Actually, Carantoc, I don't agree with you.
The plan also clear states that it is mostly aimed at an INFLUENZA virus that most likely already has community transmission by the time pandemic is declared and response plans activated.
And in that scenario, strict external and internal border controls are likely to have limited utility in controlling community transmission.
It discusses how this may be impacted by incubation periods, rapid testing, tracing protocol's etc that have been less effective with influenza in the past.
It doesn't outright rule out internal travel restrictions just because historically they didn't work for flu.
It also discusses that responses may need to be ramped up or down as the situation requires.
It states that preventing widespread community transmission is the best way to prevent overburdening the health system, this is best achieved by having stricter controls when there is low numbers.
Once widespread community transmission is occurring, then the removing travel restrictions and work/school closures will obviously have less impact.
What is obvious, is that is also relied heavily on the community voluntarily adopting measures like self isolation/quarantine, social distancing, masking, hand washing.
Very annoying that there was widespread ridicule of these measures, including from our politicians.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
The initial plan referenced above only mentions "herd immunity" once...
Not sure what your point is. If you are just doing word searches maybe try the latest edition of Woman's Own Word Search Puzzle Book. You may find it slightly more entertaining than searching Pandemic Management Plans.
- The plans have been in place for a long time prior to Covid-19
- They have been developed for managing all types of mass influenza type virus outbreaks, from pre-planning to post event record keeping for future learning
- They are based on historic events, updated at intervals for current knowledge
- They do not, at any point, even consider that the way to manage influenza type outbreaks is elimination through very restrictive society-wide measures.
- Their principals of management are based on limiting spread such that health systems are not overwhelmed with severe and acute cases.
- Until March 2020 the relevant authorities followed them. Then they didn't.
- I say they should have. I say they didn't purely for politcal reasons. I said that in March 2020 when they broke away, trying to follow NZ's dumb elimination strategy. I still say it now.
- I don't agree with PM33's generality of arguments pn just about everything anymore than you do. Agreeing with my arguement doesn't mean you have to also agree with his. Criticising the political response of the State based dick-waving for who can have the lowest daily statistics doesn't mean you also beLIEve Bill Gates is a lizard.
"Until March 2020 the relevant authorities followed them. Then they didn't"
You don't think that there may have been some reasoning beyond political point scoring for at decision to change?
Like maybe emerging evidence and information? That the plan said was vital to keep looking at to best inform decisions and plans?
Like maybe information that indicated the current plan for "limiting spread such that health systems are not overwhelmed with severe and acute cases" wasn't going to work?
Select to expand quote
Martin wrote in the final decision the vaccine mandates failed to comply with section 58 of the HRA, which states all public service employees must act and make decisions in ways that are compatible with human rights.
He found the police commissioner breached this section of the act despite the fact he was given "human rights compatibility assessments."
Vaccine mandates ruled unlawful in Australian state (westernstandard.news)
%2Ccompress&fit=max
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
You don't think that there may have been some reasoning beyond political point scoring for at decision to change?
I'd love to think there was.
What was it ? You got some secret inside info ?
It wasn't just a change in position. It was a change in philosophy.
For many years prior to 2019 the Pandemic Plans planned to manage, through assessed and rational measures to protect the health system. They didn't plan to ostentatiously eliminate any influenza type virus that might appear.
What changed from 21st March to 23rd March 2020 ? I'd have to go check my diary again, because last time I looked all that changed was Jacinta swinging from rational to irrational. Declaring she could achieve complete elimination. At first many people said she couldn't. But then everyone followed. Why ? what evidence emerged NZ could eliminate the virus and that could be replicated in Victoria or WA ?.
Happy to be shown there was something. Maybe at 2.34pm on 22nd March 2020 we went from a health system coping to tent hospitals on every corner filled with millions upon millionsof rabid zombies, whilst NZ went from their 100 cases, no deaths, 5 hospital beds WITH covid to zero/zero/zero.
