COVID VIC: Whats your view on restrictions on small business

Discussion in 'COVID-19' started by TMNT, 29th Sep, 2020.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
?

Whats your view on these covid restrictions for small business in VIC

  1. Completely fair

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  2. Unfair but necessary

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  3. Totally Unfair and over the top

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  4. Restrictions are decided by experts, so I accept it

    6 vote(s)
    27.3%
  1. sqe

    sqe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    13th Jun, 2018
    Posts:
    114
    Location:
    Australia
    You don't have to be a "bogan" or a "consipracy theorist" to disagree with current restrictions. I am neither, and I disagree with current restrictions as they stand
     
    Serveman, wylie and MTR like this.
  2. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,393
    Location:
    Sydney
    Gyms would have to be one of the highest risk environments for spreading the virus in my opinion - anywhere people are breathing heavily in an enclosed environment.

    Singing and talking in close proximity to people in a loud environment (eg parties / bars / restaurants) have also been shown to be high risk.

    Tradies working on a house would generally be low risk in my opinion. Similarly lawn mowing and other outdoor maintenance activities.
     
    wylie and Lizzie like this.
  3. TMNT

    TMNT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    5,572
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I actually agree with you but I've read both, that gyms, indoor dining pose no extra risk in covid transmissions

    I was also very surprised that 100,000 protestors blm protestors yelling caused zero transmissions as well,
    Just goes to show that the virus can be unpredictable and doesnt follow a set formula
     
    Last edited: 5th Oct, 2020
    Casteller and MTR like this.
  4. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,654
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Outdoor events tend to be a lot less transmissive than indoor.

    However, there was an outdoor event where it's thought that Trump and several others may have been infected. But this event was preceded by an indoor reception with a number of the same people, many of whom were maskless.

    Interestingly, participants were tested negative before the event, perhaps indicating that testing alone is an insufficient precaution against spread.
    Inside the White House Event Now Under Covid-19 Scrutiny
     
  5. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,393
    Location:
    Sydney
    Whoever is saying these things is wrong. Plenty of epidemiological evidence that points to increased risk in an enclosed environment - especially one with poor ventilation.

    Outdoors is very different risk profile to indoors.
     
  6. TMNT

    TMNT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    5,572
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was unaware of that, very interesting

    I wonder if this is due to not everyone getting tested, or a loophole or maybe that it takes a while from infection to showing up in testing
     
  7. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,654
    Location:
    Newcastle
    According to the article, that's because of the lag between infection and when it becomes detectable.
     
    TMNT likes this.
  8. TMNT

    TMNT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    5,572
    Location:
    Melbourne
    well, even some of the experts early on were saying masks werent effective, if the experts got it right every single time, there would be no second waves, and the world would have seen far far less deaths and cases
     
    MTR likes this.
  9. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,393
    Location:
    Sydney
    No - what they were originally saying is that an incorrectly fitted mask (or one not designed to prevent the transmission of the virus) is useless for preventing you from contracting a virus when in close proximity to someone who is infected.

    Medical staff have to be trained in correct donning and doffing procedure to minimise infection risk - the general public don't have that and so there's not much point wearing a mask when doing so could cause people to take unnecessary risks believing they are protected when they might not be.

    That, plus there simply aren't enough N95 masks for everyone to have a supply of them - they should be restricted to those who actually need them (ie those people who have to go into harms way to look after other people).

    The messaging changed after a while to take a more pragmatic approach - we can't adequately protect everyone from getting infected by wearing masks - but what we can easily do is minimise the risk of spreading infection TO other people. The biggest risk from the virus is asymptomatic spreaders - people who don't yet realise they are infectious.

    If we could get everyone to wear a mask as a matter of course when out in public (and especially when in close proximity to other people) - then the risks of them inadvertently spreading the virus are much lower.

    Even home-made fabric masks are still useful for helping to minimise the spread of droplets - it's not a perfect system (like health care professionals need to aim for), but it's infinitely better than doing nothing.

    So the experts were correct - masks aren't effective in the hands of untrained people for protecting them from others. But even marginally effective masks are still helpful for minimising the spread from you to others - especially if the majority of people do it while also following other social distancing guidelines.
     
    wylie likes this.
  10. TMNT

    TMNT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    5,572
    Location:
    Melbourne
    that may be the case, ive read more than one study /finding that the cloth masks are pointless, however, there seems to be a lot more studies that say that even cloth masks are not perfect but effective

    it still doesnt change my point below
     
  11. Property Baron

    Property Baron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th May, 2019
    Posts:
    1,448
    Location:
    NSW
    We all understand there were shortages in the early days but comments like Fauci's put into a lot of peoples minds confusion about the effectiveness of wearing a mask.
    Fauci has recently admitted that the interview may have been taking out of context but that's far to late in my opinion.



    There were many experts around the world at that time saying the same type of things, when they should have been honest about masks from the start. Being a shortage of masks was definitely a problem but that's why the Governments kept them for themselves (for medic professionals) and they were not on the shelves. If people were told the truth back then at least some would have been able to make there own or use a scarf ect.

