Analysis Coronavirus - The Impact III “WA - An Island within an Island”

[Biggie]

 

[boondy]

Um, google does that already.

Blackmail . I can see a movie here .

 

[shooshka]

So no lives lost under any circumstances?

The majority of deaths have been amongst seniors. Those who will shoulder the economic load with be the youth.

I am just wondering if this drags on just how much are you willing to sacrifice so that not a single life is lost.

People seem to think its a choice of life versus money. It's not that black and white. The economy isn't just money its people livelihoods. You take away the economy you take away their means to survive.

What do you think the mortality rates are of housed versus homeless? Employed versus unemployed? Middle class versus poverty? People die due to economic downturns.

I think we will lose more people to the economic downturn then the virus itself.

This may be simplistic (and is far too simplistic as a scenario of course), and is probably not even possible - but I would think our economic rebound would be much faster and much stronger if by some miracle we eliminate the virus and return to 'business as usual' (excluding international travel of course).

The argument that every day or week hurts us economically is true - but does it hurt us more than the rebound on the other side if elimination is achieved?

We're really lucky from a national point of view that we produce 3x as much food as is required within our borders (i.e. we export a lot of food), and we are also really good a digging up things that are in shortage at the moment (copper, iron ore and gold as a starting point). Not to mention that with our national sports back on there is potentially extra revenue into sports-starved markets where they are still battling the virus (US/Europe).

We've been going for about a month, give-or-take depending on where you live, I would think another 2 months is sustainable. Of course most people will go stir crazy, and there will be some who are worse off (financially, health and socially) than others - hopefully they can get all the support they require.

I think elimination is a possibility that the governments have to consider now - as they didn't expect to get to the current low case numbers (possibly at all, but certainly not so quickly).

 

[Biggie]

 

[Hap Hapablap]

Until an effective vaccine is produced (and that's still a substantial "if" rather than a "when"), I don't necessarily agree that Australia ends up in the superior final position as a result of our good work. What we do end up with is far fewer fatalities at a given point in time for the next few months. That's obviously admirable.
But we also end up with a largely untouched population that is ripe for future infection any time the virus pops up, whereas other places where the virus is running wild will presumably start to build up some level of community immunity. How big that effect is is still being learned, but early studies seem to suggest it's several times higher than we're currently measuring/assuming.
Even in the highly unlikely event that we eliminate it completely in Australia, we're still completely at risk unless the whole rest of the world is free of it as well.

im pretty sure as long as theres no vaccine the 14 day quarantine will be enforced unconditionally when you return overseas. this i believe will also be a deterrent for tourists to come in. sure it will continue to hit the tourism industry here but then the government would encourage those to travel domestically.

 

[boondy]

Can I tell a little story ..
A man is sleeping having a bad dream . The dream is a restless one he is panged with a dilemna . ...
In this dream he can see his country produces plenty of food . We have adequate and clean water . There is pandemic going on in this dream . He is safe but is in a dilemna.
Is it just an alleged quality of life that is the issue ?
So if I let people die just because they are old or weak. Thats acceptible cos I not be a health care worker or and I have no empathy ,fellow feeling
and I am narcissistic sociopath cos it means some and I will have a better house , car , clothes etc .
If there are food shortages or safe drinking water issues its a whole different ball game for me .
Can I personally deal with my mortgage collapsing , meaning I lose the ownership of my house , my business is gone because it has meant people dont die . The spoilt selfish part of me that has lived a gifted life handed on a platter stresses and says life is over now . I may as well end it . That part of me is ingrained does it own me .
If I had a choice to save a million dollar bag of money or a 75/80 year old man both falling in a volcano is how I see this but even if I choose to save the bag of money there is no guarantee that I dont fall into the volcano .
The man wakes up thinking he is falling .

A bad dream
Boondy

 

[Rowan18]

im pretty sure as long as theres no vaccine the 14 day quarantine will be enforced unconditionally when you return overseas. this i believe will also be a deterrent for tourists to come in. sure it will continue to hit the tourism industry here but then the government would encourage those to travel domestically.

One of the first things I'm doing when it is allowed, will be to go on a holiday in WA. I was planning on going to Vietnam but that won't be happening, instead my tourist dollars will be spent here. I'm sure there will be a lot of other people doing the same.

 

[kane249]

I am just wondering if this drags on just how much are you willing to sacrifice so that not a single life is lost.

So the flipside to this question

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life or the lives of your loved ones by lifting the restrictions early?
Would you consider it acceptable collateral damage for the sake of the economy?

