Households respond to threats differently ,..... but dangerously

 When things are not working, partnerships are threatened , so if this note hits you when things aren't going too good - don't be afraid .  You are definitely not alone .That your partner doesn't see things as you do is normal enough, even it is not nice .and can seem to threaten the most precious thing you share.
  
Because we can only meet and talk in the street under the Andrew's ascendancy in Victoria, I tested quite a few  couples to see how they were responding to the Coronavirus threat ( a clear media presentation) 
Results were universally strong ,
The females were deeply concerned about their more rebellious non conforming husbands ,. The husbands while saying less were seething under their breath . All of them long term parties , clearly ,even though they were walking together,  were doing it as it were,  in truce time . Good friends all. 
I was comforted in my protestant state by a rare neighbour who,  like myself,  had studied microbiology at University and practiced it every year since  Thus, while we were rare bods,   we had much to share. The fact that no one seemed to be  listening to us is also normal enough but in us made the quietr party seethe , Our wives really did listen but were a bit sick of being battered by not only SOSO  facts but angst and frustration at their husbands "not being heard" }
Good on you for trying  XX's . I too am trying . 

The lesson
Find a friend outside your home , and ladies find a friend for your husband outside the home -and because you have probably tried,  and its hard to find such men ,  just feed him, humor him  and say "yes dear "more often   Remember you are not saying with Yes  that' you agree" but "yes I hear you:' . 


Women are more likely to side with sentiment and small picture while men seek to have the respect they gain from working , usually in a bigger picture setting and perpective. These roles are not fixed but a normal starting point for our natural capabilities and contributions. ( who knows more in what are aand what info is shared)   
Ignorance and arrogance about what we think we know affects both sides too and creates the risk or war even when there is no reason for war. 

If you need a laugh , think of all the polys and wannabes who leave the comforts and truths of home  to proclaim in  parliament : "we know how to change other peoples behavior "

 

Resilience develops when we resist childlike behavior

Resilience develops when we resist childlike behavior 

Its 7th July 2020 . Premier Daniel Andrews  decided to lock people in towers and  out of the State . These moves are consistent with his season old proclamation that he and his team know what they are doing and he and is team are going to do a better job than his arch rival in Canberra . 
Is the crisis just another distraction by the attention seekers?   Where is the future  focus on the long term and its more genuine hopes and investment goals  ( the end of "the curve" - should there be such a thing at the end of a crisis?) , Is there no end to the fear mongering? 

Are the attention seekers obtaining a short gain for themselves at the cost of a long term unsound  investment loss for the rest of us ?. 

Our wannabes are being caught off guard - what works in good times doesn't always work in tough times Few leaders around the world were ready for dealing with a pandemic of any kind, but a new version of the cold virus ( apparently)  was known to be coming . 

Why so much panic and talk of new therapies  and solutions when microbiologists and ecologists had  said" its coming " and no immunization  or protection for the vulnerable can be expected 

Resilience of government expenditure  is tested more by trials than their easy going and more popular  throwing of technological band aids.   

Real risk requires toughness not toys and real resistance to childlike behavior  

THE  BIG PICTURE   Parental control 
Since the PM rightly called for order on what was needed , some States have made up their own rules and created their own chiefs . Today we have a mismatch of ideas risks and solutions which should never have happened 

On the best advice in March , the Commonwealth CMO said wisely (ie  not too many rules or variations on them with the same applying to guidelines ) 

ORIGINAL   
A Rules that must be observed until further notice 

social distancing , limited voluntary associations + others  ( not a complete list ) 
B  Actions NOT recommended to reduce risk    incl low cost benefit 
B1 wearing masks , B2 sanitizing , B3 personal testing for presence of the virus 

These simple guidelines maximized the likelihood of compliance, and reflected the rBIG isk understanding of those best able to judge . These simple directives enabled the exact details of those rules to be changed easily  ( eg move from 1- 3metres) and only a minimum number of appropriate risk ( now on,  now off ) and infection words to be used  

MALADAPTIVES      The ignorant rebellious elements?  
Andrews has taken on himself to challenge B3 and industry and others seem to have run with their own versions of B2.  No understanding has been promoted about the need to treat substrate  and hard surfaces differently. 
The Victorian government seems more interested in policing on the basis of what appears to some of us as suspect  detective work, than educating the public about their brilliance in these matters ,Not a sound and respectful balance IMO 
The media have taken on the word "cases" and "curves' and "smoothing curves' and "relief form restrictions" as if they, .and we all know they mean .
A crisis is a time when we should all be clear about what the terms mean . We don't know what the terms 'cases " mean for eg  
   In order to dramatize the death and infection rate  we get no divided stats on "actual at risk" categories ( infected not at risk , asymptomatic etc)  and end up hearing about ONLY  : huge numbers world wide and " anecdotes daily of sad cases   without realizing that many if not most of those who died  were at risk of dying from terminal lung associations anyway .    
All this short term gain for the attention seekers will bite them when the crisis is over and they are asked to explain the long term pain they have created --and -for what purpose?  

THE VICTORIAN VISION IN PARTICULAR 

is based on a simple idea that if we can test for the virus  we will limit its spread , 
The Andrews Government  thought,  despite sound advice to the contrary , they could  monitor its spread, and do a better job of preventing deaths than others are doing. 
This idea would only be useful if the spread of the virus and the toxicity of the virus could be directly linked  to  presence of high levels of antibodies in a  person.  

There are a least three reasons why this type of testing might not be very useful and quite distracting
A1. The virus maybe spreading more effectively and affecting more people than we can detect (, via the test used; the method assumed ).  The vulnerability of the virus to radiation /dry air maybe compromised by things we don't understand yet (microbial fungal or spore  associations , 3D form changes  and airborne and air conditioning system substrates (  like skin cells ) --add some more? 
. 

 A2 High antigen reactions to COVID19 , in some, or many cases  may be due to personal associations other than  the presence  of morbid levels of a new variation of the cold virus .say   particular immunological, bacteriological or other physiological matters,  drugs  etc 
A3  High antigen reactions to COVID19 , may be due to developing herd immunity in groups where individuals are living close to each other   ( not necessarily a bad thing if it isn't likely to cause/risk  death )Infact , if we are to assume "smoothing the curve" is a good thing, herd immunity should be an aim.  
A4  High antigen reactions to COVID19 don't appear to be easily correlated to either the risk of reinfection ,  death or disease in those who show them      
A5 Testing takes a long time and its progress and impact  is costly; especially if the cost benefit and the implications of the tests are not clear