As per runner's comment on teachers' union activists calling the tune, one of them was at it last night in SA, contradicting the premier who, to my surprise, has been doing a top job, without any knee jerking and emotionalism and BS - unlike Scottybotty. SA is doing very well, certainly not in need of advise from commo teachers' unions. The Liberals, asleep for all the years Labor was stuffing the state every which way, now look more likely to be re-elected than the Fed Libs do after Morrison's socialising and trashing of freedoms.

I lose respect for medical officers and governments claiming kids don't spread germs simply because they generally don't die from the same germs. Clearly, the economic imperative drives the assertion of such twaddle that every man and his dog knows to be a lie.

I think schools should stay open but can see why teachers might want a bit of PPE and consideration through special arrangements if they are in vulnerability groups.

If one teacher dies after catching covid-19 at school it will be all over the media for weeks, with the family saying how unfair it is and the opposition saying this is the greatest tragedy since the Titanic.
If suicides among young unemployed males increase by 2 a month for the period of the lockdown and then the recovery; and domestic violence increases by 20% during the lockdown, it will be ignored by the media and the opposition will say "Ah well, just one of those things that happens."
Governments are supposed to look at the big picture not just follow what the 5:00 news says is news, but if they don't follow the news they lose the next election.
Articles like this help to bring attention to the wider picture. Well done Graham.

Hi EricC,

Don't you just love 'the wider picture' ? Of course, it depends how it is painted.

Yes, teachers may be susceptible to the virus, some may even die, particularly the older ones. Carrier-children will pass the virus onto other children who will pass it on to their parents, who may be young enough not to come down with it, but who can also pass it on to work-mates - and, of course, THEIR parents. And up goes the curve again, putting even more strain on the health system and the lives of those wonderful people in it.

Just give it a few more weeks. Miss your golf, or your footie, or your haircut, for just a bit longer.

Christ, what a bunch of sooks.

Joe

It is claimed, probably correctly, that the whole lockdown philosophy is about protecting lives of the vulnerable. Unfortunately, for some, that means that opposing the lockdown thinking is the same as opposing the protection of vulnerable lives.

The notion that its possible to conceive of other ways to achieve the same or similar outcomes that doesn't involve lockdowns seems to not occur to many.

So we end up in this argument that you either go along with the current thinking, or you're indifferent to the lives of the vulnerable.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think we can blame governments of any ilk (well apart from the CCP) for panicking in the initial stages when presented with models showing across the board carnage. But its now perfectly clear that those models were woefully incorrect both because they aren't good at modelling these issues and they were working of invalid data. For crying out loud, Australia's initial response was based on Chinese data and we now know Chinese data was entirely fake.

But we now know much more and we know that this virus is not a danger for those under 50 (only one person under 50 has died in Australia and he wasn't even Australian). I understand there are those in exceptional circumstances as outlined by Big Nana, but they are the exception. Arrangements should be made to accommodate those exceptions, but there is currently no reason why those under 50 shouldn't return to their previous lives tomorrow.

The most vulnerable need to be sequestered and protected. We can't just abandon them to the wolves. But they will be best protected under the umbrella of a growing and vibrant economy, not the current quivering in the attic approach.

Dear mhaze,

I'm certainly accept there are many paths to achieving what is best for our communities.

If Australia had adopted Taiwan's practice of early and advanced screening, of getting masks and sanitiser out to whole community, of checking the temperature of every child stepping into a school yard or every person who handles food to be consumed by others, then fine, let's keep more of our businesses open.

But we also have to recognise we are not as compliant as some of the Asian countries in our behaviour nor are we as socially minded as some of the Scandinavian countries for instance. We have settled on what works for us and most Australians are happy enough with the approach we have taken.

Shouldn't that be enough? Leave the decisions up to medical staff and our leadership, the rest in just politics.