When the finals come round, his total inadequacy is exposed every time someone passes in the ball.
The Age reports: Last week the Australian Academy of Science released a statement, authored by its president Professor John Shine, calling on the government to “publish the scientific evidence that is supporting its decisions so the scientific know-how of the nation can be brought to bear”.
At a press conference in Canberra on Friday, Mr Morrison dodged a question on whether he would release the modelling.
“The decisions that I communicate from this podium are the decisions of all premiers, chief ministers, and myself,” he said.
Trump said this week that he would like much of the country “opened up and raring to go” by Easter, which is April 12 — in part, he said, because he likes the imagery of church pews full for the holiday. Whether he follows through on that desire could be one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency
Forbes Virgin billionaire Sir Richard Branson has emerged as one of the real villains of Britain’s coronavirus crisis–in the court of public opinion.
Virgin Atlantic’s suggestions on Monday for staff to take eight weeks unpaid leave during the pandemic has been widely criticized. Branson has been branded a “disgrace” by one politician and another has now told him to pay his own way out of the crisis.
Richard Fuller the Conservative MP for North East Bedfordshire said:
“The owner or partial owner of Virgin airlines has suggested they take 8 weeks of unpaid leave” Fuller began.
“I decided to look at how much that would cost.
“Eight weeks at the £94 statutory sick pay would cost £754 per employee. There are 8571 employees in Virgin Airlines.
“If all of them took eight weeks unpaid leave that would be a cost of £6.4 million.
“Sir Richard Branson’s net worth is $3.8 billion. If he’s able to get 2% interest on that money for eight weeks, he will earn the equivalent of £9.9 million.
Annual pay rises have also been deferred until a review in January 2021, while staff will see the amount Virgin Atlantic pays into their pension slashed for a year.
Sick pay has been reduced from six months full pay to 12 weeks.
Apart from being a multi-billionaire, Branson also owns an island.
News.com Radio shock-jock Alan Jones apparently believes the response to COVID-19 is nothing but overblown hysteria and alarmism. Clearly, the virus didn’t get the memo.
“In this modern world, at the slightest provocation it seems, we revert — despite all the money spent on education — we revert to hysteria and alarmism,” he said on radio this week. “We now seem to be facing the health version of global warming. Exaggeration in almost everything. Certainly in description, and certainly in behaviour.”
Jones said: “Unless I’m moving in different circles, the almost universal reaction I am getting is that we have gone mad.”
It certainly appeared the 2GB talking head occupied a different dimension.
His message contrasted starkly to that broadcast by those in the know – Australia’s public health experts. The ones trained in the job. With actual experience.
The 78-year-old, himself in isolation to protect his multimillion-dollar business, insisted most people would get a “mild illness”.
From The Guardian: About 2,700 passengers who disembarked a cruise ship in Sydney have been told to self-isolate after three people who were onboard tested positive for Covid-19.
Guidelines introduced by the government this week mean people who had arrived from overseas were already required to self-isolate for 14 days.
The very big concern is that those people came off the cruise with no knowledge of Covid actually being on their ship,” said NSW health minister, Brad Hazzard. “If they think that it’s OK to be wandering around, the clear message from me as New South Wales health minister is ‘no it’s not’.
The NSW chief health officer, Dr Kerry Chant, said the ship had been deemed “low-risk” because it was travelling from New Zealand to Australia.
My name view is that quarantine rules need to be in forced without exception otherwise everyone will be pleading that they are an exception exception. So here’s a rule for letting people into the country: “We are only as safe as the last person we let in without screening.”
And in this case, it might be only as safe as the last 2700 we let in without screening.
So how could that be when:
The Ruby Princess is operated by the same company that runs the Diamond Princess, the major cruise ship that was badly hit by the coronavirus last month.
A cruise ship has docked at Melbourne and passengers are being kept on board the same week a ban was put in place to battle coronavirus.
The Golden Princess arrived at Port Melbourne on Thursday morning after earlier being turned away from New Zealand.
It’s difficult to have confidence in governmental and bureaucratic authority when just kind of inconsistency exists. At a time when we are closing our borders to protect Australians from coronavirus, a cruise ships has been allowed to unload its passengers in Sydney.
With the approval of the New South Wales Health Department.
And now this
The ABC reports Four cruise ships have been given special permission to dock in Australia, despite the nationwide 30-day ban, but the Federal Health Minister insists they are arriving under “strict conditions”.
SMH: Bondi Beach beachgoers removed by police as restrictions enforced amid coronavirus crisis
The Berejiklian government will enforce a limit of 500 people at Bondi Beach at any one time as thousands of people defy health authorities’ pleas to abide by social distancing measures, while NSW experiences the biggest jump in the number of confirmed novel coronavirus cases to date.
The greatest risk to the government efforts to contain the coronavirus will be massive this obedience on the same scale shown in this photo. If this behaviour becomes widespread, authorities will have no ability to control it. The courts, the prison and remand systems will be overwhelmed just like Health system.
This graphic represents the dynamics of two different approaches to containing the virus. Both policies have considerable downsides. The greatest of these is that we cannot be absolutely certain what the scales and rates infection will be. No can we be certain that the peak of the flattened graph will be below that of the threshold of the health systems to cope. Most overseas experience would indicate that it is not.
The fervent hope behind the “Flattening the Coronavirus Curve” is that it will keep the level of infection below the threshold where the health system can cope. With the virus spreading at an exponential rate, there is a very large risk of overshoot in a very short period of time.
The other fervent hope is that social distancing, travel restrictions, banning public assembly, closing retail and entertainment venues and voluntary isolation will slow the rate of infection.
However, these methods may have limited effectiveness. This is because they are not absolutely foolproof. There are members of the community who will continue to be exposed to the risks of infection despite the restrictions: Health workers in particular, workers in essential industries such as trucking and supermarkets and, if the school don’t close, teachers.
These people will form a pool of potential carriers throughout the period of restriction and may contribute to a pool of the infected individuals within the community. It is this pool of potential reinfection that made trigger another cycle of the virus.
The danger this approach is of a fresh outbreak of the disease which could ultimately double the numbers of infections and deaths.
The theory of the advantage of letting the disease run through the community is that it will lead to a build-up of resistant (recovered) individuals in the community who will slow and eventually end the contagion.
The problem with this particular theory is that there is no evidence as yet that it is possible to build up a pool of resistant individuals in the community.
The flattening the curve theory does not allow for the build-up of resistant individuals in the community. This particular approach relies on keeping people from being infected. This will produce a large pool of uninfected (but possibly non-resistant) individuals in the community.
With a large pool of non-resistive individuals in the community, there is a danger that the disease will return, once the restrictions have been removed. This may occur because the disease may easily spread from the small pool of infected individuals who have not been isolated ie health workers et cetera.
These are bleak choices for policymakers. The dilemmas have been highlighted in the debate over whether or not to close schools. At present, expert advice in Australia is that they should not be. However, this flies in the face of the practice of many countries were the disease is already well-established.