    Another guy that a lot of people would have listened too in regards to wearing a masks.
    As late as February 29, Surgeon General Jerome Adams was telling Americans on Twitter to stop buying masks, saying they are "NOT effective." But the guidance soon changed, and by early April the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began recommending that Americans wear face coverings in public. Even then, however, President Trump said he would not be wearing a mask himself.
     
    Last edited: 5th Oct, 2020
    MTR and TMNT like this.
  12. Simon Hampel

    Simon Hampel Founder Staff Member

    Joined:
    3rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    12,393
    Location:
    Sydney
    Like I tried to explain above - the problem is not in the answer ("masks") - the problem was in the question.

    If you ask: "is a mask effective in preventing me from getting COVID", the answer is "yes, but only if you wear it correctly and dispose of it correctly - which most people don't know how to do" - which is basically the same as saying "no - for the general population, it isn't, because they don't know how to wear it properly". Do you see how confusing that is? That's exactly what Fauci was saying in that interview and he is not wrong.

    If you ask "is a mask going to help prevent me from spreading COVID to other people" the answer is "yes, it will help - it's not perfect, but it will help".

    So it's important to understand what question they are answering.

    The experts were correct - but they were answering the wrong question.

    Yes, the change in messaging was confusing.

    They were also suffering from the aphorism "the enemy of good is perfect" ... masks only work when they are worn perfectly. Good isn't good enough - hence the general answer to "should I wear a mask to prevent myself getting COVID", is "no".

    However, when we're dealing with a global pandemic - they need to be looking for pragmatic solutions which have a high degree of effectiveness and are simple to implement.

    Wearing masks to prevent the spread from you to others (when combined with other measures) is much simpler to implement and doesn't need to be perfect - just good enough.

    The biggest issue we faced is that we simply didn't understand enough about the transmission vectors of the virus. In the early days there was debate still about whether it was airborne. We now know that it is - it does not require direct contact to spread. It has also been shown to spread much further than 2m in some indoor enclosed spaces with poor ventilation - we didn't know that early on too.

    So while it is confusing about the messaging - you have to understand that the experts can't know everything up front - they were still learning as they went.

    The main problem is the way the information is reported in the media and that there is so much misinformation being spread by certain media outlets - and indeed - certain politicians.

    I would like to see them being a little more pragmatic with the rules - for example, the whole lawnmower thing is ridiculous ... but the problem is that if you give some people an inch - they will take a mile - and Victoria needed to be really strict to get this under control because the more lax rules early on had already proven to be ineffective with people taking too many liberties.
     
    wylie likes this.
  13. wylie

    wylie Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    13,932
    Location:
    Brisbane
    ... and even if there were enough masks for every person on top of what was required for medical staff, Trump was ridiculing the idea, ridiculing (still doing it) those who do wear them, and refusing to wear one himself. Actually saying he wouldn't wear one.

    So, his rusted on followers would never have worn a mask even if they had enough. They still aren't wearing them.
     
  14. Property Baron

    Property Baron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th May, 2019
    Posts:
    1,448
    Location:
    NSW
    I can understand this but even I felt in my heart of hearts that wearing a mask would have to be helpful against a killer virus - especially against one that was killing thousands. But than you hear experts like Fauci and Adams saying it is absolutely "not necessary" and "Not effective" and Trump saying nah "hoax"
    These negative comments I believe contributed to the US being absolutely overwhelmed by Coronovirus and the case numbers suggest the same.
     
  15. Serveman

    Serveman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Apr, 2017
    Posts:
    1,413
    Location:
    North West Sydney
    The whole lock down thing was originally designed in my opinion as a short term mechanism to give countries a chance to get themselves organised. This included getting protocols in place, hospitals equipped with adequate ventilators and beds. It was not designed to be used long term as has been applied in Victoria since a July.
    Right now Sydney has more new cases than Victoria, and NSW is getting on with life while Victorian’s are being held captive.
     
    MTR likes this.
  16. Serveman

    Serveman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Apr, 2017
    Posts:
    1,413
    Location:
    North West Sydney
    The best outcome for the world would have been if the the WHO and the CCP would have told the truth when the virus was first detected in Wuhan.
    Had the CCP cancelled all flights out of Wuhan we wouldn’t have been in the situation we are now. Taiwan, a country which has extensive experience dealing with the CCP reacted very quickly. Scott Morrison was being branded a racist when he wanted to cancel flights.
    You can do the social distancing, wear the masks and use the sanitizer, but I think Australia’s best advantage is being an Island continent, with spread out cities with low density suburbs.
     
    craigc, MTR, The Y-man and 1 other person like this.
  17. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The difference between VIC & NSW though is that we currently have 175 active cases in VIC whereas NSW only has 40 odd from memory.

    It was only a few short weeks ago that we had over 1,000 active cases regardless of what the extra daily numbers were, the active case count is the important one. A point that was never really reported in the "news" when they like to bash Vitoria and compare our restrictions with NSW when we were getting similar daily numbers.

    We've had over 20,000 cases versus NSW 4,000+

    Until Vic and NSW have a similar current active case count AND daily new cases then it's unfair to compare lockdown restrictions between the two.
     
    The Y-man and wylie like this.
  18. LibGS

    LibGS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,027
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    What's an acceptable rate of death and permanent disability?