1 minute ago, deanox said:

Again, 1000 to 5000 of the Grand final crowd is not hyperbole it's a significant risk.

That assumes that everyone who attends the G.F is infected at the top rate.

Plenty of AFL games thus far have proven that is not the case.

So why the hyperbole?

1 minute ago, faultydet said:

That assumes that everyone who attends the G.F is infected at the top rate.

Plenty of AFL games thus far have proven that is not the case.

So why the hyperbole?

It doesn't assume that at all.

It is an example of the actual mortality rate for the disease if it got out widespread on the population before vaccination.

It is the actual death rate, not hyperbole.

1 minute ago, deanox said:

It doesn't assume that at all.

It is an example of the actual mortality rate for the disease if it got out widespread on the population before vaccination.

It is the actual death rate, not hyperbole.

Deanox, if that is correct, please supply the deaths of AFL attendees v AFL attendance for the 2021 season.

We are talking about attending an AFL game. Not walking around Chadstone mall with no precautions.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Deanox, if that is correct, please supply the deaths of AFL attendees v AFL attendance for the 2021 season.

We are talking about attending an AFL game. Not walking around Chadstone mall with no precautions.

 

 

 

This is a ridiculous statement.

The mortality rate is about 3.5%. If covid is allowed to circulate freely, that is the mortality rate we will have, which is the equivalent of about 3,500 people per 100,000 people.

I'm not saying that 3000 people will die at the Grand Final, I'm using that example as a way of demonstrating just how dangerous covid is on average.

 

The reason we are doing lockdowns are to stop the case numbers from getting high enough to cause those sort of deaths. Allow the crowds and the case numbers will get so high that those deaths will happen.

 

Right now you've lost the benefit of the doubt I gave you before. You are deliberately misunderstanding.

Just now, deanox said:

This is a ridiculous statement.

The mortality rate is about 3.5%. If covid is allowed to circulate freely, that is the mortality rate we will have, which is the equivalent of about 3,500 people per 100,000 people.

I'm not saying that 3000 people will die at the Grand Final, I'm using that example as a way of demonstrating just how dangerous covid is on average.

 

The reason we are doing lockdowns are to stop the case numbers from getting high enough to cause those sort of deaths. Allow the crowds and the case numbers will get so high that those deaths will happen.

 

Right now you've lost the benefit of the doubt I gave you before. You are deliberately misunderstanding.

No I'm not.

By your figures, 3,000+ people will die of Covid if the grand final is open slather

You and I both know that is bullschitt.

I have lost nothing, but you on the other hand........

 

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

No I'm not.

By your figures, 3,000+ people will die of Covid if the grand final is open slather

You and I both know that is bullschitt.

I have lost nothing, but you on the other hand........

 

Again, you are being dishonest on your interpretation. I have never claimed that if the Grand final was held with crowd tomorrow 3000 would die. That's ridiculous.

My example was demonstrating that the death rate is not hyperbole. The example puts it in context to numbers people understand. 

Victoria has had about 21000 cases.and over 800 deaths, which is on line with that ratio. Similar mortality rates have been observed around the world.

If covid was allowed to freely circulate in the community, then everyone would catch it, then that would be the death rate.

Stop downplaying how dangerous it is.

 

2 minutes ago, faultydet said:

By your figures, 3,000+ people will die of Covid if the grand final is open slather

Jesus, this is doing my head in. That's not what he's saying. 

He's saying that if the grand final was only open to people with confirmed cases of Covid, +/- 3000 of them would die. As opposed to, say, a grand final attended by people who had the flu, where the figure would be less than 10% of that.

(Though dying is only part of the story, as the long-term symptoms/consequences of Covid are turning out to be life-changing for a lot of people.)

1 hour ago, Jara said:

If you can be bothered, track down (on Youtube) her interview with those Sydney FM d**&^heads Kyle and Jackie O, conducted during our last lockdown. Apparently we were asking for more Pfizer. She basically told us to go jump, then spent five minutes boasting about how her own administration was so good, her State 'didn't need' lockdowns. (Mind you some of what she said was true - the criticism of Victoria's lack of uniform QR codes, for example)

But the smugness - unbearable. Then she has the nerve to come out and ask for more Pfizer a few weeks later.

Here tis (interview June 4):

 

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by Stiff Arm

1 minute ago, deanox said:

Again, you are being dishonest on your interpretation. I have never claimed that if the Grand final was held with crowd tomorrow 3000 would die. That's ridiculous.

