COVID-19 - General discussion

[Ms_Mudd]

If you chose to go bushwalking you would be placing others at risk, not because of the activity itself, but, despite your self-assurance that nothing could go wrong; when travelling to the bush and then bushwalking, things do go wrong. Car breakdown, hitting a roo, spraining an ankle/knee/back when walking etc. this places others in the community at risk of infection from you. A focus of infection in a regional community can quickly overwhelm resources in a regional community.

The risk of bushwalking for you is less risk of infection, the risk to populations in which you travel is a higher risk of infection - patricularly in regions under-resourced to cope with high numbers of serious infection. So, yes that does constitute selfishness.

Yes to all that. I live in a rural area that is within 3 hours of Sydney and have been dismayed over the previous weeks of how much of Sydney has chosen to visit our area and its beautiful open spaces , despite the warnings not to do so being very clear. I had to attend my teeny local hospital across the long weekend (after I was assured my own COVID swab was negative) and was so so so disappointed to see someone from a Lake Macquarie/Central Coast postcode up here seeking care at the outpatient clinic.

While some would do as Johnf suggests and not stop for fuel etc, you have to make rules for the worlds stupidest denominator, so it must remain a blanket rule for all to stay in your own neighbourhood.

[johnf]

despite your self-assurance that nothing could go wrong; when travelling to the bush and then bushwalking, things do go wrong. Car breakdown, hitting a roo, spraining an ankle/knee/back when walking etc.

Maybe mixing in my own experience has made my point a bit confusing.
What my position is, is that at an aggregate level across the community bushwalking is a low risk activity for spreading Covid-19 particularly in comparing what they might otherwise be doing. As others have mentioned the policies to close off certain areas have led to a concentration of people in other areas. It is more concentrated and there are more people to people network effects occurring. I only have to walk to my nearest shop to get a whiff (aerosol) of some sweaty person jogging. This is even more so for people concentrating in indoor areas. I mentioned my wife works in a supermarket, in that shopping centre she has noticed especially on the weekend a very large amount of people going there as an activity, not necessarily for essential shopping, the whole family will go, perhaps people are using that was an excuse to meet up with friends as well. That's because it is one of the few activities that are allowed. It's all very well to say they should be at home, but the virus operates in the real world and policies should also deliver the best outcomes for the real world as well.

What I advocate is to allow more activities that give people the maximum amount of space and lower their number of networked connections overall. That will reduce the R0 of the virus in the community.

The risk of bushwalking for you is less risk of infection, the risk to populations in which you travel is a higher risk of infection - patricularly in regions under-resourced to cope with high numbers of serious infection. So, yes that does constitute selfishness.

I am not sure I quite agree with this for areas that have reasonable medical facilities. i.e. not Central Australia. It's about lowering the number of networked contacts overall. It's going to be much lower in regional areas. It's true that if no one travels to regional areas, then no one will get it there, on the other hand due to the network effect staying in the city might mean more people get infected overall. This is because of the density of contacts in the city and also because of the untraceability of contacts. So regional Australia saying keep out, might mean there is a higher level of infection in the city. That could be seen as selfish.

[north-north-west]

The risk of bushwalking for you is less risk of infection, the risk to populations in which you travel is a higher risk of infection - patricularly in regions under-resourced to cope with high numbers of serious infection. So, yes that does constitute selfishness.

I am not sure I quite agree with this for areas that have reasonable medical facilities. i.e. not Central Australia. It's about lowering the number of networked contacts overall. It's going to be much lower in regional areas. It's true that if no one travels to regional areas, then no one will get it there, on the other hand due to the network effect staying in the city might mean more people get infected overall. This is because of the density of contacts in the city and also because of the untraceability of contacts. So regional Australia saying keep out, might mean there is a higher level of infection in the city. That could be seen as selfish.

One person goes to a regional area. That person is an asymptomatic carrier. They pass on the virus to two other people. Community spread starts and increases. The local facilities can't cope because they aren't set up to deal with that many acutely ill people.

You do come across as trying to find a reason to get what you want despite expert opinions and advice. We aren't medical experts and this is a medical emergency, so maybe we should be giving more weight to the experts and less to our preferences? Just a suggestion ...

