Coronavirus thread

[Candy Arse]

I can't begin to describe how excited I am to not vote for Scomo at the next election. Absolute sack of shit.

[Madmya]

The libs need a change of leadership, but I loathe the thought of federal and state governments being Labor in a pandemic. Not good for the country.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Omicron cases will be in the thousands by day pretty soon in WA with their gold standard hard border trying to stop a virus that even managed to make it to the antartic research station. All that hardship for nothing, well done.

Hardship? I mean it was hard to see Melbourne and the Doggies in the Grand Final rather than the Eagles, but apart from that?

And you say we live in a bubble

[Ambrose Burnside]

Also, ScoMo is a cunt.

[stanard]

The libs need a change of leadership, but I loathe the thought of federal and state governments being Labor in a pandemic. Not good for the country.

Why?

[Reka]

Yeah - I don't get it either. It's a lose-lose situation. If you think one party would have handled this better than the other then you haven;t been paying attention.

At least in the US you have one party who pushes mandatory vaccines and masks and lockdowns, while the other opposes them. At least there's a choice available there. What do we have here? A choice between tyrannical mandates and draconian mandates. Let's face it - neither party has really opposed the other throughout all of this - they're on the same page. If you think you're voting yourself into a better situation then you're kidding yourself.

[F for Fake]

Atleast he hasn't reneged on "no lockdowns" etc. after the vax targets were hit, unlike other countries that gave into the pressure from the press when cases numbers exploded because everything opened up again. He's even changing definitions so people don't have to isolate as long as and go back to work sooner.

[stanard]

Yeah - I don't get it either. It's a lose-lose situation. If you think one party would have handled this better than the other then you haven;t been paying attention.

At least in the US you have one party who pushes mandatory vaccines and masks and lockdowns, while the other opposes them. At least there's a choice available there. What do we have here? A choice between tyrannical mandates and draconian mandates. Let's face it - neither party has really opposed the other throughout all of this - they're on the same page. If you think you're voting yourself into a better situation then you're kidding yourself.

There's a lot more to a pandemic response than vaccine mandates and preventative lockdown measures. And the only the way that the two parties have been on the same pages is that Morrison and his cronies ignore an issue for as long as possible, Labor, the Unions and business groups give suggestions for a response and then the Coalition do a last minute announcement and make sure they funnel as much money to their mates in the process.

And masks are still an issue?

[Madmya]

Gees imagine wall-to-wall Labor. We'd still be locking down.

[Reka]

What I will concede is: the hope we can get from an election and a change in parties is that the currently elected are tied to their history of bad decisions and mistakes and unlikely to make changes whereas a newly elected party can more freely reverse these decisions without being tied to the notion that they were wrong all along and that the mistakes are on them. So yeah - if you don't like what's happening then change is more likely to come through a change in parties than if those in power stay there. But that's not to say the new party is necessarily any better, they're just not tied to or invested in all the crap that's transpired up til now.

[Candy Arse]

Gees imagine wall-to-wall Labor. We'd still be locking down.

This I agree with. A vote for Labor is a vote for lockdowns, segregation, mandates, border closes and endless restrictions.

That said, I'm not sure a vote for Liberal is much better. Maybe 'slightly less shit' is the right term to use.

[GeneraL CyberFunK]

What I will concede is: the hope we can get from an election and a change in parties is that the currently elected are tied to their history of bad decisions and mistakes and unlikely to make changes whereas a newly elected party can more freely reverse these decisions without being tied to the notion that they were wrong all along and that the mistakes are on them. So yeah - if you don't like what's happening then change is more likely to come through a change in parties than if those in power stay there. But that's not to say the new party is necessarily any better, they're just not tied to or invested in all the crap that's transpired up til now.

The LNP had made far too many mistakes that simply shouldn't be made at that level of government.. hell.. ANY level of government.

As for lockdowns border closures etc etc.. In QLD.. we only had a few lockdowns.. and the border closures were supported by the majority of the QLD public. Our loss of life was the priority of the QLD gov from the start and hey - they actually did that in comparison to NSW and VIC.

