Take this with a grain of salt, because I cannot confirm the voracity of the source, but... There is talk Tim Pallas will be the leader, possibly by as early as tomorrow, but at the latest next week. With the supposed "word" being that Pallas has the numbers and so Dan will resign citing "family reasons" in a bloodless coup.
I think he has snuffed this one out pretty quickly today
Take this with a grain of salt, because I cannot confirm the voracity of the source, but... There is talk Tim Pallas will be the leader, possibly by as early as tomorrow, but at the latest next week. With the supposed "word" being that Pallas has the numbers and so Dan will resign citing "family reasons" in a bloodless coup.
She was thrown under a bus by the same person who was driving it. Her tweet which I couldn't copy was telling and obviously not cleared by the premier. The faceless pen pushers should also be the ones falling on their swords but that never happens.
Jenny Mikakos has stood down. It was pretty obvious from yesterday's statements this was going to happen, but it is a good thing, because she was absolutely inept.
And it it... she was pretty damning of Andrews, making it clear she felt like she had been thrown under the bus by him
So with the final day of questions in the inquiry. You would think at least one of the following 2 statements must be true. The Victorian government so incompetent that they run the most critical program in the states recent history with absolutely no insistence on accountability, record keeping etc? The Victorian government lying?
Btw there is every chance if the government was a listed business and have this lack of detail for an inquiry, they would face being de-registered, receive huge fine and/or face potential criminal charges.
And this is all just on ONE element, the hotel bungling. Interesting that they are not being forced to release some of their "secret data" around their modelling and decision making, data that they insisted was in the public interest to not release.
Government without accountability and transparency... Is this Australia or Belarus? This inquiry to me proved that the government is about protecting it's own position above all else.
I don't understand why SA is opening the border with NSW, when the cases there are hovering around ten a day or so, not much different to Victoria which remains in stage 4 lock down.
They Vic numbers will crossover soon (1st week of October) to the worst NSW numbers of the last few months (early August), but they are a fair way from NSW's current numbers of cases that are not returning travelers. Victoria won't get to that stage until probably the 3rd week of October
Btw just another regional issue. The fact that Mildura has shutdown for this huge period of time, instead of implementing cross LGA checks with the police on the major roads is beyond me. Mildura hasn't had a case for 5 months, but was in the same level of lockdowns as Geelong.
This is another issue that really is not good enough. In reality Mildura would have been better if a bubble was created, complete with restrictions to other LGAs, but then negotiated access to NSW and SA. This would have allowed that economy to still thrive in this period, instead.. because of the bungling that has occurred elsewhere, the state government decided that regional Victoria was a "whole entity" and their economies would hang in the balance dependent on other regional areas. This seems quite ridiculous in hindsight.. I don't mind the original thought pattern behind this, but flexibility within the government should have shown up the issues such as the one described above and created solutions more specific to areas.
You would hope the government will come up with a much better process before a 3rd wave and the should already be constantly reviewing these scenarios
For the record, i'm not saying what he has done has been perfect. Nobody is. Instead i'm saying i can understand the overall picture to a degree and i'm not arguing the modelling as that is your baby and i trust your judgement on those things.
Again, on the overall spectrum he has done well. Would he do some things different if he had his time again? Sure. Wouldn't everybody??
I think that is our fundamental difference, I think on the overall spectrum he has not, on the first wave.. immensely successful, on the 2nd, really awful.
Btw on the restrictions, I would ease this week, but only ever so slightly, my issue with the road map he has is the next phase.
At the current rate, without some uncharted outbreak (which can happen so easily when the numbers are so low), we are on track for being under 15 cases (average over 14 days for the state) around October 1-2. That for me is when things get interesting, because NSW peaked at 13 cases a day averaged over 2 weeks in August and have managed to keep things relatively under control to date. Once Vicitoria's numbers go under NSW's peak numbers, it is going to be a hard sell to suggest that people really can't go and get a packet of smokes or a loaf of bread at 7/11 at 11pm at night.
I am not against it now, but it is going to be very interesting if things change... Despite all my disappointment in Dan's handling in this case, which I have posted also away from here, I have also posted that I have faith they will alter the roadmap, it is just a case of when.
But Kruddler You seem to at one stage suggest it could have shut down, but then suggest logistics means it couldn't easily. But why couldn't there be trigger points, I means when we were 2x, 3x, heading for 5 x and eventually ending on 7x the weekly rate from wave 1
I understand logistics are a big factor, but I don't buy that it creates the lead time we seen. No offense Kruddler, but you seem so invested in one side of the story that you are sure there must be alternative reasons. Perhaps I am so sure of my position it makes me scoff at such reasons as being okay..
But I can't buy that we "had" to have the extra 10,000 or so infections, because Dan couldn't get the logistics right, it implies we would need to face the same scenario if there is another wave.
Also the test, track/trace was a huge stuff up.
