Australian Response

is_that_so

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Imagine thinking that living with the inconvenience that every once in a while your society may be put in hibernation for a fortnight is in any way comparable to living in a country that by Easter will have been in some form of lockdown for over a year (and of that time, what, 7 or 8 months of it having been hard lockdown?)

People who see anything wrong with how NZ and Australia handled this can only be from a FF/ FG diehard family, online party activists. Anybody who argues we could not have done this last year is beyond deluded. Indeed I think part of the reason the government has been so slow to introduce the steps they are bringing in now is that they will be ashamed when the clampdown on travel sees our cases go through the floor and proves that the steps should have been taken in April 2020, or, at the very latest, July when we had 9 odd cases a day.

It was actually just a question but off you go with this bizarre soapbox babbling. This has to be the most deranged post I've seen on this in the entire year. NHPET actually made the call BTW on our strategy but it was very clearly a deep state FFG cabal secretly plotting and pulling those strings aided and abetted, I will add, by the entire political system.

Peregrinus

is_that_so wrote: »

One of the things you'd wonder about is how Australia and NZ will respond in a post-pandemic environment. Imagine at some future point most people are vaccinated, there are very few cases around the world and the majority of countries are 100 days+ without a case. A case or two emerge here and we'll test, contact trace, isolate, treat etc. with no effect whatsoever on normal life. What would the zero-COVID countries do in that instance? Will they once again lock down whole cities and borders?

Not necessarily because, of course, right now the immediate hard lockdown is undertaken in a context in which no-one is vaccinated - vaccination has yet to begin in Australia.

When the population is substantially vaccinated, the protocol for responding to isolated cases is likely to be different.

Hector Savage

Good article on the Telegraph ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/15/australia-paying-heavy-price-freedom/

paywalled so here ...

Here in Australia we are paying a heavy price for 'freedom'
Australia's Covid strategy is the envy of the world. But people should be careful what they wish for

Australia’s success against Covid has seen it held up by many around the world as a model for tackling the virus. Our pubs are open, people can go to concerts, spectators – at least at the start of the tournament – have been allowed to watch the tennis at the Australian Open and we even celebrated New Year’s Eve in a manner unthinkable in most countries. We certainly have done a good job of stamping out the virus.

However, to suggest that the Aussie approach is all rainbows and butterflies would be a grave mistake. Suppression has been achieved primarily through a ruthless use of “circuit-breaker” local lockdowns and the introduction of hotel quarantine for all people entering the country.

We live in constant fear of new outbreaks, the response to which is immediate and brutal. The whole state of Victoria, for example, is currently in a five-day lockdown after just 13 cases were linked to a quarantine worker in a Melbourne hotel. Even after a long period of success – Victoria went 28 days without any locally generated cases – freedom can come swiftly to a halt. We have no choice but to sit with our fingers crossed hoping that it’s not our state or, worse, our workplace that gets the notification.

This is a nightmare for businesses. One week, restaurants and bars have more customers than they can handle; the next they are trying to turn themselves into a takeaway overnight. Even in the good times, it’s hardly a return to what used to be normal. We have to scan QR codes, stick to capacity limits, masks are everywhere and in the pubs there’s no dancing and you have to stay seated. I’ve watched some of my favourite cafes, restaurants and bars close their doors for good; with the rules as they are it has been impossible to get enough bums on seats to keep businesses afloat.

Travellers coming into the country face an even tougher system than the one being introduced in Britain and the numbers of new arrivals allowed are strictly rationed to prevent the system being overwhelmed. Even for a relatively isolated country like Australia, this has huge impacts. I have a Canadian friend who is trapped here with no hope of seeing her family back in Montreal for the foreseeable future. She faces a long and agonising wait.

Those who want to travel within the country can face similar worries as travel between states is heavily restricted. I have been unable to visit my grandparents in Tasmania as they reach their nineties, or to meet my beautiful niece in Western Australia who is almost 2 years old already. It’s been hard not knowing the next time you’ll see your family, or even if you ever will see those who are elderly or ill.

