Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[p--and--t]

I wonder if we'll see raids for 'incitement' again.

Highly unlikely unless there are feet in the boots outside the property boundary after 9pm

The protesters could make two points in one go. If the boots are wet from dew in the morning or cold to the feet, that will prove there is no global warming

 

[Austman]

So apparently Victoria's curfew was not recommended under medical Advice? Did Sutton throw Andrews under the bus.

But I thought it was reasonably well explained by the VIC premier here:

After Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton said on Monday it was not his call to implement the curfew, Premier Daniel Andrews on Tuesday was unable to say who precisely had suggested the move, which was designed to limit people movement.

"I don't know exactly which person at what moment said that, but there's ongoing discussions [and] lots of different people talking," Mr Andrews said.

"It's not a matter for Brett [Sutton], that's not health advice, that’s about achieving a health outcome. His advice is 'do whatever you can to limit movement'. Police then say 'we need rules we can enforce'.

"It needs to be as simple as possible. We can’t stop every car but if everyone who’s out [who shouldn’t be] knows they will get caught, and they’ve got no lawful reason to be outside, then all of a sudden you will limit movement.

"These are decisions ultimately made by me."

Mr Andrews said that the curfew also stopped "people sneaking around" and helped police enforce restrictions.

Opposition demands scrapping of 'captain's call' curfew

The controversial policy was not backed by health officials and the Premier is unsure who proposed it.

www.theage.com.au

I live in inner city Melbourne.

Before the curfew, I could see, simply by looking out my windows, pretty obvious breaches of the movement restriction rules every single evening.

After the curfew was introduced, they are actually still out there but are far, far fewer.

We do have to realise that there are a lot of people out there who really don't seem to give a toss about the rules.

At least it's harder for those people during curfew.

 

[p--and--t]

But I thought it was reasonably well explained by the VIC premier here:

After Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton said on Monday it was not his call to implement the curfew, Premier Daniel Andrews on Tuesday was unable to say who precisely had suggested the move, which was designed to limit people movement.

"I don't know exactly which person at what moment said that, but there's ongoing discussions [and] lots of different people talking," Mr Andrews said.

"It's not a matter for Brett [Sutton], that's not health advice, that’s about achieving a health outcome. His advice is 'do whatever you can to limit movement'. Police then say 'we need rules we can enforce'.

"It needs to be as simple as possible. We can’t stop every car but if everyone who’s out [who shouldn’t be] knows they will get caught, and they’ve got no lawful reason to be outside, then all of a sudden you will limit movement.

"These are decisions ultimately made by me."

Mr Andrews said that the curfew also stopped "people sneaking around" and helped police enforce restrictions.

Opposition demands scrapping of 'captain's call' curfew

The controversial policy was not backed by health officials and the Premier is unsure who proposed it.

www.theage.com.au

I live in inner city Melboune.

Before the curfew, I could see, simply by looking out my windows, pretty obvious breaches of the restriction rules every single day.

After the curfew was introduced, they are actually still there but are far, far fewer.

We do have to realise that there are a lot of people out there who really don't seem to give a toss about rules.

Surprise surprise the age printed non-facts. It is not fact the curfew was not supported by health officials, a blatant mis-truth for click bait.

It has been stated clearly health didn't specifically request a curfew, health requested people movement be restricted as much as possible.

The decision to introduce the curfew was at the request of someone on behalf of the police to achieve the health request with the resources available.

 

[dajop]

We do have to realise that there are a lot of people out there who really don't seem to give a toss about the rules.

Was speaking to a relative in regional Vic, who was at her hairdresser. The hairdresser mentioned she checks ID of people coming to get their hair done, and has turned away a good number of people coming from metro Melbourne. The checkpoints are most certainly not 100% effective, and as you say, well some people don't seem to give a toss about the rules.

 

[Pushka]

Surprise surprise the age printed non-facts. It is not fact the curfew was not supported by health officials, a blatant mis-truth for click bait.