[neilmny]

..........One person goes to a regional area. That person is an asymptomatic carrier. They pass on the virus to two other people. Community spread starts and increases. The local facilities can't cope because they aren't set up to deal with that many acutely ill people.

You do come across as trying to find a reason to get what you want despite expert opinions and advice. We aren't medical experts and this is a medical emergency, so maybe we should be giving more weight to the experts and less to our preferences? Just a suggestion ...

This.

[johnf]

You do come across as trying to find a reason to get what you want despite expert opinions and advice.

Fair call to a certain extent. But I do read a lot of expert advice and not all is inline with what the government is doing. I mean I do actually support the measures to date despite what I have written as an initial response. The gov't needed time to get a handle on what was happening, ramp up the ICU's and acquire PPE. So overkill was the correct initial response. I have outlined some of the reasons why I think it is counterproductive going forward for the longer term.

[johnf]

should be giving more weight to the experts and less to our preferences? Just a suggestion ...

Actually I think I am doing that. All experts are saying we need to reduce the number of close contacts, and contacts of those contacts.
I am proposing a policy change that is more in line with that than the present policy.

[Biggles]

I am not sure I quite agree with this for areas that have reasonable medical facilities. i.e. not Central Australia. It's about lowering the number of networked contacts overall. It's going to be much lower in regional areas. It's true that if no one travels to regional areas, then no one will get it there, on the other hand due to the network effect staying in the city might mean more people get infected overall. This is because of the density of contacts in the city and also because of the untraceability of contacts. So regional Australia saying keep out, might mean there is a higher level of infection in the city. That could be seen as selfish.

FYI, central Australia does have very good facilities, but those (specialist) facilities are funded, prioritised and targeted for residents of the greater area, not specifically to the flow-on effect of wandering big city visitors who think they are above rule and order, and are for all intents and purposes when they come in, are assumed to be COVID-19 positive and asymptomatic (hence the 14 day quarantine period for inbound arrivals). It is true however, CA would not cope with a mass outbreak at all. Fortunately at this time, the NT rate of COVID-19 infection is low, due mostly to the sparsity of population, with the most problems in Darwin, and the least here in Alice. But it would only take one tickly-throated, fevered fool to step foot over the border and come in contact in wider contact in Alice (e.g., a backpacker), and the resulting chain reaction would very potentially overwhelm the health service. That's a worst-case scenario (you'd be lucky to find 3 ventilators, much less 300). It's good that at this time such things cannot (touch wood!) happen with the dragnet of Police out in force at border crossings. We cannot sit back and relax just yet. The decreasing incidence of infection is of course good news, but it is a frail balance just a heartbeat away from a full-on explosion.

When central Australia says "keep out!" (actually a lot more blunt than that ), just take on board the risk to the indigenous population, both local and remotely placed. It does not matter how remote an environment you are walking in, the risk is there. With a litany of complex health problems spanning multiple intensive disciplines, the last thing that is wanted is an asymptomatic big city traveller wandering around the tourist traps for a few days, then ending up in hospital with that diagnosis. Indigenous populations could very realistically be wiped out in an uncontrolled outbreak. People don't understand this. Remember also, the community (all around Australia) has a large number of immunoncompromised and elderly people. It is this highly vulnerable cohort that must be protected from the devastating blow of COVID-19. And oh yes if vulnerability isn't your strong point, let's not forget just what happened in NW Tasmania!

You know what? It's by the grace of God that it is skilled, mature, experienced and very well qualified medical professionals are involved in policy and process at Government, regional and State levels, and not bushwalkers chipping in with their ideas to magically improve or pad out the situation. Just tow the line, like everybody must do until we are given the get-go to return to some form of normality. We are all in this together.

[Neo]

Read today that 10,000 Aussies die from bowel cancer each year.

[neilmny]

Read today that 10,000 Aussies die from bowel cancer each year.

and 20000 die from heart disease.

Not really the point though is it. This thing you inflict on somebody else if you are a carrier.
Cancer and heart disiease are not contagious. That is the difference.

