The Irrational Fear and the cost of the Wuhan Virus, Is it worth it?

[Hypocrite-The]

The bottom line is this economic destruction for the so called lives saved is not worth it.

‘How much is a life worth?’: Abbott delivers controversial COVID-19 speech
In a speech that drew the ire of Australian commentators and politicians, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has critiqued governments for avoiding “uncomfortable questions about the level of deaths that we might have to live with” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Delivering a keynote speech about Australia and the coronavirus to UK thinktank Policy Exchange, Abbott said while the generation that faced World War Two was ready to risk life to preserve freedom, the current generation is “ready to risk freedom to preserve life”.
Unpacking the question, “how much is a life worth?”, Abbott said governments were approaching the pandemic like trauma doctors – who spare almost no effort to keep a person alive – rather than health economists “trained to pose uncomfortable questions about a level of deaths we might have to live with”.
“When a cancer patient wants access to very expensive new drugs, governments normally ask tough questions about how much good life will be gained before making it available; and what the alternative might be,” Abbott explained.
“So far, Australia’s national government has committed some $300 billion to soften the economic consequences of state governments’ enforced social distancing. Even if mandatory shut-down really was all that avoided the initially-predicted 150,000 deaths, that still works out at about $2 million per life saved.
“If the average age of those who would have died is 80, even with roughly 10 years of expected life left, that’s still $200,000 per quality life year – or substantially beyond what governments are usually prepared to pay for life-saving drugs.
“Once it was clear that a 60 per cent infection rate and a 1 per cent death rate was unlikely, shouldn’t we have started to ask whether the cure was proportionate to the disease?”
Politicians across the political divide denounced Abbott’s stance.
Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians Richard Colbeck said while he had not heard the former Health Minister’s comments, he did not agree.
“I would condemn the comments because that’s not what I believe,” he told parliament on Wednesday.
Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said the former Prime Minister was “never known for his compassion” and told reporters in Canberra that his comments were “a new low”.
“To make the comments that he did, I think, will cause a great deal of hurt for Australians who read those comments, particularly the families of those who have been impacted by COVID-19,” Albanese said.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann argued the economic cost of the virus response was justified.
“The first priority was to protect people’s health and save people’s lives by suppressing the spread of the virus, and that was absolutely necessary,” he told reporters.
“As part of that, we did have to impose significant restrictions on the economy in order to suppress the spread of the virus, and that was appropriate.”
Prime Minister Scott Morrison also claimed he had not seen the comments.
“My focus today has been on the millions of Australians who have received the news today that Australia has entered into the worst recession as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.
Do you have an idea for a story?
Email [email protected]

Get the news delivered straight to your inbox
Receive the top stories in our weekly newsletter Sign up now
Post Views: 516

 

[frenchbriefs]

I dunno 5 months ago there was only 133k Corona cases worldwide,today there's over 20 million and 1 million deaths,don't u think it deserve some respect and recognition?

 

[Hypocrite-The]

I dunno 5 months ago there was only 133k Corona cases worldwide,today there's over 20 million and 1 million deaths,don't u think it deserve some respect and recognition?

People die every day for all sorts of reasons and life goes on. Does every person in the world expect the world to stop for him?

What about the additional deaths caused by the economic destruction? Those than commit suicide caused by the fear of the lock down? The people who are starving and economic opportunities destroyed? Those that have their medical treatments cancelled etc due to space being made for those with the flu? Those that commit suicide due to the effects?

If there was no lockdowns and things moved as normal because the Wuhan virus is just a flu. Those that died due to the effects of the economic destruction would still be alive. The death rate would in no way be an extra 1 million. The bottom line is..the economic destruction is not worth it.

 

[ilovechinesegal]

The corona was overreacted! Now china most businesses are open! Night club, pubs and bars are all opened! Sinkie is just an ang mo follower! once ang mo country give green light to open borders then sinkie will just follow!

 

[Hypocrite-The]

The corona was overreacted! Now china most businesses are open! Night club, pubs and bars are all opened! Sinkie is just an ang mo follower! once ang mo country give green light to open borders then sinkie will just follow!

The powers that be wants the lockdowns to go on indefinitely because there is huge profits to be made from the vaccines and politicians and bureaucrats benefit because they are ruling by decree. They do not want the Virus to be like SARS.
Ended the demand for the vaccines causing them to loose money.

 

[ilovechinesegal]

The powers that be wants the lockdowns to go on indefinitely because there is huge profits to be made from the vaccines and politicians and bureaucrats benefit because they are ruling by decree. They do not want the Virus to be like SARS.
Ended the demand for the vaccines causing them to loose money.

Then tat will be giving china huge advantage as biz as usual there! china dont even use western medicine to curb the corona! Msia and some other moslem nations will take this opportunity to islamzation and tat would be even worse! Then sg now follow ang mo waiting for them to open borders and their vaccines! Vaccines just like other western medicine can be placebo effect!

 

[Hypocrite-The]

This is an example of politicians benefitting from the lockdowns and fanning the fear of the virus

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Then tat will be giving china huge advantage as biz as usual there! china dont even use western medicine to curb the corona! Msia and some other moslem nations will take this opportunity to islamzation and tat would be even worse! Then sg now follow ang mo waiting for them to open borders and their vaccines! Vaccines just like other western medicine can be placebo effect!

