4 ms·

Is that not because Aged Care is hit particularly hard?

by pan69 6y ago

konjin 6y ago
Yes, Victoria has managed to combine the economic catastrophe of a New Zealand lock down with the death rate of a Swedish no lock down. And this will continue for at least another month. All in all it's rather amazing how by trying to do everything right the Victorian government has managed to do everything wrong. At least the current government gets to wag its finger at people for wanting such unreasonable things as jobs, leaving your house after work, or sleeping with your partner for the first time in 3 months.
- ImaCake 6y ago
  This is madness. The lockdown is the only thing that stopped several hundred deaths from becoming several thousand (or much more). No job is worth dying for, and few jobs are worth becoming crippled for. Make no mistake that this virus cripples many survivors.
  - konjin 6y ago
    [[citation needed]]
    - ImaCake 6y ago
      This is not a substantive comment. Please defend yourself better.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        His point is that you need to defend yourself. There is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns have saved negative lives: that is, they killed people outright who would be alive today if not for lockdowns. Consider that lockdowns cannot stop the virus forever. They were only ever pitched, even by advocates, as a delaying strategy to reduce pressure on hospitals. Total numbers of infected were never meant to change, as logic dictates. However lockdowns and other restrictions, when as long as they have been, do create new deaths by e.g. delaying cancer checkups and treatments, by causing job losses and subsequent poverty related deaths, by stopping the elderly from seeing their family - deaths by loneliness are a real thing in elderly care! If you're going to assert that lockdowns can actually reduce the death rate rather than increase it you will need to give arguments for why that's the case, especially over the long term.
        ImaCake 6y ago
        Lockdowns in South Korea and Australia have unambigously halted outbreaks. Your argument makes sense as far as the initial plan was, but it is clear in hindsight that lockdowns can effectively stop the outbreak and thus will actually lead to reduced cases. Just because America has failed utterly to stop it's outbreak doesn't mean it isn't possible.
        konjin 6y ago
        Ah yes, the great roaring success that is the Australian lock down: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel-quarantine-linked-to-99-of-victorias-covid-cases-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel...
        ImaCake 6y ago
        That is a failure of hotel quarantine. The lockdown that followed was harsh and it worked. I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID.
        konjin 6y ago
        >I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID. Try living under curfew for a few months and see if you still think that keeping 10000 people in their 80s alive for another two years is worth it.
        thu2111 6y ago
        Halted for how long? It only takes one person or fomite to come in and create a new outbreak that spreads before it's detected. America isn't special in any regard. Only a tiny number of countries are pursuing lockdown-until-vaccine as a strategy, as it's obviously a bad one. It's worth noting that nobody until very recently was claiming lockdowns could eliminate outbreaks. That whole notion was deemed absurd as recently as June. The problem is obvious - for as long as there is a pool of people, somewhere, spreading the disease, and a large pool of people who haven't developed immunity, and international travel, then the virus will get in. Meanwhile lockdowns have catastrophic consequences far in excess of their benefits (halting COVID is not very important given how mild it is).
- rrrhys 6y ago
  In the least inflammatory tone possible, what do you think they should be doing instead? There's a lot of pile-on about how they've done everything wrong without a lot of suggestion about what they should've done instead / should currently be doing instead. For example, if Andrews and co cave to the federal and local pressure and re-open the state today, and everything explodes in two weeks, who takes the blame then? Still Andrews and co. While it's been a huge outbreak by Australian expectations, it's still tiny when compared to the rest of the world. If we had the 10, 15,000 cases per million that are more commonplace around the world, there'd still be a stuffed economy, lower employment, increased mental health issues, right? We'd just have another layer of mess with hospital overload and death that we don't have in a large amount at the moment.
  - konjin 6y ago
    Name one country that has had hospital overload. Any country. This was an expectation that was reasonable in February, and become a talking point for people who want lockdowns for ideological reasons and aren't willing to look at new evidence. [0] In short: open everything and let the devil take the hindmost. The alternative is a yo-yo lock down until Bangladesh manages to deploy a vaccine to everyone infected before the virus mutates, something that will happen in 202-never. [0] Even the horror stories from New York were because they didn't have the capacity to bury people fast enough, not that they ran out of hospital beds.
    - e98cuenc 6y ago
      Spain
      - ABCLAW 6y ago
        New York. Italy.
        natrik 6y ago
        1 google search for "overwhelmed hospital" turned up this article from 2017/2018 - https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie... New Jersey - At capacity, Elective surgeries cancelled Alabama - Elective Surgeries Cancelled, state of emergency declared California - set up tents outside, patients in hallways Pennsylvania - Surge tents

Is that not because Aged Care is hit particularly hard?

by pan69 6y ago

Is that not because Aged Care is hit particularly hard?