The fact is that driving down cases, as we have been doing, can provide respite. It can save lives and it can buy time to test vaccines, which has been given by politicians as one of the justifications for Australia’s slow progress – an excuse which is now unravelling. Yet the side effects are huge and suppression is not going to get us back to normal. Our current situation may seem idyllic – but it carries a heavy price that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Cee-Jay-Cee

httpete wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous argument and I see it being made repeatedly. As if this was some problem without a solution. There are lots of solutions, the most simple and obvious one straight off the top of my head is to just switch the container onto a different truck once the incoming truck arrives in Ireland. Then send that incoming truck back, possibly with a different container of goods to make things more efficient.

Its not that simple and would take an enormous amount of work to make it work properly.

Suppliers in the UK/Ireland need trucks to deliver to the docks which they currently don't have, that's why transport companies are employed to collect/deliver loads directly from manufacturers/suppliers. What you are proposing would take twice the amount of trucks and is simply unworkable in any short term and would require harmony among almost the entire truck fleet companies in Europe, UK and Ireland. Its simply never going to happen.

doublejobbing 2

Hector Savage wrote: »

Good article on the Telegraph ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/15/australia-paying-heavy-price-freedom/

paywalled so here ...

That writer is an absolute thick, tbh.

Poor me, I live somewhere where there is a small chance that my life might be interrupted next week for a whole fortnight.

We have been in either lockdown or under the threat of a months long lockdown since last March.

They seem to have a bit of a chip about there being more rules now. Australia wrote the book on nanny statism and has rules and regulations that the EU would baulk at, so it isn't exactly anything new.

Noo

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

That writer is an absolute thick, tbh.

Poor me, I live somewhere where there is a small chance that my life might be interrupted next week for a whole fortnight.

We have been in either lockdown or under the threat of a months long lockdown since last March.

They seem to have a bit of a chip about there being more rules now. Australia wrote the book on nanny statism and has rules and regulations that the EU would baulk at, so it isn't exactly anything new.

Yeah im not sure where that person is based. Where i am there are no masks, no noticeable capacity limits, people are definitely dancing. I havent seen any restaurants close, if anything theyre doing better than ever.

I can go to tasmania and WA without quarantine. And travellers coming in and leaving the country? You'd swear Australians were missing out on some jetsetter lifestyle the rest of the world are enjoying.

Im not saying their points are untrue, but they seem to have gathered all the restrictions that were in place at different times around the country and applied them to every australian. Its not the case. My life is as close to normal as could possibly be right now.

I know where id rather be.

mandrake04

Hector Savage wrote: »

Good article on the Telegraph ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/15/australia-paying-heavy-price-freedom/

paywalled so here ...

Yeah life is unbearable....LOLLLL

mandrake04

Noo wrote: »

Yeah im not sure where that person is based. Where i am there are no masks, no noticeable capacity limits, people are definitely dancing. I havent seen any restaurants close, if anything theyre doing better than ever.

I can go to tasmania and WA without quarantine. And travellers coming in and leaving the country? You'd swear Australians were missing out on some jetsetter lifestyle the rest of the world are enjoying.

Im not saying their points are untrue, but they seem to have gathered all the restrictions that were in place at different times around the country and applied them to every australian. Its not the case. My life is as close to normal as could possibly be right now.

I know where id rather be.

So right, the begrudgers are only fooling themselves.

I'm happy to take a break from world travel as long as my kids are able to go to school and I can do the things I enjoy. Im not saying its perfect but 90% is good enough.

Peregrinus

I agree. While the Australian pandemic measures are intrusive they are, for the most part, short and sharp, which makes them less intrusive than the long-drawn-out pandemic meausure that apply elsewhere.

Plus, they have worked. Australia's total deaths from covid are 909. Belgium and the Netherlands, taken together, have a similar population to Australia's; between them they've had more than 36,000 covid deaths, and they are, even still. clocking up more deaths every 10 days than Australia has had since the pandemic began.

There's no doubt an element of good luck in Australia's experience. But if you're simply balancing how burdensome covid measures are against how effective they are, Australia is in a much happier position than any European country.