The worst thing is these vaccines will cause more serious health problems than the virus itself. There is no study on the long term effects and I think the illness is a fate worse than death

 

[ilovechinesegal]

The worst thing is these vaccines will cause more serious health problems than the virus itself. There is no study on the long term effects and I think the illness is a fate worse than death

Yeah! U look at china now! Almost no case or very little! People there enjoying life! Can go out without masks! Night clubs and bars are opened! They dont even wait for the western vaccine and it just proof tat western medicine is just for money making placebo effect business!

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Yeah! U look at china now! Almost no case or very little! People there enjoying life! Can go out without masks! Night clubs and bars are opened! They dont even wait for the western vaccine and it just proof tat western medicine is just for money making placebo effect business!

U think the tiongs not making money from the vaccines?

 

[ilovechinesegal]

U think the tiongs not making money from the vaccines?

Of cuz will make but they are not calming to have the vaccines!

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Of cuz will make but they are not calming to have the vaccines!

They are lah...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53917315

 

[ilovechinesegal]

They are lah...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53917315

Did not read news recently! Their vaccine confirm more accurate than the russian!

 

[Hypocrite-The]

This is an example of politicians benefitting from the lockdowns and fanning the fear of the virus

This is a better example. Good for the powers that be

Coronavirus has fuelled authoritarian trends around the world, Australia's Dfat warns | Australian foreign policy
Australia’s foreign minister Marise Payne
Australia continues to raise human rights concerns during the pandemic, Dfat says, pointing to Marise Payne’s statements about Hong Kong. Photograph: Reuters
Wed 2 Sep 2020 03.30 AEST
Covid-19 has fuelled protectionist and authoritarian trends around the world as some countries take advantage of the pandemic to erode the rule of law, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warns.

As officials prepare to face a parliamentary hearing on Wednesday, Dfat has also acknowledged “clear differences” exist in the relationship with China, while insisting Australia seeks a constructive partnership “that is not defined by those differences”.

Dfat representatives are expected to spell out how Covid-19 has reshaped the global order and increased disruption and uncertainty when they address the joint standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade.

But in a written submission to the committee ahead of the hearing, Dfat says the pandemic has heightened pre-existing risks to Australian interests.

“Global supply chains and international trade have been disrupted, major power strategic competition has sharpened, and protectionist and authoritarian trends have been reinforced,” the submission says.

“The impact in developing countries is likely to be deeper and more prolonged, which will have implications for the security, stability and prosperity of Australia’s region.”

The submission also says the pandemic potentially increases existing threats to regional security such as transnational crime, cybercrime, terrorism, weapons proliferation, people smuggling and human trafficking.

“In some regional flashpoints, actors could see an opportunity to make gains while governments are preoccupied with domestic imperatives,” Dfat says.

The submission says Australia is continuing to raise human rights concerns through a range of forums – a task that is “particularly important given some countries’ increased appetite to use Covid-19 as an opportunity to undermine democratic principles, respect for human rights and the rule of law”.

To that end, Dfat points to statements issued by the foreign minister, Marise Payne, in combination with close international counterparts, raising concerns about China’s decision to impose new national security legislation in Hong Kong. The Chinese government denounced such criticisms as a case of meddling in its internal affairs.

Dfat also says Covid-19 has “presented the opportunity to deepen regional and global cooperation” through new and existing configurations including the Quadrilateral Dialogue with India, Japan and the United States.

A ministerial meeting of the Quad – which is viewed with suspicion by China – could take place in India in the next few months, the US deputy secretary of state, Stephen Biegun, predicted this week. Biegun characterised it as a combination of “four extraordinarily solid democracies” with shared values in the Indo-Pacific.

Dfat also says Australia has maintained an operational presence in the South China Sea because it is a crucial international waterway and “adherence to international law remains paramount, even while countries are focused on domestic responses to Covid-19”.

While the submission doesn’t go into great detail about the current tensions in the relationship with China, it does say Australia wants a partnership that works in the interests of both countries.

Relations between the two countries “have never been more consequential, nor more complex, as we seek to navigate the bilateral and international impacts of Covid-19”.

This week China’s commerce ministry broadened its trade investigation into Australian wine imports and the Australian government revealed that an Australian journalist had been detained in China since at least 14 August.

The joint standing committee is looking into the implications of the pandemic for Australia’s foreign affairs, defence and trade.

Its recent hearings have been told how supply chains have been disrupted and explored the extent to which Australia should build up its sovereign capabilities, including in the areas of medicines and personal protective equipment.

The Liberal senator David Fawcett, who is chairing the inquiry, said the committee would hear from Dfat as it considered the “rapidly changing and uncertain” regional and global trends.

“Our challenges are to make sure we have a strong and resilient national economy and that we do what we can to make sure the global rules-based order is not unduly disrupted by changes in the international environment,” Fawcett said.

In the submission, Dfat also argues that the independent international evaluation of the response to Covid-19, which won broad support at the World Health Assembly in May, “should not be politicised” as it will “help the global community protect itself” against future pandemics.

Australia’s early and forthright call for an inquiry into the origins and initial handling of Covid-19 angered the Chinese government, which argued the timing showed it was a political manoeuvre aimed against it.