The thing to remember here is that health/medicine mostly doesn't give a shit about your opinion about feelings. Separating populations to stop the spread of a virus works.. and yeah - it sucks.. but it works when people actually follow the rules. There is a cost in terms of freedom of movement etc etc.. but ultimately we've seen LNP in NSW perfectly illustrate what happens when you hedge your bets on the approach.
Hell.. the federal Gov has shown when you fail on your 3 main responsibilities - Quarantine, Vaccine Roll out, Aged Care.
Labor has it's issues too.. and I empathise with Victorians who have been through the lockdowns. Thankfully in QLD we only had snap lock downs.. but at their core - they worked... they were short - they were sharp and they were implemented pre-emptively before things got out of control.
Getting the public to do the right thing is hard. When you have people refusing to do the right thing by others (wearing masks in enclosed areas) to help reduce the risk.. it's an upward battle.. but it's funny that QLD was fantastic at mask wearing - because I think we saw how bad things were down south... The vaccination rate has slowed to a crawl because I think everyone who was going to get vaxxed.. is done. That 10.5% that won't - will not. Those who won't wear a mask when needed? They can fuck off.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Until a party bans junk food and gives me a free gym membership, I'm not interested.

[t0mby]

[Candy Arse]

Nah those Canadian truckers are Nazis/RWNJ/Trumpers/Fascists/White Supremacists/Science Deniers just like everyone else who isn't going along with Covidmania.

Either you're booked in for your 3rd/4th/5th shots or you just want Granny to die.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Don't forget new age hippies shoving crystals up their hoohas with Pete Evans.

I mean if you're going to make a list, at least include everyone.

[Peppermint Lounge]

In that case don't forget the so-called Sovereign Citizens. Donations accepted.

[Madmya]

Gees, it's like only one level of government has made any mistakes this pandemic.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Only one level of government has actually done *anything* this pandemic.

It's the only reason we know the names of all the state premiers for the first time ever.

Scotty from Marketing split Australia up into its constituent parts because old "I don't hold a hose mate" couldn't be arsed , so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

[stanard]

Scamo has just been pissed the whole time he's had to actually do some work. I still can't fathom how anyone could defend him after the bushfires debacle.

He's the epitome of failing upwards.

[Madmya]

Only one level of government has actually done *anything* this pandemic.

It's the only reason we know the names of all the state premiers for the first time ever.

Scotty from Marketing split Australia up into its constituent parts because old "I don't hold a hose mate" couldn't be arsed , so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Sure, we should have had the federal government taking this outbreak on by themselves. Localised outbreak in Melbourne? Standardised nation-wide lockdown.

[Ambrose Burnside]

Yes, that is exactly what I think should have happened Derp.

[stanard]

Gees imagine wall-to-wall Labor. We'd still be locking down.

Last I checked there were still 3 Lib state governments.

[stanard]

Only one level of government has actually done *anything* this pandemic.

It's the only reason we know the names of all the state premiers for the first time ever.

Scotty from Marketing split Australia up into its constituent parts because old "I don't hold a hose mate" couldn't be arsed , so it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Sure, we should have had the federal government taking this outbreak on by themselves. Localised outbreak in Melbourne? Standardised nation-wide lockdown.

Shows how little you think of the fed government that that's all they're capable of

[Candy Arse]

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavir ... d62379464d

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy”, according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analysed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths, theNew York Postreports.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced Covid-19 mortality by 0.2 per cent on average.”

Worse, some of the studies even suggested that limiting gatherings in safe outdoor spots may have been “counter-productive and increased” the death rate, the authors noted.

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,” the professors wrote in the journal Studies in Applied Economics.

In fact, the early lockdowns “have had devastating effects,” the authors insisted.

“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the damning report insisted.

“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.

I am genuinely surprised that this "news" outlet is actually reporting this.

Next thing you know they'll start talking about how around 75% of "covid" deaths in NSW are double and triple vaccinated.