It has been stated clearly health didn't specifically request a curfew, health requested people movement be restricted as much as possible.

The decision to introduce the curfew was at the request of someone on behalf of the police to achieve the health request with the resources available.

I dont have access to the Age so I dont know what was mentioned. SBS was quite informative tonight about the modelling used and how it didnt take into account public health measures. I would have thought, this far into the pandemic, that this was important in presenting best case - worst case scenarios. Clearly only worst case was presented.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The police requested the curfew and they got it. The CHO said it wasn't his request, but he did not disagree that it would be good additional step.

The story is a bit fake news. As the Premier said in his press conference today... 'what is the problem?' That people can't go jogging at midnight?

 

[p--and--t]

I dont have access to the Age so I dont know what was mentioned. SBS was quite informative tonight about the modelling used and how it didnt take into account public health measures. I would have thought, this far into the pandemic, that this was important in presenting best case - worst case scenarios. Clearly only worst case was presented.

At a personal level i dont see a point in being presented with a plan that needs to be deferred and deferred and deferred because it was overly optimistic. I would prefer to be told our worst case is x and if things get better faster then we will open up faster. He was being hammered to deliver a plan people could plan ahead by.

Just imagine the furore every 2 weeks over and over being told we didn't meet the target and lockdown was extended yet again. May as well get the bad news over in one hit and if things get better we over achieved.

I couldn’t imagine things being worse for business ordering stock and lining up staff and advertising etc etc and then having to cancel repeatedly or people making plans to go visit relatives making bookings and having to cancel them and losing their money.

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. As a previous project manager my plans were filled with copious contingency and if we delivered early were usually showered with praise as opposed to losing credibility for the project running late repeatedly and potentially losing the job.

 

[drron]

Surprise surprise the age printed non-facts. It is not fact the curfew was not supported by health officials, a blatant mis-truth for click bait.

It has been stated clearly health didn't specifically request a curfew, health requested people movement be restricted as much as possible.

The decision to introduce the curfew was at the request of someone on behalf of the police to achieve the health request with the resources available.

Go back to the video of Dan Andrews announcing the curfew.He said it was being done on medical advice.He lied.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

That's spot on.

Even when stage 4 was announced we were told '6 weeks'. Yet as soon as numbers started dropping, like a week or so in, the media and business were demanding to know when stage 4 was going to end. So he absolutely can't win.

Government has been on a steep learning curve. People say we can't trust premiers because of the stuff ups. But then we must apply the same principle to the private sector? Look at Ruby Princess, private aged care providers, security providers, quarantine hotels. If 'stuff ups' are the basis for discrediting actions, then neither public or private would seem to have the edge here?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Go back to the video of Dan Andrews announcing the curfew.He said it was being done on medical advice.He lied.

No, usual bias. Depends on which “medical” advice he was accepting. And, “and”, if you take the bleatings of federal Libs he should Ignore medical advice. Can’t have it both ways. Someone has to make the decision and he’s doing quite a good job In spite of the rabid attacks from Murdock press and Incompetent liberals.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Go back to the video of Dan Andrews announcing the curfew.He said it was being done on medical advice.He lied.

here is the clip... can you provide the time stamp where he says the curfew is based on medical advice?

he seems to say that a range of measures are on health advice, but the decision to have a curfew is one he made, and it is about limiting movement?

 

[p--and--t]

Go back to the video of Dan Andrews announcing the curfew.He said it was being done on medical advice.He lied.

Please stick to facts.

 

[drron]

Please stick to facts.

I am.
You probably have forgotten that in 2009 Australia was involved in the Swine flu pandemic.The worst affected state was Victoria.Although cases peaked in mid July Victoria's public health system was overwhelmed by early June.So they alone in Australia changed their action plan.Basically gave up testing for the virus.
And I'll just give you one guess who was the Victorian Health Minister then.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Go back to the video of Dan Andrews announcing the curfew.He said it was being done on medical advice.He lied.

here is the clip... can you provide the time stamp where he says the curfew is based on medical advice?

he seems to say that a range of measures are on health advice, but the decision to have a curfew is one he made, and it is about limiting movement?