Last week Wang Xining, the deputy head of China’s embassy in Australia, told the National Press Club the Chinese people saw Australia’s inquiry push as a “shocking” effort to single them out when Wuhan had just come out of a restrictive lockdown and when the US government was attempting to put more pressure on China.

China has targeted Australia on a number of trade fronts this year, including imposing steep tariffs on barley imports, suspending red-meat import permits for five processing plants, and issuing warnings to international students.

Australia’s trade minister, Simon Birmingham, told reporters on Tuesday he “would like very much for the Chinese government to agree to have ministerial-level conversations because that is the best way for us to confront some of the issues that we have at this present time”.

Topics

 

[Hypocrite-The]

I doubt the vaccine is safe or even effective. It's a rush job. N risks n effectiveness is not fully evaluated yet.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Covid vaccine rush could make pandemic worse, say scientists
Experts say strong evidence of efficacy needed to avoid approval of inferior vaccines

Mon 31 Aug 2020 02.00 AEST

Last modified on Mon 31 Aug 2020 13.37 AEST

6,896
A scientist at work at a Covid-19 vaccine laboratory in Oxford.
A scientist at work at a Covid-19 vaccine laboratory in Oxford. Photograph: Reuters
The rush to immunise populations against Covid-19 could lead to the rollout of a vaccine that is not very effective and risk worsening the pandemic, leading scientists have said.

Politicians and commercial companies are competing to be the first to license a vaccine, but experts say the world would be better served by waiting until comprehensive results showed at least 30-50% effectiveness.

Ministers announced on Friday that the UK would take emergency powers to push any vaccine through the regulatory processes with unprecedented speed before the end of the year. Donald Trump wants to be able to announce the US has a vaccine before tthe presidential election on 3 November.


A vaccine is vital to stopping the pandemic, but Prof Sir Richard Peto of Oxford University and an adviser to the World Health Organization, said the first vaccine would be bought and used all over the world even if it had low efficacy.

Even if it protected only a minority of the population, it would be regarded as the standard by which later vaccines would be measured. That could even lead to inferior vaccines being approved, because they would not have to show that they were any better.

“I think there’s a big rush, a somewhat nationalistic rush and also somewhat capitalistic rush as well, to be absolutely first to register a vaccine, and it will actually make it more difficult to evaluate other vaccines,” Peto said.

“We do need a vaccine that works and we need it soon,” but “we really do need quite strong evidence of efficacy”.

There is huge political and commercial momentum in the UK behind the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, which is ahead of most other contenders in the world. Trials are taking place in a number of countries, including those with high levels of infection, such as South Africa and Brazil, where how well it works will become clear more quickly .

The Department of Health said on Friday that it planned to take emergency measures to ensure the UK could licence a vaccine this year if it had sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. Until 31 December, the UK would otherwise have to wait for the European Medicines Agency to approve a vaccine. Next year, post-Brexit, the UK will license its own vaccines and drugs.

In its consultation document on changing the law, the government says the UK’s joint committee on vaccines and immunisation (JCVI) will be responsible for recommending that a vaccine that should go forward for licensing. That committee is chaired by Prof Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, who has said they may have enough data to give to regulators before the end of the year.

Peto is a member of the WHO’s Solidarity Vaccines Trial Expert Group, which is made up of leading scientists around the world who are advising on the establishment of the WHO’s trial to compare different vaccine candidates.

The group said in the Lancet medical journal last week that a poor vaccine would be worse than no vaccine, not least because people who had it would assume they were no longer at risk and stop social distancing.

“Deployment of a weakly effective vaccine could actually worsen the Covid-19 pandemic if authorities wrongly assume it causes a substantial reduction in risk, or if vaccinated individuals wrongly believe they are immune, hence reducing implementation of, or compliance with, other Covid-19 control measures,” they said.

They urged all regulators to stick to the WHO’s guidance, which says that no vaccine that is less than 30% effective should be approved. It recommends at least 50% effectiveness, but allowing for 95% accuracy that could mean 30% in practice.

The Food and Drug Administration, the US regulator, has said it will abide by the 30% guidance, but some observers think it may come under political pressure to license a vaccine that falls below that threshold.

The Lancet piece says trials such as Solidarity, which compare various vaccines, are a better way to proceed.

“In comparison with individual trials for each of the many different vaccines, a global multi-vaccine trial with a shared control group could provide more rapid and reliable results,” they write.

Share your story
Share your stories
If you have been affected or have any information, we'd like to hear from you. You can get in touch by filling in the form below, anonymously if you wish or contact us via WhatsApp by clicking here or adding the contact +44(0)7867825056. Only the Guardian can see your contributions and one of our journalists may contact you to discuss further.

Tell us
Share your experiences here (Please include as much detail as possible )
Name (You do not need to use your full name)
Where do you live? (Town or area is fine)
Can we publish your response?
Yes, entirely
Yes, but please keep me anonymous
Yes, but please contact me first
No, this is information only
Email address (Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.)
Phone number (Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.)
You can add any extra information here
Share with the Guardian
“High enrolment rates facilitated by flexible trial design and hundreds of study sites in high-incidence locations could yield results on short-term efficacy for each vaccine within just a few months of including that vaccine.”

