COVID-19

The waters are muddy as hell on that. The fact that Downing Street is both an office, a residence and isn't a public place makes the regulations a nightmare.

That's not to say that the people attending actual parties weren't wrong regardless of what the guidance said. Just it's a minefield to figure out if action should have been taken.

 

England Figures Only - NHS

Number of people in Hospital with Covid 11/1/22 = 15,026
Number of people Primarily treated for Covid 11/1/22 = 8,379

Thats 45% of people in hospital being reported being in hospital with Covid being in hospital for some other reason.

This in the week it was estimated 4.3m people have had Covid.

Of those 45% of people in hospital for other reasons, they will fall under deaths within 28 days of a Covid test should they die which makes a complete mockery of the daily Covid Deaths.

 

My understanding was that the 'recent covid' exemption only applies to Australian citizens and that anyone else has to have two vaccinations. That's certainly the impression given by the Oz pm, who was clearly furious that Djokovic appeared to have been given an exceptional exemption and that the Victoria authorities had failed to follow an earlier directive to that effect.

As to your second point, as you said in your previous post, it's up to Oz how they control their borders. You may or may not agree with the rules but they have to be applied consistently to all people, regardless of their status.

 

I know that's what the PM is implying but he's wrong. It's not what the actual rules say. The exemption rules apply to everyone and a recent positive PCR is a valid reason to get the exemption from the medical practitioners.

I agree with applying the rules uniformly - even if I don't particularly think they've applied them well in this case - but even under that guise you can still comment on whether the rules themselves are arbitrary, harsh and draconian.

 

What seems apparent is that the rules are clear as mud and that the state and federal governments had differing interpretations of them. Also that the majority of Australians are, rightly or wrongly, opposed to Djokovic being allowed in because of his anti-vax stance and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he was being given special treatment by being allowed to enter.

 

The rules themselves are absolutely clear - the state government is seeking to muddy them because they've been embarrassed by it and people are eating it up.

Surely "rightly or wrongly" is the important bit. This goes back to my whole point through the pandemic. if you get health rules that stop being about health but have the support of the majority to "other" a minority then you're in quite a tricky place as a society. Australians are being taught to fear the unvaccinated - even those who plainly don't have the virus - when there are 150,000 people testing positive anyway.

 

Cobra Meetings take a new meaning.

 

Nice

 

Independent Sage will be gutted, after all they were calling for an immediate 10 day lockdown prior to Christmas.

 

People are crawling out of the woodwork now to admit parties before the parties get revealed by others, no doubt to limit the impact. However no doubt this has been triggered by a story that is about to drop, seeing as this woman was one of those who created and oversaw the rules as part of the Covid taskforce.

It's clear if you release that something happens you don't have to have things like Suitcases full of booze added to the story or broken swings.

 

Plus the Crown Properties issue which means unless specifically listed the regulations didn’t apply anyway

 

Have you got a link to the clear rules as I have read varying interpretations of them but haven’t yet found a link to the actually wording

 

No - Unfortunately by the looks of it you need to go through the visa process to get the link to them.

There's enough news links to say that it previous infection counts though to make it pretty reliable. I posted one earlier. It's even worth noting that even today the government aren't saying they're doing so because he contravened the rules just because "they can".

 

the problem is there are loads of reports saying it isn’t and some saying it only counts if you have a severe infection, whatever that is.

 

How do they classify a severe infection?

 

exactly. That is why I wondered what the exact wording was for there to be so many interpretations

 

God knows. I can't think how they would define it at all or what the purpose would be.

Unfortunately I don't think the rules are actually available openly anywhere without going through the process. In that case we can only really go by what the professionals have said and what went on in court.

 

What party it's not me gov.............

 

This is the best one I have seen so far.