|
NPR Journalizard posted:a vaccine to be available next year (there wont be) What makes you say this?
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Brett Sutton was asked today if vic can achieve its roadmap targets. His answer: “Who knows.” These loving clowns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
freebooter posted:If my social media feeds are any guide, the pause in declining cases over the past fortnight has really driven some Melburnians to breaking point. gently caress Dan Andrews. gently caress his contact tracing team. gently caress these ridiculous rules. I'm consistently breaking the 5km limit rule and I'm encouraging others to do the same. We obeyed the rules for months, the Government not only caused the second wave, but they haven't invested in contact tracing. If they're not going to do their part, I'm not going to do mine. I'm not going to put people at risk but I'm going for long drives to take my son to parks, and to secluded reserves where we can meet with friends while remaining socially distant, while wearing masks, etc. gently caress Dan Andrews, gently caress Labor, gently caress this administration for fumbling their loving responsibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:I hope you accidentally give your kid covid and he forgets how to read, you odball I'm sorry if you think that standing the middle of a field will give you COVID, but I can't cure your stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
Periphery posted:While small, this does increase the chances of the virus spreading which then puts people at risk. It might only be a small increase but if 100000 people do it the risk goes up and we end up with the current situation. So does letting intimate partners see each other. I don't see you complaining about that? Dan Andrews seems to think that seeing a tinder hook-up is more important than me seeing a close friend, in public, in the open, while masked. gently caress him and gently caress the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:It also makes more work for the contact tracers I care so much about but hey, it's my pandemic, you can't tell me what to do. The contact tracers aren't doing their jobs anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Periphery posted:If you choose to not follow the rules don't blame the government for the system failing. I absolutely blame the government for getting us to this point, yes. Yes I do. From this point? No, I don't blame them. But they've forced Victorians into a position where the only reasonable thing to do is break the rules. So gently caress them. You seem to be a lot more focused on me killing someone than Dan Andrews, whose government failures have *literally* caused the deaths of dozens of people in this state. Shift your focus.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Periphery posted:And you don't think the 2nd wave could have been caused in part by similar breaches of the rules as is occurring now? The 2nd wave occurred because security guards were not trained properly and there was not a system in place to prevent their own personal mistakes (yes, flagrant restriction breaking) from threatening the community. That is Dan Andrews' failure, and his failure alone. And if it was a Liberal government you would say the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Carnaticum posted:I know people who did that "give Dan the boot" protest and none of them could really give a response to questions of who they would rather lead the Labor party, It isn't their problem. Dan Andrews hosed up, he needs to go. Not really an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:So you recognise that flagrant rule breaking allowed breaches in security to lead to widespread community transmission. The Government hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain. So I refuse to live under their rules. Solemn Sloth posted:There have been big failings by this Government's handling of COVID-19 right up to the Premier Bullshit. NPR Journalizard posted:Dan was the trainer in charge of all security guards, right, gotcha. Leaders are responsible for the mistakes that happen under their watch. This is leadership 101. He is responsible for ensuring a system was in place to minimise personal mistakes. He didn't do that. That is a failure of leadership. Amoeba102 posted:Replaced with whom? How you voting next election, or i guess Vic has council stuff going on so in that? I vote for Greens. Periphery posted:And what about everyone in the community after those initial mistakes - was everyone following the rules perfectly? No. It's almost as if the contact tracing in place should consider that people aren't going to get everything 100% right. The boot-licking in here is amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:do you follow this credo in other aspects of your life? Do you live in Melbourne?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:nope Then I don't really give a gently caress what you think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:This reads like "government decisions have never really affected my life in an easily discernible way until now, and all of a sudden I have strong opinions on their decision making process and feel they should be held to account for every consequence, whether it could have been predicted or not, or if any other government would have done any better" Do you live in Melbourne?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:do you follow this credo in other aspects of your life? Good for you? Amoeba102 posted:And your lower preferences? Both. I won't vote Labor in Victoria again. I'll vote them above Liberals but I'll never vote 1 for Labor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