Good results on safety and effectiveness do not guarantee there will be no long-term problems, they add. The vaccine’s protection may wane, for instance.

“The trial costs will be a fraction of the societal costs of Covid-19, and this global collaboration could rebut detrimental vaccine nihilism and vaccine nationalism,” they write.

Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. You've read 41 articles in the last year. And you’re not alone; millions are flocking to the Guardian for open, quality news every day, and readers in 180 countries around the world now support us financially.

The crises we’ve faced in 2020 have underlined why factual information is indispensable to us all. We’re determined to provide journalism that helps each of us better understand the world, and take actions that challenge, unite, and inspire change. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, our journalism is free from political and commercial bias – this makes us different. We can give a voice to the oppressed and neglected, and stand in solidarity with the struggle for truth, humanity and justice.

Supporting us means investing in Guardian journalism for tomorrow and the years ahead. The more readers funding our work, the more questions we can ask, the deeper we can dig, and the greater the impact we can have. Your support protects our editorial independence and autonomy, which allows us to fearlessly investigate and interrogate the words of those with political and commercial power – and help bring about a brighter, fairer future.

Your support means we can keep our journalism open, so millions more have free access to the high-quality, trustworthy news they deserve. So we seek your funding not simply to survive, but to grow our journalistic ambitions and inform more people. If there were ever a time to join us, and help accelerate our growth, it is now. You have the power to support us through these challenging financial times and enable real-world impact.

Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our future. Support us today from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

I wonder how many lives are saved compared to the economic destruction being bought about.

Melbourne stage 4 restrictions and Covid lockdown rules explained | Melbourne
Victoria coronavirus lockdown: Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has announced stage 4 Covid restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne, including an 8pm to 5am curfew and supermarket shopping limited to within 5km of your home.
Victoria coronavirus lockdown: Victorian premier Daniel Andrews has announced stage 4 Covid restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne, including an 8pm to 5am curfew and supermarket shopping limited to within 5km of your home. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images
The Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, has announced tough new stage four coronavirus restrictions for metropolitan Melbourne, including an overnight curfew

Guardian staff
Fri 4 Sep 2020 11.47 AEST
Stage four restrictions have been in effect across metropolitan Melbourne since Sunday 2 August and will last for six weeks.

Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, said the restrictions have been brought in to get community transmission – cases where the source of the transmission cannot be determined – under control. Andrews said government modelling showed that without these measures, stage three restrictions would need to last six months.

Here are some of the main things you need to know about the stage 4 restrictions for Melbourne.

When did the lockdown start?
The stage four restrictions covering metropolitan Melbourne began on Sunday 2 August and will last for six weeks until Sunday 13 September.

Additional restrictions on businesses were announced on Monday 3 August, and most of them started from 12.01 Thursday 6 August.

When can I leave my house?
You are only allowed to leave your house for four reasons: shopping for food and essential items, care and caregiving, daily exercise and work. Employers must support you to work from home if you can work from home.

Unlike stage three, there is now a curfew on Melbourne residents between 8pm and 5am.

Caregiving includes managing shared custody arrangements, using a babysitter, leaving home to care for animals housed elsewhere, visiting someone in an aged care home and visiting someone in hospital. Specific directions apply.

You can leave your house if you are at risk of family violence or to apply for an intervention order, and to attend court or a police station.

You can also leave your house to access medical services. This time around, that explicitly includes leaving your house to give blood. Access to medical services is unrestricted: you can access them anywhere in Victoria.

How far can I travel from home?
Shopping for food and necessary supplies must be within 5km distance from your home, except if the nearest supermarket is further than 5km.

Only one person per household can leave to go shopping per day.

Exercise must take place within 5km of home, and must be in metropolitan Melbourne. Exercise is limited to one hour, once per day.

What are the rules for exercise?
Exercise is still a permitted reason to leave your house. But you will not be allowed to leave metropolitan Melbourne to exercise, meaning long bush walks or leaving Melbourne to go fishing or golfing are no longer permitted.

Exercise can only happen within 5km of home, and must be in metropolitan Melbourne. Exercise is limited to one hour, once per day.

As of 19 August, you are allowed to drive to a location in order to exercise there, but your destination must be within 5kms of your home and must be the closest practicable location.

Time spent in the car driving to and from your location included in the one-hour time limit.

Swimming pools, playgrounds and gyms will be shut, and community sport will also stop.

You can exercise with one other person, including members of your household.

What are the rules for wearing face masks?
It has been mandatory for people in metropolitan Melbourne and the Mitchell shire to wear face coverings in public since midnight on Wednesday 22 July. That rule was extended to the entire state from midnight Sunday 2 August.

People must wear a mask or covering whenever leaving the house. There are a few exceptions. People with a medical reason are exempt, as are children younger than 12. Those who have a professional reason are also exempt and “if it’s just not practical, like when running”, but those people will still be expected to carry a face covering at all times “to wear when you can”.

In schools, teachers will not need to wear a face covering while teaching, but students attending classes will. Both teachers and students will need to wear a mask on the way to and from school.

Andrews said “common sense” would guide how the new rules are enforced.

Breaking the rules is punishable with a $200 fine.

