Tennis Forum banner

121 - 140 of 214 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Perhaps they could just rename it the Australian Not open and restrict it just to Aussie and Kiwi players.

Kyrgios could get his first slam and Barty should win the women's singles.
Kyrgios still wouldn't win it. De Minaur or Millman would.

I would personally prefer Sam to win that type of thing.

Anyway ew, I hope the AO never just features local players or players from one or two other countries :-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,204 Posts
Regarding the current growth in Melbourne, the general trend around the world is that places that get hit hardest manage to become some of the best spots to be once they get it under control — see China, New York, and most of Europe for example. Spain is somewhat of an exception with recent outbreaks in Barcelona and the rest of Europe is in some ways playing with fire regarding not taking guidelines extremely seriously but so far so good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,546 Posts
It is increasingly starting to appear that Australia’s first lockdown was premature. If locking down an entire nation state of 25 million people because of a peak of 500 confirmed cases didn’t seem hysterical before, it certainly does now.

The truth is that there are much better policy responses to Coronavirus. You cannot isolate citizens & close borders indefinitely; you’re going to have to confront the reality of Coronavirus & make the difficult policy decisions eventually (which many leaders are afraid to do).

As a pointed out in a previous thread, many have prematurely celebrated the success of Australia and New Zealand. Achieving a low Covid death rate is not much of an achievement if your country is caught in a perpetual cycle of entering and exiting lockdowns months later (not to mention an economy brought to a standstill). The side effects of this are severe; the cure is worse than the disease.

The truth may be that herd immunity, especially in metropolitan cities with lots of tourism, is essential. And this may be achievable at an infection rate as low as 25% (according to latest Oxford University studies). Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, Coronavirus is not that deadly and many of us have immune systems with pre existing antibodies or T-cell responses to protect us.

The priority should therefore be to shield the elderly & slow the spread of the virus over time (so as not to overwhelm health care systems), while maintaining as much economic activity as possible. The goal should not be to halt the virus entirely (it seems we cannot stop coronavirus anymore than we can stop the flu). Instead of blaming and punishing citizens for acting in ways they cannot help, we need to confront the hysterical proponents of lockdown and risk-averse leaders who bend to their will. There are smarter ways to beat Covid.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,666 Posts
It is increasingly starting to appear that Australia’s first lockdown was premature. If locking down an entire nation state of 25 million people because of a peak of 500 confirmed cases didn’t seem hysterical before, it certainly does now.

The truth is that there are much better policy responses to Coronavirus. You cannot isolate citizens & close borders indefinitely; you’re going to have to confront the reality of Coronavirus & make the difficult policy decisions eventually (which many leaders are afraid to do).

As a pointed out in a previous thread, many have prematurely celebrated the success of Australia and New Zealand. Achieving a low Covid death rate is not much of an achievement if your country is caught in a perpetual cycle of entering and exiting lockdowns months later (not to mention an economy brought to a standstill). The side effects of this are severe; the cure is worse than the disease.

The truth may be that herd immunity, especially in metropolitan cities with lots of tourism, is essential. And this may be achievable at an infection rate as low as 25% (according to latest Oxford University studies). Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, Coronavirus is not that deadly and many of us have immune systems with pre existing antibodies or T-cell responses to protect us.

