binman

OD, depending on your spell check, being vaccinated might reduce your chances of not: losing weight changing the color of your hair making hippie inspired t shirts croaking

True. The key thing though is if vaccinated, if you do get it you don't get very sick.

There might be a number of plausible explanations. Some guesses at what they might be: The evidence suggests that the risk of transmission in a true outdoor setting, like sitting outdoors at the footy, is extremely low Opening up bigger areas might require more staff (eg cleaners, security, hospitality workers etc) - and they in fact might be more likely to be a cause of transmission (eg congregating in staff rooms) Contact tracing might be more difficult if big areas are open and people take the opportunity to sit in their allocated seats (which is much harder to do when there are people sitting close together - something i have discovered a couple times this year when trying to get a better spot and sitting in a free seat and having to move becuase the actual ticket holder turns up) The venue and the AFL have to submit a very detailed plan to the dept of health that ticks of all the mandated safety requirement All that said i agree it seems ridiculous. And it is annoying being crammed in at the footy at the best of times. My advice to the AFL and MCG.? Open up the top deck of the Ponsford stand and only allow people who have had a vaccination sit there - or work there. You wouldn't even get much mixing of people as gate one is miles from the other gates. Would suit me to a tee given that's where I sit anyway! Whilst that idea is bit facetious, ultimately surely that is where we are heading. I read Bruce Springsteen, and others, are having gigs vaccinated only gigs in the States. Makes total sense from a risk mitigation perspective. Easy to do too, with the mygov statement of full vaccination as it has a unique code that could be entered when purchasing tickets.

One of the topics for the show is: Highlights for the year so far Favourite win One in game highlight Other random highlights We'd love to hear some responses to any or all of those questions in the chat room during the show or on this thread. We'll read them out or theme them up. Thanks in advance

I doubt there is another organisation in the country more attuned to the risk than the AFL given the impact of on the competition of any lockdowm or restrictions in Victoria. The impact is not just financial- though that is massive obviously - its also the risk to the season itself.

Because money doesn't influence any other organisations in the country, particularly those bleeding money....

Exactly. The problem, as i see it, is the classic example of macro versus micro - or individual good versus the commnity good. We live in a democracy. It goes without saying people have the right to not get vaccinated or wait until they are able to get the one they want. But bottom line it is the interest of the community for as many people as possible to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. And as individuals who live in Australia we have have responsibility to play our part in achieving that goal.

Based on current Aust data, your chance of death here from the AZ vax is 1 in 1.9M. For context, Australian Geographic puts your odds of being struck by lightning at 1 in 1.6M. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to die of the AZ vax. Don’t fear vaccination.

I think that is the plan. So, yes (i think) is the short answer

Gosh's paddock being mcg size, and presumably rebuilt in terms of coverage and drainage, is critical. Arguably the most important part of the project given how important they have said Casey has been. Two elite standard ovals gives them the option of regualarly training centrally in the city and do closed sessions, tactical sessions at Casey perhaps weekly or fortnightly (and use tbe indoor kicking facility)

I've said before, but Weed's lack of intensity and intent is a big problem for him. So when he has a game like yesterday (minus three meters gained!) it looks, if that is the right word, even worse. If he had kicked 3 goals his lack of intensity is less of an issue. But he didn't. There were any number of examples yesterday, not least his inability to bat least halve some of those marking contests he just didn't impact. But the example that really stood out to me was very late in the game, perhaps two minutes to go. We had a very, very slim chance of still winning as we were 2 goals down. But a slim chance, is still a chance. Weed was manning the mark 15 meters from our goals (i forget which player). To have any chance of winning we needed to force a turnover from that kick. The pies player held the ball until the play on was called. Weed showed a complete lack of intensity, remarkable in the circumstances, and allowed the pies player to hold the ball for a bit after play on was called and get an unpressured kick long down the line. Weed should have been jumping up and down and sprinted at the pies player as soon as play on was called. Unforgivable I wonder if it is possible for a player to develop intensity. I suspect it is, to some degree. For example i reckon Fritter has show much more intensity in the last few weeks. And i also wonder if weeds lack of intensity is a manifestation of something psychological (eg fear of failure, worrying about his position etc.) as opposed to a lack of interest. Perhaps if he can get himself more aroused/intense when he plays the other stuff will be improved. Talk of him being traded is premature. There is still time for him to become the player his potential suggests he could. I really hope he can, and have faith, albeit diminishing, that that he can. But he has to get the psychological aspect right.