Is my municipality or suburb included?
All local government areas within metropolitan Melbourne are affected. That includes:

Banyule, Hume, Moreland, Bayside, Kingston, Mornington Peninsula, Boroondara, Knox, Nillumbik, Brimbank, Manningham, Port Phillip, Cardinia, Maribyrnong, Stonnington, Casey, Maroondah, Whitehorse, Darebin, Melbourne, Whittlesea, Frankston, Melton, Wyndham, Glen Eira, Monash, Yarra, Greater Dandenong, Moonee Valley, Yarra Ranges, Hobsons Bay.

Regional Victoria returned to stage three restrictions from Thursday 6 August. You can find out more about stage three here.

Can I have visitors to my house? Can I see my partner?
You cannot have visitors or go to another person’s house unless it is for the purpose of giving or receiving care. You can leave your house to visit a person if you are in an “intimate personal relationship” with them. That is, there is no “bonk ban”.

If your partner lives outside Melbourne and/or 5km of your home you can still visit them. If you stay at your partner’s place after 8pm, you must stay there until the next morning. That is, you can’t go home from there between 8pm and 5am.

Cleaners, tradespeople, gardeners, painters and renovators are not allowed to visit your house for work. Exceptions exist for emergency issues like a burst pipe, and for providing care for welfare and wellbeing like Meals on Wheels . But “it’s not the time to be painting your house or having unnecessary, non-urgent work happen,” Andrews said on Monday.

Do I have to stay in Melbourne?
The stay-at-home rules apply to your main place of residence so you will not be able to get out of Melbourne and stay in your holiday house. The government says this is to stop the virus being spread to other parts of the state.

Can I still dine in at a restaurant or cafe?
No. Restaurants and cafes will only be able to trade as takeaway and delivery businesses.

Will the shops be open?
Supermarkets, grocery stores, bottle shops, pharmacies, petrol stations, banks, and local bakers and butchers will be allowed to trade but subject to density rules limited by people per square metre.

General retail will be closed from 12.01 Thursday 6 August. Stores will still be allowed to operate contactless pick-up, delivery and “click and collect”. Hardware stores will be open to tradespeople only.

Strictly speaking, you will only be allowed to go to the shops to buy food and essential items. If you need help with shopping, or need to help a friend or family member, you can go shopping together but remain 1.5m apart.

What about other businesses and services?
Pubs, bars and nightclubs will be closed and bottle shops will be takeaway only. Beauty services and hairdressers will be closed.

Entertainment and cultural venues such as music venues, museums, indoor and outdoor cinemas, and the casino will be shut. Brothels and strip clubs will also shut. Libraries and community venues can only stay open for essential services, or to host funerals.

Real estate inspections will be by appointment only and auctions will be conducted remotely.

What are the changes to warehouses and abattoirs?
Warehouses (in Melbourne) are limited to two-thirds of their normal workforce onsite at any time from Thursday 6 August.

Abattoirs (across all of Victoria) are also be limited to two-thirds of their normal workforce, with strict safety measures in place akin to being a frontline health worker.

What is happening to construction?
Major private construction projects have been limited to only 25% of their normal workforce onsite since Thursday 6 August.

Small construction, such as home renovations or new homes, are limited to only five people onsite. Government construction projects have already halved the number of people onsite, and the government is looking to reduce them on a project-by-project basis.

How do I get a permitted worker permit?
If your organisation is in the list of industries allowed to remain open in any form, you are able to fill out a form with your employer that you can present if asked by police if stopped travelling while working.

You can present the document, or a photo of the document of your phone if needed.

Can I still move house?
People can still move house, but it must happen within curfew hours. The Victorian government advises people to take extra precautions, including wearing a mask.

What is happening with schools?
Year 11 and 12 students, along with all other students, returned to remote learning from Wednesday 5 August across Victoria, except for children of permitted workers and vulnerable children.

Childcare and kinder are closed except for children of permitted workers and vulnerable children.

What happens to weddings, funerals or religious services?
Religious services will need to be broadcast online. Weddings are no longer permitted from Thursday, 6 August, while the limit is 10 people at funerals (not including those conducting the service).

Holiday accomodation and camping venues must close. Travel within Victoria is allowed only for work and only if necessary.

Can I travel to Melbourne?
You cannot travel to Melbourne unless it’s for work or study, medical care and caregiving, shopping for food or supplies. Exercise is not a valid reason to travel.

You can travel through Melbourne on your way to somewhere else, but it’s recommended you don’t stop unless it’s for one of those three reasons.

What if I break the rules?
Andrews has said police will monitor traffic seeking to leave metropolitan Melbourne and officers would also enforce the restrictions within the city.

Victoria police can issue on-the-spot fines of up to $1,652 for individuals and up to $9,913 to businesses, for general breaches of the stay-at-home orders.

The on the spot fine for not wearing a face covering is $200 and the fine for breaching isolation orders multiples times after testing positive for coronavirus is $4,957. This can be increased through the courts to a maximum of $20,000.

Due to the unprecedented and ongoing nature of the coronavirus outbreak, this article is being regularly updated to ensure it reflects the current situation at the date of publication. Any significant corrections made to this or previous versions of the article will continue to be footnoted in line with Guardian editorial policy.