The priority should therefore be to shield the elderly & slow the spread of the virus over time (so as not to overwhelm health care systems), while maintaining as much economic activity as possible. The goal should not be to halt the virus entirely (it seems we cannot stop coronavirus anymore than we can stop the flu). Instead of blaming and punishing citizens for acting in ways they cannot help, we need to confront the hysterical proponents of lockdown and risk-averse leaders who bend to their will. There are smarter ways to beat Covid.
LOL, New Zealand has 22 active cases right now far less than any other country in the world. It dropped from 27 to 22 on June 22. NZL have this thing very much under control for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
LOL, New Zealand has 22 active cases right now far less than any other country in the world. It dropped from 27 to 22 on June 22. NZL have this thing very much under control for now.
Exactly. And all those cases are in people in quarantine that have recently returned from overseas. NZ hasn't had a case of community transmission of the virus in over 80 days. It would seem very likely an early, hard lockdown has eliminated the virus with only 22 deaths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,546 Posts
LOL, New Zealand has 22 active cases right now far less than any other country in the world. It dropped from 27 to 22 on June 22. NZL have this thing very much under control for now.
“for now” being the operative words. And what happens when they relax border restrictions? The evidence increasingly suggests that Coronavirus is not going away any time soon; any country with limited immunity will continue to be susceptible to major outbreaks (at least until a vaccine is available).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I guess pro life conservatives aren't so pro life after all......



I believe the Australian Open will almost certainly happen, especially with proper restrictions and they have more time than the USTA to plan and who knows what it'll be like in January.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
It is increasingly starting to appear that Australia’s first lockdown was premature. If locking down an entire nation state of 25 million people because of a peak of 500 confirmed cases didn’t seem hysterical before, it certainly does now.
Are you unable to read? The lockdowns in Australia worked fine, with numbers of cases right down to an easily manageable level. Ishgever's post quite clearly stated that the primary cause of this "second wave" in Melbourne appears to be TOTALLY due to the insanely risky behaviour of security staff at the isolation hotels:
1. Having sex with travellers returning from overseas, irrespective of that person's health or Covid-19 status;
2. Taking people who had already tested positive for Covid-19 out shopping; and
3. Taking absolutely no precautions when going to large family gatherings (which broke the rules of maximum numbers in one place anyway).

]As a pointed out in a previous thread, many have prematurely celebrated the success of Australia and New Zealand.
What is premature about it? Australia was well on the way to having virtually no cases until these stupid security staff relaunched a new wave all by themselves. New Zealand HAS eliminated Covid-19 from the community. Full stop.

Achieving a low Covid death rate is not much of an achievement if your country is caught in a perpetual cycle of entering and exiting lockdowns months later (not to mention an economy brought to a standstill). The side effects of this are severe; the cure is worse than the disease.
Again, what has this to do with New Zealand? We came out of lockdown three months ago. Our staged return to normality (barring overseas travel) was completed weeks ago, as you can see anywhere you go. Our rugby stadiums have seen full crowds at every single provincial match; our skifields have been filled to bursting point since opening; we have had New Zealanders taking the chance to visit places all around the country that many have never seen before.

We do NOT intend to go back into lockdown if we can help it.

The truth may be that herd immunity, especially in metropolitan cities with lots of tourism, is essential. And this may be achievable at an infection rate as low as 25% (according to latest Oxford University studies). Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, Coronavirus is not that deadly and many of us have immune systems with pre existing antibodies or T-cell responses to protect us.
Some of the Oxford researchers believe that herd immunity may be possible at levels as low as 20%. However, that is in very specific cases. Another study, from King's College, London, found that the level of "potent antibodies" in infected people's systems dropped away very quickly, and Professor Jonathan Heeney of Cambridge University's reaction was that "the findings had put 'another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity.'" Both of these findings are summarised in the report below.

The priority should therefore be to shield the elderly & slow the spread of the virus over time (so as not to overwhelm health care systems), while maintaining as much economic activity as possible.
Nobody will argue with that.
The goal should not be to halt the virus entirely (it seems we cannot stop coronavirus anymore than we can stop the flu). Instead of blaming and punishing citizens for acting in ways they cannot help, we need to confront the hysterical proponents of lockdown and risk-averse leaders who bend to their will. There are smarter ways to beat Covid.
Lockdown has worked extremely well for New Zealand, and it has for most of Australia as well. I'm sure that other countries will also say that their lockdowns worked. No country has been a "hysterical proponent" of lockdown, let alone having a leader who is "risk-averse." It is quite clear from plenty of studies undertaken about the virus in both the UK and the USA that, if proper lockdowns had been applied (in the UK, earlier than it was), tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.