[Neo]

I'll go out on a spur and say wether contaigon or lifestyle diseases, economics is the basis of policy. Tough decisions abound. Protect our seniors, otherwise let it rip.

Nature is trying to do her thing.

Pursuing rapid climate change for status quo profits will harm billions, this is what should be sorted out authoritatively.

Edit: I sometimes disagree with myself. My opinions are fluid.

Last edited by Neo on Thu 16 Apr, 2020 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[johnf]

You know what? It's by the grace of God that it is skilled, mature, experienced and very well qualified medical professionals are involved in policy and process at Government, regional and State levels, and not bushwalkers chipping in with their ideas to magically improve or pad out the situation. Just tow the line, like everybody must do until we are given the get-go to return to some form of normality. We are all in this together.

I believe in listening to experts, but this must be done with a filter, commonsense and specific knowledge of your own situation. The experts are not always right and it is certainly not a situation where a god should be involved.
I certainly wouldn't have travelled on the Ruby Princess or let people wander around once they were off, nor would I have gone to the Grand Prix. Would I have had an Italian guest at my home when Koreans where banned entry with lessor numbers? nope. Should I send my children to school? Federal experts yes, State experts no.

This tow the line or else attitude coming from many in the community is going to be the main danger from this Covid virus. We are going to end up in a much more authoritarian world with more restrictions, penalties and state monitoring.

Note, I am not suggesting people break the current restrictions, they are still within reason for the initial response but it is starting to be time for a more nuanced balanced approach to the restrictions given that we have some more information and statistics on what this is all about. I would suggest people lobby where they can for this more balanced approach to be applied in the near future..

[crollsurf]

Yes the medical world would have us all wrapped up in cotton wool. But what about sugar and salt and all things cardio-vascular. What about dealing with the Sugar and Fast food lobby groups. And tobacco. How about taking a stand on the #1-3 killers while your at it Mr Government.

Anyway back to bushwalking kind of. After recovering from a knee injury skiing in Dec, everything was on track for a good season walking. First day ISO, in the garden and my knee swelled up and was worse than when I did it 3 months ago!

Let's hope the restrictions end soon but whatever you do, stay away from gardening.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Last edited by crollsurf on Wed 15 Apr, 2020 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[johnw]

Let's hope the restrictions end soon but whatever you do, stay away from gardening.

Too late, I've been breaking up solid clay over the last 2 days. My shoulders are killing me .

[slparker]

I am not sure I quite agree with this for areas that have reasonable medical facilities. i.e. not Central Australia. It's about lowering the number of networked contacts overall. It's going to be much lower in regional areas. It's true that if no one travels to regional areas, then no one will get it there, on the other hand due to the network effect staying in the city might mean more people get infected overall. This is because of the density of contacts in the city and also because of the untraceability of contacts. So regional Australia saying keep out, might mean there is a higher level of infection in the city. That could be seen as selfish.

I don't think that you quite get how under-resourced regional hospitals are. The intervention that saves lives here is early intubation which requires an ICU bed. Regional hospitals do not have surge capacity that city hospitals have. So whilst your utilitarian argument sounds feasible (spreading deaths more evenly across the community) the reality is that infections proportionally affect regional areas more and don't behave in a way that supports your argument.

You state "staying in the city might mean more people get infected overall". No, that isn't how epidemics work as the virus isn't a finite resource, the population of humans is.

If people are in the city are not practicing social isolation 60% of those people will become infected until herd immunity enforces a kind of social isolation from the virus. This is irrespective of whether any of those people travel to a regional area. If one of those infected travels to a regional area it doesn't reduce transmission in the city it just increases transmission in the region as well as the city. This is why there are travel bans in place and bushwalkers shouldn't travel regionally, at this time.

Another complication is that people in rural areas are not necessarily practicing social isolation any better than urban areas, as rural centres also have shopping centres, streets etc. As well as an older population, more incidence of chronic disease and less ICU beds as a proportion of the population. So any increase in infected cases proportionally affects regional areas more.

Biggles has expressed well the further problems of epidemic amplification in remote NT. there is potential for Italy/US type of mortality from uncontrolled infection.

