Coronavirus | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Coronavirus

Yeah I use covidlive as it removes all the noise of the reclassifications. Very strong result today especially with the positive test rate too.
 
Coburgtiger said:
I don't know why you keep massaging numbers to try to make a situation look worse than it is, and I can only assume it's a political agenda.

For all those reasons, our case rate is orders of magnitude less than the states. And to suggest Victoria is the 'USA of Australia' unnecessarily belittles the sacrifices and the efforts of the Australian people, and just flagrantly pushes a political agenda, which is the only thing you've ever done on this thread.
Click to expand...

All I did was reply to a post that presented numbers that I thought did not make an appropriate comparison. I probably stretched it and made a similaraly inappropriate comparison (but only to the same extent of the original poster),. On any measure VIC has managed covid poorly compared to every other state in Aust. Numbers/death rate etc are more than 10 times worse than most of the rest of Aust. If Aust is held up as an example of how to manage covid there needs to be an asterix noting the comparative issues that have been experienced in Vic. Only those with political agendas would see it elsewise.

I could care less who is in charge, if it was a state liberal gov't that presided over the VIC fiasco I would have the same opinion. The NSW state gov't botched it at the start with the Ruby Princess. A total debacle and hopefully those responsible are held accountable and there are lessons learnt. Just as I hope the same happens here as a result of the inquiry.

The political agendas are somewhat more clear from those that somehow blame the Vic fiasco on - luck, the federal gov't, the Vic public putting pressure on the gov't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ridley said:
I just knew this hotel quarantine inquiry would be a complete farce. The senior government ministers and bureaucrats have treated it with complete contempt. "I can't remember" or "I don't recall" are the only phrases seemingly muttered by anyone. We either have a government that is full of ministers and bureaucrats that have all suddenly developed amnesia, in which case they should remove themselves from office, or they are just incompetent liars.

We all know which one is true. And all the while they treat the inquiry and the Victorian electorate with contempt hundreds of people are dead and tens of thousands have no income. An entire city of 5 million people is locked in their houses for 7 weeks and counting. How much is this inquiry costing taxpayer again? Not too mention the legal fees payable to QCs to help them cover their arses. What a *smile* joke and a disgrace.

These people suck at the public teet for a large portion of their lives and this is how they respond? What's wrong with having the common decency to admit mistakes and learn from them so we can be better prepared in the future?
Click to expand...
I have a slightly different view. My suspicion is that the reason they don’t know who made the decision is that it may well be true. That view comes from seeing these things happen. Decisions are made in a process in the bowels of the bureaucracy because that is what happens.
I don’t say that to defend any one individual but to say that this is a commentary about how the system works and if we want to change it we need to look at how the mechanisms of government and the bureaucracY actually work in this state.
For example I think it is very feasible that the secretary of the DHHS didn’t know who made the decision. The question of whether she should have is a totally different one and fair, and if she should have known and told the minister is also fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sintiger said:
I have a slightly different view. My suspicion is that the reason they don’t know who made the decision is that it may well be true. That view comes from seeing these things happen. Decisions are made in a process in the bowels of the bureaucracy because that is what happens.
I don’t say that to defend any one individual but to say that this is a commentary about how the system works and if we want to change it we need to look at how the mechanisms of government and the bureaucracY actually work in this state.
For example I think it is very feasible that the secretary of the DHHS didn’t know who made the decision. The question of whether she should have is a totally different one and fair, and if she should have known and told the minister is also fair.
Click to expand...
In my opinion that is just as bad or even worse. Ignorance and incompetence is no excuse. They are elected by the public and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to govern the state. They can't just throw their hands up in the air and say "*smile* happens". Hundreds of people are dead because of this. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have no income. That could have and should have been avoided.

In any case most of the ministers and bureaucrats are not saying they don't know. They are saying they don't remember or they can't recall. They are lying; all of them. To cover their own arses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ridley said:
In my opinion that is just as bad or even worse. Ignorance and incompetence is no excuse. They are elected by the public and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to govern the state. They can't just throw their hands up in the air and say "*smile* happens". Hundreds of people are dead because of this. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have no income. That could have and should have been avoided.

In any case most of the ministers and bureaucrats are not saying they don't know. They are saying they don't remember or they can't recall. They are lying; all of them. To cover their own arses.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was better or worse Ridley, in fact I said that my comments were not meant to defend anyone. I am just offering a different perspective which you can accept or not.

You are wrong about one thing they are saying however, some said they didn't know and some said they didn't remember. That goes right back to pre enquiry when the CHO said he didn't know.

I have almost no doubt that the decisions were made in the bowels of the bureaucracy and as I said the question from that of whether senior people should have known about it and should the minister have therefore known is a totally different question and also one I am not defending. Of course they should have known but I am not surprised at all that they didn't and that comes from seeing the state bureaucracy at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sintiger said:
I didn't say it was better or worse Ridley, in fact I said that my comments were not meant to defend anyone. I am just offering a different perspective which you can accept or not.

You are wrong about one thing they are saying however, some said they didn't know and some said they didn't remember. That goes right back to pre enquiry when the CHO said he didn't know.

I have almost no doubt that the decisions were made in the bowels of the bureaucracy and as I said the question from that of whether senior people should have known about it and should the minister have therefore known is a totally different question and also one I am not defending. Of course they should have known but I am not surprised at all that they didn't and that comes from seeing the state bureaucracy at work.
Click to expand...
Yes Sin I understand that you are not defending them. My apologies it did appear that I was attacking your post which was not my intention; my attack was on the incompetence, ignorance and outright deceit shown by government ministers and bureaucrats responding to the inquiry. The Victorian public deserves a lot better than this.

The CHO is one that I believe has done a reasonable job; I understand completely that hotel quarantine was not his domain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sintiger said:
I have a slightly different view. My suspicion is that the reason they don’t know who made the decision is that it may well be true. That view comes from seeing these things happen. Decisions are made in a process in the bowels of the bureaucracy because that is what happens.
I don’t say that to defend any one individual but to say that this is a commentary about how the system works and if we want to change it we need to look at how the mechanisms of government and the bureaucracY actually work in this state.
For example I think it is very feasible that the secretary of the DHHS didn’t know who made the decision. The question of whether she should have is a totally different one and fair, and if she should have known and told the minister is also fair.
Click to expand...

The problem is this wasn't making decisions on what colour paint to use in a new hospital.

The threat of the virus was well known. It was/is the biggest public health crisis in history. Dr Sutton is on the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC). They were aware back in Jan/February of the risks of infection from returning travellers. They were issuing statements on a daily basis (at times) about the progression of the virus. About what actions to take. It was Sutton who shut down the Grand Prix. So he was capable of influencing critical decisions.

Does it also mean Sutton has to share any blame for hotel quarantine not being addressed and actioned as a critically important part of the strategy to protect the community? Or is it a case of (as you suggest) his message being lost in bureaucracy?
 
Ridley said:
Yes Sin I understand that you are not defending them. My apologies it did appear that I was attacking your post which was not my intention; my attack was on the incompetence, ignorance and outright deceit shown by government ministers and bureaucrats responding to the inquiry. The Victorian public deserves a lot better than this.

The CHO is one that I believe has done a reasonable job; I understand completely that hotel quarantine was not his domain.
Click to expand...
Sure I get it and no personal offence taken. My problem is that because I have seen it in so many different domains it doesn't surprise me and that's probably for me personally a bad thing.
Some people take this the wrong way but I also believe that in many ways other states have done ok despite their bureaucracies not because of them. Again I say that not to defend Victoria in particular but just to point out that it's not as simple as saying Victoria is bad and others are good, because they aren't. I mean that in general not related specifically to security guards and hotel quarantine because clearly mistakes were made in Victoria that weren't made elsewhere in relation to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
MD Jazz said:
The problem is this wasn't making decisions on what colour paint to use in a new hospital.

The threat of the virus was well known. It was/is the biggest public health crisis in history. Dr Sutton is on the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC). They were aware back in Jan/February of the risks of infection from returning travellers. They were issuing statements on a daily basis (at times) about the progression of the virus. About what actions to take. It was Sutton who shut down the Grand Prix. So he was capable of influencing critical decisions.

Does it also mean Sutton has to share any blame for hotel quarantine not being addressed and actioned as a critically important part of the strategy to protect the community? Or is it a case of (as you suggest) his message being lost in bureaucracy?
Click to expand...
I give the same answer i gave to Ridley. I am not defending them just saying that is the way it works, and I am not defending that either. Just saying that to me, as someone who has seen them action, I can totally believe they didn't know

As for Brett Sutton it is well documented that his status in the Victorian DHHS against where the CHO sits in other states. There is no doubt in my mind he was not involved in hotel quarantine. Should he have been ? yes, but that wasn't and still isn't the structure something that was confirmed and defended by the secretary of DHHS 2-3 days ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sintiger said:
You are wrong about one thing they are saying however, some said they didn't know and some said they didn't remember. That goes right back to pre enquiry when the CHO said he didn't know.

I have almost no doubt that the decisions were made in the bowels of the bureaucracy and as I said the question from that of whether senior people should have known about it and should the minister have therefore known is a totally different question and also one I am not defending. Of course they should have known but I am not surprised at all that they didn't and that comes from seeing the state bureaucracy at work.
Click to expand...

Having worked around government bureaucracy for over 20 years I can also believe this is the case. As you've also said this doesn't excuse them but raises different questions.

Also just throwing this out there what if there was a direction or at least a strong suggestion from the Federal bureaucracy that private security be used given that they did use Federal Government contractors.
 
Sintiger said:
I give the same answer i gave to Ridley. I am not defending them just saying that is the way it works, and I am not defending that either. Just saying that to me, as someone who has seen them action, I can totally believe they didn't know

As for Brett Sutton it is well documented that his status in the Victorian DHHS against where the CHO sits in other states. There is no doubt in my mind he was not involved in hotel quarantine. Should he have been ? yes, but that wasn't and still isn't the structure something that was confirmed and defended by the secretary of DHHS 2-3 days ago.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he was involved. You have previously advised he is not. But he is on the AHPPC. They were meeting regularly from February. They were issuing regular statements about risks associated with covid. About travellers. About quarantine. Surely this man with his background and the added knowledge of these regular briefings was the one man that should have been directing the Vic response? He was the one who apparently stepped in and canned the grand prix and should be congratulated for that decision. Did he exceed his gambit in doing this? There should also be a question as to why he wasn't intimately involved in the hotel quarantine response. If that is a system/bureaucracy issue you would hope its addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
MD Jazz said:
I'm not saying he was involved. You have previously advised he is not. But he is on the AHPPC. They were meeting regularly from February. They were issuing regular statements about risks associated with covid. About travellers. About quarantine. Surely this man with his background and the added knowledge of these regular briefings was the one man that should have been directing the Vic response? He was the one who apparently stepped in and canned the grand prix and should be congratulated for that decision. Did he exceed his gambit in doing this? There should also be a question as to why he wasn't intimately involved in the hotel quarantine response. If that is a system/bureaucracy issue you would hope its addressed.
Click to expand...
Yes. What the CHO is involved in and what he should be are two different things. Many have expressed that view
 
To be fair most other bureaucracies I have experienced (and that includes some outside Australia) are also a shambles :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Water Quality | Ticketek cyber incident >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom