As reported by The Guardian, the fortnightly Essential Research poll (a sequence complicated by a bonus coronavirus poll last week) includes the pollster’s monthly leadership ratings, which reflect the findings of Newspoll in very slightly lesser degree. Scott Morrison is up on approval from 41% to 59% (compared with 41% to 61% in Newspoll) and down on disapproval from 49% to 31% (compared with 53% to 35%), while Anthony Albanese is respectively up from 41% to 44% (compared with 40% to 45%) and down from 33% to 29% (compared with 40% to 36%).
For the fifth successive poll, Essential asked respondents about their level of concern about the threat of coronavirus to Australia, to which the combined very concerned and quite concerned responses climbed from 68% to 63% to 82% to 88%, and has now remained steady at 88%. No information is provided on preferred prime minister — we will have to wait for the full report later today to see, among other things, if the question was asked.
UPDATE: Full report here. Scott Morrison now holds a 46-27 lead as preferred prime minister, out from 40-35 last time (note that the BludgerTrack trends are now updated with the latest Essential and Newspoll numbers). The government’s response is now rated good by 58%, up from 45% a week ago, and poor by 21%, down from 31%. The poll also finds 29% expecting a lengthy recession due to coronavirus; 51% expecting that “the economy will be impacted for 6-12 months or longer and will stagnate or show slow growth thereafter” (which for my tastes is not sufficiently distinct in its wording from the first option); and 11% expecting the economy will “rebound within 2-3 months”. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1069.
yabba @ #186 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:22 am
I have thought for some time now that we ought adopt the Scottish practice in criminal trials that a jury should return a verdict of “Not proven” rather than “Not guilty”. It is a much better way of communicating the true result consistent with the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. It also doesn’t imply any notion of innocence.
So as long as you do something ritually everyday…(ignoring the day you don’t do it and commit a crime)….you now have a watertight alibi. I knew the conservative elite would protect their own and release him.
lizzie @ #197 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:36 am
Yep, yep, yep. How, pray tell does this fit in with “Married at First Sight” ❓
A recent visit from my long lost (me) cousins resulted in an offer from the younger to acquaint me with everything I didn’t know about “Keeping up With the Kardashians”. She was joshing me me but I did not dare test her.
Nearly elevenses. 🙃☕
All is forgiven and forgotten George. No one thinks you valued the church’s gold over the suffering of its youngest members. No one thinks you protected the church’s reputation by shifting the problem from parish to parish instead of exposing it.
Time to get the purple dress and funny hat back on and represent your beliefs in the best possible way.
If only there had been more than one little boy surviving to give evidence. David and Goliath.
Spray @ #198 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:37 am
It all comes down to who you believe was telling the truth, the victim, who had everything to lose, and went through hell, or Pell, who had everything to lose, and put himself and thousands of others through hell. I have my opinion on that. Everybody else can make up their own mind. The High Court’s finding relates to the law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth, and is an irrelevance.
As I have stated before, I have no qualms at all about him being found not guilty. His actions speak much louder than words. He is a low, evil, narcissistic, sociopathic bastard, and has paid, and will continue to pay for the rest of his life for that fact. He deserves every little bit of the consequences of his actions. He has succeeded magnificently in ensuring that his cult is seen for the abscess on society that it is. Its admitted followers fell by over a third between the last two censuses, and continues to fall. By any measure, he is a living, breathing, walking disaster area, for his cult, and the others who had the misfortune of falling under his influence.
William Bowe @ #1 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 4:20 am
Not trying to shut down the debate, but it is perhaps worth noting that William wants the Pell related stuff on a separate thread.
Guys, there’s a separate thread for all things Pell.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2020/04/07/pell-quarantine-thread/
Insuffienct evidence to convict.
Not a not guilty verdict.
The stain will remain.
Justice is not served. As we can see by the reactions to the Pell appeal.
As BB would put it. The witch hunt succeeded.
yabba @ #206 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:59 am
Ireland is your case in point. I’ve just finished “A History of Loneliness” – John Boyne – which explores the priesthood in Ireland in the later 20C up to and including its fall into public disrespect, if not contempt.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/apr/06/lady-gaga-billie-eilish-and-paul-mccartney-to-play-coronavirus-benefit
guytaur @ #209 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 11:05 am
Good, isn’t it? Couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke.
The problem being that was not charged with being “a low evil bastard who denied, and deliberately psychologically tortured thousands of victims of his greedy, money grubbing cult.”
yabba @ #206 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:59 am
Yeah I don’t disagree with much of that Yabba. But that’s not what he was on trial for. As progressives, we can’t throw the rule of law out just because a decision doesn’t match our preferred outcome.
(And whoops, sorry William. Will move to other thread).