A utilitarian argument still favours the principle of not travelling from region to region at this time.

You state:
"It's all very well to say they should be at home, but the virus operates in the real world and policies should also deliver the best outcomes for the real world as well."
But social isolation is the only intervention that works, short of anti-viral treatments being found and a vaccine being developed. That some people from urban areas travel to the regions to reduce population in the city won't reduce infections if social isolation is still not being practiced by the remainder, fo rthe reasons outlined above. Even if it were feasible, have you worked out the amount of population that would need to decamp to the countryside to reduce urban concentration? there aren't that many bushwlkers in Urban areas and where do they all go?

The 'real world solution' for 'best outcomes' is to practice social isolation, at this point in time. Moving forward aggressive testing and social contact tracing is likely to the best solution once the current rate of infection is low enough -this is what epidemiologists are working on.

[Xplora]

This tow the line or else attitude coming from many in the community is going to be the main danger from this Covid virus. We are going to end up in a much more authoritarian world with more restrictions, penalties and state monitoring.

Note, I am not suggesting people break the current restrictions, they are still within reason for the initial response but it is starting to be time for a more nuanced balanced approach to the restrictions given that we have some more information and statistics on what this is all about. I would suggest people lobby where they can for this more balanced approach to be applied in the near future..

I am not sure how you can come to this conclusion. The government's response to this was slower than I would have liked. We should have been locked down much sooner and the current restrictions need to last until we are safe. What point is there isolating now and before we have control of the spread, we open everything up again to put us back at the start. Sure, in time things will ease but the number of new cases has to drop and it is expected that we will be in a better position to get the country running again within a couple of months if everyone tows the line. How this equates to "more authoritarian world with more restrictions, penalties and state monitoring" is beyond me. We have a state of emergency declared now. These powers only exist during the emergency.

[Lophophaps]

I cannot locate a peer review of the following. Althought Dr Kendrick seems to be something of a medical fringe dweller, this does not make him wrong, just different. The history of science has many people who were different, disbelieved then proved true - Tycho Brahe, Alfred Wegener, Charles Darwin, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei. So the fact that Dr Kendrick may have critics warrants consideration but is not of itself reason to dismiss his views.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/1 ... his-virus/

Society is managing COVID-19, with considerable personal, health and economic pain. I plan things several steps ahead, with all options hopefully ready no matter what. COVID-19 has stressed this planning as never before, but it's now sorted. Governments need to think about an exit plan, which is where Dr Kendrick has options. If lockup continues too long then society will break down. It is not possible to continue to give a lot of people Jobseeker or the like forever. The reason is that this will be an economic impact on the future. Baby boomers are retiring with the number of taxpayers to support them already decreasing, and now a million people are suddenly out of work.

In other forums there's been comments about the government's increased powers, and concern that they will remain. The federal government is abandoning long-term LNP policy and as the same time is adopting other policies that feature in far right places. For the moment, most or all seem necessary. Moving left and right at the same time is facinating.

Unless you live very close to a park that is open then there is no more bushwalking. I've seen a report that such parks are crowded, suggesting that more parks should be open to allow day trips, as the lower density of people equates to less chance of coronavirus transmission. Slowly opening parks is part of getting back to reality.

[Baeng72]

I cannot locate a peer review of the following. Althought Dr Kendrick seems to be something of a medical fringe dweller, this does not make him wrong, just different. The history of science has many people who were different, disbelieved then proved true - Tycho Brahe, Alfred Wegener, Charles Darwin, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei. So the fact that Dr Kendrick may have critics warrants consideration but is not of itself reason to dismiss his views.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/1 ... his-virus/

Kendrick isn't saying anything that challenges science. He's just pointing out the stark reality, that we're not stopping the disease, but managing it to stop it overloading our health system. Every night you get a message on TV from the Vic. Government saying 'Save our health system'. These are political discussions, not discussions of science. He's not upending our understanding of virus, just how we pretend we're eradicating the virus when that's as likely as eradicating the cold.

In other forums there's been comments about the government's increased powers, and concern that they will remain.

