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.
Blobbit @ #1899 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 9:26 pm
That’s because there is none.
Greg Jericho, quoted by Peg : “Whether or not the ALP was correct to support the package, it is clear the cause of equality is not helped by Anthony Albanese saying that he does not “regard someone who’s earning $200,000 dollars a year as being from the top end of town.”
Someone earning $200k per annum is doing very well, no doubt. But the majority of people with a gross annual income of around the $200k mark are still wage and salary earners: indeed, some of them might even be blue collar workers getting various sorts of living away from home allowances and overtime (eg, on the mines). Plenty of them would be living in average suburbs, paying off large mortgages and sending their kids to the local public school.
I don’t think most such people would see themselves belonging to the “top end of town”: a term they would think applies to people from privileged backgrounds who have lots of assets and who send their kids to the top private schools. And who quite possibly report incomes to the ABS and the ATO of significantly less than $200k per annum. The ordinary wage and salary earners resent being lumped in the same basket as the Range Rover drivers.
So IMO Albo is right to reject Shorten’s and Bowen’s rhetoric of class envy. And he was also right not to get into a big battle with ScoMo about tax cuts. These sorts of strategies might get you a positive write up The Guardian, but it’s not going to do you any good at all out in the suburbs. First get into government, and then you can explore some reforms and try to take the voters with you on their necessity.
Blobbit
I cannot see a set of eased restrictions that simultaneously have substantial/worthwhile economic impact that don’t also wipe out that narrow margin in R(effective) that you have and which is doing the work.
And that’s another problem I have with the government’s rhetoric and the way the media has swallowed that rhetoric. Its a fairy story. There is no middle ground, no magic setting of that magic knob. Well, not without absolutely massive levels of testing/surveillance. And if you’re prepared to do that you might as well do it now, because massive levels of testing will hasten elimination.
Now, I agree there are tokenistic easings of restrictions that may not prevent elimination (but possibly lengthen the time required to achieve it). But these should only be used as a means to reward the public and continue to get the public to be patient.
That’s why I’ve suggested gradually reopening schools. That could possibly be done safely (not risk elimination) if its done as a package with blanket testing of students/teachers. And its a measure that will earn public confidence and patience.
CC
I think John Daley and Stephen Duckett would be mortified by the way you are using the article to launch, for the umpteenth time, into Brendan Murphy and, now, elements of the National Cabinet.
What Daley and Duckett seem to be saying is that the Government should have an express elimination policy. Okay I am sure each and every hardworking member of the National Cabinet would like this and seek expert opinion as to the possibility of this.
They say it should be steady as it goes, plus more testing and then trying out some specified areas for a measured response to the lifting of restrictions (SA, Tasmania or WA – it can only be SA realistically at the moment). The first two things are happening and the third is obviously on the cards.
They ruminate about Chinese tourists coming here. That and the clunky Goldilocks’ analogue are unhelpful distractions.
Properly read, the article is not the full frontal attack on the Government and Murphy at all.
It is a statement of what is now possible recognising what the National Cabinet (and the health system) have achieved. It is recommended to the National Cabinet move in that direction albeit it carries significant risk.
YUmmmmy!
Crushed up dark chocolate easter bunny added to a mug of soy milk, heated and stirred.
Decadent 🙂
Tara Reade’s allegation is detailed and plausible, and the media will eventually give it a lot of coverage because Trump will force them to by bringing it up again and again. Trump won’t be deterred by the fact that he has been accused of sexual assault himself. It is clear that Trump is shameless enough to use this against his opponent.
But I think Trump will wait until it is too late for the Democrats to nominate someone else. Trump won’t want Biden to drop out. He wants to face Biden, whose candidacy is deeply flawed. Biden is Hillary 2.0. He has no positive agenda, he personifies establishment corruption, he stands for nothing except not being Trump, he treats voters with disdain.
“substantial/worthwhile economic impact”
I specifically said doing it not for economic reasons. Some things that could be considered and which aren’t tokenistic.
I’d like a serious look at schools. The isolation isn’t good for kids. The sooner that can safely be removed the better.
In WA I’d like to see some of the travel restrictions removed within the state so people can visit relatives.
Removal of elective surgery bans, assuming PPE is available.
One that is more economic – allowing restaurants to reopen with suitable restrictions on seating.