Chivito550

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. While the Australian pandemic measures are intrusive they are, for the most part, short and sharp, which makes them less intrusive than the long-drawn-out pandemic meausure that apply elsewhere.

Plus, they have worked. Australia's total deaths from covid are 909. Belgium and the Netherlands, taken together, have a similar population to Australia's; between them they've had more than 36,000 covid deaths, and they are, even still. clocking up more deaths every 10 days than Australia has had since the pandemic began.

There's no doubt an element of good luck in Australia's experience. But if you're simply balancing how burdensome covid measures are against how effective they are, Australia is in a much happier position than any European country.

While there is no doubt merit in your general point, your comparisons are completely unfair. You are comparing one of the least densely populated countries on earth, an island nation, located far from anywhere else, to the second and third most densely populated countries in Europe (after Malta), with land borders with other nations. (The Netherlands is the size of Munster and has 17.3 million people).

Culturally the countries are very different too. I’ve lived in Melbourne, the most European city in Australia, and even there, there is a much more individualistic culture than we have in Europe. People live in big houses, with big backyards, in far flung suburbs, with huge gaps between their house and their neighbours houses. Friends of mine there told me they don’t know their neighbours. That’s completely different to Europe. Melbourne covers a similar land area as London, but it’s metropolitan area has 1/3rd of the population of London’s. Australians take to the mountains, national parks etc for holidays, and there is a great camping culture there. Europeans are more inclined to visit cities, festivals etc.

There’s got to be better places to make a comparison with surely?

SheepsClothing

Chivito550 wrote: »

While there is no doubt merit in your general point, your comparisons are completely unfair. You are comparing one of the least densely populated countries on earth, an island nation, located far from anywhere else, to the second and third most densely populated countries in Europe (after Malta), with land borders with other nations. (The Netherlands is the size of Munster and has 17.3 million people).

Culturally the countries are very different too. I’ve lived in Melbourne, the most European city in Australia, and even there, there is a much more individualistic culture than we have in Europe. People live in big houses, with big backyards, in far flung suburbs, with huge gaps between their house and their neighbours houses. Friends of mine there told me they don’t know their neighbours. That’s completely different to Europe. Melbourne covers a similar land area as London, but it’s metropolitan area has 1/3rd of the population of London’s. Australians take to the mountains, national parks etc for holidays, and there is a great camping culture there. Europeans are more inclined to visit cities, festivals etc.

There’s got to be better places to make a comparison with surely?

There are several other countries which have successfully suppressed the virus, but they don't count, because they are Asian, or some other nonsense.

Chivito550

SheepsClothing wrote: »

There are several other countries which have successfully suppressed the virus, but they don't count, because they are Asian, or some other nonsense.

Well I didn't say that anyway. I just don't think Netherlands and Belgium are fair comparisons.

Taiwan is probably a better comparison in that its an island, but not in terms of population density.

Australia is one of the least ideal places on earth for a virus to run rampant. Couple that with a hard line approach, and the country has seen great results.

But make no mistake, there's a lot of good fortune involved.

trixi001

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree. While the Australian pandemic measures are intrusive they are, for the most part, short and sharp, which makes them less intrusive than the long-drawn-out pandemic meausure that apply elsewhere.

Plus, they have worked. Australia's total deaths from covid are 909. Belgium and the Netherlands, taken together, have a similar population to Australia's; between them they've had more than 36,000 covid deaths, and they are, even still. clocking up more deaths every 10 days than Australia has had since the pandemic began.

There's no doubt an element of good luck in Australia's experience. But if you're simply balancing how burdensome covid measures are against how effective they are, Australia is in a much happier position than any European country.

Or maybe Australia is different, in that it has year long round sunshine to some degree, an outside lifestyle and therefore people aren't deficient in Vitamin D, so aren't as susceptible to severe COVID...

Noo

trixi001 wrote: »

Or maybe Australia is different, in that it has year long round sunshine to some degree, an outside lifestyle and therefore people aren't deficient in Vitamin D, so aren't as susceptible to severe COVID...

Vitamin D deficiency is actually a common issue in australia. The sun smart campaign has been a little too successful in that regard.

mandrake04

Looks like Melbourne is off the hook, they are out of lockdown at midnight.