But I'd think I'd need more than just a question of whether I maybe think something else. I'd need something to show some material difference and why management had to change to elimination, and bring with that change in philosophy all the resulting measures to achieve it. And why the federal/state agreement had to change to every state for itself. And why the virus boundaries also exactly mapped the state boundaries. And why 95% vaccination was the way out of lockdowns, when (as you pointed out) the plans already suggested that once widespread community transmission is occurring, then travel restrictions and work/school closures will have little impact anyway. And all the other things I won't bother repeating again.
Oh and also, what changed back again ? Why go from eliminatation back to manage and then back to live with, with not much management at all ? Was it because we had no overloaded health system and 'herd immunity' ?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Actually, Carantoc, I don't agree with you.
The plan also clear states that it is mostly aimed at an INFLUENZA virus that most likely already has community transmission by the time pandemic is declared and response plans activated.
And in that scenario, strict external and internal border controls are likely to have limited utility in controlling community transmission.
It discusses how this may be impacted by incubation periods, rapid testing, tracing protocol's etc that have been less effective with influenza in the past.
It doesn't outright rule out internal travel restrictions just because historically they didn't work for flu.
It also discusses that responses may need to be ramped up or down as the situation requires.
It states that preventing widespread community transmission is the best way to prevent overburdening the health system, this is best achieved by having stricter controls when there is low numbers.
Once widespread community transmission is occurring, then the removing travel restrictions and work/school closures will obviously have less impact.
What is obvious, is that is also relied heavily on the community voluntarily adopting measures like self isolation/quarantine, social distancing, masking, hand washing.
Very annoying that there was widespread ridicule of these measures, including from our politicians.
The thing that worried me the most when I read reputable discourse about the new and developing infectious disease, was that that it was transmissible by air and that infected carriers could be asymptomatic for days.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
The thing that worried me the most when I read reputable discourse about the new and developing infectious disease, was that that it was transmissible by air and that infected carriers could be asymptomatic for days.
It's so easy to forget what we went through.
I feel a bit silly admitting it, but I am sure I wasn't the only person doing this, but anything that arrived from China via ebay or anything else spent at least a little while sitting outside in the sun before I was happy to open it.
Who was to know what it was and how infectious it was.
We were lucky with SARS (Mk1) that people developed a high temperature quickly and thus were easier to detect and isolate.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said..
The 139 654 is there for everybody to see.
The TGA despite the figure is still recommending adults take more of them.
Go figure.
Did you actually search the DAEN? Of course you choose to ignore the fact that a single person might report more than one adverse event (eg headache, sore arm and lethargy). So the 140,000 does not represent individual people. Here's the top 25 adverse events returned for the search "COVID".
Maybe I am thinking of possibly agreeing with PM33?
I had a headache after one of the vaccinations, and felt lethargic after at least 2 of them. Heck, I feel nauseous right now. Can I update that TGA thing now? Does that mean 3 reports for each symptom, or just 1?
I also didn't catch Covid for most of the time and when I had it I felt tired and had a headache. Where is the entry for that?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I'd love to think there was.
What was it ? You got some secret inside info ?
It wasn't just a change in position. It was a change in philosophy.
For many years prior to 2019 the Pandemic Plans planned to manage, through assessed and rational measures to protect the health system. They didn't plan to ostentatiously eliminate any influenza type virus that might appear.
What changed from 21st March to 23rd March 2020 ? I'd have to go check my diary again, because last time I looked all that changed was Jacinta swinging from rational to irrational. Declaring she could achieve complete elimination. At first many people said she couldn't. But then everyone followed. Why ? what evidence emerged NZ could eliminate the virus and that could be replicated in Victoria or WA ?.
Happy to be shown there was something. Maybe at 2.34pm on 22nd March 2020 we went from a health system coping to tent hospitals on every corner filled with millions upon millionsof rabid zombies, whilst NZ went from their 100 cases, no deaths, 5 hospital beds WITH covid to zero/zero/zero.
But I'd think I'd need more than just a question of whether I maybe think something else. I'd need something to show some material difference and why management had to change to elimination, and bring with that change in philosophy all the resulting measures to achieve it. And why the federal/state agreement had to change to every state for itself. And why the virus boundaries also exactly mapped the state boundaries. And why 95% vaccination was the way out of lockdowns, when (as you pointed out) the plans already suggested that once widespread community transmission is occurring, then travel restrictions and work/school closures will have little impact anyway. And all the other things I won't bother repeating again.
