Submitted by Craig on Wed, 03/18/2020 - 19:44
I've created a spreadsheet forecast which I'll update as we go..
There's also a website with live running data.. https://sites.google.com/view/stayhomeaustralia
probably, but if there's a concentration of a certain nationality overly taking advantage of dubious student, work, and backpacker visas in a certain area and/or field, I totally get his point
seen it myself right across oz
"That's what I thought I did."
In that case, I apologise. The way I read your post, I thought you were basically saying "I'm rejecting this because it came from blowin".
And yep, totally understand the temptation to see someones name come up and decide to ignore what they say based on what they've said in the past; but surely it's better (rules of logic aside) to actually adress each individual point on its own merit?
He who hesitates is lost
DSDS, it'd be pretty boring round here if there were many more of me...
"Such a shame . If only there was more Pops and less Vic Locals ."
geez we'd really have a real chance of actually getting somewhere
Sypkan, better/more just in that case to reform the visa rules rather than chuck out the people who came in on rules which (I presume - I've got no idea the context of this) were valid at the time?
^^Nice to be appreciated.
Better get back to work before it gets to my head.
".....rather than lower immigration levels , we should just build and build until every single piece of environment is degraded and fauna habitat destroyed ?"
I believe that Australia can support a larger population. I base this on a number of observations.
One: Our current appalling environmental management allows us to support the current population. With better management we could support more.
Two: Currently two thirds of our agricultural produce is exported so there is no forseeable problem feeding a larger population.
Three: Global population demographics predict a flattening to zero population growth within the next 100 years and possibly much sooner. So population increase will not continue forever.
Now I know my vision of what I would like Australia to look like in the future is quite different to yours but, guess what? I am entitled to my views and illogical, ill informed rants based on strawman arguments and wild exaggeration are unlikely to change them.
"Vic Local , Blindboy and Facto are the reason I gave Swellnet a miss for a while. "
No by your own admission it was because Stu told you that you were acting like a dead shit.
"Surely you can accept the premise that unending population growth is not sustainable and still reject other stuff blowin says?"
The problem with accepting that statement is that it is a distortiuon of the facts. Unending population growth is not on the agenda anywhere. The demographic evidence for the stabilisation of the global population within 100 years, or sooner is robust.
yep pops, but we seem to have difficulty talking about anything that resembles that
"Vic Local , Blindboy and Facto are the reason I gave Swellnet a miss for a while. Vic Local is boringly stupid , Blindboy is a bit insane and Facto has some queer stalker thing going on . None of which are pleasant and they all make a decent discussion impossible."
I personally try not to engage with any of them, they are retarded, not in a mean way, just literally retarded. too heightened, bandwidth overloaded, cannot recieve new information
it feels bad, especially viclocal, it's just not fair
but to quote a weary one track mind, I just cannot stand total bullshit
Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but am I right in understanding from that that you're saying you do acknowledge that unending growth is unsustainable, but we have sufficient resources, properly managed, to sustain a larger population than what we currently have?
(so we should aim to grow towards that in step with improvements in resource management?)
So the difference in your position and blowins (on this issue) boils down to what the upper-limit sustainable population size is, and/or whether we should aim to sit at that upper limit?
Curious also as to where you get your "global population stabilising in 100 years" from? I was led to believe that developed nations had stabilising or declining populations, but most larger developing nations still had pretty strong growth rates? Is the idea that as these nations develop, the growth rates are predicted to fall off in line with what historically happened in the "west"?
I read that somewhere too pops that world population growth will peak somewhere in the next century then gradually decline.
I asked Vic yesterday if he could put a number on what would be a maximum sustainable population size based on a certain criteria (environment, quality of life, services, infrastructure etc) and he wouldn't touch it. I'm wondering if BB might be more forthcoming?
edit: for Australia that is, not the world.
zen, there are too many variables to put a long term upper limit on it, not least climate change. Our long term capacity depends on our own environmental management and how disruptive climate change becomes. In the short term given that we are now around 25 million I can't see any problem with reaching 30million. I should probably duck now.
This is one demographic prediction about long term population.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm
I reckon that's a hard question Zen, which'd need input from some technical experts...
Sepp, have you and your sweet, sweet dude swapped 'medications' today?
He's all maudlin and sleepy and cough syrup depressed, and you're all nonsensical staccato meth delivery.
"Seriously blowin, very few people would object to your point that over-population is a problem in terms of ecological sustainability. The problem is your years of racism on this site means people correctly write off your opinions because they've come from a clown with a history of hard core bigotry. You made your bed DSDS."
What happens when bigots lead the charge HOURLY, DAILY, and set the markers.