Topics

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Why aren't we seeing Europe lock down again in the face of another COVID-19 wave?
Posted 19h

People sunbathe and swim on El Arenal beach in Spain, where the tourist season is in full swing.(Reuters: Enrique Calvo)
Europe's attitude to COVID-19 might seem jarring to some Australians, especially those living under lockdown.
Key points:

• Europe is facing a spike in coronavirus infections with tens of thousands of new cases per day
• Rather than new lockdowns, some countries are encouraging people to return to work
• Testing and contact tracing has ramped up across the region

Europeans are returning to school, going to work, heading out for drinks and even cramming onto planes for summer holidays.
At the same time, the region is facing a major spike in infections, with tens of thousands of new coronavirus cases reported every day across the continent.
But rather than reimposing aggressive lockdown strategies adopted during the first wave, European leaders seem determined to push on with a version of life that is as close to normal as possible.
Some countries, like the UK, are actively encouraging their populations to go back to work or to socialise.
There's less talk of defeating the virus in the short term, and more talk of living with it.
And that strategy will be tested in the coming weeks.
Spain resists lockdown after summer surge
After initially going into lockdown earlier this year, strict restrictions were lifted in Spain in June.
Tourists quickly flocked to southern Europe to enjoy summer holidays in the sun.
With tourism accounting for up to 15 per cent of Spain's GDP, holidaymakers were met with open arms.

Infections in several European countries including France and Spain are on the rise again as restrictions ease and people enjoy the summer weather.(AP: Daniel Cole)
But Dr Daniel Lopez Acuna, a public health physician in Spain and former World Health Organization official, said it was too much, too soon.
"I think Europe — all in all — rushed a little bit [with] the tourist season," he told the ABC.
On Monday, Spain reported more than 23,000 new cases in three days.
On Thursday, the daily figure was 3,607.
Despite the surge in case numbers, Spain's Government has decided against another widespread lockdown because hospitals are not under the same pressure they were during the first wave.
Only 6 per cent of hospital beds earmarked for COVID-19 patients are occupied, according to Spain's Health Minister Salvador Illa.
"From a public health perspective the current situation does not call for a new lockdown," he said.
Dr Lopez Acuna cautioned against this approach.
"It's very important that we do not measure the severity of the problem... only through the window of hospital saturation," he told the ABC.
"This may take longer [to eventuate.] What we are having is a sustained community transmission that we need to control."
Instead of widespread lockdowns, affected regions have adopted targeted strategies — like restricting the numbers of patrons in bars and restaurants, and banning smoking in some public areas.
Masks are also compulsory in most public spaces, regardless of social distancing.
Dr Lopez Acuna said improvements to testing and tracing capabilities could help Spain avoid another lockdown.
"These outbreaks that we are seeing are like small isolated fires," he said.
"The key is to extinguish those fires as rapidly as possible without letting them create a fire in the entire world."
France is facing rising cases, but they’re less severe

Rapid testing is now available across many parts of Europe, and is used in airports for travellers.(Reuters: Kai Pfaffenbach)
France is also grappling with a spike in coronavirus numbers.
It recorded 7,157 cases on Thursday, just shy of a 7,578 record set on March 31.
Pascal Crépey, an epidemiologist at the School of Advanced Studies in Public Health, said a second wave had clearly begun.
"This second wave seems to be much slower than the first one … but still the epidemic is starting again," he told the ABC.
Last month, France's health minister Olivier Veran said parties and gatherings where social distancing rules were not being respected were the main source of contagion.
Mr Veran also said that in many cases, younger carriers of the virus were asymptomatic or suffered fewer complications.
Amid the rising infections, masks have become compulsory in big cities like Paris and Marseille, and most workers need to wear them, even indoors.
However, French President Emmanuel Macron is reluctant to impose another sweeping lockdown, with hospital capacity still a major factor in the decision.
For example, on Monday, 424 patients were in intensive care, compared with 7,148 during the peak in April.
"We're doing everything to avoid another lockdown and in particular a nationwide lockdown," Mr Macron said last week.
Proportionally, why are there fewer patients in intensive care?
One factor is increased testing, which is identifying more patients with milder symptoms.
"We're finding a higher and higher proportion of people in the country who have coronavirus," the UK's health secretary Matt Hancock declared on Thursday.
For example, the UK was testing just 11,000 people a day in early April — and nearly all of them were so ill they were in hospital already.
The UK now tests about 180,000 people a day, most of whom are in the community.
Another major factor has been the number of young people contracting COVID-19.
According to the World Health Organization, the proportion of infected people aged 15-24 jumped from 4.5 per cent to 15 per cent in five months.
Large gatherings have presented problems for authorities. In the UK, for example, police have struggled to break up illegal raves and house parties.
In August, police used a helicopter-mounted thermal imaging camera to detect hundreds of partygoers at a home in Manchester.
Martin McKee, a professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that while young people had a lower chance of death, they could still face long-term health complications.
He also warned that they could infect their loved ones.
"They are spreading cases to older people in their households and [those] they come in contact with," Professor McKee told the ABC.
UK also looking to avoid another nationwide lockdown
COVID-19 cases have also been rising steadily in the UK, hitting 1,940 on Friday, up from 367 on July 12.
Professor McKee said the Government's decision to ease restrictions on pubs, restaurants, gyms and public transport would naturally result in more cases.
"As you release them, inevitably you’re giving opportunities for a resurgence of the virus," he said.
"And that’s what we're seeing."
But like his European counterparts, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has no appetite for another total lockdown.
In fact, this week, many schools in Britain have reopened to all students, despite concerns it could fuel a second wave that is even worse than the first.
Mr Johnson declared the Government had a "moral duty" to reopen schools to protect students' educational prospects and mental health.
At the same time, the UK Government is actively encouraging people to stop working from home, to support sandwich shops, cafes and other businesses that rely on office workers to survive.
Mr Johnson is also encouraging Britons to socialise, part of which included a government scheme that covered 50 per cent of diners' restaurant bills. It has only just concluded, having subsidised more than 100 million meals across the month of August.

