeks the epidemic seemed to have run its course,[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]as May turned to June, new cases appeared.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The resurgence came with a virulence surpassing the worst days of April.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"] NSW cabinet decided against reinstating restrictions, but urged people to impose their own restraints [/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]After two unsuccessful attempts to defeat the epidemic - at great social and economic cost - the government decided to let it take its course.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The second wave’s peak arrived in the first week of July[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]Like its predecessor, the second wave lasted ten weeks.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]But this time the epidemic did not return.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]More than 12,000 Australians had died.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]The NSW government’s decision not to restore restrictions saw the epidemic “burn out”, but at a terrible cost in lives.[/TD]

[TD valign="bottom"]That decision did not cause a ripple of objection.[/TD]

View attachment 882205
I think most of us knew that the Spanish flu was a "2 peak" thing, but what I did not realise was the change in demographic of those who died in the second wave (taken from the above government reference). If this type of circumstance arose again there are only 2 options: taking out more boomers or capturing the younger demographic. You need to ask yourself: "Are you feelin lucky?"
View attachment 882212

Spanish flu is different because the second wave was mainly due to bacterial pneumonia, which killed the majority of people. There were no anti-bacterial treatments back then as there are now.

Indeed, the availability of antibiotics during the other influenza pandemics of the 20th century, specifically those of 1957 and 1968, was probably a key factor in the lower number of worldwide deaths during those outbreaks, notes Dr. Morens.

Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic

Implications for Future Pandemic Planning

www.nih.gov

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Marshall on the woman:


He said he did not have specific details of the reasons for the woman’s visit, but said she “has gone through an extraordinary journey” and “unfortunately with this current situation she won’t be able to fulfil that mission”.

So as expected, cannot visit the relative anyway. And they are not admitting an errors. Of course.

She tested negative in Victoria but then tested positive on arrival here... kind of suspicious and worrying.

 

[LFC2010]

Marshall on the woman:


He said he did not have specific details of the reasons for the woman’s visit, but said she “has gone through an extraordinary journey” and “unfortunately with this current situation she won’t be able to fulfil that mission”.

So as expected, cannot visit the relative anyway. And they are not admitting an errors. Of course.

What the actual f***! How can the government be defending that?