They have even re-advertised the tickets for the Open from for Thursday onwards.

derfderf

Chivito550 wrote: »

While there is no doubt merit in your general point, your comparisons are completely unfair. You are comparing one of the least densely populated countries on earth, an island nation, located far from anywhere else, to the second and third most densely populated countries in Europe (after Malta), with land borders with other nations. (The Netherlands is the size of Munster and has 17.3 million people).

Culturally the countries are very different too. I’ve lived in Melbourne, the most European city in Australia, and even there, there is a much more individualistic culture than we have in Europe. People live in big houses, with big backyards, in far flung suburbs, with huge gaps between their house and their neighbours houses. Friends of mine there told me they don’t know their neighbours. That’s completely different to Europe. Melbourne covers a similar land area as London, but it’s metropolitan area has 1/3rd of the population of London’s. Australians take to the mountains, national parks etc for holidays, and there is a great camping culture there. Europeans are more inclined to visit cities, festivals etc.

There’s got to be better places to make a comparison with surely?

The population density arguement is not really valid as the population spread is really low. Greater Sydney has a similar population to Ireland, and is about 2/3rds the size of Leinster. There have been 5000 cases, and 100 deaths, overall.

Sydney is absolutely rammed too. It's not London, but it's definitely not Dublin. Almost everywhere within an hour of the city is full of apartment blocks. A lot of high rise too.

Peregrinus

Chivito550 wrote: »

While there is no doubt merit in your general point, your comparisons are completely unfair. You are comparing one of the least densely populated countries on earth, an island nation, located far from anywhere else, to the second and third most densely populated countries in Europe (after Malta), with land borders with other nations. (The Netherlands is the size of Munster and has 17.3 million people).

Derfderf has answered this. What matters is not such much overall population density as population concentration. Australia is a highly urbanised society; 90% of the population live in just 0.2% of the country's land area.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Culturally the countries are very different too. I’ve lived in Melbourne, the most European city in Australia, and even there, there is a much more individualistic culture than we have in Europe. People live in big houses, with big backyards, in far flung suburbs, with huge gaps between their house and their neighbours houses. Friends of mine there told me they don’t know their neighbours. That’s completely different to Europe. Melbourne covers a similar land area as London, but it’s metropolitan area has 1/3rd of the population of London’s. Australians take to the mountains, national parks etc for holidays, and there is a great camping culture there. Europeans are more inclined to visit cities, festivals etc.

There is some truth in this. Australian suburbs do tend to be generously-spaced, and life is a bit more outdoorsy. This helps.

Chivito550 wrote: »

There’s got to be better places to make a comparison with surely?

What comparison were you expecting, in a thread devoted to the Australian response?

I've said all along that Ireland cannot expect simply to replicate Australian policies and achieve Australian results. The two countries are in different situations and different circumstances, in ways that are relevant to the pandemic and its management, so simply mindlessly following Australia would not serve us well. But that's not to say that we can't learn useful things from looking at the Australian experience, and that those useful things can't be used to shape strategies that work in Ireland.

Who should we look at, if not the countries whose strategies have worked well? And Australia is definitely one of these.

But, yeah, there definitely will be other countries from whose experiences we can also learn useful things.

mandrake04

derfderf wrote: »

The population density arguement is not really valid as the population spread is really low. Greater Sydney has a similar population to Ireland, and is about 2/3rds the size of Leinster. There have been 5000 cases, and 100 deaths, overall.

Sydney is absolutely rammed too. It's not London, but it's definitely not Dublin. Almost everywhere within an hour of the city is full of apartment blocks. A lot of high rise too.

Actually all of NSW including Sydney has only had 2177 Local cases and 54 deaths, the other 2900 cases never made it out of Hotel quarantine.

Metro Sydney has a population of 5.2m and is less than the size of Cork & Kerry.

They have done a lot of the the heavy lifting, mopping up the Ruby Princess and then mopping up all those F**king Victorians coming up spreading their germs last year while accepting the bulk of quarantine Travelers.