 

[ZergMinion]

In the absence of a vaccine, the only way to fully contain the virus and eliminate any deaths is to remain in lockdown. Every month that the lockdown continues the economic hole gets deeper so at some point we need to relax restrictions in the knowledge that doing so will almost inevitably lead to a degree of infection and some deaths

Is that the case though? If we have no active cases then we can re-open everything except the borders. The economy won't be the same, but economics has changed radically over the years. You were born just before the current economic orthodoxy was just starting to kick off. This is one of those times where being a huge island is a real advantage. We can monitor everyone coming into the country in ways that other countries just can't.

The question becomes which approach is better for the economy. I'm not convinced by the arguments that the economy will be better off with controlled spread. This is mainly because no-one is actually explaining why it's better and just assuming it will be without any real analysis.

Containing it is definitely the approach the government will go with though because they're seriously lacking in policy imagination. New Zealand is going for elimination. We can sit back and see which approach works safe in the knowledge that nothing we post will change a damn thing here

 

[kane249]

I think our government at both state and federal level have done really well so far. They haven’t been perfect and our geographic isolation has been fortuitous but right now there aren’t many countries doing better

At least for the most part there has been great cohesion between the state premier's and the prime minister which has helped us greatly. The shit show in the US with Trump actively calling for people to rebel against the state Governors is just mind boggling. If any was a time for people to all be on the same page it's now.

 

[Bestbird]

One of the first things I'm doing when it is allowed, will be to go on a holiday in WA. I was planning on going to Vietnam but that won't be happening, instead my tourist dollars will be spent here. I'm sure there will be a lot of other people doing the same.

Same, was planning 1 month in Thailand. Might head up to Coral Bay instead

 

[Keys]

No deaths are tolerable. "The economy" doesn't even reflect true reality - it's not like the virus has stolen our natural resources, or killed so many people that we no longer have enough workers. We could literally reinstate all the money everyone had before the virus, we could give back all the plastic notes that only have value because we say they do, and we'd be where we were before.

To value an abstract representation that is purely arbitrary over the people it is supposed to support is absolutely mind numbing. Why will there be a recession? Because we say there should be one, not because there actually is one.

And we can resume normality without new deaths IMO. They're not mutually exclusive. It isn't a certainty that a new outbreak will pop up out of nowhere just because we relax restrictions. I mean, we're on a goddamn island with a population that's relatively small (in comparison to other countries), all we have to do is fu** off the virus and go super isolationist for a while. Any chance of a second infection (assuming we're beyond the point where Coronavirus can resurface in people who've already been sick) can only come from an overseas traveller, and our methods for dealing with them seem to be working atm. The main thing is we cannot, under any circumstances, and not for any reason, let people die who don't have to.

Maybe saying how many deaths are tolerable is the wrong wording and I should have framed it at what is an acceptable level of risk when deciding which measures to relax. It needs to be very very low but no matter how careful the authorities are there will be some risk

As ZergMinion points out above being an island gives us a massive advantage as we get to control who comes in

I should also point out I’m not proposing an immediate relaxation of our current lockdown just that there needs to be some acceptance that there are risks attached to any lifting of restrictions when they do come

Certainly I don’t want to be seen as being one of these morons

 

[Hangover Noir]

There was an economist on Q&A the other night who explained how the government makes decisions on lives all the time:

From the transcript:

GIGI FOSTER: I’m talking about lost lives. I’m talking about quality-adjusted life years which is the normal currency that people use when they’re making decisions in developed countries about how much to spend on saving people’s lives, because we always have to allocate resources. We don’t like to think about this, but it happens all the time, every day, in a health ministry in a developed country.

There has to be a choice about how to allocate your scarce resources. How much towards cancer research, how much towards, you know, this, that and the other – different disability and illness that can affect people all throughout their lives. And when those decisions are made, when the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme decides what drugs to take on, it’s using QALYs.

AND:

GIGI FOSTER: I don’t think that anybody is saying we should abandon the old people. I fact, I think that that’s been one of the most consistent messages that we’ve seen from responses around the world, and I even said it on my radio program a few weeks ago – we should be quarantining the older people to the extent we can – voluntarily, of course. You don’t force anybody in our society to do something, ideally, but…

So, if somebody wants to hug their grandchild, fine. But people in nursing homes who can be quarantined, yes, we should protect them. That doesn’t mean that, you know, we shouldn’t be thinking as well about other human welfare costs. And I reject the idea that it’s lives versus the economy. It’s lives versus lives. The economy is about lives. It’s about protection of lives and human welfare and livelihood.