You're right, everyone. Dan Andrews is a fantastic leader. He did nothing wrong. Everything that's gone wrong is not the Government's fault. Let's just shut up and endure the worst loving lockdown in the world right now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
It is extraordinarily telling that you all see me going to a park outside my 5km zone - with no one else around - is spreading the virus, but someone hooking up on Tinder and going halfway across the city is completely fine. Please get some perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
Stevefin posted:Except that is exactly what could of happened, or you could of brought it into your own 5km bubble, covid 19 can survive almost a month on very mild conditions in a very shaded place. I assume then that you’re completely against the intimate partner rule? Because that’s the logical conclusion of what you’re saying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I feel like this is a good time for the old classic: Yes. Standing in an open area away from anyone else is killing someone. I am very smart. Before the 5km lockdown was in place and during the relaxed May and June restrictions you weren’t staying 5km within your house so spare me the loving high and mighty act.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 10:22
|
|
|
Sierra Madre posted:Serious question: let's say that Andrews resigns and his successor ends quarantine. What, in your opinion, would happen? Your real question is, what restrictions do I want gone? My answer: - 5km rule gone - Max three visitors at home - 25% dining capacity at restaurants and cafes That’s all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I was, because the only reasons we were legally allowed to leave our houses were to shop for food or medicine, exercise, see a GP or work. Anybody working from home in the metropolitan area can absolutely do all of those things within a 5km radius. I assume you’re against the intimate partner rule, then?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
freebooter posted:The intimate partner rule slots under the definition of care. Without it, a lot of single people would be completely alone. So? It’s still risking spreading the virus. If you care so much about restricting the spread, you should at least be consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 12:30
|
|
|
Stevefin posted:You said this to me too and I have no idea what your going on about and that you seem to pull this out like your undeniable I gocha moment If the state government is going to allow strangers to hook up, it shouldn’t restrict people from going outside their 5km limit either to visit a park. These rules aren’t based on any health advice, they’re based on making it easier for police to fine people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 12:34
|
|
|
Tommunist posted:Does the intimate partners rule actually work like this? 100% yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
JBP posted:Except for the guy that got fined doing what you think is legal and the fact that cops fact check stuff like providing your partner's DOB. Shut the gently caress up about going to restaurants and visit a park within 5kms you whiny loving wanker. 1. The vast majority of cops do not ask that and 2. I don’t give a poo poo about going to a restaurant The boot licking in this thread is insane. When the 5km limit is listed on Sunday the back flipping will be crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Despite my suggestions for relaxing restrictions being seen as somehow radical or not caring about other people, it seems the vast majority of Victorians agree:quote:Victorians surveyed were each asked the following questions to determine their attitudes towards the current Victorian Government Stage 4 directives: https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8541-roy-morgan-survey-on-stage-4-restrictions-in-victoria-october-14-2020-202010130724
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Tommunist posted:I think you misunderstand why people were angry at you. Oh I understand why people are angry. I just don't give a poo poo. I'm not taking part in any activity that puts people at risk whatsoever, (or at least, not any more than the current restrictions do), so I don't really care. The problem is that because the state has been so militant about these restrictions, anything that breaks them is seen as "spreading the virus", even when that's not the case. This morning, I drove outside my 10km limit to a secluded reserve, where I took a walk. There was no one there, I wore a mask, and there was absolutely no risk of passing the virus on to anyone. But because the messaging around these restrictions has been so good, that type of activity is seen as "spreading the virus". That's obviously ridiculous. I'm fully supportive of the intimate partner rule. I think it's important. But if you support that rule, you should also support people being allowed to see each other in an open area, masked, and socially distant. People can already do so right now, as long as they live within 5km of each other. Is the risk somehow more if I live...5.5km away from someone? No. So the issue is not "you're spreading the virus", the issue is, "you're making it potentially harder for contact tracers to lock a cluster down". Which, you know, fair enough. But considering epidemiologists have said that the 5km rule is questionable anyway...(https://www.smh.com.au/national/melbourne-s-five-kilometre-rule-is-it-really-worth-it-20200928-p55zwi.html) Edit: I also want to point out that back in May/June, people in this thread actively supported the BLM protests in the city. What I'm doing is no riskier than that. CelestialScribe fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