Yes, Victoria has managed to combine the economic catastrophe of a New Zealand lock down with the death rate of a Swedish no lock down. And this will continue for at least another month. All in all it's rather amazing how by trying to do everything right the Victorian government has managed to do everything wrong. At least the current government gets to wag its finger at people for wanting such unreasonable things as jobs, leaving your house after work, or sleeping with your partner for the first time in 3 months.

ImaCake 6y ago
This is madness. The lockdown is the only thing that stopped several hundred deaths from becoming several thousand (or much more). No job is worth dying for, and few jobs are worth becoming crippled for. Make no mistake that this virus cripples many survivors.
- konjin 6y ago
  [[citation needed]]
  - ImaCake 6y ago
    This is not a substantive comment. Please defend yourself better.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      His point is that you need to defend yourself. There is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns have saved negative lives: that is, they killed people outright who would be alive today if not for lockdowns. Consider that lockdowns cannot stop the virus forever. They were only ever pitched, even by advocates, as a delaying strategy to reduce pressure on hospitals. Total numbers of infected were never meant to change, as logic dictates. However lockdowns and other restrictions, when as long as they have been, do create new deaths by e.g. delaying cancer checkups and treatments, by causing job losses and subsequent poverty related deaths, by stopping the elderly from seeing their family - deaths by loneliness are a real thing in elderly care! If you're going to assert that lockdowns can actually reduce the death rate rather than increase it you will need to give arguments for why that's the case, especially over the long term.
      - ImaCake 6y ago
        Lockdowns in South Korea and Australia have unambigously halted outbreaks. Your argument makes sense as far as the initial plan was, but it is clear in hindsight that lockdowns can effectively stop the outbreak and thus will actually lead to reduced cases. Just because America has failed utterly to stop it's outbreak doesn't mean it isn't possible.
        konjin 6y ago
        Ah yes, the great roaring success that is the Australian lock down: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel-quarantine-linked-to-99-of-victorias-covid-cases-inquiry-told https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/18/hotel...
        ImaCake 6y ago
        That is a failure of hotel quarantine. The lockdown that followed was harsh and it worked. I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID.
        konjin 6y ago
        >I am in another Australian state, the lockdowns have been lifted and I can go to work with little fear of contracting COVID. Try living under curfew for a few months and see if you still think that keeping 10000 people in their 80s alive for another two years is worth it.
        thu2111 6y ago
        Halted for how long? It only takes one person or fomite to come in and create a new outbreak that spreads before it's detected. America isn't special in any regard. Only a tiny number of countries are pursuing lockdown-until-vaccine as a strategy, as it's obviously a bad one. It's worth noting that nobody until very recently was claiming lockdowns could eliminate outbreaks. That whole notion was deemed absurd as recently as June. The problem is obvious - for as long as there is a pool of people, somewhere, spreading the disease, and a large pool of people who haven't developed immunity, and international travel, then the virus will get in. Meanwhile lockdowns have catastrophic consequences far in excess of their benefits (halting COVID is not very important given how mild it is).
rrrhys 6y ago
In the least inflammatory tone possible, what do you think they should be doing instead? There's a lot of pile-on about how they've done everything wrong without a lot of suggestion about what they should've done instead / should currently be doing instead. For example, if Andrews and co cave to the federal and local pressure and re-open the state today, and everything explodes in two weeks, who takes the blame then? Still Andrews and co. While it's been a huge outbreak by Australian expectations, it's still tiny when compared to the rest of the world. If we had the 10, 15,000 cases per million that are more commonplace around the world, there'd still be a stuffed economy, lower employment, increased mental health issues, right? We'd just have another layer of mess with hospital overload and death that we don't have in a large amount at the moment.
- konjin 6y ago
  Name one country that has had hospital overload. Any country. This was an expectation that was reasonable in February, and become a talking point for people who want lockdowns for ideological reasons and aren't willing to look at new evidence. [0] In short: open everything and let the devil take the hindmost. The alternative is a yo-yo lock down until Bangladesh manages to deploy a vaccine to everyone infected before the virus mutates, something that will happen in 202-never. [0] Even the horror stories from New York were because they didn't have the capacity to bury people fast enough, not that they ran out of hospital beds.
  - e98cuenc 6y ago
    Spain
    - ABCLAW 6y ago
      New York. Italy.
      - natrik 6y ago
        1 google search for "overwhelmed hospital" turned up this article from 2017/2018 - https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie... New Jersey - At capacity, Elective surgeries cancelled Alabama - Elective Surgeries Cancelled, state of emergency declared California - set up tents outside, patients in hallways Pennsylvania - Surge tents