I heard that The Vic Govt imposed a shutdown as of midnight last night (Friday 12th Feb 21). A quick 5-day shutdown to get on top of 13 new Covid cases. There was something like a day or two’s notice (I don’t recall exactly – they had time to “stop and think a little bit”), but WHY in the world would they choose midnight Friday as the start time for the lockdown?
People were watching the final stages of an exciting 5 set tennis match (the Australian Open Grand Slam event if you please, featuring the world’s #1 player) when fans were ordered to leave the stadium by 11:30pm so they could be home by midnight. They even had to STOP the match while the stadium was evacuated. To say there was discontent among the viewing public is putting it very mildly.
Now, WHO DOES THAT? They had around two days to “choose a time for lockdown to start” (well, really, they have had a bloody YEAR to get this kind of thing right) – it wasn’t like an emergency that had them do it immediately, so why midnight? Have all nightspots closed by then? Have all citizens retired to their homes by midnight usually? Has all transport stopped running by then?
If they REALLY wanted to upset people, they could have imposed a MIDDAY lockdown – that would have thrown the cat amongst the pigeons for sure. But they didn’t, so I guess they really WEREN’T trying to upset people. Midnight was better for sure, but why not 2am or 3am instead? You know, like that hour when we move the clocks forward or backward – a time when MOST of us are oblivious to the change, so the fewest of us are affected.
At times I despair – just who is running the joint, and who chose them? What were their qualifications that had us choose them over others? Why is it so hard for them to get even the simplest decisions right? Who vets their decision-making? Us I guess – once every 3 or 4 years…… Hmmmm……
Benny (having a grumble re stupidity in high places) :p
Yeah, that was me having a grumble about what seemed a quite stupid decision. In the end, that was quite a minor disruption, and yet, it didn’t need to happen if they had only thought a little more i.e use a 2am lockdown start time.
But there really has been far worse decisions, haven’t there?
One major one is this stop-start-stop-start-stop thing that goes on with borders and businesses. Borders shut with little notice leaving folks who are visiting inter-state relatives stranded. Wedding guest numebrs get restricted. Wedding caterers are pulled from pillar to post. How can most businesses run that way? Some might, but others just can’t. Imagine being a restaurant in this environment. You know you are able to open again, so you stock up with food to cook and re-sell, call your staff back in, and prepare to open up with a procedure in place to cover the required “contact tracing” et al.
Things go fine for a week, then some palooka high up decides “we must shut down again”. Really? Why? And how can this not cause even more problems? Bookings get cancelled, food spoils, staff are laid off – again! Border towns can lose half their customers at the stroke of a pen – and what of those families who live in one “twin city” but their kids go to school in the other?
NSW (along with several other countries) seem to be able to have most businesses (and borders) stay open full time. Why can’t Qld and Vic, and SA, and WA do the same? Some are worse than others – shutting a border with virtually NO notice at all. How can any business survive that kind of damage?
Why not be a wee bit slower to “shut everything down”. Surely there is a better way? Ask NSW !!!
Wow – check THIS out !!
Someone in Govt (a Senator) is finally taking a hard-nosed look at the “numbers” re how much we are spending/losing while endeavouring to save Covid lives. I’d previously thought Govts should be considering all sides to an economy, not just the “Covid cost”. i.e. lockdowns produce very serious health risks to so many people – especially to those businesses who are trying to keep their head above water. Lockdown after lockdown is beating many of them senseless.
And now (in the link above) a dollar value has been ascribed to the saving of a life – and it is $330 million per person !!!!!!!!
Can we really afford this? The Senator makes the statement that we as a nation “can’t afford the same healthcare facilities in the bush as in a big city – it is a fact of life”. As per the start of this paragraph, can we really afford to pay $330m to save each Covid life? And meanwhile, what other lives suffer, and how dreadfully? How about the single mum who is having to sleep with her family in their car because her work stopped and they can’t afford now to rent a house? How about the business owner who might be “going down for the third time” with yet ANOTHER lockdown that siphons income away from his business. Anxiety and depression must be having a field day in the midst of all this. What cost to those held in the grasp of THOSE “pandemics”? Is anyone counting? We focus on Covid to the exclusion of all else at our peril.
I know we don’t like to put a $ figure on “the value of a human life”, but do read the article to see how it sits with you.
Then, let me leave you with this small truthful extract from the link above:-
The hard reality is that we have become obsessed with the daily COVID-19 case numbers. But there are no press conferences announcing how many small businesses went under the night before, how many marriages broke up, or how many people lost their job.
I’m kinda surprised that nobody has needed to reply, to add more info, to disagree, or to have a rant of their own. No worries though – we are all where we are, with decisions to make, and the goalposts seem to keep on changing. Good luck with YOUR operation amongst all of the various Govts’ irrationality going on.
Just a week or so back, I heard one party from politics (I don’t recall just who…) who espoused the idea that ANY person standing for election as a candidate should be tested, and shown to have AT LEAST an IQ of 100 (i.e. to be at least an average member of our community). what do you think of THAT? I know that an IQ test is far from being the bees knees in determining suitability for any role, but hey, it is a start, and perhaps WAY better than what we have right now, yeah? And wouldn’t it be nice to know that whomever we vote for is at least “average or better” in the smarts department?
Or is that too easy? What do YOU think? Is there a better yardstick that is readily available?