Please stick to facts.

I’m still on the fence unconvinced either way. A 9+ minute video does not give the complete press conference, which in my impression usually goes for over an hour.

It would be interesting if he is consistent throughout since the Stage 4 announcement. If he has been, then it show 69 days (according to ABC blog today) and counting of daily press conferences is not weighing on him.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

I am.
You probably have forgotten that in 2009 Australia was involved in the Swine flu pandemic.The worst affected state was Victoria.Although cases peaked in mid July Victoria's public health system was overwhelmed by early June.So they alone in Australia changed their action plan.Basically gave up testing for the virus.
And I'll just give you one guess who was the Victorian Health Minister then.

Sorry, but that doesn’t say or prove that the Vic Premier lied this time. Sorry but everybody lies - you, me, everyone on this forum, etc.

 

[p--and--t]

I am.
You probably have forgotten that in 2009 Australia was involved in the Swine flu pandemic.The worst affected state was Victoria.Although cases peaked in mid July Victoria's public health system was overwhelmed by early June.So they alone in Australia changed their action plan.Basically gave up testing for the virus.
And I'll just give you one guess who was the Victorian Health Minister then.

Total diversion to an irrelevant subject (not unexpected) and avoiding the facts of the matter where you incorrectly called him a lier with respect to the curfew.

Go to the video clip from around 3:58 where he says the advice from the health experts local and interstate provided to him that if the current strategy was pursued then it would take far too long so "I have decided"

 

[p--and--t]

I’m still on the fence unconvinced either way. A 9+ minute video does not give the complete press conference, which in my impression usually goes for over an hour.

It would be interesting if he is consistent throughout since the Stage 4 announcement. If he has been, then it show 69 days (according to ABC blog today) and counting of daily press conferences is not weighing on him.

Perhaps listen to the actual clip where from his own mouth he says "I have decided". He does not say the health expects advised this course of action. They advised him if the current restrictions in force at the time were maintained then it would take a long time to get down to the levels needing be achieved. At no time does he say the health experts advised a curfew. He clearly says the advice received was "to limit movement".

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Perhaps listen to the actual clip where from his own mouth he says "I have decided". He does not say the health expects advised this course of action. They advised him if the current restrictions in force at the time were maintained then it would take a long time to get down to the levels needing be achieved. At no time does he say the health experts advised a curfew. He clearly says the advice received was "to limit movement".

I watched the whole clip. That could be a reference to him actually signing the State of Disaster declaration, which I believe he did, so it could also be interpreted that he decided to declare the State of Disaster. Yes, he was silent on who advised to impose a curfew, doesn’t mean either way if it was on health advice or not. But as the question is ‘has the Vic Premier said the curfew is on health advice? thus caught Out in a lie’. The answer in that 9 minute clip at the moment is no. But as I said, haven’t seen the whole conference and he could have said it later.

I actually don’t care if he lied or not as its actual click bait journalism.

 

[dajop]

No, usual bias. Depends on which “medical” advice he was accepting. And, “and”, if you take the bleatings of federal Libs he should Ignore medical advice. Can’t have it both ways. Someone has to make the decision and he’s doing quite a good job In spite of the rabid attacks from Murdock press and Incompetent liberals.

I would be fine with the attacks and the push to open up, if the said attacks were constructive, i.e at the same time put on record "We should learn to live with this and relax restrictions immediately enough for us to achieve a target of 200 cases a day", but no the argument alway "open up open up", but no-one (other than IIRC ex-PMs-cough-foreign-trade-advisors talking from afar) mentions the caseload associated with opening up, It's all downside politically if you do mention it.

 

[jakeseven7]

Anyway, the active cases in Vic continue to decline, everything crossed for our fellow Australians residing in Vic that the downward March continues, including the downward trend in new daily cases... probably only a few more weeks off joining NSW and QLD