Thread: CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

Originally Posted by Lappa

So what - you think it would be responsible to come out at the beginning of this pandemic and announce to the Australian public “we don’t have enough kits to test people”.

YES, I expect Australian public officials that work for me and you to tell me the truth no matter how unpalatable it is.

if you have a limited supply of kits do you go out and randomly test people and use up the kits or wait for symptoms or test people who have been in contact?
We can’t have it both ways. hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Sure I know why they do that, However, I also expect them to work harder at getting more test kits or preferably making them here. Lets hope at minimum the government sets up an emergency viral test kit manufacturing service that can be activated at short notice - it will almost certainly already be in existing emergency plans for epidemics - but like most things they just failed to act on it. If they take some of the taxes wasted on border security and direct it towards pandemic control we'd be a lot better off.

Now let's hope the new test kits they're getting are not the same Chinese ones that have been sent to Spain, apparently they only have a 30% true success rate. What a cock up. . . . . .

[QUOTE=NeilS;2179690]Latest estimates by whom?[/Coronavirus: Bali coronavirus cases set to explode, Indonesia could have 250,000 undetected cases


make of that what you will 🤷♂️

Originally Posted by Lappa

So what - you think it would be responsible to come out at the beginning of this pandemic and announce to the Australian public “we don’t have enough kits to test people”.

Actually, it probably would be the responsible thing to do. Highly likely that people would taken it MUCH more seriously in terms of distancing etc. Morrison and Melanomia were still setting a terrible example by shaking hands with people long after they were told not to. The Trumpwit is STILL having Campaign Rallies press briefings with everybody on top of each other.

In other news today, the other idiot of the world, Boris Johnson, has just been announced Covid 19 +ve.

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

/Coronavirus: Bali coronavirus cases set to explode, Indonesia could have 250,000 undetected cases

make of that what you will 路♂️

Well, what I make of that is that as it comes from news.com it's complete bullsh!t until verified by a source with at least an iota of credibility. Anyone who relies on Murdoch for the truth is a mushroom paying for the privilege. He ain't on your side. He's as bad or worse than the Trumpwit, and will say ANYTHING to get your $2.

Fair enough - responsible it would have been but would it have made a difference to people isolating ?
I had mostly full classes up to Friday - only three chose not to come due to concerns.
The news had been out there some time re lack of kits, younger people being effected. We insisted on 1.5m, hand washing on entry and exit from the building, disposable gloves in the workshop but, when it came to a break, they all piled into the lifts and their cars.
No amount of talking, adverts etc etc seems to get across To these people. They are the ones that are going to keep this building.
Boris, the guy that got Brexit done, as he said he would (be it good or bad), and got voted in with one of the biggest majorities, seems to have acted decisively, for an idiot.

Abbott had a big majority too. That didn't make him smart either.

There is a difference between telling the truth and withholding information. I think it is fair enough that certain information is withheld if it is in the general public’s best interest or to maintain decorum etc. It happens in all chains of commands

source Coronavirus response highlights a divided policy approach between state and federal governments - Politics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"Chief medical officer Brendan Murphy (who has been appointed secretary of the health department) ..."

make of this what you will, but for me it does raise the question of the man's independence.
Departmental Secretaries are very much "political" positions

Originally Posted by Beardy

There is a difference between telling the truth and withholding information. I think it is fair enough that certain information is withheld if it is in the general public’s best interest or to maintain decorum etc. It happens in all chains of commands

The problem is the repeated blurring between public interest and political interest. See also Ian's post above.

In case folks here think that our public servants and pollies got completely caught with their pants down over this epidemic this is most definitely not the case. Most government have a groups of experts that constantly watches for world wide risks on just about everything, wars, tsunamis, cyber attack, animal health, invasions by people and dogs in fishing boats, barriers to trade, alien invasion etc and epidemics. (FWIW this comes from my vet BIL who is an animal epidemiologist on the animal health group and for obvious reasons it overlaps with the human health crop )

The first signals would have been triggered way back even in early December by the epidemic watch group. Sure we got severely distracted by bushfires but what I would dearly like to know is the way official and government handled the time between "OK watch this space" and when it really kicked off, happened. Its not like it was 2-3 days but more like 2-3 months.

I just hope we all learn something from all but somehow I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Beardy

There is a difference between telling the truth and withholding information. I think it is fair enough that certain information is withheld if it is in the general public’s best interest or to maintain decorum etc. It happens in all chains of commands

The problem is the repeated blurring between public interest and political interest. See also Ian's post above.In case folks here think that our public servants and pollies got completely caught with their pants down over this epidemic this is most definitely not the case. Most government have a groups of experts that constantly watches for world wide risks on just about everything, wars, tsunamis, cyber attack, animal health, invasions by people and dogs in fishing boats, barriers to trade, alien invasion etc and epidemics. (FWIW this comes from my vet BIL who is an animal epidemiologist on the animal health group and for obvious reasons it overlaps with the human health crop ) The first signals would have been triggered way back even in early December by the epidemic watch group. Sure we got severely distracted by bushfires but what I would dearly like to know is the way official and government handled the time between "OK watch this space" and when it really kicked off, happened. Its not like it was 2-3 days but more like 2-3 months. I just hope we all learn something from all but somehow I doubt it.

Originally Posted by BobL

I just hope we all learn something from all but somehow I doubt it.

Quoted from Samuel Pepys Diary in 1664 writing about Bubonic Plague...

"On hearing ill rumour that Londoners may soon be urged into their lodgings by Her Majesty's men, I looked upon the street to see a gaggle of striplings making fair merry, and no doubt spreading the plague spread well about. Not a care had these rogues about the health of their elders!"

mick

Stimulus.jpg Spotted on the local FB page this morning. Can someone please explain to me again how this helps the economy...?

Originally Posted by Tccp123

Stimulus.jpg Spotted on the local FB page this morning. Can someone please explain to me again how this helps the economy...?

It is open to discussion as to whether the stimulus helps the poor or the not so poor more. We have to remember that the "intention" of any stimulus is both to encourage people to spend instead of becoming spendthrift recluses and to enable people without an income to live (just). The huge ethical question is "how" that money is spent and presumably it is this to which you allude.

From that excerpt you have to question whether the recipient should have been entitled to any benefit in the first place or whether they were just plain stupid in how they spent their money (ie: on something relatively extravagant). Having regard to the fact that they posted such a disgraceful admission on Facebook for all the world to see including us very judgemental Forum participants (sure as hell, if I had spent the money that way, I wouldn't be telling anybody), I would lean towards the second explanation; Unmitigated, moronic stupidity.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is open to discussion as to whether the stimulus helps the poor or the not so poor more. We have to remember that the "intention" of any stimulus is both to encourage people to spend instead of becoming spendthrift recluses and to enable people without an income to live (just). The huge ethical question is "how" that money is spent and presumably it is this to which you allude.

From that excerpt you have to question whether the recipient should have been entitled to any benefit in the first place or whether they were just plain stupid in how they spent their money (ie: on something relatively extravagant). Having regard to the fact that they posted such a disgraceful admission on Facebook for all the world to see including us very judgemental Forum participants (sure as hell, if I had spent the money that way, I wouldn't be telling anybody), I would lean towards the second explanation; Unmitigated, moronic stupidity.

Regards
Paul

Without wanting to point the finger if you go back through some of the earlier entries in this long post you may find a similar entry. My point was (which you have eloquently elaborated on) that no one resents help for the needy but that it is very difficult to separate the needy from those who just say they're needy.