Ryan. You've mentioned a few times an increase in suicides due to economic hardships of severe recessions. You do realise that there is a lower premature death rate in times of recession, no?
So if he is saying that we need to stop meeting in large gatherings, and still thinks it is ok to go to a large gathering, what is your viewpoint on that?I give up, you guys will believe whatever your bias leads you to believe. If he didn’t follow the official advice at that time, you would be complaining about that - that he had one set of advice for the public and followed another set of advice for himself, looking out for himself and sending mixed messages.
What would have been the total number of cases or deaths if no action was taken at all?So we currently have 0.018% of the population infected and 0.00008% of the population have died from coronavirus. So based on the stimulus package of approx 200billion (so far) thats $44million for each infection and $10.5 billion for each premature death of an elderly person. The economic pain is not being shared equally amongst Australia's residents with whole industries in the private sector being decimated whilst public sector workers (some with little to do now) are largely unaffected. Public sector employees (including politicians) should be hit with an immediate 25% pay cut across the board. They have been receiving pay increases that far exceed the size of the private sector over the last few years
Sure, they're facts. But the facts are not relavent to your point.What I said was based on the facts as they stood yesterday and yes, I have a fair idea of what the economic costs would be of doing nothing at all, but this would all be far too politically incorrect to rationally debate for a lot of people on this forum. There is a massive risk/return tradeoff to saving the lives of a relatively small co-hort of the population who are largely "retired" and a drain on the public finances anyway. Furthermore, you could raise arguments around why the healthy should sacrifice their wealth to prevent the early death of a cohort who have chosen to compromise their lung capacity through decades of smoking (despite the warnings). There are many ethical questions the current situation raises, and the longer this goes on, the more these issues will be debated. There will be increased domestic violence, suicides, crime and many people thrown permanently into poverty, the longer this crisis goes on.
Re my risk management skills, well the federal government, state government and private sector corporates are happy to pay my consulting business good rates for this sort of advice, so your opinion means little to me
I don't understand how this helps your point in any way whatsoever. In fact, the opposite. If there was no vaccine, you would see the lock downs we have now.The regular flu does have vaccinations but many people still die even though they have vaccinations because the flu shot NEVER guarantees you are protected against all the current seasonal flu's.
No-one is saying we lock down indefinitely. That's never been the aim or the intent.You cannot maintain this type of lock down indefinitely. The consequences will absolutely be worse than the problem we have now.
The PPE thing is complicated. For example, the JIT supply lines in the US was a result of hospital administrations relying on Just in Time and guess where all the manufacturing went? China. The need for PPE is, as far as I can read thus far, being met now in most jurisdictions.
To answer KJ. I can only conjecture from what I have read. Well first of all, a lot of PPE was shipped to China a month ago. I thought this knowledge would have been well know. The SMH had a few articles about this.
Also whom are we testing? The criteria is still strict and this captures the highest risk people (quite rightfully) and does not capture the asymptomatic and definitely not those with mild affects.
After general population sampling, if we DO find it is out there in the general population, the need for a hard lock down is then null and void. I would not be surprised, (going by all these articles by epidemiologists) that it is more out in the Gen pop than people wish to think. Ironically, this may be the saving thing - the already establishment of a herd immunity that we are currently unaware of.
A lot of leading epidemiologists are questioning the strategy of hard core lock downs. It's not me. It's not my opinion. I'm just linking to it. Like always, I'm willing to change what I think and I will say this - I think this whole thing? Something does not add up. Maybe that's for nefarious reasons, maybe that's due to it just being something the world has not had to deal with before and is reacting in a way that we may see later, was not the best way. Panic. Panic is the enemy. I also feel misinformation, or at least, sensationalized information from all levels has led to crazy things.
I know a friend on a 5 acre property that literally will not allow anyone on their property because they believe this virus is somehow more airborne than other viruses. This is simply not true:
My friend with the 5 acre property went and saw her other friend on a large property and when she went on her property to visit? I kid you not, her friend drew a knife on her. This is insane.
In saying that, I totally am on board with the 1.5m rule and the social distancing because it's astute and anything that trains the public in mitigating cross contamination is a good thing.