5 ms·

The government keeps repeating the claim that most cases have been acquired overseas, but testing criteria in every state explicitly only include people who hav

The government keeps repeating the claim that most cases have been acquired overseas, but testing criteria in every state explicitly only include people who have returned from overseas or have had known contact with a confirmed case (up until a few days ago when it was very slightly broadened). The stats reflect the testing criteria, not the true distribution here.

nl 7y ago
Whilst it's a common complaint that the testing criteria isn't wide enough, Australia is testing more than most countries (3rd in the world per population at the end of last week), and there are limited numbers of the tests available. There's also not much evidence that significant numbers of cases are being missed. Outside NSW there is hardly any community transmission from unknown sources (probably less than 50 cases in the whole country). We'd see that if we were missing cases. In NSW the criteria was expanded as soon as there was evidence of wider community transmission. Victoria started random testing this week too. IMHO this was a reasonable trade-off between limited test availability and risk. I'd also note that there are 1.5 blood (antibody) tests being rolled out this week across Australia. That should give us insights into anything that has been missed.
- jddj 7y ago
  They've been getting broader testing underway and are employing it where there seem to be community breakouts, but I have to agree with your parent poster. There has been community transmission, so stressing so strongly that travelers are the vector lead to complacency. The messaging was bad. If you tell people over and over that it's only the travelers (but you only test the travelers) and downplay the community aspect then you're misrepresenting the risk. People were, until very recently, continuing to host wine and dinner parties so long as no recent travelers were present. With travelers who arrived the day before the mandatory quarantine came into effect treated as being safe to invite. People aren't rational in these situations, you can't give them such an easy mental shortcut or they'll take it every time. Many Australians were coming home from countries with broader (at the time) testing, more extensive contact tracing and still fewer cases than Australia, but the community's eye was still being actively trained on them specifically, and not simply people as the primary vector.
  - nl 7y ago
    I don't think anyone has said "it's only travellers". But yes, they absolutely present the biggest risk. Until March 23 (I think? Something like that) every single local transmission in Australia had been traced back to a traveller or a connection to one. The OP said "The stats reflect the testing criteria, not the true distribution here" and my argument is that actually the stats are probably pretty accurate and given how well tracing has worked and the limits on the number of tests available the criteria was pretty reasonable.
    - jddj 7y ago
      Sorry, you're right. The messaging was that it's primarily the travelers. My feeling is that the quarantines definitely should have gone ahead, but in justifying them to the public the govt. seemed to place a little too much emphasis, such that people interpreted (as they do, in a crisis) most significant risk as only risk.
      - nl 7y ago
        I think the government had a bunch of libertarians in their ear complaining about "infringing on our freedom" to lock people in an enforced quarantine. This sounds ridiculous, but I know someone who said "This is a nightmare! Australia has taken away all freedoms" in response to the announcement. In that context (and I can well believe the LNP would have people like this) I think the emphasis on "the forced quarantine is limited to travellers" makes sense.

nl 7y ago

Whilst it's a common complaint that the testing criteria isn't wide enough, Australia is testing more than most countries (3rd in the world per population at the end of last week), and there are limited numbers of the tests available. There's also not much evidence that significant numbers of cases are being missed. Outside NSW there is hardly any community transmission from unknown sources (probably less than 50 cases in the whole country). We'd see that if we were missing cases. In NSW the criteria was expanded as soon as there was evidence of wider community transmission. Victoria started random testing this week too. IMHO this was a reasonable trade-off between limited test availability and risk. I'd also note that there are 1.5 blood (antibody) tests being rolled out this week across Australia. That should give us insights into anything that has been missed.

jddj 7y ago
They've been getting broader testing underway and are employing it where there seem to be community breakouts, but I have to agree with your parent poster. There has been community transmission, so stressing so strongly that travelers are the vector lead to complacency. The messaging was bad. If you tell people over and over that it's only the travelers (but you only test the travelers) and downplay the community aspect then you're misrepresenting the risk. People were, until very recently, continuing to host wine and dinner parties so long as no recent travelers were present. With travelers who arrived the day before the mandatory quarantine came into effect treated as being safe to invite. People aren't rational in these situations, you can't give them such an easy mental shortcut or they'll take it every time. Many Australians were coming home from countries with broader (at the time) testing, more extensive contact tracing and still fewer cases than Australia, but the community's eye was still being actively trained on them specifically, and not simply people as the primary vector.
- nl 7y ago
  I don't think anyone has said "it's only travellers". But yes, they absolutely present the biggest risk. Until March 23 (I think? Something like that) every single local transmission in Australia had been traced back to a traveller or a connection to one. The OP said "The stats reflect the testing criteria, not the true distribution here" and my argument is that actually the stats are probably pretty accurate and given how well tracing has worked and the limits on the number of tests available the criteria was pretty reasonable.
  - jddj 7y ago
    Sorry, you're right. The messaging was that it's primarily the travelers. My feeling is that the quarantines definitely should have gone ahead, but in justifying them to the public the govt. seemed to place a little too much emphasis, such that people interpreted (as they do, in a crisis) most significant risk as only risk.
    - nl 7y ago
      I think the government had a bunch of libertarians in their ear complaining about "infringing on our freedom" to lock people in an enforced quarantine. This sounds ridiculous, but I know someone who said "This is a nightmare! Australia has taken away all freedoms" in response to the announcement. In that context (and I can well believe the LNP would have people like this) I think the emphasis on "the forced quarantine is limited to travellers" makes sense.