My tip? We smash them by 50 plus points. We will bring the full heat today and give some of their younguns a right fright. And their two best mids, pendles (did you know he has a basketball background - so much time) and number 22 are slow as so will get caught all day. Pies will surely look to attack like they did last week given its buck's last game. If they do our pressure will cause them to turn it over all day. If they go slow we will press up and cause turnovers in our front half. Gawn will have a field day and our three big 3 defenders will love the lack of pies height. Smashing coming up.

1958. Blimey we loved our footy back then. 100, 000 at a home and away game. The population of Melbourne can't have been much more than 1 million surely. A 10th of them at the g

If you want a coach you've got it If you need a coach you've got. It I won't hide it, I won't hide your coach away

Well, there is only one part that is possible to agree or disagree with: When you say the NSW government were "lucky" because of the geographical location of the outbreak, you are putting blinkers on. The NSW government take in the majority of overseas travellers in their quarantine for the rest of the country. Victoria take in a minor share and still keep going into lockdown. There is no luck about it. And obviously i disagree with this, given you are rebutting my argument. That said i do agree NSW have taken more than their fair share of the quarantine burden. To agree or disagree with rest of your post would confer some measure of credibility to comments that are simply ludicrous conspiracy wonk. I mean Harold Holt? In any case, let's agree to disagree on this topic Wrecker. Life's too short to get into back and forths where there is little chance of either of us being persuaded of the other position. Let's stick to the footy.

Would make a lot of sense. Get him cherry ripe for the business end of the season like barassi did with snake baker at the roos It would also have the added benefit of being able to say to weed, you will be played for the next block of games, relax and go for it.

Pure comedy gold. Please tell me this is satire.

No, that is not what I even remotely saying. Or suggesting. Or implying. I'm very confused how you could have possibly arrived at that conclusion.

The first lockdown in Melbourne was related to a pretty big stuff up in the hotels, but you are right the quarantine hotel programs around the country have been amazing in terms of the statistically very small numbers of cases that have escaped. Particularly given how ill suited the buildings are for the job. That said it is concerning there are no national standards yet and it seems insane how long it took governments to take aerosol transmission seriously. I should have been clearer. I meant the overall quarantine program strategy, which is the responsibility of the federal government, has been a joke, not the individual programs. Again it is related to choosing to go down the suppression/elimination road. Once the feds, with the full support of every state government (and the majority of Australians i suspect) decided elimination was the strategy then using hotel quarantine as the key plank of the quarantine strategy was clearly a bad decsion. The problem is, is hat as you say it is impossible for the hotels to be 100% full proof. The are not fit for purpose. Which would be fine if we had not decided on an suppression/elimination strategy. If we had decided on say a containment strategy (like the UK, the states and pretty much all of Europe) that focused on stopping the numbers overwhelming health systems, there would always be community transmission and cases circulating in the population. So the occasional leak from a hotel would be of little consequence. But in a zero covid environment where there are no cases and no community transmission even one case that escapes a hotel can have disastrous consequences. Pretty much every lockdown that ash occurred in Australia has been related to breaches from hotels. Think of the economic impact of even a 3 day lockdown, let alone a 2 week or six months one. Lockdowns have cost the Australian economy hundreds of billions of dollars. It was evident from the very beginning Howard Springs type facilities they have belatedly agreed to start building were what was required given the decision to go down the suppression/elimination road. Perhaps not as the only option, but certainly the major one. And the feds should have taken control of that process. Leaving aside the fact quarantine is their responsibility, they have access to crown land, army engineers and enough resources. If they had got on their bike in April last year, and ensured purpose built facilities were built in every state they would have been completed by end of 2021. And whilst there would likely to have still been some leakage, each lockdown prevented would pay for their construction 10 times over. We would also be in a much better position to bring Australians home and increase international travel. I have no doubt the decision to not did not take responsibility and leadership an implement an effective federal quarantine strategy was in large part driven by wanting to shift and risk and blame to the states.