STILL haven't got any clarity from the peanut on what MASS immigration even entails in his estimation. FOR YEARS. WHAT IS IT? How is constituted? Where are there any 'problem' areas that can be managed efficiently? Perhaps, TWVs for one. What are their impacts? What are the flow-on impacts of years of underfunding and dismantling of higher and further education, say?
Shrieking MASS immigration doesn't cut any real mustard.
The blanket bigot approach doesn't just not 'solve' any avoidable and manageable problems, but actively obfuscates the usual suspects and their hand in making things ever more fucked for the majority of us plebs, and the country in general. In fact, when the bigot button gets pushed, the numpties help them get elected!
Talk about battery chooks voting for KFC!
Until your next breakdown, snowflake...
(and Sepp, maybe give booze the next crack? Good for a laugh anyway. In vino veritas?)
You'd have to think 30mil would be a no-brainer. Oz is a net exporter of food and energy so sustainability in those areas is without question. Water is an issue and could definitely put the brakes on an upper limit. Land and housing availability? With sensible policy and development of new technology and materials, a shift towards denser housing reflecting the smaller household sizes (fewer kids being born, marrying later etc). Anyway, just spitballing here but in Japan despite this place being no utopia, people in general enjoy a pretty decent standard of living and the population is around 125mil. So, i'm gonna throw out an arbitrary figure of 50mil would be a comfortable peak population size with most Australians not needing to make too many concessions. Of course it would be a very different looking Australia but Australia is a very different looking Australia to what it was 50 years ago.
Geez, I go away for a few days and the wheels just fall off! If you lot were having this discussion on my front lawn I'd put the hose onto the lot of you.
Incoming zen.......duck now!
Interesting thoughts Zen.
My gut feeling is that town water is the limiting factor.
Not so sure we'll see an increase in housing density in the short term, given (bringing the forum back onto topic) covid though...
So land zoning may also be a limit.
I just think Australia is a mature economy and one that is primarily a service economy so I think it's inevitable that the major capitals will become mega-cities hosting tens of millions of people. The wealth will be concentrated there and i'm not saying regional centres won't grow but I see Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane growing upward and outward and with smart policy and advances in technology, there's no reason these cities can't sustain populations of 10 mil＋.
Anyway, my thoughts. I have zero expertise in any of this so can't speak with any authority and of course in some peoples eyes this is not ideal, but with thought and planning who knows? This won't happen overnight, it will take decades.
Anyway, i'm sure all seeing all knowing Vic will come along and tell me what rubbish i've just posted and what an idiot i am but i couldn't give a fuck, they're my thoughts and i'm happy to own them.
Interesting talk fellas.
Backing up a little... I thought the statenent from the Yale dean didn't really refute what Rischy said, but this one seems to carry more weight. Signed by a few other epidemiologists.
One thing though, they do say he is a cancer epidemiologist and not an infectious disease epidemiologist and thus that dilutes his expertise in the area, but then this letter is also signed by economics and law professors.
Why get them to sign? Could be all sorts of agendas going on.
Perhaps the signatures are supposed to convey that the letter reflects the stance of the institution?
I just read that and like yesterdays statement at a loss to see that it did not address the specific points the professor was trying to make faced with the constant interruption from that bonehead journalist.
They kept banging on about random clinical trials but what the doctor was saying (and i'm paraphrasing) was that the results of HCQ when tailored to individual patients that presented as high risk i.e. obese, pre-existing conditions etc resulting in co-morbidity of 10-15％ without treatment, the death rate and notable side effects dropped to 1％ or lower.
This (after being shouted down) i personally thought was worthy of further consideration. Again, the above statement does not address the doctors specifics, so i also wonder if there is an alternative agenda.
If you're inclined, go back and watch the video and really listen to what he's saying. Then, read the statements.
Again, what i saw yesterday was not a quack but a highly intelligent, rational, educated man being dismissed offhand by an egotistical grand-stander.
Hmmm... sounds like someone i know.
I'm not saying HCQ is the miracle cure, but the way they were trying to discredit this bloke without addressing not even one specific point he was trying to make is real poor form in my book.
"Perhaps the signatures are supposed to convey that the letter reflects the stance of the institution?"
Yeah but if a cancer epidemiologist can't interpret studies/data correctly then law & economics professors can't. It's like they're choosing sides. Seems like overkill.
I liked the dean's letter, he wasn't taking sides, he said if you'd like to refute Rischy then publish your work or educated opinion in an appropriate journal.
Zen, I'd have to read it again but I did think that.
For sure. Better to weigh the evidence either way on its merits than to weigh the names on either side.
My protocol is: laughter, love, touch, meditation, fun activities, quality rest and avoid, as best you can, processed foods, viruses and doctors.
