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
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?
.
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
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