The footy one. The one that says players have tbe right to bare arms. Hence, the unique sleeveless footy jumpers Australian rules footballers can wear

Fair suck of the sav. Yes he only had 4 disposals. But that is the only game he has played since he went out!

From Haight Asbury weren't they? They had a big hit in the sixties

Not really. Mitch is much more a like for like replacement for Tmac. Would slot into that mobile high forward, who gets up and down the ground, perfectly. In large part because that is exactly the role he plays!

Lockdowns are the only option at this point in time. But only because as you say the vaccination and quarantine programs have been a total joke. We wouldn't need to Lockdowns at all if they had got those two things right. And we could have enjoyed all the benefits of a covid free community without the risk of a lockdown. Every state in the country would have locked down faced with the scenario we faced. And likely one will have to by the end of winter.

Not wanting to single you out jaded, but is a widely held view that, in my opinion does not hold up to scrutiny. The Northern beaches stated with a single transmission and very soon the much vaunted NSW contract tracing team were not able to keep up and lockdown was called for only days after the first case. By the end of the outbreak 151 cases were linked to the cluster and the lockdown had lasted 3 weeks. This despite it being relatively small population, a population that does not move around greater Sydney much, minimal exposure sites and a contained location with natural boundaries. And that lockdown happened over the XMAS period so businesses were smashed and families separated. As anyone who knows that part of Sydney, the NSW government was extremely lucky the outbreak was in the Northern beaches, not say the west of Sydney (which is geographically very similar to Melbourne). Our equivalent might have been an out break on the Morning Peninsula, which could be isolated in a matter of hours if needed. Our current outbreak (which largely came from leak from a SA hotel) is almost exactly the same in number, yet we are out of lockdown in two weeks. And we have huge population, hundreds of exposure sites, a highly transient population in terms of movement around the city and basically no natural boundaries. Really, by any measure Victoria's contract tracing and related responses (eg exposure sites) has been extraordinary in this current outbreak. It is worth noting that we had the Black Rock cluster that was related the Northern beaches outbreak and we only had a brief lockdown. WA had a lockdown as did SA, after very low numbers. The one in WA cost the dockers and eagles millions. People made fun of the restrictions SA put on the pies and cats going into their state, were amazed at the hard lock down WA applied, shocked in the hard line Qld have taken this time to travel from Victoria etc et. That is all examples of very risk averse state governments The NZ government has had a couple of snap lockdowns after very low numbers And the bleating from the Liberal party in Victoria is completely hollow, becuase they would have made exactly the same decision to lockdown if in government. The problem is that as a country we have decided to implement an elimination strategy. Not a suppression strategy, an elimination strategy. I'm amazed Andrews and co have not pointed this out previously, but finally Sutton did so on Tuesday As Sutton said, we can't 'grumble along with one or two cases a day' and live the life we have been living (full pubs, everyone back in the office, 50k at the footy, packed trains. Because the numbers would eventually explode. As they have in Taiwan, a country that is also taking an elimination strategy. In that scenario eventually restrictions have to come into place that as Bing points out has been a feature of much of the world whilst we go about our covid free lives. There is not one example in the world of a country that has been able to effectively implement a suppression strategy. We have called our strategy suppression but that is bollocks. Arguably there is no such thing as it eventually gets away from health authorities. The only two real strategies are elimination or stem the tide/minimise the impact. Even if they are not pure lockdown like we had last year (which in an case lots of countries have had of course), if there are enough restrictions it doesn't look much different. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Enjoy the benefits of no covid in our community and put up with the risk of lockdowns. Or accept living with covid and risk not living covid free (eg masks everywhere, all the time, no live sport etc etc). We have collectively chosen the former. And so have to accept lockdown are likely to occur. Of course the big problem is that it is dead obvious that a key plank of the elimination strategy should have been a war time like focus on national vaccination program with a super ambitious goal to say to vaccinate 80% of the population by Easter, or 1 July 2021 or some such. Call a national holiday to celebrate, once achieved. Which of course would have been hard, but not having covid in the community and all the testing infrastructure in place gave us a huge opportunity other countries haven't. Yesterday Seattle became the first major city in America to fully vaccinate 70% of residents 12 and up against COVID-19. Fully vaccinate - so two shots for everyone over the age of 12. Seattle is not much smaller than Melbourne for Pete's sake! I'll save my anger for the federal government.