Of plagues and houses

Results finalised on Queensland’s two status quo state by-election results, and COVID-19 question marks over looming elections in New Zealand, the Northern Territory and for two Tasmanian upper house seats.

Counting has concluded for the Currumbin and Bundamba by-elections of a fortnight ago, with Laura Gerber retaining Currumbin for the Liberal National Party by a 1.5% margin against a 1.8% swing to Labor, and Lance McCallum retaining Bundamba for Labor by a 9.6% margin ahead of second-placed One Nation (UPDATE: Make that a 1.2% margin in Currumbin and 9.8% in Bundamba). As noted previously, the flow of Greens preferences to Labor in Currumbin was relatively weak, though not quite decisively so. Deep within the innards of the ECQ’s media feed, it says that Greens preferences were going 1738 to Labor (72.8%) and 651 (27.2%), though this can’t be based on the final figures since the Greens received 2527 rather than 2389 votes. Had Labor received 79.17% of Greens preferences, as they did in the corresponding federal seat of McPherson last May, the margin would have been pared back from 567 (1.5%) to 215 (0.5%).

I have three tables to illustrate the results in light of the highly unusual circumstances of the election, the first of which updates one that appeared in an early post, recording the extent to which voters in the two seats changed their behaviour with respect to how they voted. Election day voting obviously fell dramatically, as voters switched to pre-poll voting and, to only a slightly lesser extent, outright abstention. What was not seen was a dramatic increase in postal voting, which will require investigation given the considerable anecdotal evidence that many who applied for postal votes did not receive their ballots on time — an even more contentious matter in relation to the mess that unfolded in Wisconsin on Tuesday, on which I may have more to say at a later time.

The next two tables divide the votes into four types, polling places, early voting, postal and others, and record the parties’ vote shares and swings compared with 2017, the latter shown in italics. In both Currumbin and Bundamba, Labor achieved their weakest results in swing terms on polling day votes, suggesting Labor voters made the move from election day to pre-poll voting in particularly large numbers, cancelling out what had previously been an advantage to the LNP in pre-poll voting. This is matched by a particularly strong swing against the LNP on pre-polls in Currumbin, but the effect is not discernible in Bundamba, probably because the picture was confused by the party running third and a chunk of its vote being lost to One Nation, who did not contest last time.

In other COVID-19 disruption news:

• The Northern Territory government has rejected calls from what is now the territory’s official opposition, Terry Mills’ Territory Alliance party (UPDATE: Turns out I misheard here – the Country Liberal Party remains the opposition, as Bird of Paradox notes in comments), to postpone the August 22 election. Of the practicalities involved in holding the election under a regime of social distancing rules, which the government insists will be in place for at least six months, Deputy Chief Minister Nicole Manison offers only that “the Electoral Commission is looking at the very important questions of how we make sure that in the environment of COVID-19 that we do this safely”.

• After an initial postponement from May 2 to May 30, the Tasmanian government has further deferred the periodic elections for the Legislative Council seats of Huon and Rosevear, promising only that they will be held by the time the chamber sits on August 25. Three MLCs have written to the Premier requesting that the elections either be held by post or for the terms of the existing members, which will otherwise expire, to be extended through to revised polling date.

• The junior partner in New Zealand’s ruling coalition, Winston Peters of New Zealand First, is calling for the country’s September 19 election to be postponed to November 21, which has also elicited positive noises from the opposition National Party. It might well be thought an element of self-interest is at work here, with Peters wishing to put distance between the election and a donations scandal that has bedeviled his party, and National anticipating a short-term surge in government support amid the coronavirus crisis. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern may be softening in her opposition to the notion, saying earlier this week it would “depend on what alert level we are at”. There has regrettably been no polling of voting intention in New Zealand in two months, although the government recorded enormously encouraging results in a Colmar Brunton poll on handling of the pandemic in New Zealand and eight other countries, conducted last week.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,986 comments on “Of plagues and houses”

Comments Page 35 of 40
1 … 34 35 36 … 40

  1. “Probably would end up being a rapid turnaround (1 hour) PCR test in the departing airport. You’d turn up early, wait in a special waiting area and then only be allowed to your gate once you pass.”

    If it can be turned around that fast, then sure. That would work.