My example was demonstrating that the death rate is not hyperbole. The example puts it in context to numbers people understand. 

Victoria has had about 21000 cases.and over 800 deaths, which is on line with that ratio. Similar mortality rates have been observed around the world.

If covid was allowed to freely circulate in the community, then everyone would catch it, then that would be the death rate.

Stop downplaying how dangerous it is.

 

I'm not being dishonest at all.

 

YOU are assuming that the AFL Grand Final will have exactly the same precautions that a visit to a Melbourne Mall will have. Please Deanox, we both know that is incorrect.

You can play the percentages all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that there will be different and explicitly enforceable actions that protect the public from a Covid infection if the AFL Grand Final goes ahead.

5 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I'm not being dishonest at all.

 

YOU are assuming that the AFL Grand Final will have exactly the same precautions that a visit to a Melbourne Mall will have. Please Deanox, we both know that is incorrect.

You can play the percentages all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that there will be different and explicitly enforceable actions that protect the public from a Covid infection if the AFL Grand Final goes ahead.

No I'm not saying that at all.

I have explained it. Bing has explained it. At this point you are either sealioning, or you're really just incapable of understanding something quite simple.

Either way that means I'm out. I'm sorry if you really just don't understand, in thatI'm not meaning to be disrespectful, but I've explained it as best I could.

 

 

15 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Jesus, this is doing my head in. That's not what he's saying. 

He's saying that if the grand final was only open to people with confirmed cases of Covid, +/- 3000 of them would die. As opposed to, say, a grand final attended by people who had the flu, where the figure would be less than 10% of that.

(Though dying is only part of the story, as the long-term symptoms/consequences of Covid are turning out to be life-changing for a lot of people.)

You don't understand how ridiculous that is? Honestly?

So Dan Andrews announces that only confirmed cases of Covid can attend the AFL Grand Final?

OMFG, there are still people who want to hypothesize about fictitious cases of Covid attending an AFL game.

 ???

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

Here tis (interview June 4):

 

She's some piece of work

I'm starting to think it might be better if we stopped mandating mask wearing, and stopped pushing vaccinations.

I've seen enough stories of anti vaxxers and never maskers dying of covid that perhaps, just maybe, we're better off without them?

Survival of the fittest comes down to brains too.

If you have a brain, get a jab, put a mask on. If you're in an at risk group, stay away from morons. Simple. Job done.

10 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Of course I can see why people are fed up with lockdowns. I’m fed up with lockdowns as much as anyone. But what good comes out of protesting in large groups? What purpose is served? These imbeciles are running the risk of their behaviour potentially causing infection which would lead to more of very thing they’re protesting against… further lockdowns! I’m all for peaceful demonstrations for good reason but there are way more appropriate alternatives to gathering in large groups (with no masks, nor social distancing, to boot!). How about online petitions? Or emails? Or even a good old-fashioned hand-written letter?

They should protest about the slow vaccine roll-out

6 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

I'm starting to think it might be better if we stopped mandating mask wearing, and stopped pushing vaccinations.

I've seen enough stories of anti vaxxers and never maskers dying of covid that perhaps, just maybe, we're better off without them?

Survival of the fittest comes down to brains too.

If you have a brain, get a jab, put a mask on. If you're in an at risk group, stay away from morons. Simple. Job done.

Bit harsh for the poor front-line health workers who have to treat them (I know I said this somewhere back in this thread but my wife's an emergency nurse - recently she was caring for a patient whose partner was refusing to wear a mask properly - in the end had to get security to chuck him out)

7 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

If you have a brain, get a jab, put a mask on. If you're in an at risk group, stay away from morons. Simple. Job done.

You don’t even need to have a whole brain; half a brain would suffice. A quarter, even. (That covers Essendon and Collingwood supporters).?

59 minutes ago, Jara said:

Bit harsh for the poor front-line health workers who have to treat them (I know I said this somewhere back in this thread but my wife's an emergency nurse - recently she was caring for a patient whose partner was refusing to wear a mask properly - in the end had to get security to chuck him out)

If you’re wearing a mask as a chin-warmer you’re not wearing a mask at all. 

9 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

I'm starting to think it might be better if we stopped mandating mask wearing, and stopped pushing vaccinations.

I've seen enough stories of anti vaxxers and never maskers dying of covid that perhaps, just maybe, we're better off without them?

Survival of the fittest comes down to brains too.