It is the leaders of those countries who have been "risk-averse" - averse to making any decision that might affect their political future. Boris Johnson may have got away with it - Donald Trump's handling of the crisis in the USA is utterly despicable. Hopefully it will cost him any chance of re-election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
“for now” being the operative words. And what happens when they relax border restrictions?
Ain't never gonna happen until there's a proven vaccine - however long that may take.

The evidence increasingly suggests that Coronavirus is not going away any time soon; any country with limited immunity will continue to be susceptible to major outbreaks (at least until a vaccine is available).
No COUNTRY has ANY immunity - and probably never will, whatever the Oxford modelling studies suggest. There is just too much difference between different regions, even within one country, to make any sort of claims about any sort of immunity (herd or otherwise) when so much about this virus is simply unknown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
A worrying trend that's evident in Australia and all over the world is countries or individual states (especially here in Australia) acting like this pandemic is a competition, and using low case numbers an excuse to brag or act superior.

I absolutely hated it when Australia was doing "super well" and our federal government was constantly bragging about it. Like...okay? There are countless factors that led to that scenario, most of which were luck. Australians on average are not any more intelligent, more diligent or more health-conscious than any other nation. In fact, many countries are more law-abiding and hygiene-aware. And what is this attitude anyway? Why should we think we're superior to an innocent American or Brazilian or Indian who's had the misfortune of being struck down with this virus, despite acting no differently to us and just being unlucky enough to live in those circumstances?

The individual person in any country has basically no control over this situation. Let's just think about how this is ravaging almost the entire world and how much damage it's doing.

Anyway...

Every country's strategy (or lack thereof) has pros and cons. For the places that handled it extremely well - what now? How can they possibly accept opening back up to the rest of the world and risking the virus coming back in without their economy completely collapsing under isolation? For the places that handled it extremely badly - what now? How are they going to stop this wave of sickness and death and how are they going to handle the fallout? And how are they going to convince the rest of the world to open up to them?

The fact is that nobody knows wtf to do. It's all a game of guesswork right now and trying the best that we can (or in some cases - not trying, lol). Trial and error is the name of the game.

My opinion about the AO is changing daily. Just yesterday or the day before I said it won't happen...but today I'm thinking it will, lol. The Australian government seems adamant that border closures are to be removed ASAP and that our goal is suppression rather than elimination, and the Australian Open is a major event that they won't want to cancel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Are you unable to read? The lockdowns in Australia worked fine, with numbers of cases right down to an easily manageable level. Ishgever's post quite clearly stated that the primary cause of this "second wave" in Melbourne appears to be TOTALLY due to the insanely risky behaviour of security staff at the isolation hotels:
1. Having sex with travellers returning from overseas, irrespective of that person's health or Covid-19 status;
2. Taking people who had already tested positive for Covid-19 out shopping; and
3. Taking absolutely no precautions when going to large family gatherings (which broke the rules of maximum numbers in one place anyway).


What is premature about it? Australia was well on the way to having virtually no cases until these stupid security staff relaunched a new wave all by themselves. New Zealand HAS eliminated Covid-19 from the community. Full stop.


Again, what has this to do with New Zealand? We came out of lockdown three months ago. Our staged return to normality (barring overseas travel) was completed weeks ago, as you can see anywhere you go. Our rugby stadiums have seen full crowds at every single provincial match; our skifields have been filled to bursting point since opening; we have had New Zealanders taking the chance to visit places all around the country that many have never seen before.

We do NOT intend to go back into lockdown if we can help it.


Some of the Oxford researchers believe that herd immunity may be possible at levels as low as 20%. However, that is in very specific cases. Another study, from King's College, London, found that the level of "potent antibodies" in infected peopel's systems dropped away very quickly, and Prfessor Jonathan Heeney of Cambridge University's reaction was that "the findings had put 'another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity.'" Both of these findings are summarised in the report below.


Nobody will argue with that.

Lockdown has worked extremely well for New Zealand, and it has for most of Australia as well. I'm sure that other countries will also say that their lockdowns worked. No country has been a "hysterical proponent" of lockdown, let alone having a leader who is "risk-averse." It is quite clear from plenty of studies undertaken about the virus in both the UK and the USA that, if proper lockdowns had been applied (in the UK, earlier than it was), tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.

It is the leaders of those countries who have been "risk-averse" - averse to making any decision that might affect their political future. Boris Johnson may have got away with it - Donald Trump's handling of the crisis in the USA is utterly despicable. Hopefully it will cost him any chance of re-election.

Very good post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,546 Posts
Ain't never gonna happen until there's a proven vaccine - however long that may take.


No COUNTRY has ANY immunity - and probably never will, whatever the Oxford modelling studies suggest. There is just too much difference between different regions, even within one country, to make any sort of claims about any sort of immunity (herd or otherwise) when so much about this virus is simply unknown.
That will have an adverse affect on your economy. Nothing good can come of that. Deaths related to Covid might be the lowest in the world but you might end up dealing with a whole range of other health issues as a consequence of that. Again, the cure may be worse than the disease.

Also, you are wrong about the immunity aspect. If it were the case that London had not reached some level of immunity, we would see cases exploding again. Alas, that is not the case.

The error I think is in trying to eliminate something that may be inevitable (rather than simply suppress it). By trying to eliminate the virus, you are trying to avoid the trade offs the come with it. You are trying to avoid making the difficult decisions. That may only cost you in the long run.

As the Oxford epidemiologist put it:


The other interesting issue that I’ve suddenly realised with this particular threat, is that people are treating it like an external disaster, like a hurricane or a tsunami, as if you can batten down the hatches and it will be gone eventually. That is simply not correct. The epidemic is an ecological relationship that we have to manage between ourselves and the virus. But instead, people are looking at it as a completely external thing.

What’s disappointed me about the way this has been approached is it has been approached along a single axis, which, if you like, is a scientific one. Even within that context, you could argue that it’s too one-dimensional, so we’re not thinking about what’s happening with other infectious diseases or how many people are going to die of cancer.

That’s the axis of disease, but then there’s the socioeconomic axis, which has been ignored. But there’s a third, aesthetic access, which is about how we want to live our lives. We are closing ourselves off not just to the disease, but to other aspects of being human.

What politicians can do is maybe alter their language to reflect that we do live with risk, we have to make quite difficult decisions about trade-offs that exist between ways of life, between livelihoods, and sacrifices that have to be made at a societal level.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
That will have an adverse affect on your economy. Nothing good can come of that. Deaths related to Covid might be the lowest in the world but you might end up dealing with a whole range of other health issues as a consequence of that. Again, the cure may be worse than the disease.
Obviously the economy will be screwed, but the economy is also screwed by the health crisis.

And it's also true that other health issues may become more problematic in this time too.

This is the thing. Countries have taken their own roads in this pandemic and pursued their own strategies.

But can you imagine NZ seeing the rest of the world in this state and deciding to allow coronavirus back in? I doubt it. What will the long term impacts of that kind of thing be? Who knows. Maybe NZ will suffer more in the long term. But maybe it won't. It's all guesswork at this point. Though do you really think that NZers would accept coronavirus again by choice in any case?

As the rest of the world rolls on tentatively, NZ (and potentially Australia too) will watch closely. I recognise how risky this is, but you can't convince ordinary civilians to accept restrictions on their personal liberties or risk their health very easily.

I hope NZ and AUS will emerge strongly from this. I'm not naive about the negative impacts of this, but I think it's a question of taking the "least bad" route right now.

The error I think is in trying to eliminate something that may be inevitable (rather than simply suppress it). By trying to eliminate the virus, you are trying to avoid the trade offs the come with it. You are trying to avoid making the difficult decisions. That may only cost you in the long run
The virus is here to stay. It's how we deal with it that will shape the future. Currently, no country has found a way to carry on unscathed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AwonderfulKiwi

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,546 Posts
Obviously the economy will be screwed, but the economy is also screwed by the health crisis.
True. The difference is that you risk hampering the economic recovery if you continue to put restrictions on borders and, by extension, restrictions on economic activity.

Like you say, there are pros and cons to each strategy. But I do feel that the cons of lockdowns do need to be looked at with far more scrutiny. Some of the language around lockdowns is frankly dogmatic.

Countries that went into lockdown very early may have low mortality rates, but still have to maintain or reinstate strict social distancing rules in case of new outbreaks; meanwhile, countries that went into lockdown later may have higher mortality rates but be able to return to normal life sooner without the risk of major outbreaks because their is some immunity in the community.

And again, it’s worth pointing out that lockdowns are not the only way to suppress the virus. There are much smarter & targeted policy options.

the trend you notice of people acting smug or superior because of their low mortality rates is exactly the kind of premature celebration im referring to. It’s way too early for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
True. The difference is that you risk hampering the economic recovery if you continue to put restrictions on borders and, by extension, restrictions on economic activity.

If you try to eliminate the virus, you have no immunity to it. You will therefore be highly susceptible to major outbreaks. There will always people whose behaviour is “insanely risky”; some things our out of our control.
Of course. These are all unknowns. Almost nobody alive today was around in the Spanish Flu times, and the world is unrecognisable now anyway.

Governments are taking chances. This virus is barely 6 months old, so we don't even know the long term effects of it - is there immunity? Will people's health be affected forever? For a year? We don't know for sure.

In general I agree that a balanced approach is the best one, but again - how do we achieve that balance? As we've seen here in Melb, one or two cases can become thousands very quickly. Maybe after this outbreak is contained we'll have to stay in some state of restrictions moving forward, which will allow borders to open without huge risk? Idk.

And I really think it's going to be impossible to convince citizens of a country or state that's eliminated the virus that they should voluntarily accept it back unless their economy is genuinely screwed.

the trend you notice of people acting smug or superior because of their low mortality rates is exactly the kind of premature celebration im referring to. It’s way too early for that.
It's way too early, agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
That will have an adverse affect on your economy. Nothing good can come of that.
Of course it's had an adverse effect on our economy, and I would never deny that. However, our government, unlike some, is actually doing a hell of a lot to try to keep people and businesses afloat, and we're even more lucky because our economy is in far better shape than that of the UK, or the US - or, in fact, most of the developed world.
Deaths related to Covid might be the lowest in the world but you might end up dealing with a whole range of other health issues as a consequence of that. Again, the cure may be worse than the disease.
What "other" health issues might you be worried about? Obviously some people's mental heath suffered during lockdown, which is only to be expected, but those restrictions were lifted months ago and the vast majority of people have returned to a life which is pretty much the same as it was before Covid-19.

No, people can't go overseas on holiday - but, with the way the world is at the moment, it's not just me who actually thinks that's a good thing in general terms. As I posted elsewhere, a lot of New Zealanders are discovering (or rediscovering) parts of their own country that they have never seen, simply by taking a holdiay at home instead of overseas.

Also, you are wrong about the immunity aspect. If it were the case that London had not reached some level of immunity, we would see cases exploding again. Alas, that is not the case.

The error I think is in trying to eliminate something that may be inevitable (rather than simply suppress it). By trying to eliminate the virus, you are trying to avoid the trade offs the come with it. You are trying to avoid making the difficult decisions. That may only cost you in the long run.
We're obviously never going to agree on this. We are not "trying" to eliminate it - we HAVE eliminated Covid-19. As others have pointed out, the only active cases in New Zealand are those amongst the returning citizens and residents. The most difficult decision for any government in this crisis is "do we save lives, or do we concentrate solely on the economy, and to hell with everything else?" Guess what? If you save lives, you have a better chance of saving the economy as well. You live in a country which has tried various strategies to cope with Covid-19, and a huge number of people only started to take it seriously when Boris Johnson contracted the disease - which was way too late.

I don't expect the UK, or any other country with a large population, to eliminate it. There are just too many people, with too many individual agendas, to have a chance of doing so - even if a majority (vast in some cases) are prepared to comply with lockdown and social distancing rules.

As the Oxford epidemiologist put it:
...
Again, I'm not saying that what has worked here will necessarily work in the UK. What he has written is well thought out, but it doesn't all apply to the whole world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
@AwonderfulKiwi I kind of think the idea is back on again lol. We had "only" 300 cases in VIC today. It definitely doesn't mean we've turned a corner or even that we've hit the peak, because there's been so much yo-yoing with numbers, but this is the second consecutive day of going down and we've been mostly within this 250-400 range for a few weeks now. I think things are starting to stabilise.

Today I left the house (one of the first times since March lol) and 100% of people were wearing masks. It's only two days in, but in our typical Melbourne way, everyone was out in their fair trade, vintage colour-coordinated masks.

But most interestingly, Scotty from Marketing (our name for our PM, if you didn't know lol) reiterated the commitment to the suppression rather than elimination strategy but qualified that this means "zero community transmission". This is a bit different to what they've said before.

This means that unlike last time, when the federal government forced VIC to open up earlier than we were prepared to (and thus helped this hotel outbreak spread faster and wider), that probably won't happen this time.

It's also concerning that many of the outbreaks are taking place in aged care homes. This is a reflection of the casualisation of our workforce. The VIC government has set up some kind of commission to try to tackle this problem immediately.

There's also been two new payments introduced by the VIC government. One $1500 payment is available to people who miss work when they need to self-isolate either after testing positive or being identified as a close contact. An additional $300 payment is available to people who will have to miss work when isolating after testing while waiting for their results.

In addition, contract tracing in VIC has gone to a new level. Apparently they try calling you twice if you're identified as a close contact. If they can't contact you, Australian army personnel escort contact tracers from the department to your home. If you're not there, you receive a fine.

This from Scotty:

'Prime Minister Scott Morrison said health authorities would not be deterred by setbacks that have seen some Victorians not engaging with health advice.

"If they don't answer the phone, we'll knock on the door. If they don't come for testing, we'll drive a truck to the end of their street and we'll test them there," he said.

"The way that you deal with this is you don't get frustrated about it, you don't wallow in concern about it, you just take action."'

And from Dan Andrews (our Premier)



While most states have their borders open to each other to some degree, VIC is totally cut off still. This is massively impacting NSW because NSW and VIC are basically twin states (as are Melb and Syd twin cities) and the two states have many border communities that are cut off at present. The economy is being destroyed by this. Things are even worse for Tasmania which relies very heavily on Victoria for things like services; apparently many places there require people from Melbourne to go down regularly to do certain tasks. South Australia is also heavily impacted. But really, the whole country is screwed by a) the loss of economic activity from its second biggest state and fastest growing economy, and b) the resources required to help Victoria control its outbreaks at the moment like the army, extra testing, contact tracing etc.

It really seems like the Australian government is deadset on getting Victoria and NSW down to zero cases. Our VIC lockdown is supposed to end in 3.5 weeks. It's obviously going to be extended imho, but I think with how aggressive these measures are things will get under control within good time. Apparently the goal is for all borders to be open by the end of the year.

If that's the case, and with Tiley saying that heaven and earth will be moved to have the AO here, I think it's going to happen unless Australia completely combusts.

EDIT: I do feel like I'm living in movie right now. Checkpoints within my own city, army personnel tracking people down and monitoring everyone, not being allowed to leave my own area, masks, fines everywhere, soldiers and government officials coming to our houses, payments for being tested for a disease...lol. Just lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AwonderfulKiwi
121 - 140 of 214 Posts
Top