FWIW There’s a totally unscientific online poll of news com au readers, at the end of an article about three choices facing Australia re coronavirus, as outlined by Prof Blakely an epidemiologist.
———-
“In his opinion, Australia has three choices and each of these come with potentially serious consequences.
In order for Australian life to return to normal, there are only two ways that the virus can be defeated, either a vaccine is found or Australia develops “herd immunity” which means about 60 per cent of the population, or 15 million people, need to be infected.
So we can either wait it out for up to 18 months and hope the vaccine is developed quickly, or we can slowly infect Australians, knowing that some people will die.
“This is going to be brutal,” Prof Blakely said of the decision facing Australians.”
—————-
It appears to show at least readers there are distinctly split on what they think is the best way forward
Results (of >27000 respondents now and not changing much)
What path should Australia take?
Try to eradicate the virus
39%
Squash the curve
18%
Flatten the curve to herd immunity
43%
ItzaDream @ #199 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 10:38 am
No. The starting assumption for the appeal is that the jury found the complainant credible and reliable. The doubt is raised when the Crown, as it was bound to do, calls the ‘opportunity witnesses’ who give evidence as to an ‘invariable practice’. Two of those witnesses actually gave evidence that they remembered these days as they were joyous occasions (being Pell’s first two solemn masses upon taking up the role of Archbishop). The Crown did not challenge those witnesses’ credibility when given leave to cross-examine their own witnesses by suggesting, for example, they were making their evidence up, clearly wrong in their recollection etc. In broad terms, I think the best they ever got out of the ‘opportunity witnesses’ was that in the over the entire period of their recollection of Pell’s practice (ie the years he was Archbishop), there may have been an occasion when this practice was not adhered to, however, some even added that they could not recall such an occasion.
Thus, the jury had before it two inconsistent, credible ‘pieces’ of evidence: that of the complainant’s account that the offending did take place and that of the ‘opportunity witnesses’ which was inconsistent with the complainant’s account and gave rise to a reasonable possibility that the offending did not take place. A jury is bound to consider all of the evidence and act rationally in reaching its verdict of guilt (beyond reasonable doubt). The doubt having been raised by the unchallenged, credible evidence of the opportunity witnesses cannot rationally be put to one side by finding the complainant credible and reliable.
I have been told that the Church commissioned an enquiry once into some other similar allegation against Pell. A retired judge held the enquiry and in the end said he could not make a finding because he found both the complainant and Pell credible.
The real question that arises is whether a public trial by jury is the appropriate forum to deal with historical allegations of sexual abuse. Whether you’re a fence sitter or not on the ‘correct’ outcome of this trial, it matters not. It’s been a terrible forum for all concerned.
Hope this helps.
Quoll
What amount is “some people will die”?
Please forgive me William et al. I did not notice the quarantine thread.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/virus-will-leave-an-economic-impact-for-decades-20200406-p54hk9.html
Worth highlighting on how the Overton Window has shifted. Labor will be back to calling each other “Comrade” in public.
🙂 Good thing it was “after” .
Funny, when this was pointed out after Pell’s trial – that institutional truth (the legal verdict) is not necessarily the real truth (what actually happened) – the tune Pell haters were playing was different.
They said that the verdict WAS reality, that it DID literally indicate what REALLY happened. Pell had not only been found institutionally guilty. He WAS guilty – i.e. he must have really molested those boys – because of that institutional finding.
The real outcome of this case is:
● that the legal system has taken its course,
● the general principle that “hard cases make bad law” (in this instance hard cases for the victims of abuse) has been reasserted, and
● Pell will live in disgrace forever… for what he DID do, not what he DIDN’T do.
Victoria
“best case scenario” a mere 30,000 , not so “best” 135,000 . Quite a % seem happy to throw those sort of numbers under a bus to die an unpleasant death.
Option 1
No numbers
Option 2
“Prof Blakely said this option could prevent an estimated 25,000 deaths but would require Australians to endure a radically different lifestyle until a vaccine could be found.
One of the unintended consequences of this approach may be deaths from other causes may rise.
People on elective surgery lists for example would have their operations for things like hip replacements delayed and could see a deterioration in their quality of life. There could be deaths related to domestic violence and mental illness caused by the rising unemployment rate.
“Many of us are concerned and are crunching the numbers to work out the death toll for squashing the curve … and it could be just as bad as for COVID-19,” he said.”
Option 3
Prof Blakely said COVID-19 could claim the lives of an estimated 135,000 Australians if it was allowed to spread but he believes this number could be brought down to as low as 30,000 people if measures were taken to protect the vulnerable – including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions who would continue to stay in lockdown– and new medication or treatments were found.