This Government (and its Howard predecessor and with Labor's willing help) have taken away civil liberties like it's nobody's business. Usually under the rubric of stopping terrorism or paedophiles. The Australian people don't seem to care. They think 'it's not my problem, so meh'. But we can now be tried without anybody knowing. If you blow the whistle on Government misdoings, you'll go to jail, nobody will know about it, (see Witness K), and tough *&%$#!, we didn't protest when protesting would have done some good.
Morrison and Dutton are authoritarians, and won't give back power without a fight. Even Andrews signed Victorians up to a pretty draconian photo recognition scheme without more justification than 'if you saw what I saw, you''d agree' of course, we weren't allowed to see what he saw, so we just have to trust him. But that power is now being used by local governments to track down fines, which was never mentioned when it was proposed.....
I will wait and see, but won't be surprised is we're told it's OK to return to work and school, but many current restrictions stay in place, for our own good, like police maintain these powers indefinitely. As for the tracing app. Well, if you've got an iPhone, you've already agreed to be traced, this just sends more than the metadata ....

[Baeng72]

An 'interesting' article about the stark choices that will be made for us:

At whatever point we decide to ease social distancing, we need to remember there will be a significant group of people who will bear the consequences of that choice. Whether though illness, death and the grief of losing loved ones or through loss of work and income, mental health crises, loneliness and isolation, increased exposure to domestic violence, self-harm or death, not everyone is going to be staying on Lifeboat Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... uman-lives

[Son of a Beach]

if you've got an iPhone, you've already agreed to be traced

You should really provide some evidence for this statement. I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect, but such a blanket statement does require some sort of backup. As an iPhone user, there are plenty of problems I have with the system. But privacy and "tracing" would probably be the least of them.

iPhone was an odd choice to use as an example. Facebook, Google account, Android or pretty much anything else would have made more sense. But the developers of iOS have gone to great lengths to minimise privacy issues, even at the expense of performance. I'm not attempting to suggest that it doesn't happen at all in iOS, but it's not a good example of this.

[MrWalker]

I cannot locate a peer review of the following. Althought Dr Kendrick seems to be something of a medical fringe dweller, this does not make him wrong, just different. The history of science has many people who were different, disbelieved then proved true - Tycho Brahe, Alfred Wegener, Charles Darwin, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei. So the fact that Dr Kendrick may have critics warrants consideration but is not of itself reason to dismiss his views.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/1 ... his-virus/

That article was written for UK, where the virus is currently out of control. This makes elimination very difficult and would take a long time.

In Australian and NZ, the number of new cases is below 50 each day, making it possible to trace the source of every case, and all their contacts. For example, in Tasmania we have quarantined 5000 people to isolate an outbreak in the north-west. If we could be confident that this was the only active disease then we could relax restrictions for everyone else. However, it will take a couple of weeks of very few or no reported cases before we can do that. But in Australia and NZ eradication is certainly possible and should now be the aim. It just means we won't get any international tourists for quite a while.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Does anyone actually believe that without a vaccine eradication is even possible?

[neilmny]

............ What point is there isolating now and before we have control of the spread, we open everything up again to put us back at the start. Sure, in time things will ease but the number of new cases has to drop and it is expected that we will be in a better position to get the country running again within a couple of months if everyone tows the line. How this equates to "more authoritarian world with more restrictions, penalties and state monitoring" is beyond me. We have a state of emergency declared now. These powers only exist during the emergency.

This

[Baeng72]

if you've got an iPhone, you've already agreed to be traced

You should really provide some evidence for this statement. I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect, but such a blanket statement does require some sort of backup. As an iPhone user, there are plenty of problems I have with the system. But privacy and "tracing" would probably be the least of them.



iPhone was an odd choice to use as an example. Facebook, Google account, Android or pretty much anything else would have made more sense. But the developers of iOS have gone to great lengths to minimise privacy issues, even at the expense of performance. I'm not attempting to suggest that it doesn't happen at all in iOS, but it's not a good example of this.