Mellor

Chivito550 wrote: »

Always remember that the threat of a lockdown at a moments notice is not normality, no matter what our media here say. Australia may have things better than us right now, but nothing about this is normal.

Nobody said it was normal.
But the fact they are willing to do sudden 5 day lockdowns is why they are 5days or less and not 5 months after half-assing it

is_that_so wrote: »

A case or two emerge here and we'll test, contact trace, isolate, treat etc. with no effect whatsoever on normal life. What would the zero-COVID countries do in that instance? Will they once again lock down whole cities and borders?

To date, Australia is doing a far far better job of contact trace, isolate, treating that Ireland of anywhere else. Why are you expecting the vaccine to change that? It's not goign to give the irish government super-administration powers

Hector Savage wrote: »

Good article on the Telegraph ...

Yeah, that's complete nonsense. Nobody in Australia is living in fear of lockdown. They are mostly enjoying restaurants, pubs, sporting events , and an improved working situation.

Chivito550 wrote: »

You are comparing one of the least densely populated countries on earth, an island nation, located far from anywhere else, to the second and third most densely populated countries in Europe ...

Australia is the most urbanised country in the world. Most people live in cities. The outback drags down the country average but has no effect on covid resistance. Neither does a weekend in the national park once a year.

mandrake04 wrote: »

Metro Sydney has a population of 5.2m and is less than the size of Cork & Kerry.

Exactly.

Ireland is by comparison much less densely filled.

Chivito550

Hugely urbanised country, yes.

Densely population cities, no.

https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/

There's a good 94 page report called Demographia World Urban Areas which ranks all cities with a population of over 500,000. Australian cities are languishing towards the bottom. Most recent list is 2020. Its a PDF so can't figure out how to share it, but you'll find it easily through Google.

Low density, mixed with an outdoorsy culture, warm weather, the country's geographical position on earth, and a hard lined approach are the reasons for the relative success with Covid.

Place the population of Australia and the Government of Australia in Belgium and Netherlands' land area overnight, and it wouldn't be long before you would see different results.

Peregrinus

The problem with measures like the Demographia comparison is that different countries take a different approach to drawing local government boundaries and defining what does and does not count as part of the metropolitan region.

I live in Perth. The Perth Metropolitan Region, from the Demographia report, is 1,566 sq. km, which gives a population density of 1,000 people per sq. km. But, for comparison, the area of Dublin City and County combined is 922 sq. km. The Perth Metro Region is about 70% larger. And I can testify, because I live there, that large swathes of the Perth Metro Region are bush, or forest, or desert — largely unpopulated. The actual built-up parts of Perth are much, much more densely populated than the average for the metro region would suggest. And, of course, virtually the entire population lives in the built-up parts. So people do live a lot closer to one another than the average population density would suggest. Most residents of Perth live, and the average resident of Perth lives, in a community where the population density is much, much greater than 1,000 people per sq. km. I myself live in a long-established, low-density suburb where the population density is 2,380/sq km, and it would be regarded in Perth as one of the less densely settled neighbourhoods.

Now, as I said before, it is true that Australian suburbs tend to be built on generous lines, and they are less crowded than Irish suburbs. But it's hard to disentangle how much of the difference in population density showing up in things like the Demographia report is attibutable to that, and how much to the tendency to include signficant uninhabited areas in the Australian concept of a metropolitan region.

It seems to me that the figure we actually want is, for your average resident of Ireland/Australia, how many people live within (say) 5 km of them? And I don't have that figure.

You're absolutely right that if, the population of Australia were dropped into Belgium and the Netherlands, there woudl be different results. But that wouldn't be only, or even mainly, down to the different population density. It would also be because Belgium and the Netherlands couldn't possibly apply border controls with the rigour and effectiveness that Australia has — it would do much, much more social and economic damage than it does in Australia, and no matter how hard you to tried to implement it it would be much leakier. Belgium and the Netherland have to come up with strategies that are adapted to the circumstances of Belgium and the Netherlands. Replicating Australian strategies is not what they need to do.