Oh and also, what changed back again ? Why go from eliminatation back to manage and then back to live with, with not much management at all ? Was it because we had no overloaded health system and 'herd immunity' ?
Why does it matter? It's the past.
Life is changing so rapidly. I struggle to understand why rimmers continue to seek answers to things that happened almost 4 years ago.
What's happening NOW and where we are heading is way more alarming. COVID was just the entree for what's going on now and what's coming in 2025.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Wise words from a wise man early in the pandemic. If the advice was rigorously followed there might not have been a need for mandates.
Ahh, Remery, you have been schooled. Someone posted a meme. A meme!
That put you in your place with all your logical argument and reasoning ****.
You just need to learn how to use memes. Any idiot can do it, see post above.
For many years prior to 2019 the Pandemic Plans ........ didn't plan to ostentatiously eliminate any influenza type virus that might appear.
Because by the time a new variant of global pandemic concern was announced, it usually had too much of a toehold to be eradicated.
what evidence emerged NZ could eliminate the virus and that could be replicated in Victoria or WA ?.
Indeed, you're the one saying that there wasn't any scientific basis to the decision, but have you got evidence that the politicians were not following the advice of their public health and scientists?
Maybe at 2.34pm on 22nd March 2020 we went from a health system coping to tent hospitals on every corner filled with millions upon millions of rabid zombies,
Really? Maybe we looked overseas and saw how bad things could get if we just kept doing the same as everyone else? Because while back in March 2020 things Actually looked like maybe we could get it under control, but exponential growth and outbreaks proved that we did not.
And instead of letting our health workers take the brunt while we reached breaking point, we essentially paused the pandemic in Aus while treatments and vaccines were developed.
why the federal/state agreement had to change to every state for itself.
Agreed, why? Makees our political system look particularly foolish and exposed many politicians as power hungry knobs
We need better
why the virus boundaries also exactly mapped the state boundaries.
Because that's what the plan said, it just hoped we'd have better cooperation between jurisdictions to solve that.
why 95% vaccination was the way out of lockdowns, when (as you pointed out) the plans already suggested that once widespread community transmission is occurring, then travel restrictions and work/school closures will have little impact anyway.
I think you answered yourself here. We didn't have widespread community transmission until vaccination rates were high and individual states started lifting travel restrictions etc...
Oh and also, what changed back again ? Why go from eliminatation back to manage and then back to live with, with not much management at all ? Was it because we had no overloaded health system and 'herd immunity' ?
They followed the plan (sorta) to exit the action stages.
High vaccination rates, changed epidemiology of the virus (Delta out competed by Omicron), robust policies for protecting vulnerable populations etc.
Can't forget that widespread global presence of the virus meant that it would be unfeasible to continue elimination once reasonable population protection was established in Aus.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Excess deaths, MPs request data (youtube.com)
Care to comment on the 0.2% statistic?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
They followed the plan (sorta) to exit the action stages.
High vaccination rates, changed epidemiology of the virus (Delta out competed by Omicron), robust policies for protecting vulnerable populations etc.
Can't forget that widespread global presence of the virus meant that it would be unfeasible to continue elimination once reasonable population protection was established in Aus.
That is a good point. Early on the suggestion was that the virus would probably evolve into a more virulent but less deadly variant at which point we should be okay. It wasn't a foregone conclusion, but that's what happened. It makes me wonder if that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a load of community transmission in regions around the world.
For all the places that were locked down, there were areas where it was next to impossible. A colleague was telling me that there were areas in South Africa where it was not practical to lock things down.
www.history.com/news/1918-flu-pandemic-never-ended , suggests that the Spanish Flu evolved similarly.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Ahh, Remery, you have been schooled. Someone posted a meme. A meme!
That put you in your place with all your logical argument and reasoning ****.
You just need to learn how to use memes. Any idiot can do it, see post above.
Hey 'pea'cock do you actually believe anyone reads your essays of self inflated dribble?