I mean the people most responsible for the size and duration of this outbreak is the government. Yes the age demographics suggest there are people doing the wrong thing to of course and we see that with the fines and the idiots, but most people are compliant and with sensible, well implemented and strong enough restrictions in place sooner, many many lives would have been saved.
The government though does not even want to share the data on the decision making, because it goes against he public interest. From today's papers.
Quote
Victoria’s curfew was put in place on August 2 to run from 8pm to 5am.
From September 14 it was loosened by former deputy public health commander Michelle Giles to 9pm to 5am and was due to expire on October 11.
Prof Giles had only spent nine days in the role when she signed off on the curfew and told the court she acted without any influence from Daniel Andrews or his office.
She said she made the decision based on government data that proved “a clear and direct correlation” between stage 4 restrictions and a reduction in case numbers.
However, that data remains secret data has not been tendered in court.
The Herald Sun reports that the lawyers representing the state government said they would resist the production of the data on public interest immunity grounds – which means the release of the documents would be against the public interest.
I mean come on, we don't have people mature enough to make debates and need to hide such data as though it is a state secret?
I am of the belief there will be a next time too by the way. It will likely happen a lot later than anyone is expecting, when COVID is a distant memory, but FLU season comes around every year, and COVID season is likely to come with it.
I am also, but I think with our geographical advantages afforded us, that we should be able to have some well published trigger points that the community is aware of and can prepare for and it should have a very high chance of not requiring a full lockdown again. Data should have multiple trigger points and there should be potentially actions per LGA etc, but this should all be able to be mapped out.
But they cannot use 14 day averages for this, that is absolutely certain. In fact I would have 1, 3, 5 & 7 day triggers and if any of these are met, they results in different levels of actions. The first levels of restrictions can be as simple as wearing masks outside your home and restricting numbers in buildings. And they can get much tighter, but that is just details.
I don't have a particular issue with regards to what you said, only that I would say most of my friends think I am left wing when I think I have moved to the center, but you are right being introspective is not always the easiest thing and I can openly say at times I have realised I have shown biases in conversations I have thought I have been impartial in. But that is different than having an agenda in any case.
But back to the only real main issue I have problem with there. Dan didn't have to work out how a lockdown would look with only a moments notice, not by any stretch, not did he need to do it without support. June 30th.. This is the date that drew me back into statistically analyzing data again for this virus. July 23rd we went to stage 3. It was already apparent that steps taken at that stage would only start to impact when the virus was at a rate 3 times higher than in the peak of the first wave. Now Dan had the 2nd half of June to start to show real concern and should have already had a clear plan in place come July 1, but as stated I worked mine out on what would have occurred with stage 3 a little over a week after that.
Dan acted much more swiftly in the first wave and deserved every plaudit thrown his way at that stage. But you don't have weeks on end to respond in a situation like this, because it costs lives. I think the vast majority of Victorian's supported the lockdown and again I am in that boat, but the inaction of the government to respond in an efficient manner cost hundreds of lives, that is not just a hypothetical, that is a fact. If a government was responsible for decisions resulting in this many deaths in any other situation they would face criminal charges ( not that I am suggesting Dan should actually face any charges), but at a minimum I think it is absolutely appropriate to question the response. Apart from the death and infection rates, of course it also directly resulted in a longer period of lockdown.
There was very very little doubt that the situation was out of control by June 30th, but by 7-10 days later, it was irrefutable. Dan found level 2 lockdowns in the first phase were not appropriate enough to resolve the issue, when the majority of cases were international travelers or contacts of international travelers. Knowing there was more of an unknown factor in the community spread it is impossible to believe the government could be clueless enough to not realise it had to act, but still it implemented soft leaf restrictions that were not enough. Some of these were okay and they did impact the degree of spread, but they were not hard enough and the government had enough information at hand that they should understood this.
If this happened in wave 1, I would understand it more (well I would have had serious questions as I was also calling for an early lockdown in wave 1), but in wave 2, with the knowledge of the virus at a more mature level, I find it inexcusable.
Somethings would seem straight forward Lockdown Aged Care from any visitors when the virus was in the community Have an advanced track/trace method in place Have tests that are returning results to patients in a expedient manner.
These are just a few things that should have been in place, but also.. why was there not already a roadmap on restrictions.. We hit these trigger points, we will do this, then this.. etc These could have been (and should have been) worked out and distributed to different sectors of the community, specifically business leaders.
Failing to prepare in the midst of a global pandemic seems negligent to me. Dan didn't need to just look and say "okay this looks bad" and then shut things down, this could very easily have been predetermined... and again it would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of hospitalizations.
Quote from: kruddler
That being said, immediately after you and I had this debate the other day, you started a 'who would you vote for' thread, so this is weighing on your mind politically, even if it is indirectly
Well it is true I don't think Dan should be in government, but probably I would vote labour if Dan was gone (as it stands now), but I could swing to Labour is Dan fixes the situation still, just because the Liberals are so screwed as well. But.. my interest was more general than you suggest.. Dan would have won an election in absolute landslide at the end of April, I was interested whether or not the public still felt this way or whether there was a strong or slight switch away from him. I wondered in the context that I had personally experienced this.