In Battersea, south-west London, restaurants have been allowed to take over a local road.(ABC News: Nick Dole)
Instead of a nationwide lockdown, the UK is hoping localised lockdowns and targeted restrictions are enough to slow the spread.
Staggered start times, one-way traffic systems and the use of masks in common areas are among other safety measures being adopted.
The Scottish cities of Aberdeen and Glasgow have both been subjected to special restrictions, ranging from pub closures to bans on household gatherings.
In England, residents of Manchester and Leicester have also had their movements curtailed to control local outbreaks.
Masks are compulsory on public transport and in most shops.

Boris Johnson and his Government have been urging people to return to work.(AP: Ben Stansall)
By next month, the UK Government has promised surveillance testing of 150,000 people a fortnight, to help identify local outbreaks.
The UK Government faced widespread criticism for its response to the virus, which has killed more than 41,000 people.
Professor McKee said the UK still had a "long way to go" but was better placed than it was at the start of the pandemic.
"We've got the technology, we've got the testing, which we didn't have at the very beginning, we've got better treatments," he said.
"We know much more about the transmission of the virus and the ways in which we can prevent that transmission.
"What we now need to do is be more clever."

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Coronavirus: Russian vaccine shows signs of immune response

• 04 September 2020
• Europe

Share this with EmailShare this with FacebookShare this with TwitterShare this with Whatsapp

Image caption A vaccine created in Russia has shown signs of an immune response, according to a report
Russian scientists have published the first report on their coronavirus vaccine, saying early tests showed signs of an immune response.
The report published by medical journal The Lancet said every participant developed antibodies to fight the virus and had no serious side effects.
Russia licensed the vaccine for local use in August, the first country to do so and before data had been published.
Experts say the trials were too small to prove effectiveness and safety.
But Moscow has hailed the results as an answer to critics. Some Western experts have raised concerns about the speed of Russia's work, suggesting that researchers might be cutting corners.
Last month, President Vladimir Putin said the vaccine had passed all the required checks and that one of his own daughters had been given it.
What does the report say?
Two trials of the vaccine, named Sputnik-V, were conducted between June and July, The Lancet paper said. Each involved 38 healthy volunteers who were given a dose of the vaccine and then a booster vaccine three weeks later.
The participants - aged between 18 and 60 - were monitored for 42 days and all of them developed antibodies within three weeks. Among the most common side effects were headaches and joint pain.
The trials were open label and not randomised, meaning there was no placebo and the volunteers were aware they were receiving the vaccine.
"Large, long-term trials including a placebo comparison, and further monitoring are needed to establish the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine for preventing Covid-19 infection," the report said.
A third phase of trials will involve 40,000 volunteers from "different age and risk groups," according to the paper.
The Russian vaccine uses adapted strains of the adenovirus, a virus that usually causes the common cold, to trigger an immune response.
Still a long way to go
By Philippa Roxby, BBC health reporter
"Encouraging" and "so far so good" are some of the reactions from scientists in the UK - but there is still, clearly, a long way to go. Although the vaccine showed an antibody response in all participants in phase 2, this does not necessarily mean it would protect them from the virus. That still has not been established yet.
From these results, we can tell that the vaccine appeared to be safe in healthy people between the age of 18 and 60 for 42 days, because that was how long the study lasted. But what about older people and those with underlying health conditions who are most at risk of Covid-19 - how safe is it for them and over a longer period of time?
This can only be answered after much larger, long-term randomised trials where the people taking part do not know if they are receiving the vaccine or a dummy injection. These will also tell scientists how effective the vaccine really is among a much wider population.
There have also been calls for openness and transparency. Of the many vaccines currently being trialled around the world, some will work better than others in certain situations and in certain groups of people, perhaps. So knowing exactly how well they work and for whom is paramount - it is unlikely that one vaccine will be suitable for everyone.
What has the reaction been?
Kirill Dmitriev, head of a Russian investment fund behind the vaccine, said during a news conference that the report was "a powerful response to the sceptics who unreasonably criticised the Russian vaccine".
He said that 3,000 people had already been recruited for the next phase of trials.
Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said the country would start vaccinations from November or December, with a focus on high-risk groups.
Video captionCoronavirus vaccine: How close are we and who will get it?
But experts warned that there was still a long way to go until a vaccine could enter the market.
Brendan Wen, Professor of Microbial Pathogenesis at London's School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told Reuters news agency: "The report is a case of 'so far, so good'".
According to the World Health Organization, there are 176 potential vaccines currently being developed worldwide. Of those, 34 are currently being tested on people. Among those, eight are at stage three, the most advanced.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