“it can only be SA realistically at the moment”
I think WA is close as well. It’s all down to cruise ship cases at the moment for us.
Diogenes @ #1885 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 8:54 pm
Oh. Apologies.
The report I read gave none of that detail. Maybe desperate, and uninformed.
A bit surprising that her supervisor, fellow workers and/or manager did not notice. Perhaps there may be a bit of shared responsibility? Fairly easy to take a temperature in a nursing home, is it? For myself, I can usually hear if a person is coughing, and if they blow their nose I can often tell that they have done so, by the noise and the discarding of the tissue. If you are understaffed, run off your feet, and hard of hearing it might be difficult to tell, I suppose. I mean, its not as if we are unaware of the symptoms, is it, and as responsible managers, supervisors or fellow workers, we would never ignore them or underestimate the risk, would we?
Must be the stupid employee’s fault. I mean, nobody else seemed to think it was a problem, but they definitely should have twigged themselves. All of those ‘soldier on’ ads were such obvious nonsense.
shellbell
This is true.
This is not true.
As I said, I’m unaware of the National Cabinet having sought modelling advice on elimination. None of them have talked publicly about elimination as an option for serious consideration and Brendan Murphy (yes, he deserves being launched into) has dismissed the idea of elimination in a way that is pure spin and bullshit. This is not what we want from someone in his position.
Nowhere has Brendan Murphy been honest and upfront and said “Yes, elimination is hard, but we are earnestly seeking the advice of experts on how it is possible”. Yes, shellbell, nowhere.
Its derogation of duty to not ask people to investigate and model it. Brendan has not and he is absolutely not seeking a dialogue with independent experts as he should. The only officially sanctioned modelling by the National Cabinet looked purely at questions related to resourcing.
We are so far behind New Zealand it is painful to contemplate.
Again, shellbell, this is the official sanctioned (fairy) story. Its suppression, not elimination. What they should be doing is asking questions about whether they can declare provisional elimination (not just suppression) in the smaller states first and gradually close the net.
On the contrary, the Goldilox analogy is there to help you see with your own eyes just how incredibly stupid and dangerous is the idea of gradually lifting restrictions without elimination. The fantasy is that there is a “Goldilox” zone.. A zone where you can have eased restrictions and the economy will be just fine and at the same time the virus will not go back to exponential spread. This zone does not exist.
Nor is it. Its a gentle prod in the hope that some (especially others in the media) will sit up and pay attention.
Its also a statement of what the National Cabinet is going to blindly risk doing. Yes, we (that is we the nation, not so much the government) has achieved a lot. We don’t want to throw that away. And the government’s official position – like it or not – its fairytale story of “we can safely ease restrictions without elimination” story.. is going to throw all of that effort away.
A reminder of when America was great, from Stephen Schmidt..
‘FDR was the greatest President of the Twentieth Century. He is Lincoln’s closest peer. He preserved faith in democracy with his New Deal, led the Allies to victory and architected the postwar US led global order that endured until Trump. He died 75 years ago today.’
meher baba @ #1900 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 7:39 pm
Whilst they may not be the “top end of town”, they are definitely not struggling for a crust.
shellbell: “Properly read, the article is not the full frontal attack on the Government and Murphy at all. It is a statement of what is now possible recognising what the National Cabinet (and the health system) have achieved. It is recommended to the National Cabinet move in that direction albeit it carries significant risk.”
CC’s earlier attack on me and now your post made me go back to the article and reread it several times. I have to say that each time I read it I became increasingly confused as to what the authors were proposing.
Apparently there’s an undesirable thing called a “Goldilocks” strategy, which involves gradually lifting controls and trying to keep a lid on new cases. And then there’s something better called an “elimination strategy” which also seems to involve gradually lifting controls and trying to keep a lid on new cases. The bad thing about the Goldilocks strategy is that it involves lifting controls more quickly, and that’s risky. But one of the good things about the elimination strategy is that it might enable controls to be lifted more quickly than the Goldilocks strategy. And apparently the Goldilocks strategy might involve risky actions like opening up our borders to other countries that have done well in the fight against coronavirus. But then, the elimination strategy also appears to feature this idea.