I was using iPhone as a place holder for any smart phone. But yeah, there's lots of other tech out there that the Government can use now, legally to trace you.
It doesn't really matter how great the lengths Apple have gone to minimize privacy issues.
The meta-data laws allow the government to access data on mobile-phone pings to towers or browsing on your smart phone. That can trace you quite well, right now, legally.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/ ... en/6694152

Plus, iPhones store 'significant location' data and Apple will comply with any legal request.
The Libs and Labor agreed it was legal to track us through meta data and strong-arm tech companies to hand over data for our own protection.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aust ... SKBN1O42SR

Apple's policy that says they will cooperate with any legal requests (such as a request for location data) - would be similar for all tech companies.
https://www.apple.com/au/privacy/govern ... -requests/

[Baeng72]

Does anyone actually believe that without a vaccine eradication is even possible?

It's possible, as in the chance is greater than 0.
Is it probable? Probably not. But what do I know?
[EDIT] NZ has adopted an elimination program, we'll soon see how that has worked when they start to lift restrictions.

[Son of a Beach]

Apple's policy that says they will cooperate with any legal requests (such as a request for location data) - would be similar for all tech companies.
https://www.apple.com/au/privacy/govern ... -requests/

This is true, but the reality is that Apple doesn't have access to much of this data, and therefore cannot share it with governments. Hence the recent high-profile legal case between the FBI and Apple in America where the FBI were trying to strong arm Apple into cracking into a deceased terrorist's iPhone, but Apple said that it's currently not technically possible to do so. The American government is trying to force Apple to create a back-door into future versions of iOS so that they can break into people's devices, but so far Apple has refused on the grounds that it would be a terrible invasion of privacy, and if such a back door existed, then there is the possibility that access could fall into the wrong hands, which would clearly destroy all privacy.

Apple has some access to some data stored on its servers, but even most of this is encrypted, and can only be decrypted using the user's key which is only stored on the user's devices. Apple cannot provide access to data on the devices. I don't think iOS stores any location tracking data anywhere online - only on the devices. Although specific apps probably would store some of this online (eg, Strava, etc).

I'm not particularly an Apple fan boy, but I am quite invested in their ecosystem, so I take a healthy interest in what they are doing. Both for being better able to make use of the devices I have, and also to be reasonably well-informed about issues and problems with the devices I have.

Currently Apple and Google are working together to develop an application programming interface for both iOS and Android to enable COVID-19 contact tracing. It stores zero private data and zero location data*. I don't believe the Australian Government's tracing app is planned to use this system, so I suspect the Aus Gov app probably does store such private data.

There are two problems with this. Firstly, the privacy issue itself. But secondly, NOT using what is clearly intended to be a cross-platform standard for contact tracing means that the market for contact tracing apps will be fragmented into people who use the Aus Gov app and people who use some other app (eg, one that IS compatible with Apple/Google initiative). If there are mutliple apps being used in the same jurisdiction, then that will dilute its effectiveness severely.

*The way it works is that each phone randomly generates a unique ID every 15(?) minutes, and keeps track of all the IDs that it has used so far. Every time it is within Bluetooth range of another phone that runs a compatible system, it will exchange current IDs with that phone, and keep a separate record of every other ID it has come across. If a user tests positive for COVID-19, they enter that into their app, and all of the phone's recent IDs (presumably only for the possible infection period?) will be uploaded to the central database. Periodically, a phone will query the database to see if any of the other IDs it has been in contact with have been added to the list. It's a remarkably good methodology as far as privacy is concerned. Nothing is stored except for ID numbers. There is no way to connect these ID numbers with anything else, and just to be on the safe side, they change frequently, so that a Bluetooth hacker cannot consistently track an ID number for more than a few minutes.

Of course, app developers who hook into the new API may be able to get their apps to perform other tasks with the users' data which are more invasive to the users' privacy. But the API itself is quite sound.

I've no idea how the proposed Aus Gov app compares in this regard. I believe they plan to use a similar idea (as its based on a similar app used in Singapore), but I've no idea if they would be adding extra privacy-invading functionality as well.

[Biggles]

Does anyone actually believe that without a vaccine eradication is even possible?

It's possible, as in the chance is greater than 0.
Is it probable? Probably not. But what do I know?
[EDIT] NZ has adopted an elimination program, we'll soon see how that has worked when they start to lift restrictions.