Edit: double posted for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
KTS posted:You have no self awareness about this. You put on a big song and dance about how hosed everything is, spouting sovereign citizen level bullshit about the government and you wont follow their drat rules and when pressed about what you'd want changed, offer up the some pretty mild suggestions that in no way match your rants. Okay. Tommunist posted:Im fairly sure there are already provisions for this? Very, very restricted provisions. Working from home isn't a good enough reason to hand your kids over to grandparents or have them come over and watch them. This is based on advice given to me by the Coronavirus hotline. Tommunist posted:I'm not going to speak to other people but: I think this is pretty dodgy. Everyone knew at the time it was a risky thing to do. Are you saying it was wrong to protest? Into The Mild posted:You drove out of your zone to take your kid to a park. Knowing well that, #1. My kid wasn't touching surfaces. He wasn't on a playground. #2. Outdoor activity is important for children. #3. I can blame Dan Andrews and the security guards. The security guards are personally responsible, and Dan Andrews is responsible for overseeing a system that didn't prevent those mistakes from growing. #4. If you want to take issue with me breaking restrictions, sure. But don't paint this as somehow me "spreading the virus". It just isn't true.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Tommunist posted:I PERSONALLY would not have gone to the protest. I wish everyone here were as forthright as you on this. Recoome posted:You wouldn't know it even if you were, my friend. Amazingly this exceptionalist mindset is exactly why Vic/Melb had a huge rear end outbreak and you are contravening social expectations and norms by doing it, as well as threatening the health of everyone for your own selfish reasons. It's normal to feel poo poo about it but your actions have consequences. No it isn't. The reason we had an outbreak is because hotel security failed. That's it. Brett Sutton confirmed this. Again, you're equating "breaking restrictions" with "spreading the virus", and those two aren't the same thing. For instance, right now L-platers are not allowed to practice driving for no reason. If they were to leave home and drive for no reason, they would technically be breaking restrictions. But are they spreading the virus? Of course not. Me, going to a park with no one around, is not spreading the virus. I don't know how to state it more clearly than that. I mean, argue that it's selfish, argue that I'm setting a bad example, sure. But it isn't threatening anyone's health. Edit: I think anyone here crticising me for breaking restrictions needs to state clearly if they supported / attended the BLM protests, because they were arguably more risky than what I'm doing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Homora Gaykemi posted:Indigenous deaths in custody are the same as not being able to take my kid to the park. I am a sensible adult. Are you saying that it's okay to risk spreading the virus, if the cause is important enough? If so, then the argument against me should not be, "you are threatening someone's health" but "your reason is not good enough to break restrictions". Those are two very different things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Breakfast Burrito posted:Your reason is not good enough to break restrictions Thank you for making an honest argument. I disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:The point that people have made repeatedly is that if everyone did what you are doing there would be a risk to health. That is a very different argument than, "you are putting someone's health at risk". I'm not. What I am doing is potentially setting a bad example.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Recoome posted:No, I'm criticising you because due to the nature of COVID-19, you won't actually know whether you are spreading the virus until you develop symptoms. This is why the virus has been so drat insidious, people don't know when they are infectious so the best way to limit this is social distancing/lockdowns. You are rationalising it to yourself why you aren't doing the bad thing, but when a lot of people think exactly the same thing, it falls on it's rear end. I was near no one this morning and put no one at risk. quote:Also hasn't there been no evidence to suggest any of the BLM protests were the source of virus transmission? Come on that was like pre the current Vic outbreak Hang on, are you making the argument there that because no one was sick, therefore, breaking restrictions was okay? How is that any different than the argument I'm making now? You can't change your goalposts. Everyone knew during the BLM protests that they were breaking restrictions. The premier told people not to protest, and the gathering was outlawed under the restrictions at the time. Yet they went ahead. So...your argument is really, "that was a serious enough reason to break restrictions and risk spreading the virus", and not "they weren't putting anyone at risk".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