I haven't come into this thread to say "Australia wonderful, everyone else sh!te". I came in to refute the suggestion that Australian strategies are harmful to Australia. The fact is that they have been disruptive and costly, but less so - much less so - than the policies that most European governments have implemented, and they have worked well in the Australian context; we have a much lower rate of CV19 infections and deaths than most European countries. For these two reasons any cost-benefit analysis of Australian policies is going to rate them very highly. Australian policies might not suit Belgium and the Netherlands, but they do suit Australia. And once we get around the idea that "learning from Australia" has to mean "slavishly imitating Australia" then, yeah, other countries might learn useful things by observing what strategies have worked in Australia.

Dr. Em

Peregrinus wrote: »

I live in Perth. The Perth Metropolitan Region, from the Demographia report, is 1,566 sq. km, which gives a population density of 1,000 people per sq. km. But, for comparison, the area of Dublin City and County combined is 922 sq. km. The Perth Metro Region is about 70% larger. And I can testify, because I live there, that large swathes of the Perth Metro Region are bush, or forest, or desert — largely unpopulated. The actual built-up parts of Perth are much, much more densely populated than the average for the metro region would suggest.

Are most people in the built-up areas of Perth iving in purpose-built apartments? The majority of young professionals (22-30 years old) I know in Dublin, Cork and Galway live in old houses that have been repurposed as 4-6 rented bedrooms. Everyone is sharing the kitchen and common areas, and in extreme circumstance, the bathroom. Having 6 young renters from different families living under one roof has to be worse for spreading the virus than proper single-occupant or single-family apartments.

Chivito550

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem with measures like the Demographia comparison is that different countries take a different approach to drawing local government boundaries and defining what does and does not count as part of the metropolitan region.

I live in Perth. The Perth Metropolitan Region, from the Demographia report, is 1,566 sq. km, which gives a population density of 1,000 people per sq. km. But, for comparison, the area of Dublin City and County combined is 922 sq. km. The Perth Metro Region is about 70% larger. And I can testify, because I live there, that large swathes of the Perth Metro Region are bush, or forest, or desert — largely unpopulated. The actual built-up parts of Perth are much, much more densely populated than the average for the metro region would suggest. And, of course, virtually the entire population lives in the built-up parts. So people do live a lot closer to one another than the average population density would suggest. Most residents of Perth live, and the average resident of Perth lives, in a community where the population density is much, much greater than 1,000 people per sq. km. I myself live in a long-established, low-density suburb where the population density is 2,380/sq km, and it would be regarded in Perth as one of the less densely settled neighbourhoods.

Now, as I said before, it is true that Australian suburbs tend to be built on generous lines, and they are less crowded than Irish suburbs. But it's hard to disentangle how much of the difference in population density showing up in things like the Demographia report is attibutable to that, and how much to the tendency to include signficant uninhabited areas in the Australian concept of a metropolitan region.

It seems to me that the figure we actually want is, for your average resident of Ireland/Australia, how many people live within (say) 5 km of them? And I don't have that figure.

You're absolutely right that if, the population of Australia were dropped into Belgium and the Netherlands, there woudl be different results. But that wouldn't be only, or even mainly, down to the different population density. It would also be because Belgium and the Netherlands couldn't possibly apply border controls with the rigour and effectiveness that Australia has — it would do much, much more social and economic damage than it does in Australia, and no matter how hard you to tried to implement it it would be much leakier. Belgium and the Netherland have to come up with strategies that are adapted to the circumstances of Belgium and the Netherlands. Replicating Australian strategies is not what they need to do.

I haven't come into this thread to say "Australia wonderful, everyone else sh!te". I came in to refute the suggestion that Australian strategies are harmful to Australia. The fact is that they have been disruptive and costly, but less so - much less so - than the policies that most European governments have implemented, and they have worked well in the Australian context; we have a much lower rate of CV19 infections and deaths than most European countries. For these two reasons any cost-benefit analysis of Australian policies is going to rate them very highly. Australian policies might not suit Belgium and the Netherlands, but they do suit Australia. And once we get around the idea that "learning from Australia" has to mean "slavishly imitating Australia" then, yeah, other countries might learn useful things by observing what strategies have worked in Australia.