If you have a brain, get a jab, put a mask on. If you're in an at risk group, stay away from morons. Simple. Job done.

That's the 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' that is being talked of in the media.

I accept anti vaxxers will get covid once we eventually open up, that's their choice (unfortunately we all fund their treatment). But let's not forget there are those who cannot get the vax due to compromised immune systems or other health reasons, or indeed those with 3 jobs and 4 kids who are short of half a day to line up for a shot. Then there are those that perhaps don't speak English and are hearing all sorts of mixed messages. I know of 2 migrant families where this has occurred. We need to make it easier for them, eg, vaxxing in the workplace or even the home, greater financial and social assistance, etc.

I'm not judging any position, just pointing out that getting people vaxxed has complexities that demand smart responses. And 'smart' isn't a word that we normally associate with govts at any level in Oz 

Perhaps low on the importance list, but these slow responses to vaccination will increasingly encroach upon our AFL season, this year and next.

3 hours ago, Jara said:

Bit harsh for the poor front-line health workers who have to treat them (I know I said this somewhere back in this thread but my wife's an emergency nurse - recently she was caring for a patient whose partner was refusing to wear a mask properly - in the end had to get security to chuck him out)

 

10 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

That's the 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' that is being talked of in the media.

I accept anti vaxxers will get covid once we eventually open up, that's their choice (unfortunately we all fund their treatment). But let's not forget there are those who cannot get the vax due to compromised immune systems or other health reasons, or indeed those with 3 jobs and 4 kids who are short of half a day to line up for a shot. Then there are those that perhaps don't speak English and are hearing all sorts of mixed messages. I know of 2 migrant families where this has occurred. We need to make it easier for them, eg, vaxxing in the workplace or even the home, greater financial and social assistance, etc.

I'm not judging any position, just pointing out that getting people vaxxed has complexities that demand smart responses. And 'smart' isn't a word that we normally associate with govts at any level in Oz 

Perhaps low on the importance list, but these slow responses to vaccination will increasingly encroach upon our AFL season, this year and next.

Good points

NSW health minister needs a swift roundhouse to the face. 
Stop telling us how amazing NSW is and how disappointing it is that the rest of Australia isn’t coming to help you when you’re refusing to help yourself with an actual lockdown. 

23 minutes ago, Jaded said:

NSW health minister needs a swift roundhouse to the face. 
Stop telling us how amazing NSW is and how disappointing it is that the rest of Australia isn’t coming to help you when you’re refusing to help yourself with an actual lockdown. 

From July 9...

NSW’s health minister, Brad Hazzard, raised the prospect of abandoning the lockdown and accepting that “the virus has a life which will continue in the community”

This guy is a total DH...and the ideas he peddles are responsible for the situation they are in now.

42 minutes ago, rjay said:

From July 9...

NSW’s health minister, Brad Hazzard, raised the prospect of abandoning the lockdown and accepting that “the virus has a life which will continue in the community”

This guy is a total DH...and the ideas he peddles are responsible for the situation they are in now.

Does Brad post on demonland?

15 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Of course I can see why people are fed up with lockdowns. I’m fed up with lockdowns as much as anyone. But what good comes out of protesting in large groups? What purpose is served? These imbeciles are running the risk of their behaviour potentially causing infection which would lead to more of very thing they’re protesting against… further lockdowns! I’m all for peaceful demonstrations for good reason but there are way more appropriate alternatives to gathering in large groups (with no masks, nor social distancing, to boot!). How about online petitions? Or emails? Or even a good old-fashioned hand-written letter?

Did you see their protest today? The picture in The Age made it look like they maybe got 60 people to show up. I felt embarrassed for them. 

They don’t have any public support left, as they aren’t able to articulate an alternative. They may as well be protesting against winter. 
SACK THE RAIN!!!!!!

26 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Did you see their protest today? The picture in The Age made it look like they maybe got 60 people to show up. I felt embarrassed for them. 

They don’t have any public support left, as they aren’t able to articulate an alternative. They may as well be protesting against winter. 
SACK THE RAIN!!!!!!

“Whadoowe want? Sunshine!

Whendoowe want it? NOW!”

41 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Did you see their protest today? The picture in The Age made it look like they maybe got 60 people to show up. I felt embarrassed for them. 

They don’t have any public support left, as they aren’t able to articulate an alternative. They may as well be protesting against winter. 
SACK THE RAIN!!!!!!

Sadly, there were quite large crowds for these protests.