CelestialScribe posted:

The fact that Andrewsd himself rolled back the plan the day after announcing it suggests there was something wrong with it.

CelestialScribe posted:

See, this is what happens when you dare to criticise the government, or even suggest that the plan should be amended. You seem to think that by criticising Andrews I think the lockdown should end and everyone should go back to normal. Couldn't be further than the truth. You just can't stomach that the government hosed up.

Also, I wouldn't say living / working at home with a disabled child is a slight inconvenience, but please, tell me more about my life.

The fact that Andrewsd himself rolled back the plan the day after announcing it suggests there was something wrong with it.

EoinCannon posted:

41 cases today is good but

Yeast posted:

Not a lot of people getting tested on Father’s Day, I’d say.

Tommunist posted:

Suggesting that plans are malleable to fit the reality on the ground if things go well/bad is a sign that the plan is wrong got it.

Scarecow posted:

The plan is flexable to allow changes as new information comes to light

quote:

What do you want? A change of government right now? What exactly is your plan?

CelestialScribe posted:

The plan literally said, "We will reach the next stage the later of THIS DATE or CASE AVERAGE UNDER X"

Andrews literally just came out this morning and said they will relax restrictions earlier if that's the case.

If so, what's the loving point of putting those thresholds on? Yet another sign the entire thing has been rushed with no strategic thought.


That isn't the plan! The plan literally says, "restrictions only end when we reach X cases or X date, the later of the two".

Andrews contradicted that this morning. How is that consistent planning? How is that easy for people to understand? It's ridiculous.


I want three things:

#1. Andrews to resign and to personally take responsibility for the damage he caused by causing the second wave. He should pledge to donate his pension for the rest of his life.

I personally want him held criminally responsible but that's not going to happen.

#2. I think the stages of this plan are good but the case thresholds are completely unrealistic. The averages should be amended to under 20, not under 5.
#3. An independent audit of the contact tracing procedures. DHHS simply can't be trusted.

teacup posted:

Tim smith account spotted

CelestialScribe posted:

See, this is what happens when you dare to criticise the government, or even suggest that the plan should be amended. You seem to think that by criticising Andrews I think the lockdown should end and everyone should go back to normal. Couldn't be further than the truth. You just can't stomach that the government hosed up.

Also, I wouldn't say living / working at home with a disabled child is a slight inconvenience, but please, tell me more about my life.

The fact that Andrewsd himself rolled back the plan the day after announcing it suggests there was something wrong with it.

hambeet posted:

no i agree the govt hosed up. but i also think that him resigning mid crisis would do nothing except make petty vindictive shits feel better about their own frustrations.

Scarecow posted:

Dude is doing his best during a pandemic

quote:

as to what happend in the hotels and who is to blame thats for the independent review to work out and assign blame and to deal with it when the time comes.

quote:

Having a change in leadership during a pandemic is a million times worse then keeping with the current.

Why are you so obsessed with Danny? It wasn't him at the hotel coughing on all the door nobs jfc

CelestialScribe posted:

It would send a signal that the government takes most of the blame for this crisis, and not individuals.

kirbysuperstar posted:

What good would that accomplish

CelestialScribe posted:

Hopefully placing someone more competent in charge, for a start.

Scarecow posted:

Who? Who exactly is going to take over? What will they do differently right now? What's going to be the plan that avoids numbers getting out of control again?

freebooter posted:

Anybody whingeing about Melbourne's case threshold for reopening needs to explain how they would prevent the numbers from spiralling out of control into a third wave if we reopened at a higher threshold, which the modelling indicates is what would happen.

CelestialScribe posted:

Why is this thread obsessed with bootlicking Dan Andrews

CelestialScribe posted:

If that's case, why isn't the threshold 0 cases?

freebooter posted:

Anybody whingeing about Melbourne's case threshold for reopening needs to explain how they would prevent the numbers from spiralling out of control into a third wave if we reopened at a higher threshold, which the modelling indicates is what would happen.

Tommunist posted:

Breakfast Burrito posted:

because the modelling shows you don't need to get it to 0 to have a statistically really good chance of not letting any outbreaks spiral out of control

quote:

Statistical modelling can be a valuable decision-making tool, allowing you to test various scenarios and navigate the road ahead with some degree of foresight. But how useful it is depends on the insight we have into epidemic dynamics, how these are incorporated into the model and the accuracy of the parameters that underpin the model.

The model used here is based on international estimates for key parameters, including time to case reporting, infection periods, etc, and is reasonable enough. It builds in assumptions of compliance with mask wearing and how many people are essential workers, etc. The model then computes community transmission scenarios and spits out different forecasts depending on how the dice fall, say, whether that new case is an essential worker and still going to work or not. We then look at how the projected futures compare across simulation runs.

The model does not try to distinguish between those cases linked to known, contained clusters versus wider community transmission and in particular those "mystery cases". This is particularly important in Victoria as the chief health officer tells us that one third of new cases are in workers from health or aged care, and another third are their close contacts.

LIVE AMMO COSPLAY posted:

If (probably when) things spiral out of control in NSW I'm expecting a much worse response.

CelestialScribe posted:

The modelling is flawed.


Catherine Bennett is chair in epidemiology at Deakin University.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/steps-out-will-be-incremental-frustrating-even-arbitrary-20200906-p55sti.html

hooman posted:

Daniel Andrews and COVID-19 were in the closet making a second wave and I saw one of the waves and the wave looked at me

BurgerQuest posted:

I enjoy CelestialScribes posts very much. They remind me of my friend in Perth who is complaining about border closures even though he is fine and able to work from home, had no plans to travel interstate anyway and is just sick of being at home with his kids and wife. He's also anti-dandrews despite living in WA.

Breakfast Burrito posted:

Fair enough, I'm not an epidemiologist - but do you think that perhaps people calling for him to be held personally criminally liable for the second wave outbreak might push him towards a more conservative approach minimising risk wherever possible rather than risk opening up too early?

CelestialScribe posted:

Then why did he say he would loosen restrictions before the dates in the plan? Lack of strategic thought and insight. He's shooting at the hip.

ungulateman posted:

Celestial scribe: Daniel 'wuhaniel' Andrews is responsible for everything wrong that has ever happened

The thread: now hold on let's have a reasonable discussion about this