I don't think so. And history has some convincing examples. In the short to medium term, safeguard measures must remain in place. The incidence of COVID-19 will likely drop to sparsely appearing single-digits and easily reigned in with first-strike measures (like isolation), but it will take just one slip-up somewhere and we are thrown back to square one all over again.

Eradication probably will not happen. Vaccination will be the best protection, and for that we have to hold our guard until it comes out. We could be keeping up social distancing for a while — I suspect maybe closer to 2 years than 6 to 12 months.

When a vaccine comes onto the market, it must also have an open door to any mutation of the COVID-19 virus into something even more sinister.
The world was once of the happy belief that Polio had been eradicated. But it has not, and three specific countries just don't care about it. Just one person (e.g. a child) infected with poliovirus can rapidly infect others by contact. Sound familiar? Much the same with grand plans in the US toward eradicating measles decades ago: it did not work, but it too has been greatly reduced with vaccination. Vaccination offers valuable protection, but it must be kept up. I suspect that, going forward, we may be on that path with COVID-19, just like the annual flu vaccine.

A more pressing problem is how to get rid of the wet markets scattered around Wuhan, but not exclusively in Wuhan. My niece, visiting the region last year, described two she perused as "cesspits of cruelty and squalor".

[slparker]

Does anyone actually believe that without a vaccine eradication is even possible?

No, it isn't possible to eradicate a virus without a vaccine or, if it is, it has never been achieved. It might not even be possible to create a vaccine against Covid-19.

This virus is a consequence of habitat loss - humans are encroaching into areas of the planet where these diseases have been occult in the wildlife and are now coming into contact with humans. Covid-19 isn't 'new' it has been (probably) in bats in China for quite a while. Ebola, Zika, Hendravirus - all examples of diseases humans get because we are encroaching into new areas.

A cheery thought: Covid-19 won't be the last.

[Son of a Beach]

Does anyone actually believe that without a vaccine eradication is even possible?

No, it isn't possible to eradicate a virus without a vaccine or, if it is, it has never been achieved.

Although global eradication isn't possible, localised eradication should be possible in some areas. Potentially, NZ may be able to eradicated it for their entire country. Too early to tell, and still a very ambitious goal.

Even if local eradication is achieved, keeping it out then becomes a huge challenge. Even if you keep all tourists out, planes and ships crewed by infected people would still be involved in international trade. There are few countries or regions which can get by without such trade these days.

Tasmania would have had a very good chance of keeping it out, but our government was too slow to "close" the borders. If Tasmania had implemented even stricter measures early enough (as had been recommended by some people), we could all be back to normal operation by now, with a COVID-19 free state (apart from maintaining super-strict border control measures). Our economy would have been on the road to recover by now, and most people (outside the tourism industry) would have their jobs back by now.

Last edited by Son of a Beach on Fri 17 Apr, 2020 11:23 am, edited 3 times in total.

[slparker]

When a vaccine comes onto the market, it must also have an open door to any mutation of the COVID-19 virus into something even more sinister.

Lethal pathogens tend to become less virulent over time, but there are exceptions. The highly lethal variants kill too quickly to be transferred and the benign variants are too easily suppressed by the imune system to be transferred.

I think that one of the purposes of isolate and contain is the favouring of (in the evolutionary sense) the success of less virulent strains of the disease. I have an imperfect understanding of the science but that is my take on it.

[Baeng72]

I've no idea how the proposed Aus Gov app compares in this regard. I believe they plan to use a similar idea (as its based on a similar app used in Singapore), but I've no idea if they would be adding extra privacy-invading functionality as well.

I too have no idea. I just have an (un)healthy sceptism of government access to data. We are much closer to living in a police state that we were 20 years ago. Nothing has sunset clauses in it, and we don't have a bill of rights to offer some protection. We have a parliament that hasn't found a law the curtails civil liberties that is can't get behind (with Albanese et al saying they dislike it, but voting for it anyway lest News Ltd call them soft on border protection).
The thing is, when we give a power or make a law for one purpose, that's loosely defined, it will be used for other purposes. Oh well....Morrison is now hinting he'll make the app compulsory.