more suggestions this morning of a lack of/no training in infection control for the bouncers guarding our QT hotels, and in some cases they have been banging the travellers they’re supposed to be guarding.
Not sure if this has been posted. It’s quite interesting. But like a lot of these articles I haven’t got the time nor the knowledge to read the studies that have been referenced. But on face value, it would appear that children going to school and wiping snot on each other is much safer than adults doing it.
3 Likes
thanks for posting, will have a read.
Now that’s annoying!
Healthcare though yeah? Might be prioritised.
Possibly. She was told up to 5 days.
1 Like
Fair enough, but I would imagine that the words would now be that there’s “minimal” transmission at schools.
I still don’t understand how anyone can say definitively there has been no transmissions in x place. We have hundreds of unknown transmission cases.
2 Likes
I will start off today’s guessing game since no one else has… 81.
84… good year 
2 Likes
Well if every child that has tested positive has a known source of the virus it’d be very easy to identify whether they caught it from another child at school. Or teacher for that matter.
I’d imagine community transmission would be extremely low in children.
Yep agree it’s low and unlikely but we can’t say not happening.
Victoria by 74
You can if you’ve sourced every case in children elsewhere. If there’s unresolved community transmission in kids the I agree that it’s not a definitive statement you can make.
To suggest safe == there is no risk of transmission is just manipulating the language, without acknowledging that these are risk based decisions.
The risk of transmission in schools between students is considered low, or remote or whatever other risk word you want to use. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but it would be very unlikely when there was only small amounts of the virus around. If we get to a much worse situation where the virus is everywhere in society, then the risk of student to student transmission is higher, because there are so many opportunities for it to occur.
I know you like to suggest that student to student transmission is impossible, but we all know that such a declaration would be ignoring all of the unknowns. So let’s just go with “low risk”.
Getting the 1 cane of student to student transmission (if that’s what that Albanvale one is), actually probably supports the model, and provides some evidence that the assumptions about low risk of transmission are accurate. If you have no cases, perhaps you’d wonder if all of the confirmed contacts in class were getting tested while in quarantine, because you’d expect one or 2 out of the thousands of potential transmissions.
Anyway, I agree that it’s low risk. To say it can’t happen is to take a line that is unnecessarily hard. It’s safe. And we track the data and if it starts to diverge from what we’d assumed we reassess.
3 Likes
Haven’t heard that one, do you have any sort of link to that?
Seems to be a huge discrepancy in how long test results are taking, some are saying in as little as 1-2hrs whilst other are saying 5-6 days. Obviously some places are more under the pump than others but isn’t there a way to send some tests to centres that have lighter loads or is it just too hard?
Clickity click 66
1 Like
I’ve literally never said it’s impossible. Not even once. I’ve only ever said it’s extremely unlikely due to a number of factors, some circumstantial and others physiological.
Maybe I should sticky this into every single post I make for those who didn’t read it the first, second or 15th time…
We’re gonna crack the ton. 103.
From the outside it seems like Morrison and Dan are just trying to get it sorted out and have put their differences aside which is good. Morrison is pushing for other states to open borders to Victoria which I don’t think will go down well with the other leaders at all
1 Like