3 ms·

> Life here is pretty normal now Except for last week where you were under your third lockdown? I work with people from Melbourne and I feel like a lot of them

by koyote 6y ago

> Life here is pretty normal now Except for last week where you were under your third lockdown? I work with people from Melbourne and I feel like a lot of them suffer from at least some mild PTSD. This was re-ignited when the 3rd lockdown was announced with worries that it would last months again (luckily this was not the case!). The mental health aspect/general population wellbeing seems to be largely ignored in Victoria. > I’m going to a concert with thousands of people this week Unless there's another leak and you go back into a snap lockdown. There's always uncertainty under such a system! Again, not great for mental health. (and yes, you can argue that there's always uncertainty under a pandemic, but the levels of uncertainty differ between geographies) I am sure a lot of work from home office people without kids will view these lockdowns rather positively. But I doubt business owners, hospitality workers and artists will appreciate them as much. The article makes some good points and we really need to look at the wider issues around the disease and its countermeasures.

ivirshup 6y ago
Sure! Everyone was freaking out on Friday. But then it actually only lasted five days and the state government is taking steps to reduce risks of outbreak from hotel quarantine. I agree lockdowns are awful. But what if we didn’t do the snap lockdown last week? I don’t think that would be better. I also disagree with your statement about mental health not being taken seriously. I think it’s difficult to talk about, but I believe mental health resources have been made broadly available. I’m not really sure how much more seriously it can be taken without making mental health checks mandatory.
- koyote 6y ago
  > the state government is taking steps to reduce risks of outbreak from hotel quarantine. Stopping the system entirely is certainly a way to reduce the risk ;) > I also disagree with your statement about mental health not being taken seriously. I think it’s difficult to talk about, but I believe mental health resources have been made broadly available. I’m not really sure how much more seriously it can be taken without making mental health checks mandatory. I was mostly thinking of the way the pandemic has been handled in general by the Victorian government. Locking people inside for 22-23 hours a day, curfew, etc. There is very little if no scientific evidence that these drastic measures, which severely impact mental health, have a measurable effect on getting numbers down. Not all lockdowns are the same, NSW's North Beaches lockdown allowed people to picnic outside for example (and made gathering exemptions on Christmas day). This again points to the benefit-risk evaluation mentioned in the article. Similarly, banning Victorians out in regional NSW from returning home: forcing them to make a dangerous dash across half of the country to get back within the day. Again this could have been handled with a much stronger emphasis on benefit-risk but instead the wellbeing of Victorians was disregarded.

by koyote 6y ago

ivirshup 6y ago

Sure! Everyone was freaking out on Friday. But then it actually only lasted five days and the state government is taking steps to reduce risks of outbreak from hotel quarantine. I agree lockdowns are awful. But what if we didn’t do the snap lockdown last week? I don’t think that would be better. I also disagree with your statement about mental health not being taken seriously. I think it’s difficult to talk about, but I believe mental health resources have been made broadly available. I’m not really sure how much more seriously it can be taken without making mental health checks mandatory.

koyote 6y ago
> the state government is taking steps to reduce risks of outbreak from hotel quarantine. Stopping the system entirely is certainly a way to reduce the risk ;) > I also disagree with your statement about mental health not being taken seriously. I think it’s difficult to talk about, but I believe mental health resources have been made broadly available. I’m not really sure how much more seriously it can be taken without making mental health checks mandatory. I was mostly thinking of the way the pandemic has been handled in general by the Victorian government. Locking people inside for 22-23 hours a day, curfew, etc. There is very little if no scientific evidence that these drastic measures, which severely impact mental health, have a measurable effect on getting numbers down. Not all lockdowns are the same, NSW's North Beaches lockdown allowed people to picnic outside for example (and made gathering exemptions on Christmas day). This again points to the benefit-risk evaluation mentioned in the article. Similarly, banning Victorians out in regional NSW from returning home: forcing them to make a dangerous dash across half of the country to get back within the day. Again this could have been handled with a much stronger emphasis on benefit-risk but instead the wellbeing of Victorians was disregarded.