Other then rim job and that retard who thinks the world is farked but knows "everything" about Bitcoin haha
booster # 10 is on its way. Thank god for the CDC right?! Herd mentality -I mean immunity would recommend you better book in now
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Why does it matter? It's the past.
Life is changing so rapidly. I struggle to understand why rimmers continue to seek answers to things that happened almost 4 years ago.
What's happening NOW and where we are heading is way more alarming. COVID was just the entree for what's going on now and what's coming in 2025.
If I was given a four course meal and the entree gave me headaches, dihorrea, chest pains and tasted very, very bad, then I am sure that experience has some relevance to the servings coming up.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
For many years prior to 2019 the Pandemic Plans ........ didn't plan to ostentatiously eliminate any influenza type virus that might appear.
Because by the time a new variant of global pandemic concern was announced, it usually had too much of a toehold to be eradicated.
what evidence emerged NZ could eliminate the virus and that could be replicated in Victoria or WA ?.
Indeed, you're the one saying that there wasn't any scientific basis to the decision, but have you got evidence that the politicians were not following the advice of their public health and scientists?
Aren't you making two opposite arguments there ?
First you say by the time the pandemic was declared it was unreasonable to believe elimination was possible (as a side note that is the essence of the definition of pandemic so a bit of a mute point), then you ask what evidence is there that decisions to try to eliminate it weren't based on reasonable advice.
I guess if you were sat inside WA from 2019 to 2023, livign and working in suburbia and didn't want to leave then everything probably looked OKish. And I'd agree, it probably did look like systems implemented were bit of pain but not too bad. But I'd only agree from that one perspective.
If you were in lockdown in Melbourne for 12 months, or lived on the QLD/ NSW border and couldn't cross the street to get to school PTA meeting, or you lived in a van and were travellling outback northern Aus all alone but you couldn't fly home without a vax, then your perspective might be different.
In response to your general points around what evidence that political implementation of punative measures designed to eliminate the virus weren't in compliance with the management plans / previously agreed targets or desired outcomes which sought to manage the load on the health system from any virus, I'd suggest the answer is within.
But also, for one example of where those in charge maybe didn't take full frank and honest advice, the Victorian Health Minister at the time said something very similar to the IBAC.
Former health minister Jenny Mikakos said the Andrews government was "very centralised" and that the premier's private office had its "tentacles everywhere", which caused "constant tension" with ministers' offices.
Remembering she resigned in late 2020 over the bungled response to Covid in Victoria, falling on her sword so Dan didn't have to.
Does the fact she resigned and then, infront of the IBAC, stated that the leader and leaders office wouldn't listen to advice not put any glimmer of doubt into your mind about anything ??
Select to expand quoteSublime said..
Hey 'pea'cock do you actually believe anyone reads your essays of self inflated dribble?
Other then rim job and that retard who thinks the world is farked but knows "everything" about Bitcoin haha
booster # 10 is on its way. Thank god for the CDC right?! Herd mentality -I mean immunity would recommend you better book in now
Now I know why you use memes. "pea'cock"? An 8 year old boy could do better than that sense of humour.
Thanks for reading.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Aren't you making two opposite arguments there ?
First you say by the time the pandemic was declared it was unreasonable to believe elimination was possible (as a side note that is the essence of the definition of pandemic so a bit of a mute point), then you ask what evidence is there that decisions to try to eliminate it weren't based on reasonable advice.
I guess if you were sat inside WA from 2019 to 2023, livign and working in suburbia and didn't want to leave then everything probably looked OKish. And I'd agree, it probably did look like systems implemented were bit of pain but not too bad. But I'd only agree from that one perspective.
If you were in lockdown in Melbourne for 12 months, or lived on the QLD/ NSW border and couldn't cross the street to get to school PTA meeting, or you lived in a van and were travellling outback northern Aus all alone but you couldn't fly home without a vax, then your perspective might be different.
In response to your general points around what evidence that political implementation of punative measures designed to eliminate the virus weren't in compliance with the management plans / previously agreed targets or desired outcomes which sought to manage the load on the health system from any virus, I'd suggest the answer is within.
But also, for one example of where those in charge maybe didn't take full frank and honest advice, the Victorian Health Minister at the time said something very similar to the IBAC.