Also I am not against anyone voting for or against Dan. I am not against anyone thinking he done a great job or a poor job, in reality both sides have merits. But from my perspective, I am more interested in putting the tough questions to anyone in charge. And it happens of course that data and statistics happens to be the area I worked for a very long time, so analyzing situations and stats and facts frustrates me when I see things I don't like.
Well I agree on the Liberals, I mean they are a mess and I said in another post it is only hypothetical to imagine how they would have run things, but... it is a hypothetical if I am forced to make.. I don't like. I also agree with the worthless reporting from the likes of Sky News, but then we have left wing media also that bows down to Dan, so that works both ways, but the right wing Sky is one of the worst. The thing that worries me most about the Liberals is that I do have concerns they would be even worse, with a "open everything" policy, which would be a disaster.
I'm sick of all the political talk and grandstanding that runs along as a sideshow with COVID, specifically with Dan Andrews.
But isn't it also grandstanding or politicizing to suggest than anyone that thinks Dan should be gone is irrational? Not a dig, just a question.
Quote from: kruddler
People form an opinion based on which way they vote and what their party says.....and ignore the other side of things. A lot of the anti-Dan is simply anti-labour (not all mind you) dressed up in different clothing.
Would that include me, who is very vocal about poor Dan has been? Despite that fact I consider myself in the middle, I am in the middle left and if there were two equal candidates would vote labour. The 4 best politicians in my life from a Victorian or Federal level have been Bob Hawke, Little Johnny Howard, Jeff Kennett and Steve Bracks. 2 x ALP, 2 x Lib... but I was absolutely ALP in those days and would never have voted for Kennett or Howard.
Quote from: kruddler
I think it was GI2C who said its not about labour/liberal, its about doing the job from the position we are in and ultimately how that shapes up to people in power around the world.
Well does it need to be compared to people around the world. I mea I can't name so many other countries with the geographical situation of Victoria. No internationals (at all) after we stopped receiving them, there are not random boat people arriving on the shores of Portsea. We have almost non existant border breaches and that is with states who already have it completely under control.
We had a virus with known infection rates completely under control, failed to quarantine it and then failed to act.
Quote from: kruddler
That is why i give him a B+. OK, he was 2 weeks to slow to jump on the second wave. 2 weeks. Donald Trump (an extreme example i admit) is what, 7 months too slow to do anything about it so far. China, Italy, England....how slow were they by comparison?
If you mapped out how each leader handled it, he'd be near the pointy end (Hence B+) based on infections, actions and communication. Again, Perfect? No. But point to someone who has been perfect. Even if there is, there is still a Donald Trump on the other end of the spectrum.
I don't even know why Donald Trump would be used in any comparison, or Putin or Iraq's leaders etc. I can't make an argument that Papa Doc was an B+ leader because he wasn't Stalin for example. I am not actually comparing Stalin with Trump or Papa Doc with Dan, I am just stating you can't make a comparison here. They have different powers, run vastly different geographical areas and even then, you are comparing with the worst.
What about in comparison to Annastacia Palaszczuk Gladys Berejiklian Mark McGowan etc
And if you really want an international leader, how close is Dan to Jacinta Arden?
Your language suggests that 2 weeks is well not such a big deal, even when I suggest there is quite a reasonable chance that more than 50% of infections in the 2nd wave could still have been avoided by acting more quickly.
And btw I think 2 weeks is being extremely generous to Dan, in reality he should have acted as early as 21-25 days sooner than he did. I am using that as the base timeline in my modelling, because it is that time by which he absolutely had no excuses at all, could be under no illusion at all, that this was community wide and a major infection requiring more than wet lettuce responses.
At this stage we were already almost double the total of new cases at any stage within a 7 day period in the first wave which was 506 in the week. By the time we actually went into lockdown we were at 3177 cases over the previous 7 days for Victoria.
I have no issue with you ranking him a B+ Krud, but I take issue if for example you were in any way suggesting my messages are politically bias. I genuinely think he has down an extremely awful job and almost certainly at least 300 (and probably over 400) of the lives lost, could have been saved with early action, against data that was irrefutable.
So yes it is okay for your B+, I accept it as a reasonable representation of how you feel, but I certainly disagree.
In footy terms, Dan had a good first quarter, a shocker in the second, but his second half has been tough without being pretty. Funny thing is, if you finish in front at the final siren, nobody usually remembers the score at half time......
That is an interesting analogy Tonyo. So for the record, whilst it has been a bit dirty, you are reasonably okay with Dan's last say 4-6 weeks? Say from mid August? I won't argue that point with you, the main purpose of the poll was just to gauge feelings, so I am only interested, because it goes along with what I think the majority of people might feel.