Five errors coronavirus 'armchair experts' keep getting wrong
Posted 6h

If we don't analyse statistics for a living, it's easy to be taken in by misinformation about COVID-19 statistics on social media.(Pexels: Anna Shvets)
Share
If we don't analyse statistics for a living, it's easy to be taken in by misinformation about COVID-19 statistics on social media, especially if we don't have the right context.
For instance, we may cherry pick statistics supporting our viewpoint and ignore statistics showing we are wrong. We also still need to correctly interpret these statistics.
It's easy for us to share this misinformation. Many of these statistics are also interrelated, so misunderstandings can quickly multiply.
Here's how we can avoid five common errors, and impress friends and family by getting the statistics right.
It's the infection rate that's scary, not the death rate
Social media posts comparing COVID-19 to other causes of death, such as the flu, imply COVID-19 isn't really that deadly.
But these posts miss COVID-19's infectiousness. For that, we need to look at the infection fatality rate (IFR) — the number of COVID-19 deaths divided by all those infected (a number we can only estimate at this stage; see also point 3 below).
While the jury is still out, COVID-19 has a higher IFR than the flu. Posts implying a low IFR for COVID-19 most certainly underestimate it. They also miss two other points.
First, if we compare the typical flu IFR of 0.1 per cent with the most optimistic COVID-19 estimate of 0.25 per cent, then COVID-19 remains more than twice as deadly as the flu.
Second, and more importantly, we need to look at the basic reproduction number (R₀) for each virus. This is the number of extra people one infected person is estimated to infect.
Flu's R₀ is about 1.3. Although COVID-19 estimates vary, its R₀ sits around a median of 2.8. Because of the way infections grow exponentially (see below), the jump from 1.3 to 2.8 means COVID-19 is vastly more infectious than flu.
When you combine all these statistics, you can see the motivation behind our public health measures to "limit the spread". It's not only that COVID-19 is so deadly, it's deadly and highly infectious.
Exponential growth and misleading graphs
A simple graph might plot the number of new COVID cases over time.
But as new cases might be reported erratically, statisticians are more interested in the rate of growth of total cases over time. The steeper the upwards slope on the graph, the more we should be worried.
For COVID-19, statisticians look to track exponential growth in cases. Put simply, unrestrained COVID cases can lead to a continuously growing number of more cases. This gives us a graph that tracks slowly at the start, but then sharply curves upwards with time.
This is the curve we want to flatten, as shown below. However, social media posts routinely compare COVID-19 figures with those of other causes of death that show:

• more linear patterns (figures increase with time but at a steady rate)
• much slower-growing flu deaths or

Even when researchers talk of exponential growth, they can still mislead.
An Israeli professor's widely-shared analysis claimed COVID-19's exponential growth "fades after eight weeks". Well, he was clearly wrong. But why?
His model assumed COVID-19 cases grow exponentially over a number of days, instead of over a succession of transmissions, each of which may take several days. This led him to plot only the erratic growth of the outbreak's early phase.
Better visualisations truncate those erratic first cases, for instance by starting from the 100th case. Or they use estimates of the number of days it takes for the number of cases to double (about 6–7 days).
Not all infections are cases
Then there's the confusion about COVID-19 infections versus cases. In epidemiological terms, a "case" is a person who is diagnosed with COVID-19, mostly by a positive test result.
But there are many more infections than cases. Some infections don't show symptoms, some symptoms are so minor people think it's just a cold, testing is not always available to everyone who needs it, and testing does not pick up all infections.
Infections "cause" cases, testing discovers cases. US President Donald Trump was close to the truth when he said the number of cases in the US was high because of the high rate of testing. But he and others still got it totally wrong.
More testing does not result in more cases, it allows for a more accurate estimate of the true number of cases.
The best strategy, epidemiologically, is not to test less, but to test as widely as possible, minimising the discrepancy between cases and overall infections.
We can't compare deaths with cases from the same date
Estimates vary, but the time between infection and death could be as much as a month. And the variation in time to recovery is even greater.
Some people get really ill and take a long time to recover, some show no symptoms.
So deaths recorded on a given date reflect deaths from cases recorded several weeks prior, when the case count may have been less than half the number of current cases.
The rapid case-doubling time and protracted recovery time also create a large discrepancy between counts of active and recovered cases.
We'll only know the true numbers in retrospect.
But few realise how mammoth, chaotic and complex the task is of tracking statistics on a disease like this.
Countries and even states may count cases and deaths differently. It also takes time to gather the data, meaning retrospective adjustments are made.

Countries and even states may count cases and deaths differently.(AP Photo/John Minchillo)
We'll only know the true figures for this pandemic in retrospect. Equally so, early models were not necessarily wrong because the modellers were deceitful, but because they had insufficient data to work from.
Welcome to the world of data management, data cleaning and data modelling, which many armchair statisticians don't always appreciate. Until now.
Jacques Raubenheimer is a senior research fellow, Biostatistics, University of Sydney. This article originally appeared on The Conversation.