  2. E. G. Theodore

    Essential or non essential ? Yes or no ? Have we or have we been told to avoid non essential travel ? yes or no ? Run that through your ENIAC and see what lights up.

  3. Player One says:
    Monday, April 13, 2020 at 4:50 pm
    “Rex Douglas @ #1643 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 4:38 pm

    As long as people exercise social-distancing when out buying essential goods there’s no logical reason to ban people isolating at their holiday homes.”
    Yes, there are several excellent reasons. But we’ve been around this loop once already.

    As long as people exercise social-distancing we could also allow
    beach surfing
    beach sunbathing
    visiting parks
    sitting on park benches
    non-essential trips
    In fact, I’m sure we could make quite a list.

    But, of course, it only takes one cough or sneeze of one person who is sure s/he is not infected to transmit the disease to some other unsuspecting person who then transmits it to his/her family.

    By restricting movements we reduce the chances of carrying the virus to virgin territory.
    The fact that regional hospitals are not being ‘over run’ with cases is something to celebrate, not a reason to place those communities at risk by city folk visiting the area and potentially leaving them a viral calling card.

  4. Blobbit @ #1696 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:20 pm

    “Regional hospitals aren’t being overrun though.
    If people isolate and keep their distance the virus dies.”

    That’s like saying we don’t need the restrictions on place as there aren’t many cases.

    …

    No it’s not.

    The current rules are working. People isolating at their holiday homes aren’t increasing the transmission rate or filling up regional hospitals.

    The facts are clear.

  5. Player One:

    E. G. Theodore @ #1679 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:09 pm

    The right question is whether it reduces or increases disease transmission, and the answer is not obvious.

    Of course it is. Unless, apparently, you have a holiday home and want to use it

    You have moved on from assertion to ad hominem without even an attempt at argument or evidence. You should try to do better.

    I have never had a holiday home and hence have never been in a position of “wanting to use it”. It is quite obvious that reduced population density correlates with reduced transmissibility, but this is not the only factor. Evidence from measurement is what is needed, not stupid assertions based on prejudice.

  7. “The facts are clear.”

    Well I guess it’s only a fairly small number of wealthy people who have holiday homes, so that’s ok.

    Let’s hyperventilate over jigsaws though.

  11. “Evidence from measurement is what is needed, ”

    But not closing schools or getting worked up about jigsaw sales.

  12. E. G. Theodore @ #1698 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:19 pm

    Poroti:

    E. G. Theodore
    If people have been asked to avoid non essential travel it is ,as they say, a no brainer.

    Travel one way from very high-density living such as an inner city apartment (shared lifts etc) to the country will reduce the risk that the traveller contracts COVID19 and dies, and will also reduce the risk to those who remain in the city. Both could be regarded as essential to countering the epidemic.

    There is a difference between going on a holiday (which is temporary) and an indefinite move to the country for the duration.

    All asuming that the moving person is not asymptomaticlly ill or presymptomatic.

  13. Oh no Lizzie, (Sounds like death throes. ) and Frednk (dead).

    The leaves will grow back won’t they? (apologies to Homer Simpson).

    Shame as it looks so good.

  15. Maude

    I agree that there are a bunch of activities that are potentially safe. Heck *I* would like to go to the beach. However, allowing people to travel for these sorts of purposes makes it really hard to police people who aren’t.

  16. “There’s quite a number of antibody tests also.”

    They wouldn’t really help with travel though, as your can be infectious before anti-bodies show up (as I understand it….)

  19. “We have a defacto school closure. Things may get interesting next term if schools start to re-open.”

    I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that transmission in schools had been an issue anywhere in the world.

    Be interested if anyone has any.

  20. Also for those who have just joined, this is an absolute MUST READ

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/it-s-worth-a-shot-australia-s-endgame-must-be-total-elimination-of-the-virus-20200412-p54j71.html

    Six weeks into the COVID-19 crisis, Australian governments are still hedging about which endgame they’re playing for. That’s understandable – uncertainties abound, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

    The least-bad endgame is to eliminate the virus from Australia, continue to control our borders until there is a vaccine or a cure, and restore domestic economic and social activity to “normal”, albeit keeping a close watch for new cases.