screaden posted:The spread of cases wasn't even close to the current wave at the time of those BLM protests either. The 5g corona conspiracists were allowed to do the same mere weeks before that as well. So what you're saying is, breaking restrictions is okay, if the risk is low enough? EoinCannon posted:You're putting yourself outside of the of rules that everyone else has agreed to follow. Whether the rules are correct or not, it seems like exceptionalism on your part. Oh, I absolutely agree I'm putting myself outside of the rules. What I disagree with is people saying that I'm putting others at risk, which I'm not. If you're going to make that argument, you also should criticise the BLM protests for the same thing. Just be consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I'm not sure you get this thing called temporal order but the outbreak happened after the major round of BLM protests. It's the behaviour after that lockdown which is the problem. You can see here that because the BLM protests were before a thing, it's judged differently to the things that happened after. The BLM protests broke restrictions. They were actively against the official restrictions at the time, and Dan Andrews specifically told attendees to not go. How is that in dispute? What you seem to be saying is, "the protestors were justified in breaking restrictions because the risk was low enough". How is that not the same argument that I'm making? What your real argument seems to be is, "the risk was low enough and the reason drastic enough to break restrictions". In which case, sure. Just make that argument then. Don't act as though they weren't putting anyone at risk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
Into The Mild posted:A white Kid gotta play outside vs aboriginal deaths in custody. My kid is not neurotypical. He forms attachments and becomes extremely upset when he is out of routine. He loves this particular park because it has birds that he likes. It happens to be out of my 5km range but I'm not going to feel bad about taking my autistic child to one of his favourite places to give him some joy. (To be fair, I went there on my own this morning because I like it too - completely unnecessary? Sure.) If that's not a good enough reason - fine. I just won't accept any critiques about "spreading the virus" because that reason seems to fluctuate based on whether or not we think someone's reason is good enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
uvar posted:Warning: I'm down in Tasmania, so I believe I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything happening in Victoria or Melbourne. (Though I am a little paranoid about the reopening to most of the mainland in a week or two.) That's right. You aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
JBP posted:Awesome no one wants to hear more about your loving kid or whatever. Okay. What I was commenting on earlier though is apparent in this thread: people are frustrated with these restrictions because the lines drawn aren't logical. There isn't any reason why L-platers shouldn't practice if they need to. There isn't any reason why people can't exercise outside as much as they want. There isn't any reason why there was a curfew (except to make the police's job easier - which I don't know why this mostly left-wing thread would support). The issue is that so many of these restrictions are not based on medical advice, they're based on making it easier for people to follow the rules. Which then gets transformed into, "if you break these rules, you're spreading the virus", which just isn't true. I have to applaud the Vic Government's messaging here - they've done a fantastic job. Unfortunately, it's just not true. The rules that are based on medical advice - only send one person out to shop, wear masks, work from home, no family visits - these are hard to deal with but ultimately understandable. It's the logical detachment of the others that makes them hard to swallow, and that's why you're seeing Victoria's support begin to wane.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
KTS posted:How about you shut the gently caress up with whataboutism? If you're going to criticise, criticise consistently.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Cartoon posted:That's how Covid 19 is transmitted. Unless you are using a hover board your solo (and/or accompanied) walk involves touching surfaces and possibly (without your knowledge or consent) walking through aerosol droplets containing the virus. Much less likely outdoors and away from 'crowded areas' but still possible. Going further than the mandated minimum increases your risk of casual accidental contacts, while waiting at traffic lights (etc.) just by the extra time spent in transit in an urban environment. These rules aren't without their flaws/faults/logic holes but they are based on science. Science that your previous blanket 'not spreading the virus' would seem to not support. Also I'm from NSW and that doesn't alter facts at all, so gently caress that line of argument to hell and back. Are you suggesting here that someone can contract the virus while driving? I'm genuinely asking, because you mention traffic lights here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 01:13
|
|