FWIW, this is about where I sit.

 

[Keys]

At least for the most part there has been great cohesion between the state premier's and the prime minister which has helped us greatly. The shit show in the US with Trump actively calling for people to rebel against the state Governors is just mind boggling. If any was a time for people to all be on the same page it's now.

The formation of the National Cabinet has been one of the single best decisions made and it’s relatively smooth operation has been key to our success

There hasn’t been 100% agreement on all issues between the states and feds as evidenced by the school debate but they’re all pulling in the same direction, working together and whatever disagreements there might be are being kept behind closed doors. There’s certainly not the public spats that are being seen in the USA between trump and the governors

I also give a tick to Albanese and the opposition- they’ve respectfully questioned some policy measures as they should but when it’s come to passing legislation they’ve not stood in the way

The cohesiveness across levels of government regardless of political persuasion has been a very pleasant surprise

 

[Forward Press]

Gigi Foster's views have been repudiated by a fair few of her economist colleagues.

The unfortunate reality is that people will die but this does not mean we should throw old and sick people in front of the bus to try and make a bit more money. Thought she and some sharing her views would understand it's not about saving every single life (it is inevitable people will die), more that we stretch it out so that no one dies because they cannot get access to the treatment they need, like what we've seen in Italy, UK, US etc etc. Flattening the curve and all that.

I respect her opinion and that she backs it up, but I don't agree with it at all.

 

[Seadog]

The formation of the National Cabinet has been one of the single best decisions made and it’s relatively smooth operation has been key to our success

There hasn’t been 100% agreement on all issues between the states and feds as evidenced by the school debate but they’re all pulling in the same direction, working together and whatever disagreements there might be are being kept behind closed doors. There’s certainly not the public spats that are being seen in the USA between trump and the governors

I also give a tick to Albanese and the opposition- they’ve respectfully questioned some policy measures as they should but when it’s come to passing legislation they’ve not stood in the way

The cohesiveness across levels of government regardless of political persuasion has been a very pleasant surprise

The country is probably lucky the LNP are in govt, experience tells us that the LNP and some of the media wouldn't have sat by and quietly agreed to a Labor govt dishing out hundreds of billions of dollars, it would have been a political shit show. It's better that the conservatives had to be the "socialists".

 

[Avalor]

There was an economist on Q&A the other night who explained how the government makes decisions on lives all the time:

From the transcript:

GIGI FOSTER: I’m talking about lost lives. I’m talking about quality-adjusted life years which is the normal currency that people use when they’re making decisions in developed countries about how much to spend on saving people’s lives, because we always have to allocate resources. We don’t like to think about this, but it happens all the time, every day, in a health ministry in a developed country.

There has to be a choice about how to allocate your scarce resources. How much towards cancer research, how much towards, you know, this, that and the other – different disability and illness that can affect people all throughout their lives. And when those decisions are made, when the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme decides what drugs to take on, it’s using QALYs.

AND:

GIGI FOSTER: I don’t think that anybody is saying we should abandon the old people. I fact, I think that that’s been one of the most consistent messages that we’ve seen from responses around the world, and I even said it on my radio program a few weeks ago – we should be quarantining the older people to the extent we can – voluntarily, of course. You don’t force anybody in our society to do something, ideally, but…

So, if somebody wants to hug their grandchild, fine. But people in nursing homes who can be quarantined, yes, we should protect them. That doesn’t mean that, you know, we shouldn’t be thinking as well about other human welfare costs. And I reject the idea that it’s lives versus the economy. It’s lives versus lives. The economy is about lives. It’s about protection of lives and human welfare and livelihood.


FWIW, this is about where I sit.

The last couple of sentences hit the spot for me. There is no economy without people - always should be people first.

 

[Coasters7]

No, the question is how many people's lives are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe to be a better outcome for the economy? Let's skip to the end of this stupid debate where you put a number on the deaths you're willing to accept. For completeness why don't you show your working out on how much benefit we'll get per death. I'm sure everyone will be happy to lose a few loved ones if you stick a dollar figure on it.

Every other country is a threat even if we go for containment. It seriously makes no difference. Anyone coming in from overseas will be quarantined whichever way we go. Nothing changes there. We're not going to magically allow people from overseas to run around free unless they're coming from a country that has eliminated the virus, and possibly not even then.

