Australian Response

And the authoritarianism continues. This will definitely stop the virus and isn't just a pointless exercise in control, right? Hopefully none of those people are alcohol dependent or they might be in trouble.

We will if they insist on using a photo of VB, that stuff should just be banned outright.

I agree with you on this, but the real issue is whether its even possible for Australia to vaccinate a large enough amount of people in order to open up without a large covid wave. I'm not sure it is. We're currently in a wave despite a huge vaccine take up, and some small amounts of acquired immunity.

Vaccination should do two things — (1) reduce the size of the wave of infections that occurs when restrictions are lifted, and (2) reduce the severity of that wave of infections, so that a smaller proportion of the infected are hospitalised, receive intensive care, or die.

Obviously, the greater proportion of the population that you vaccinate, the more success you will have in achieving these two objectives.

Also obvious is that it will be some more months before Australia will have levels of vaccination that might allow for a general lifting of restrictions.

By then, we will have somewhat better information than we have now about what happens when restrictions are lifted in a largely vaccinated population. Bear in mind that it's not yet two months since the UK embarked on this experiment, so while we know something of how it plays out, there is still much to learn. By November/December the UK will be four or five months into the experiment, plus other countries will have embarked on their own experiment, so hopefully a good deal more will have been learned. Which means that Australia may be slightly better positioned to plan and implement its unlocking were than the countries that did it first.

Can Australia vaccinate enough people to make it possible to open up without a large wave? In one sense, no; relative to the experience we've had to date, any Covid wave will be, in Australian terms, a "large wave". The real question, I think, is whether it will be large enough to cause significant numbers of deaths, overburden the public health system or trigger an economic recession. If widespread vaccination is sufficiently effective at achieving the second objective - reducing severity of the disease - then Australia can have quite a big wave, and still keep those impacts low.

None of this means that existing restrictions continue unchanged until November/December or even longer. The Australian strategy is that restrictions should very responsive to the facts on the ground. If they are responsive enough they can be effective to change the facts on the ground, and then they can be altered.

Most attention is focussed on the areas of Australia that are most heavily restricted - particularly NSW and Victoria. Obviously, those two states haven't yet got the situation under control - NSW had 1,384 new cases yesterday, and VIC had 323. But other states have been more successful - the delta variant has been introduced into Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, but all three successfully squashed it with rapid, tough lockdowns and are now effectively Delta-free and, so, lockdown-free. It's not impossible that lockdowns in Victoria and NSW, coupled with the advance in vaccinations, will enable one or both of those states to bring their outbreaks under control to a point where at least some lockdown restrictions can be relaxed even before the 70%/80% vaccination targets are reached. (Equally, it's not impossible that matters will get worse in one or more of the other states, requiring lockdowns there, though hopefully they will again be short and sharp.)

Its frustrating to see the effort Peregrinus' puts into his well thought out posts, and thats the crap thats posted in response. Fingers in ears lalalalala.

According to the article it is not clear who is confiscating alcohol, clearly states its not police. Its says health service is restricting alcohol (and also says alcohol limits can be increased if required by an individual), yet it doesnt say who is actually stopping the alcohol, if anyone actually is. All very vague.

Just reading that.

So there are certain apartment complexes that have been placed in the control the health authority to prevent the spread of COVID.

That control involves managing all the food, drink, medicine, people etc. that enters the building.

Now I know that is not widespread in NSW but as the above indicted there are some people who are locked in their homes.

That sounds like something out of China.

I don't think anything that drastic ever happed here.

Give me a 2km limit with the exception of work and essential shopping which was the worst we had here any day

I don't love the "authoritarian 6 beer law". I don't care much one way or the other - six beers per person per day doesn't look like cruel and unusual deprivation to me - but I am concerned about the very strict lock-in that comes with it.

I'm benefitting from having much less in the way of lockdown that Ireland had, as well as having fewer deaths in the community and a stronger economy. What's not to like?

The beer limit is not for everyone in lockdown, just those in buildings directly run by a health authority. Get off your stupid high horse.

I'd imagine you couldn't get through a movie without 16 cans.

Lol, oh that's grand then. No, the fact that people are having their alcohol consumption policed, in their own **** homes is absolutely ridiculous. Or at least, it is to most normal people. It's not a coincidence that it's happening in public housing buildings first. No way they would try this in a private building full of well off people but sure (not yet anyway) who cares about a bunch of poor people. They deserve it anyway the filthy, plague rats 🙄

They can do it them, they can do it to you. I'm sure you might care then.

No. It's not a weight issue. A bottle of spirits weighs the same as a bottle of wine, but one is being confiscated and the other isn't. Stop making excuses for a ridiculously authoritarian move by the NSW government. Not sure why you keep insinuating that anyone who disagrees is an alcoholic? Bit weird tbh. I'm not an alcoholic either, good for us. I still don't agree with the government dictating what people can drink in their own homes but you do you.

The rule is maximum one bottle of spirits per person per day. I don't think you'd find it unduly restrictive.

I take the point that it's very intrusive, and it is concerning. But what's missing in the newspaper coveraqe is any account of why the rule is applied. Have they experience of an increased problem of drink-fuelled domestic violence when people are locked down like this? Have their own staff been subjected to hostility and/or violence fuelled by drink? I think you have to ask what problem it is they are trying to solve with this measure, and if you don't have that information it's hard to make a full evaluation of this measure.