Former health minister Jenny Mikakos said the Andrews government was "very centralised" and that the premier's private office had its "tentacles everywhere", which caused "constant tension" with ministers' offices.
Remembering she resigned in late 2020 over the bungled response to Covid in Victoria, falling on her sword so Dan didn't have to.
Does the fact she resigned and then, infront of the IBAC, stated that the leader and leaders office wouldn't listen to advice not put any glimmer of doubt into your mind about anything ??
Scientists can only advise government. It up to government to heed that advice... or not. Self-respecting scientists continue to provide frank and fearless advice.
I said, and it is also stated in the document, that "Usually" a new flu virus variant is too widespread by the time the WHO declares pandemic for elimination or preventing outbreaks to be possible.
Historically speaking, this has been the case.
This time, we were implementing our pandemic response plan before the WHO had even declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Months before the WHO declared global Pandemic.
So, suddenly (for possibly the first time in public health history), quarantining an entire continent became feasible in the face of a new (definitely not influenza) virus.
The cost/benefits for short to medium term made it viable until treatments and vaccines could be implemented.
Now we can live almost like we did when Flu alone was the major player in respiratory illness.
I'll not deny that politics and stupid posing for influence did have an impact on the implementation of policies.
Politicians trying to play both sides by taking hard stances on lockdowns and vaccination but not investing enough in all the other measures that are also necessary because of cost and public perception (masking, gatherings etc), ultimately risked the sacrifices of the population for votes.
Watering down the effectiveness of all measures which resulted in mad scrambles for even longer lockdowns because it was the only tool to try fix their f'ups.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Sublime said..
Hey 'pea'cock do you actually believe anyone reads your essays of self inflated dribble?
Other then rim job and that retard who thinks the world is farked but knows "everything" about Bitcoin haha
booster # 10 is on its way. Thank god for the CDC right?! Herd mentality -I mean immunity would recommend you better book in now
Now I know why you use memes. "pea'cock"? An 8 year old boy could do better than that sense of humour.
Thanks for reading.
Your reading comprehension not so strong - boosters clouding your brain - No one reads your dribble
And then there is this guy - 217 COVID booster vaccinations later:
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/german-man-receives-217-covid-vaccinations/103551990
Select to expand quotefangman said..
And then there is this guy - 217 COVID booster vaccinations later:
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/german-man-receives-217-covid-vaccinations/103551990
They studied him and found high levels of retardation
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said.. They studied him and found high levels of retardation
So who is "They" and what does high levels of retardation actually mean?
Is that the retardation of COVID infection perhaps?.
This from the actual study!
"To investigate the immunological consequences of hypervaccination in this unique situation, we submitted an analysis proposal to HIM via the public prosecutor. HIM then actively and voluntarily consented to provide medical information and donate blood and saliva. This procedure was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Erlangen, Germany. Throughout the entire hypervaccination schedule HIM did not report any vaccination-related side effects. From November 2019, to October 2023, 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters showed no abnormalities attributable to hypervaccination (appendix 1 tab 2). Furthermore, HIM had no signs of a past SARS-CoV-2 infection, as indicated by repeatedly negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, PCRs and nucleocapsid serology "
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..fangman said..
And then there is this guy - 217 COVID booster vaccinations later:
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/german-man-receives-217-covid-vaccinations/103551990
They studied him and found high levels of retardation
Another high quality contribution.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Another high quality contribution.
If you think getting 217 covid vaxxes doesn't correlate with some form of mental retardation you're a retard.
Same retard - www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/german-man-suspected-of-taking-90-covid-jabs-to-sell-vaccination-cards
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..remery said..
The initial plan referenced above only mentions "herd immunity" once...
Not sure what your point is. If you are just doing word searches maybe try the latest edition of Woman's Own Word Search Puzzle Book. You may find it slightly more entertaining than searching Pandemic Management Plans.
I read the strategies you posted and couldn't find a reference to "herd immunity". Did I misunderstand your post?...
"The strategy was suppression to prevent overloading of the health system and to allow "herd immunity" (the colloquial phrase adopted)".