Poroti/quoll
Thanks
The unintended health consequence of the eradication strategy is you might only flatten the curve.
The unintended health consequence of flattening the curve is millions of deaths and many more living with as yet unknown post virus ailments.
I know which choice I would pursue
I was thinking of something to do in my spare time now and I thought about writing a science fiction novel. The hero, I will call him Bill, is a politician fighting against the corrupt Leader, backed up by a powerful group of robber-barons who control much of the countryside. No matter what lie the Leader tells, the Barons keep supporting him. This has been going for so long that most people have forgotten what a good Leader is like.
Then one day Bill is shown a time machine developed by a party member physicist. Bill travels forward a year. He is shocked to find the country has fallen into ruin. A devastating crisis has struck the world, and Bill’s country was ill-prepared, thanks to the Leader wasting all the country’s wealth pandering to the Barons.
Bill is shocked and galvanised into action. He returns to his own time and argues for his party to adopt a comprehensive set of policies that will leave it well prepared for the crisis. He also is able to accurately highlight all of the corruption and cronyism the Leader has been guilty of, and warns where it is leading the country. Some actions are even reported to the police, though they take no action.
Despite all this, the Barons keep backing the Leader. The Leader uses Bill’s knowledge of the future against him, assuring the people that the policies Bill proposed were not needed, and would deny them many benefits from the Leader’s current policies. The Leader showers gifts on a few of the people and the election is lost.
Bill realises that the people can only be persuaded of things they can see with their own eyes. He tells his loyal physicist friend that they can only win by focusing on the present, and the time machine will only lead them astray by warning them of the things other than the immediate present. Sadly Bill destroys the time machine, and resigns from politics. The novel ends with the crisis beginning to destroy the Barons themselves. As an alternative, I could call the hero “Shorty”.
Coral bleaching -> less fish -> hungry sharks?
Quoll @ #215 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 11:14 am
I’m taking “eradicate the virus” to mean “develop a cure/vaccine” and “squash the curve” to mean “lock down even harder until no new infections are detected”.
But how thoroughly were the options explained within the survey? Were people advised that “flatten the curve to herd immunity” means 1) maintaining current lockdown measures (or something close to them) so that the curve remains flat, and 2) doing that for potentially years at the current infection rate?
…or actually at current daily infection rates you would need literally centuries to reach “herd immunity” levels of cases. Realistically you either flatten the curve until the virus can be eradicated via a cure/vaccine, or you kill a lot of people going for herd immunity in a timeframe that’s not measured in years.
More whales = more sharks = take your chances, it’s their home.
Scott Dworkin
@funder
·
11h
BREAKING: Ohio lawmaker
@RepGalonski
says she is making a criminal referral today to the International Criminal Court for Trump to be charged with crimes against humanity over his hydroxychloroquine promotion.
https://majorityreportradio.com/2020/04/06/4-6-an-epidemiologist-on-the-covid19-pandemic-trumps-response-w-dr-markalain-dery
Talk about virtue signalling…
Quoll @ #215 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 11:14 am
I reckon if “Put your head in the sand and hope the virus goes away” had been included as an option, it would have scored close to 100%
Updated NSW figures
2686 up 49
229 under care down 20
37 in ICU down 3
24 on ventilators up 2
406 community acquired – up 9
Testing approved for all patients with symptoms in 9 hotspots
I heard on ABC News this morning that Berejiklian had said the Ruby Princess criminal investigation will take years, interview thousand of witnesses and it’s findings may be kept secret.
If so, this is more than for the protection of a senior public servant. When the shit hits the fan, senior public servants are shed faster than coronavirus in a Bondi boogie bar.
Someone REALLY, REALLY important is involved in this. It stinks of a cover up, with the “Alex Hawke” red herring put there to discredit the twitter finger-pointers who’ll believe anything.
Bushfire Bill @ #221 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 11:27 am
For the record, I never, on any occasion, ever said this, or anything like it. I always stated that I did not care, one way or the other, whether Pell was found guilty, and I still don’t. I hate Pell because he is a despicable bastard, who actively protected hundreds of other despicable bastards, while posing as a ‘man of god’, and inflicting pain on thousands of victims and their families.
BB
As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck……
a r
Listening to some medical guy this morning and discovered than “eradicate” and “eliminate’ are not the same thing. I wonder what definitions the article used ?
……………………………………………………………………………..
Elimination of infections: Reduction to zero of the incidence of infection caused by a specific agent in a defined geographical area as a result of deliberate efforts; continued measures to prevent re-establishment of transmission are required. Example: measles, poliomyelitis.
Eradication: Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. Example: smallpox.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm
Does anybody know what the government is doing about PPE. I know they talk about a stockpile, which I’m assuming was massively below the level we need.
Has the government done anything about getting it manufactured here, or are they hoping that someone will set up this business. It would be worth doing if the government agreed to only source from local manufacturers after this crisis, but not worth the investment if it was to become a stranded asset.
Historyintime says:
Monday, April 6, 2020 at 8:31 pm
Peter Collignon’s comments are sensible. There is a rational resistance to complete lockdown that is going to grow.
——————————————————
Talk about a bunch of lily-livered surrender monkeys!
Does someone have a link to a site that details what happens to the body when the virus takes over and you need a ventilator.
I understand that its akin to drowning, for a week or more until your body shuts down. Even those who “recover” experience three weeks of sickness that is considerably more debilitating that the seasonal flu or pneumonia. Some have injury to their lungs that lingers for years afterward.
Ask Prof. Collignon what overzealous policies he would relax. Has he never heard of what’s been happening in countries like Italy, Spain, France and now the United States. We’re just a week into stopping the spread of the virus. His criticism of the current strategy is defeatist.
What practical experience has he had in combatting a global pandemic. I’d suggest to Prof. Collignon that instead of making statements that would undermine policies that seem to be working, he should offer his services to ACT Health in the intensive care ward of the Canberra hospital. He can then watch what happens to unfortunate victims of this insidious disease as they fight for their lives.
On the face of it, the lockdown, which should have started earlier anyway, is doing what it’s supposed to. Giving up now would be an insult to the dozens of doctors and nurses around the world who have died trying to save their fellow human beings in this pandemic.
Those who are whinging about this life-saving lockdown would probably have agreed that the Ruby Princess posed no risk to the hundreds on that ship who caught the virus and the dozens who will die as a result. Try your “rational resistance” theory on the families of those victims.
We will lock down until we eradicate this beast, no matter how long it takes.
What good is an economy if thousands of people die.
Victoria @ #230 Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 9:38 am
Why? The US doesn’t recognise the ICC.
An Adelaide man has reportedly hoarded more than 5400 toilet rolls after panic buying saw supermarket shelves stripped.
An anonymous grocer told 9 News Adelaide they had been approached by the man, who has allegedly been contacting independent stores about his stash after being banned from online selling.
It comes as many shoppers continue to struggle to get their hands on the precious paper despite assurances from the big supermarkets that stock levels are returning to normal.
Does anyone know if this headline from the Canberra Times is referring to Essential or another poll?
beguiledagain
Tuesday, April 7th, 2020 – 11:50 am
Comment #240
https://nyti.ms/34hbOow
Referenced earlier this morning. I hope this works for you.
Assantdj,
I don’t know about the feds, but this is an example of what the State Govts are doing:
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2020/4/5/queensland-manufacturers-evolve-in-time-of-need
We should be recommending everyone wears masks. For the same reasons Asians do it for the flu and colds. Its not to prevent you getting it. Your mask protects me from getting it. My mask prevents you from getting it.
The reason for this. Assume high Asymptomatic cases in the population.
We should assume this because we have not done mass testing.
Bill
“I heard on ABC News this morning that Berejiklian had said the Ruby Princess criminal investigation will take years, interview thousand of witnesses and it’s findings may be kept secret.”
Yes, and good question. Why keep the finding secret if a politician is not involved? The evidence may be useful in a court hearing against any party that allegedly acted unlawfully. Or it might be useful in an action against Carnival Lines, if they allegedly acted improperly, to recover some of the huge costs they have imposed on NSW Health. Tracing and testing thousands of passengers and then treating hundreds of those. The health bill from this must be millions. There are also the rights of passengers who may wish to sue for damages, and crew who may wish to sue their employer for endangering their safety. Only the guilty will benefit from the secrecy.
Most of all, how will we know that any errors have been identified and systems changed to prevent them occurring again in future if we do not know what happened? The public will not benefit from the secrecy. It is not a matter of national defense, but civil defense, so why the secrecy?
Socrates.
Sorry I think your last sentence is not correct. Its in the interests of national security for transparency so we can prevent future epidemics. There are reasons we have banned biological weapons. Stopping epidemics is a big part of that.
“An Adelaide man has reportedly hoarded more than 5400 toilet rolls after panic buying saw supermarket shelves stripped.”
This is why a state of emergency should have been declared. Such behaviour then becomes illegal. Conservative governments do not want to declare states of emergency so business can exploit the situation. It is a bit late to not want to worry the public. Also who sold 5400 rolls to this guy?
Guytaur
I said “The public will not benefit from any secrecy”. I agree transparency is in the public interest. That was my point. But I did not see this as a matter of national security (defense) as normally defined. I meant that therefore, the spooks normal justifications for secrecy were not valid. We are fighting a virus, not the cold war. I will amend my words slightly.