    The outcomes of this endgame would be much better than the alternatives. Obviously, fewer Australians would be infected. And the economic costs would be much lower because much more economic and social activity could go back to normal within a few months, whereas under the alternatives many activities would remain curtailed until there is a vaccine or a cure – or we lose patience and accept a lot more deaths.

    The leading alternative to an elimination strategy is to hold infection rates at close to one – that is, so each infected person on average infects only one other. It’s the “Goldilocks strategy” – it requires us to calibrate social distancing measures with precision. Too tight, and we inflict extra economic damage for a long time. A little too loose, and infections would again grow exponentially – which can seem manageable for several weeks, until suddenly it isn’t.

    Under the Goldilocks strategy, we could afford to relax at least some restrictions. But events where one person can infect many others would probably remain out of bounds – such as live sport and entertainment, large parties, religious services (at least those that have large congregations), eating out, and socialising at the beach. Domestic tourism would probably also be out, because tourists can spread the virus from area to area. There’s a good chance that many workplaces and university classes would have to stay closed. And a number of activities would have to remain in the “wait-and-see” category, such as schools, domestic air travel, general community socialising, and non-essential retail, except in their current alternative online forms.

    Whatever is required to keep infection rates close to one would need to remain in place until there is a cure or a vaccine – and that probably means for as long as 18 months, assuming either happens.

    That’s a long time to be living a severely restricted life. It is also economically very unattractive. Even for activities that are permitted, businesses would know that if infection rates drift up, they may be shut again. This is unlikely to breed the confidence that is essential to business investment. And most of the businesses that are shuttered for so long are unlikely to restart – imposing big longer-term economic costs.

    A strategy of eliminating the virus from Australia seems much more attractive. The current level of restrictions might well be sufficient – they are probably resulting in fewer new cases each day – but they would have to remain in place a month or two longer – because getting from 10 new cases a day to 0 is vital to the strategy. But we could then look forward to a lengthy period of relatively normal social life, business activity, domestic education, retail activity, domestic tourism, sport, and entertainment.

    One of the points being made is that in a scenario where you do not eliminate the virus, there’s lots of restrictions that cannot be eased and that have major economic impact – like having next to zero tourism going on.

  23. PeeBee

    Some native plants will shoot from bare branches. All you can do is hope. I have no experience with “dead” wattles.

  27. Rex Douglas
    “The current rules are working. People isolating at their holiday homes aren’t increasing the transmission rate or filling up regional hospitals.

    The facts are clear.”

    I seriously thought this discussion was worn out last time.

    The problem with holiday makers (who may unknowingly be carrying the virus) is they, with their noses and mouths, and their fingers carrying the virus
    1. travel to the holiday destination from home (wherever that is)
    2. stop to get petrol and buy something in the shop = possible transmission
    3. go shopping at the holiday destination = potential transmission
    4. get takeaway meals = potential transmission
    5. touch surfaces with fingers carrying the infection which locals may touch

    It’s not good enough to virtuously say the local person who picks it up should have thoroughly washed his hands for a minute with soap and dried properly. This virus is highly contagious. Once it’s transmitted there is no going back to fix the problem. It’s done.

    That’s why we need to restrict movements. Because you can’t guarantee everyone will be totally rigorous with coughing, sneezing and hand hygiene.

  29. “holiday makers”

    To be fair, Rex is taking about people who are rich enough to permanently relocate to their holiday homes for the duration.

    That seems to be such a tiny proportion of the population I can’t see how stopping it makes much difference either way.

  30. I’m afraid the goldilocks strategy is a delusion. By the nature of the disease, there is at least a week lag between an action and the first appearance of an effect on the infection rate; and longer to discern it amongst the noise. And we really have no idea of the effect of individual limitations which have been imposed during the stages of lockdown. So, do we use trial and error with at least 2 weeks before we can evaluate the effect of one change? And if cases start to spiral out of control then we have to clamp back down and deal with the new cases before we can get back to square one again.

    Who thinks this would be so much easier and quicker than going for eradication in Australia?

  31. Blobbit

    I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that transmission in schools had been an issue anywhere in the world.

    Does NZ’s largest ‘plague’ cluster being at a school count ?

  33. Thanks Lizzie and BW. Yes, washing very thoroughly after contact. Only touching it to take it out of cage twice a day to let it and run around (to avoid it getting depression). It runs up a log and talks to its parents who sit far enough away.

