Nort wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:21 pm
rev wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:54 pm
Nort wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:32 am
Remember, the vast majority of people in hotel quarantine are not infected. Any solution has to both prevent the virus from getting out and prevent it from spreading to other people staying there.
We don't know they're not infected when they arrive from overseas. That's why they're put into quarantine.
Yes, for the 14 days because that's enough time to know they don't have a case that hasn't developed enough to show up on a test yet. If they are also not effectively quarantined from each other that can no longer be assured.
What's this got to do with what I'm saying, or what you've been saying?
You don't quarantine(lockdown) the healthy, you're supposed to quarantine the sick.
This contradicts what you said on the previous line...[/quote]
How does it contradict what I've been saying? It might contradict what you think I'm saying, or what you want to believe.
It's actually keeping in the theme of what I've been saying.
Briefly, for your benefit..
I've been saying that we should quarantine returned travellers (the source of the virus here) away from the city, in a remote area such as the detention centre at Woomera.
That is in keeping with the idea that you do not quarantine (lockdown) the healthy (the healthy being the majority of the population), you quarantine the sick.
You do not know if these returned travellers, from say India (a hot spot), are sick or not, so you take the precaution of quarantining them and testing them.
The point of moving them to a remote and secure facility away from the majority of the population, is that you prevent the escape of this virus into the general population and you therefore can avoid having to lockdown the whole city or state or country.
It's not very hard to follow what I'm saying Nort.
So why are we putting everyone at risk? Even with 99.97% survival rates.
Quarantine should be at woomera or similar detention facilities away from pur major cities and towns.
What better way to prevent its spread.
You keep on changing tact here, remember I was purely responding to your assertion that it was easy to replicate the existing facilities, when it is anything but.[/quote]
How have I changed tact? I've been saying the same thing.
It is easy to replicate facilities out there. The buildings, the accommodation areas, ALREADY EXIST. The secure facility, ie SECURE FENCING AROUND THE FACILITY, already exists.
It would be very easy to bring that entire facility on line.
If you can't effectively quarantine everyone staying at the facility, that increases the risk of the virus getting out.
So here your comment basically agrees, indirectly, with my suggestion that they should be quarantined in a remote area and not in the middle of a city. Because quite clearly as we've seen now in TWO cities, they can not effectively quarantine people staying at these medi hotels (the current facilities being used in other words), and that has increased the virus of getting out as IT HAS GOTTEN OUT.
What more needs to be said? You agree..
If you have increased staffing numbers (to accommodate all the staff having to be looked after at this remote location) that increases the risk of the virus getting out.
I mean, obviously there would be protocols put in place, measures put in place, things done, to mitigate the risk.
If you have staff who are less familiar with the facilities, then increases the chances of mistakes being made that risk the virus getting out.
Go tell that to the Victorians who used nurses from around Australia, including South Australia, to help with their outbreak. Our nurses have NO FAMILIARITY with facilities in Victoria.
These are just some of the many considerations that will no doubt be going into the risk analysis performed by health officials, and they are not easy ones to solve.
LOL, so you think because there's considerations that need to be made, measures put in place, that it shouldn't be done? That the better option is to keep sick and potentially sick people in hotels in the middle of our cities, when we've had two instances of the virus getting out from those hotels?
Now, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be accepting any international arrivals because the risk is too high, that's something different. However if you want to keep saying that a solution to handling arrivals with 100% safety is easy then please share with us your report laying out details of how to make it practically happen. I assume you have this on hand since you have already determined it is a practical and easy solution.
The international arrivals are Australian citizens.
My report? Where's your report?
I assume you have it on hand since you've already determined through your arguing with me that it is 100% safer to have infected people in the middle of a city despite examples of the virus getting out (and over 800 people dying in one city) as opposed to having them in a remote location away from a major population centre.
I mean, how anyone can actually argue against common sense and logic, is astounding. Truly unbelievable how anyone can think that having sick and infectious people in the middle of a city is a better idea then having them in a remote location.
You're either incredibly fucking stupid Nort, or you're being a troll as usual. I think we both know which it is.