The authors really ought to have set out exactly what they meant by an “elimination strategy”. That certainly would have helped. I suspect that what they really want is to impose a stage 4 lockdown a la NZ, but, for some reason they didn’t want to come out and state this boldly: perhaps because Australia’s less harsh lockdown seems to be doing extremely well.
If anyone wants to read it for themselves, here it is
https://grattan.edu.au/news/australias-endgame-must-be-total-elimination-of-covid-19/
Barney: “Whilst they may not be the “top end of town”, they are definitely not struggling for a crust.”
Agreed: as I said, they are doing very well. I guess it all depends on what one means by the “top end of town.” The Shorten and Bowen definition seemed to be very broad, encompassing back bench parliamentarians (who all get receive more than $200k per annum), retired people on relatively modest incomes, etc.
I think Albo has exactly the same view of the expression as I do: chuck it into the dustbin of history and find a completely different way to talk to Australians about income and wealth inequality.
It’s not a matter of class envy. If someone gets rich through hard honest work, inventing a better mousetrap or exceptional talent, good on them. Even if they were just lucky or chose the right parents. They can enjoy their wealth.
But they are not ‘battlers’ and shouldn’t pretend to be. They don’t need handouts or concessions. They’re lifters, they have to lift on their own behalf and for those who can’t.
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos announced Monday during an appearance on “Good Morning America” that he tested positive for coronavirus.
https://www.axios.com/george-stephanopoulos-tests-positive-coronavirus-039d13b4-5a43-4cb7-83ec-c234620004b4.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
meher
The “Goldilox” strategy is the government strategy.
You remember the fairy tale.
This chair is too big..
This chair is too small..
This chair is just right..
Only now its..
This policy setting will result in too many deaths..
This policy setting will result in too much economic loss.
But THIS policy setting is JUST RIGHT..
The problem here is that the middle chair doesn’t exist and part of the point of the article is to point that out.
“The authors really ought to have set out exactly what they meant by an “elimination strategy”.”
The meaning of this should be very clear. No virus. Then reopen the country.
“I suspect that what they really want is to impose a stage 4 lockdown a la NZ, but, for some reason they didn’t want to come out and state this boldly”
As I said before, you do have a talent for misreading/misrepresenting.
Nowhere in the article do they talk about further changes to policy or restrictions. What they strongly suggest though is that the current policy settings will bring about elimination in due course. In other words a fair representation of the article is “keep things as they are, watch carefully and wait”.
mb
I don’t think they advocate for lockdown but fear most a too early lifting of restrictions.
Very hard to see how the Daley/Duckett path differs from what we are seeing develop.
“What they strongly suggest though is that the current policy settings will bring about elimination in due course”
Which is a Goldilocks strategy of a sort. The current settings are just right. That is what we’re doing is balancing economic destruction against saving lives.
Otherwise if “elimination” means ignoring the economic cost they should be advocating mailing everyone’s door shut. That’ll eliminate the virus.
mb
It’s pretty clear what they mean by the elimination strategy.
“ 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.”
We have zero tolerance for overseas or interstate travel probably for 18 months but SA can function as an autonomous country in three months. That’s the plan if it works out.
CC
You are right. Daley and Duckett are indeed advocating “keep things as they are, watch carefully and wait”. Same as National Cabinet, Murphy etc.
Their measured approach is directly opposite to yours which is everything should have been known/done yesterday and everyone who does not agree with you is [insert pejorative here].
Is this mass testing voluntary or involuntary?
CC: “We are so far behind New Zealand it is painful to contemplate.”
I can’t see that. The trends in case numbers for Australia and NZ are very similar.
Yes, NZ says (sort of) that it is going for an elimination strategy but, as Daley and Duckett point out, public health modellers in that country suggest that this will require a total lockdown for 3 months with a 50 per cent chance of success. These are not very encouraging numbers. It might be that the dream of total elimination could be a fool’s paradise.
As I’ve suggested in the past, what I think the National Cabinet are thinking at the moment is that elimination is a stretch goal for a strategy which, when it was first formulated, was largely directed towards keeping the flow of cases going into ICU at a manageable level. Nobody then even dreamed of the idea of elimination: the best case scenario at that time was that we didn’t turn into Italy or Spain.
But things have gone much better so far than anyone imagined. Something close to elimination is now looking possible. Paul Kelly’s comments the other day that we were “on the cusp of elimination” indicates that the National Cabinet are thinking about elimination. But they’ve also got to think about the economy and the people who currently don’t have jobs.
I don’t think they’ll seriously consider lifting the controls anywhere for another couple of weeks. But then, if the numbers remain very low or, better still, have been at zero for some days in one or more states, they are going to have a think about lifting some controls in some places. They really don’t have any choice: if there’s a viable option where we avoid trashing our economy for an indefinite period, then we have to consider taking that option.
And I’m not sure that putting harsh controls on for 3 months for a 50/50 chance of elimination looks like as good a deal as the sort of staged lifting of controls that Blobbit suggested in an earlier post.
I posted this in 2017 when it was first published…..no less relevant now
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2017/04/01/what-counts-rich-now/14909652004442
The refusal of politicians to define ‘rich’ plays to a social confusion about how well off people actually are. By Mike Seccombe.
What counts as rich now?
“And that is apt to make you feel poorer than you are. As the social researcher Rebecca Huntley noted in a blog for MLC last year, the result is that 60 per cent of households with incomes of about $145,000 misidentified themselves as being middle class.
They considered a middle-class lifestyle to include annual overseas trips, private schools and expensive extracurricular activities for their children, regular dining out, new cars and the latest household technology. All the while, they complained about the cost of living.
These people are rich, but no politician dares tell them, for fear of being resented.
:::
Our leaders really should tell them they have not got much to complain about. Although that seems unlikely: we’re still not ready to even talk about what “rich” means.”
“Very hard to see how the Daley/Duckett path differs from what we are seeing develop.”
Oh that’s very easy to answer shellbell
It differs when we only have a few cases of the virus and the government suddenly decides to ease restrictions. Daley/Duckett want us to persist a little longer until there is a high level of probability that there are no carriers left. I agree with them.
First day Victoria had more cases than NSW.
Trust Nicholas the grub to try and use as evidence a video from a muck-raking website that used to be worthy but now is worthless. Nicholas, who has an uncontrollable urge, it seems, to continually slander Joe Biden, just because he is butt hurt that Saint Bernard’s revolution ran out of steam and the wheels came off.
Nicholas obviously failed to read the article that I supplied earlier which addressed the issue of Ms Reade and her outlandish fly-blown claims, and which was carefully put together by 3 women and 1 man, two of whom were former Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sexual-assault-allegation-by-former-biden-senate-aide-emerges-in-campaign-draws-denial/2020/04/12/bc070d66-7067-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html
Instead, Nicholas puts up a video by a nobody who works for The Hill. That would be the same, ‘The Hill’, that still continues to employ John Solomon, the reporter who, as well as making a living magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy, was the one who aided Donald Trump in ginning up the Ukraine story against Joe Biden.
THIS is the publication that Nicholas uses to build his case against Joe Biden.
Nicholas should be ashamed of himself for trying that on here, but it seems his Bernie Sanders zealotry has poisoned his soul and he has become shameless when it comes to attacking the candidate for Presidency of the United States who democratically defeated his man crush, Bernie Sanders.
I guess what it does prove is the old adage that, just because you are highly intelligent, doesn’t mean that you excel in common sense or self control.
Nicholas, please stop your daily slander of Joe Biden. This woman’s story is Black Ops of the most damaging and dangerous kind, and I would have thought her effusive praise of Putin might have given you a clue as to that reality.
” a little longer ”
CC – that’s easy weasel words. The hard bit is being the person who has to put a number on that “little”.
Diogenes: “We have zero tolerance for overseas or interstate travel probably for 18 months but SA can function as an autonomous country in three months. That’s the plan if it works out.”
I didn’t necessarily read zero tolerance for interstate travel – or even, in some circumstances, overseas travel – into Daley’s and Duckett’s article. As I said, it’s a very confusing read.
meher
“But things have gone much better so far than anyone imagined. Something close to elimination is now looking possible. Paul Kelly’s comments the other day that we were “on the cusp of elimination” indicates that the National Cabinet are thinking about elimination.”
I will grant that Paul Kelly did say that. But that doesn’t make up for the fact that the government has not even done the modelling necessary, nor has “elimination” been mentioned in any official statements.
The official policy is still one of suppression, not elimination. So long as it remains so there is a very real danger.
CC
[It differs when we only have a few cases of the virus and the government suddenly decides to ease restrictions.]
That is just guessing what is going to happen. Victoria and NSW are not going to let go, except for the obvious non-contributing restrictions, when they have cases coming in at 10 a day or thereabouts.
Everyone’s eyes will be on the new vanguard of this nation – South Australia.
meher
“I don’t think they’ll seriously consider lifting the controls anywhere for another couple of weeks. But then, if the numbers remain very low or, better still, have been at zero for some days in one or more states”
On that point specifically, I think you need to understand that without mass testing, there will need to be a period of some weeks without any cases at all, at least at state level, for there to be a declaration of provisional elimination.
The fact that we have no precise answer to how long we need to see zero cases, speaks volumes to what this government has not done.
CC: “It differs when we only have a few cases of the virus and the government suddenly decides to ease restrictions. Daley/Duckett want us to persist a little longer until there is a high level of probability that there are no carriers left. I agree with them.”
No one would disagree with the proposition of waiting a little longer, if we knew it was only going to be a little longer.
But I have a strong premonition of how it’s going to turn out in practice. You might have a week of no cases at all in one or more states, even nationally, and then there’ll be a breakout somewhere: a la the current situation in Burnie. And then you’ll get that under control in a couple of weeks and then there’ll be another breakout. I reckon that’s the way coronavirus is going to roll.
So you could set a standard of, say, zero cases for 2 weeks before you consider lifting restrictions. And then you might find that after 10 years you still haven’t managed to achieve that.
That’s why – in total contrast to Daley and Duckett – I think it’s a good idea to see elimination as a stretch goal. You don’t aim for it, but, if if looks like becoming achievable in the near future, you go for it.
Hey, be nice to WA. Only 13 community transmission cases with the last on Thursday.
SA had one on Saturday
😉
shellbell
“That is just guessing what is going to happen. Victoria and NSW are not going to let go, except for the obvious non-contributing restrictions, when they have cases coming in at 10 a day or thereabouts”
Simple fact. The official policy is suppression, then easing of restrictions. This does not guarantee elimination. Why? Because some weeks or more must pass with zero cases before you can declare elimination. Whereas if your goal is suppression you may very well act sooner. That’s a real danger, as the policy currently stands.
As for whether the states will act as a buffer against the foolishness of the Federal government. Well, that’s supposition on your part. They may. I’d hope that Andrews pushes back on anything but elimination, but unless one of the Premiers comes out and says “elimination” we can’t be sure.
Now, there’s always a possibility that the smaller states might stumble into elimination while the rest of the country is getting its shit together. Fine. So the NT declares provisional elimination first. They don’t count. WA or SA next? Possibly both, but we’re still talking weeks here. Tasmania? Yeah if the current outbreak is crushed, but again it takes weeks for potential hidden cases to get flushed out.
We may well end in a situation where the smaller states and Victoria push back on NSW. NSW is the state I fear most and for reason I’ll happily go into but you probably won’t like.
Given that we know that the government/National Cabinet simply haven’t decided on an exit strategy yet – the process of putting up options, modelling them and coming to a decision is presumably under way right now – I don’t think too much can be read into what has been done/said up to this point.
Without having decided on the exit strategy, clearly the various choices made up to this point have been to stabilize the situation to buy the breathing room that we seem to have right now to work out where we are trying to get to and how to go about getting there from where we are now.
So, yeah, critiquing the exit strategy that hasn’t yet been decided upon seems … a bit pointless.
meher
“No one would disagree with the proposition of waiting a little longer”
Except for Brendan Murphy who so far has been antagonistic to the proposition of elimination and a host of unseen advisers who have never truly given up on the idea of gradual, creeping “herd immunity”. Plus you have the Murdoch rags screaming from the sidelines.
“But I have a strong premonition of how it’s going to turn out in practice. You might have a week of no cases at all in one or more states, even nationally, and then there’ll be a breakout somewhere: a la the current situation in Burnie. And then you’ll get that under control in a couple of weeks and then there’ll be another breakout. I reckon that’s the way coronavirus is going to roll.
So you could set a standard of, say, zero cases for 2 weeks before you consider lifting restrictions. And then you might find that after 10 years you still haven’t managed to achieve that.”
On current trends, elimination will happen. We just don’t know if its going to be 5 weeks or 11 weeks. The fact that the government hasn’t been interested in the answer to this specific question is telling. But there are people modelling this, which is a good thing.
“CC – that’s easy weasel words. The hard bit is being the person who has to put a number on that “little”.”
Blobbit.
Actually the hard part is convincing this government that it needs to officially pursue the question of what “a little longer” actually means, in the context of elimination. I’ve been willing to put a figure of 5 to 11 weeks on this. Lets see if I’m wrong.
Jackol
“Given that we know that the government/National Cabinet simply haven’t decided on an exit strategy yet – the process of putting up options, modelling them and coming to a decision is presumably under way right now”
If the National Cabinet were considering seriously the exit strategy of elimination, it could not remain a secret. It would have to be modelled in academia. Fact is, they aren’t taking it as a serious option, yet.
mb
Interstate travel would be allowed once the other state had also achieved elimination.
Overseas travel could be allowed with two weeks of strict quarantine and negative testing on arrival and end of two weeks.
I know the schools issue has been discussed at length on a few occasions.
Now that we are discussing exit strategies you may be interested in this mythbusting from Prof Raina Macintyre published 2 weeks ago. It remains relevant….
https://iser.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/busting-myths-about-covid-19-herd-immunity-children-and-lives-vs-jobs
Blobbit
I’d seriously love to see WA go a week or two with zero cases. Because of their isolation it would be so easy for them to declare elimination (and maintain border controls).
Then SA and NT would follow suit. You can see where this is leading.
CC – and at the end of 11 weeks, of another case pops up?
Or if we get to 6 weeks and there’s been no new cases for 3 weeks.
I’ll commend you for putting a number of there, but it’s still easy when you don’t have any real responsibility.
For those who implicitly trust the National Cabinet..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAAXorA4pg8
“You are far too trusting”.
Blobbit
Again, these are questions that the government should be seeking answers to, and isn’t.
CC – “I’d seriously love to see WA go a week or two with zero cases.”
I’d qualify that with 0 cases where it wasn’t from someone in quarantine from a cruise ship. Those cases are still coming through, but zero risk of community transmission as they went straight into quarantine.
Little Mr Hunt seems to be impressed with rather small achievements.
On Monday, Mr Hunt praised Australians for doing just that.
“Australians have done what we had hoped – and more. They have stayed at home. They have self-isolated,” he said.
“They have responded with the best sense of Australia imaginable.”
Council has taken an extraordinary step of closing some Gold Coast beaches
View photos
Council has taken an extraordinary step of closing some Gold Coast beaches as a preventive measure against the spread of Coronavirus after thousands of people ignored social distancing rules. Source: AAP
He pointed out transport movements over Thursday, Friday and Saturday were 13 per cent below what they usually are this time of year.
“I couldn’t be more impressed, more honoured, and more heartened by the work of Australians over the Easter weekend and in the weeks before,” he said.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/three-elements-needed-lift-coronavirus-lockdown-110051801.html
A whole 13%. Read it and weep. This could be awful in 2 weeks time.
Diogenes @ #1904 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 10:55 pm
I can only see this dragging overseas travel back into the realm of those who can afford it. I can’t see governments continuing to subsidise 2 weeks of strict quarantine, therefore only those who can afford to pay that bill before they head off on their holiday will be doing it.
Also, I imagine that the cost of travel insurance will skyrocket and the cost of getting sick with COVID-19 whilst overseas, especially when travelling to countries that fail to eliminate it, and I include the US here, will also be exorbitant.
“I’d qualify that with 0 cases where it wasn’t from someone in quarantine from a cruise ship. Those cases are still coming through, but zero risk of community transmission as they went straight into quarantine.”
Yes, I should have qualified it like that.The same goes for the rest of the country, except that I think NSW is now counting interstate cases in the “overseas” column, and shouldn’t be.
C@t
Sadly I agree. So much for my trip to NYC 🙁
Blobbit @ #1899 Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 9:26 pm
One difference is that if someone owns a holiday home it probably* wasn’t occupied by random (and possibly C19 positive) strangers the day before. Not so with hotel rooms and holiday rentals.
* Unless they airbnb it, etc..