    It is not that I don’t trust the vet, but they won’t spend too much time on it. It is almost definitely this PBFD virus. And with it being so contagious and with Covid19 distancing they will take the quickest easiest path. Especially for a wild bird.

    There is definitely two strains of thought out there. One is that the disease is already rife in the wild anyway so the bird deserves a chance. The official view is euthanise first and ask questions later.

    I will call the vet and have a chat.

  34. Maude Lynne @ #1724 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:43 pm

    Rex Douglas
    “The current rules are working. People isolating at their holiday homes aren’t increasing the transmission rate or filling up regional hospitals.

    The facts are clear.”

    I seriously thought this discussion was worn out last time.

    The problem with holiday makers (who may unknowingly be carrying the virus) is they, their noses and mouths, and their fingers carrying the virus
    1. travel to the holiday destination from home (wherever that is)
    2. stop to get petrol and buy something in the shop = possible transmission
    3. go shopping at the holiday destination = potential transmission
    4. get takeaway meals = potential transmission
    5. touch surfaces with fingers carrying the infection which locals may touch

    It’s not good enough to virtuously say the local person who picks it up should have thoroughly washed his hands for a minute with soap and dried properly. This virus is highly contagious. Once it’s transmitted there is no going back to fix the problem. It’s done.

    That’s why we need to restrict movements. Because you can’t guarantee everyone will be totally rigorous with coughing, sneezing and hand hygiene.

    Your list of activities are all allowed in general society under the current rules.

    Given that, the transmission rate is declining.

    The rules are working. Fact.

  35. Blobbit @ #1729 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:48 pm

    “holiday makers”

    To be fair, Rex is taking about people who are rich enough to permanently relocate to their holiday homes for the duration.

    That seems to be such a tiny proportion of the population I can’t see how stopping it makes much difference either way.

    I think it is the inherent contradiction between “permanently” and “for the duration” 🙁

  36. I guess if people really want to move to their second house, they could always sell their city house.

    Then their country pile becomes their main residence.

  39. “I think it is the inherent contradiction between “permanently” and “for the duration” ”

    You know, the people who can afford to move out to the country for the next 6 months.

  42. In addition to the transmission risk, it is not a good idea to increase the numbers of people in areas with lower levels of healthcare. Even if they own a holiday home there.

  43. “Around 3% of Australians own a holiday home”

    So the 3% hey.

    I guess 1% of the Australian population could afford to decamp to the country for a few months.

    What about if I don’t have a holiday home but want to rent long term in the country – would that be ok?

  45. ML
    What very selfish entitled people are ignoring is that the more points of connection they create, the greater the potential for transmission.
    The next thing we know they will be saying that they should be allowed to fly in their private jets to anywhere they like as long as they maintain 1.5 m inside their jets.
    It used to be noblesse oblige.
    Now the plebs can GAGF.

  46. Rex Douglas @ #1734 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:50 pm

    Your list of activities are all allowed in general society under the current rules.

    Given that, the transmission rate is declining.

    The rules are working. Fact.

    As I keep pointing out, Rex – the rules are working despite the occasional entitled idiots who don’t think they apply to them. That doesn’t mean they are allowed to flout them, as you seem to think. If we didn’t have to allow for such idiots, we would be able to relax the rules that much sooner.

  47. RD
    “Given that, the transmission rate is declining.

    The rules are working. Fact.”

    Yes
    And one of those rules is no non-essential travel.
    Which includes travelling to a holiday home.

  48. Blobbit @ #1740 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 5:54 pm

    “Around 3% of Australians own a holiday home”

    So the 3% hey.

    I guess 1% of the Australian population could afford to decamp to the country for a few months.

    What about if I don’t have a holiday home but want to rent long term in the country – would that be ok?

    AirBNB is banned if I’m not mistaken.

  50. Boerwar

    Actually I would, ta very muchly. Fritters used to be a semi regular ‘back on the farm’ .Now as good as your recipe may be the ultimate ‘bliss bombs are Paua (abalone) fritters and tuatua(NZ clam) fritters. But any port in a storm 🙂

Comments Page 35 of 40
1 … 34 35 36 … 40

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *