As a first or last resort?Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDLOVER
DL
Printable View
As a first or last resort?Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDLOVER
DL
A virus doesn't 'want' anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDLOVER
The more infections times the more new hosts equals more mutations, some more harmful, some less.
It's only the most virulent mutations that get noticed because they soon are seen to be doing the most harm.
The government strategy of limiting transmission and potential hosts minimises the risk of mutation.
DL
I think being locked in a room for 2 weeks on a resort island would be far worse - that's cruel and unusual punishment. It's not like they can go sit on the beach, just look out the window at it wondering what it would be like on the other side of the glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDLOVER
Using resort islands is a nice thought for the populace who don't want to be exposed. How do you convince/compel people to work in an environment where they are potentially exposed to the virus 24x7 wit no opportunity to visit family unless they complete 2 weeks quarantine? If you don't prevent staff leaving the solution is no better than the hotels we are using now.
Regards,
Tote
Every one has an opinion. Doesn't mean it's right. Our Chief Medical Officer's opinion was a hard lock down was necessary because of the unknowns with this UK variant,[ and the Federal health authorities and the National Cabinet agreed.] It gave tracers time to find, test and isolate close contacts. After 3 days there have been no community transmissions, so the lock down will be lifted at 6 pm tonight. However some restrictions will remain until the 14 day infection period is over. Masks are to be worn in shopping centres and places where you can't safely keep your distance. The reasoning is that all close contacts of the initial positive infection have been found and quarantined, and any other community transmission in the next 10 days will come from either another source, or a contact other than a close one.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
If NSW had carried out a hard lock down,and subsequent identification and isolation of close contacts [ instead of letting these people go about the State ] they may have stopped the virus spreading to Victoria, and regional NSW, and you may not be closing down one of your hospitals for deep cleaning. Still can't understand why NSW didn't mandate masks when all evidence points to their use as being effective against spread of the virus. Your mate is entitled to his opinion, as I said every one's got one, doesn't mean he is right in every case.
yet they are pushing ahead with the vaccine, despite the unknowns with the UK variant.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
cant have it both ways.
As of 6PM tonight we will be able to drive our cars with out a mask:banana: , we do have to wear in taxi's & I guess public transport , also need to wear at shopping centres , so all good . The one thing I do not understand is we do not have to wear at airports & on aircraft.[bighmmm]Quote:
Originally Posted by RANDLOVER
But she did say if in doubt wear one.
I think it is called common sense, not so common in some places these days.[bigwhistle]Quote:
Originally Posted by 1950landy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
Bank Holdups will now be at a minimum, roight?[bigrolf]
WA premier critical of NSW approach to fighting the virus.
“There’s five states and two territories doing one thing, and one state doing something different. I go with the majority,” he said.
WA Premier piles pressure on NSW to 'crush and kill' virus (thenewdaily.com.au)