The thing is, if we disregard the economy in pursuit of no/minimal “sacrificial” deaths it’ll kill more people or destroy more people’s lives indirectly anyway.. and obviously if we only focus on the economy a lot of people will die direct from the virus. It’s not about raking in the money and counting dollars per death, it’s about trying to save other lives with that money. If one persons death direct from the virus led to multiple people not losing their livelihood (effectively their life) then it’s worth it isn’t it? There’s no way around it, there’s going to be pain somewhere along the line unfortunately.

That’s why it’s going to take a lot of guts to make the call. We need to find an ideal balance where the virus kills the least number of people but also affects the least number of lives financially. If ScoMo or the other leaders can pull that off they’ll be in office a very long time. The US tried to go down that route I think, but they cooked it big time.

 

[Truckosaurus]

One my colleagues got tested. This was the third time he's been convinced he had COVID-19 despite no contact with anyone who has it or who has been overseas, but the first time he managed to get tested due to the relaxed criteria.

Shockingly, he still doesn't have COVID. We're anticipating two-three weeks before he is again convinced he has it.

 

[ZergMinion]

The thing is, if we disregard the economy in pursuit of no/minimal “sacrificial” deaths it’ll kill more people or destroy more people’s lives indirectly anyway.. and obviously if we only focus on the economy a lot of people will die direct from the virus. It’s not about raking in the money and counting dollars per death, it’s about trying to save other lives with that money. If one persons death direct from the virus led to multiple people not losing their livelihood (effectively their life) then it’s worth it isn’t it? There’s no way around it, there’s going to be pain somewhere along the line unfortunately.

That’s why it’s going to take a lot of guts to make the call. We need to find an ideal balance where the virus kills the least number of people but also affects the least number of lives financially. If ScoMo or the other leaders can pull that off they’ll be in office a very long time. The US tried to go down that route I think, but they cooked it big time.

You're assuming that we can get economic benefit from letting a few people die vs eradication. Test your assumption and do the maths. Include in your working out that people will still be staying home to avoid catching the virus if it's still spreading.

I think the economic case for limiting the spread is based on old data which pre-dates how well we've gone at containing it. I think eractication of the virus in Australia could produce a better economic outcome than containment.

Australia’s endgame must be total elimination of COVID-19 - Grattan Institute

If Australia makes the right choice now on COVID-19, in four months’ time we could be shaking hands on a job well done.

grattan.edu.au

I'm not the only one that thinks this. So when you argue that deaths from Covid-19 are necessary to save the economy, I respectfully suggest you could be wrong.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

So no lives lost under any circumstances?

The majority of deaths have been amongst seniors. Those who will shoulder the economic load with be the youth.

I am just wondering if this drags on just how much are you willing to sacrifice so that not a single life is lost.

People seem to think its a choice of life versus money. It's not that black and white. The economy isn't just money its people livelihoods. You take away the economy you take away their means to survive.

What do you think the mortality rates are of housed versus homeless? Employed versus unemployed? Middle class versus poverty? People die due to economic downturns.

I think we will lose more people to the economic downturn then the virus itself.

Its almost like they want all the worlds economies to crash.
Whoever they is, is a completely different question but it would appear there's more to this than just a virus. We live in interesting times.

 

[Luuuc]

Its almost like they want all the worlds economies to crash.
Whoever they is, is a completely different question

... which is explained very neatly in this thread

Analysis - Lizard people, Trump and other non-corona rabbit holes

Warning: This thread contains statements and assertions that are misleading, disputed or unverified. You should make your own enquiries concerning these matters to reputable news sources. Believe what you read here at your own risk. Normal rules still apply to this thread - play the ball not...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Keys]

Another zero day for WA



And down to just 5 in ICU

This is very good news

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

One problem I have is the longer we lock down, social distance and stop intersate and international travel the less herd immunity we develop to the hundreds of other diseases out there waiting for us to show up again.
Another indirect problem of a continuing lock down. Getting the balance right is almost impossible.

As for the sick and elderly. The lockdown benefits them the most.
First of all by stoping the spread it keeps them free from the virus and second of all they carry the least amount of debt and have the most cash.

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

... which is explained very neatly in this thread

Analysis - Lizard people, Trump and other non-corona rabbit holes

Warning: This thread contains statements and assertions that are misleading, disputed or unverified. You should make your own enquiries concerning these matters to reputable news sources. Believe what you read here at your own risk. Normal rules still apply to this thread - play the ball not...

www.bigfooty.com

I like trump but clearly he's a lizard man. The orange is from the tanning beds he requires from being indoors so much.