Agree with most of that. However, most cities have areas that are uninhabited. Maybe Australian cities have more, though I wouldn't be confident on that at all. Sometimes these studies take this into account and only use inhabited areas when calculating density. Not sure if it's the case with this report or not though.

Agree with your overall sentiment. I personally think Australia has done a very good job in the context of Australia. Their methods have worked for them. They won't work for many others as you have outlined.

There does seem to be quite a bit of Aussie bravado around it all though, both in general, and occasionally in this thread. Not surprising as when I lived there I frequently came across Australians who would go out of your way to vocally tell you that Australia is the greatest place on earth, even though most of them had never left the country or been to 2 or 3 other countries tops. I think that gets peoples' backs up a bit. The Australian Open was to show off to the world how great their measures have been.

I love Australia for the record (except their TV and their media which is pure trash )

Noo

In terms of covid, Australia is just as densely populated as anywhere in europe....in offices, public transport, airplanes, concerts, sports games, pubs, restaurants, festivals, childcare, schools, universities, aged care, shopping centres, the list goes on. Those are the places where disease can spread. Having neighbours out in the burbs a bit further away than their European counterparts makes feck all difference.

Peregrinus

Dr. Em wrote: »

Are most people in the built-up areas of Perth iving in purpose-built apartments? The majority of young professionals (22-30 years old) I know in Dublin, Cork and Galway live in old houses that have been repurposed as 4-6 rented bedrooms. Everyone is sharing the kitchen and common areas, and in extreme circumstance, the bathroom. Having 6 young renters from different families living under one roof has to be worse for spreading the virus than proper single-occupant or single-family apartments.

Housing is expensive in Perth and share-homes (with shared bathrooms) for singles in their 20s would be common. My daughter is 21 and she lives with us; nearly all of her friends who do not live with their parents live in share houses with other young adults. None of them live in apartments.

Regarding the prevalence of apartments, about 20% of Australians aged 25-34 live in apartment homes (and some of them would be shared). I don't know what the corresponding figure for Ireland would be. The figure for Perth would be lower than this, since apartments in Australia are heavily concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne.

Dr. Em

Dr. Em wrote: »

Are most people in the built-up areas of Perth iving in purpose-built apartments? The majority of young professionals (22-30 years old) I know in Dublin, Cork and Galway live in old houses that have been repurposed as 4-6 rented bedrooms. Everyone is sharing the kitchen and common areas, and in extreme circumstance, the bathroom. Having 6 young renters from different families living under one roof has to be worse for spreading the virus than proper single-occupant or single-family apartments.

In my experience there’s a lot more house sharing than in single dwelling apartments. Think of a 3 bed semi in Dublin with a garden that’s been knocked down and 3x 3 bed bungalows (small square footage) built in its place.

That’s 3 different people (not accounting for couples) sharing communal areas.

Edit: I’m talking about Perth only.

Dr. Em

I haven't found any good statistics for Ireland to compare, although the 2016 census had almost 10% of the population living in accomodation with more people than rooms, which is a bit mad. My gut feeling would be there there is more overcrowding in Irish cities, but maybe its not dramatic enough to need a much different approach to Covid control, if we were to try to apply Australian lessons here.

I wish I was in Oz right now

mandrake04

Noo wrote: »

In terms of covid, Australia is just as densely populated as anywhere in europe....in offices, public transport, airplanes, concerts, sports games, pubs, restaurants, festivals, childcare, schools, universities, aged care, shopping centres, the list goes on. Those are the places where disease can spread. Having neighbours out in the burbs a bit further away than their European counterparts makes feck all difference.

Was just about to say the same, doesn't really matter how big your house or garden is, sure look at the type of housing in Singapore, Hong Kong and Seoul.

At home is the safest place, 1.5m-2m is considered safe distance from virus... hence why everyone has to stay at home as much as possible.

Offices, buses, pubs, childcare restaurants and everywhere else you mentioned are pretty much the same the western world over including Europe, Australia and NZ

Chivito550

What I don't get is, if Australia is adopting zero Covid, then why the need for any restrictions at all when case numbers are zero? Why is Rod Laver Arena limited to 50% capacity for the coming days for example?