What was the topic again?
The topic was Coronavirus.
This one's a bit of a shocker for the amount of medical staff now under isolation. There's a passing professional interest in this as I did quite a bit of work around HVAC systems in big buildings.
' "If you don't have the right ventilation or the appropriate air changes and movement to dilute any tiny virus particles, then that air just recirculates," Mr Orfanos said.
"There is emerging scientific evidence coming out from around the world showing irrefutably that people are being exposed to airborne transmission." '
Just on comparing Asian cities with the (inevitable) massive population increase for Australia.
Asia, like Europe has a long, long history of densely populated urban areas.
Australia, has not. Not at any point in it's history.
Which means it will need to be imposed/reverse engineered on cities which have historically had low population density, compared to Asia and Europe.
It's unlikely a democratic process will be sufficient to achieve that because people living in low density areas don't want to live in worksites and have their amenity reduced to fulfil the dreams of town planners.
That has been the case so far and is the biggest impediment to the "dream" or nightmare depending on your view of increased density and large population increases.
Australia was historically sparsely populated because only a thin strip on the east coast has sufficient fresh water to sustain large permanent populations.
Nothing has changed there either.
It's possible that the ecologically sustainable (human) population of Australia, sufficient to maintain it's endemic plant and animal biodiversity , may be lower, not higher.
VJ, surely the hospital HVAC systems, particularly in those areas where highly infectious people are held don't have any return air, and all is freshly supplied and filtered?
I suspect this issue probably plays a significant role in the cruise ship issues.
Free, just to clarify. I wasn't making an argument for or against. I was just hypothesising what population Australia could theoretically sustain. I have absolutely no idea and of course I totally agree with you. With todays methods, a large population increase wouldn't be anything but detrimental to the environment, not to mention the added pressure on scarce water resources.
""There is emerging scientific evidence coming out from around the world showing irrefutably that people are being exposed to airborne transmission." "
another shame, shame, shame forWHO trying to save face? ...again...
they've been really slow to act correcting some really dumb nonsensical positions
it seems so bloody obvious, and is freely talked about amongst those who don't have political agenda, airborne transmission that is
definitely seems to be something risky about flying despite airlines constantly reassuring us about their air-con filters
I read that many flights are now running air-con through boarding and take off process, as all that still air is thought of as possible point of transmission. makes sense
not too keen on lion air air-con filters anytime, anywhere... running or not
Re the HVAC systems with return ducts, I have heard of sterilising systems that flood them with ‘light’ in the UV-C wavelength. Don’t know if this is fact or fiction, practical or not, effective or a pipe dream. Anyone in the know?
I'm (unfortunately) in the know with HVAC....
Yes UV sterilisation is doable and is used in hospitals and labs.
Commercial aircraft A/C is all HEPA filtered, which effectively should stop viral transmission, and I'd imagine the outside air rate would be pretty high compared to buildings (traditionally you'd be looking at a split of about 10-20% fresh air, the rest recirculated). I have a feeling aircraft is 50/50 fresh/recirculated.
Aircraft could quite likely have an even higher recirc rate, given the occupant densities... (although using HEPA filters would mitigate against that).
For context, usage of HEPA filters in buildings is most commonly seen in operating theatres or lab cleanrooms. I.e. when contaminants need to be at as low levels as possible.
And yep, UV "filtration" is very common, as is ozone injection; though both are most commonly used to clean up kitchen exhausts before discharging them (to deal with the grease smells etc).
JQ "VJ, surely the hospital HVAC systems, particularly in those areas where highly infectious people are held don't have any return air"
In hospitals, you basically have a system of pressure zones, varying from highest in areas that aren't expected to have much risk of having infectious patients*, to lowest in quarantine areas. Air flows from high to low pressure, so air from the "clean" rooms will flow into the "dirty" rooms, and then be extracted.
*(actually, operating theatres are highest, because the outcomes of infection are worst).
VJ et al, there is currently a lot of discussion/debate in the HVAC design profession on how design philosophies will need to change in the aftermath of all this. The increasing popularity of the WELL building standard as a marketing tool may help.
Cruise & Plane Boarding stair Rails never get cleaned as they stow away.
(Not on Port or Craft cleaning Check list) Hottest Spot that all touch is most viral.
Same as Grocery divider Bar + Fuel Pump handles...All touch never once cleaned.
tbb has asked the staff & seen the vidz...can be confirmed...not just saying it for fun.
These Hot spots are constantly alive Locally > City transit > Worldwide in hours
Almost impossible to trace by App or Teams...Not even on our radar.(Do we care?)
All front & centre but lie outside our Covid Thought Bubble.(Someone else's job?)
Melbourne Airport flush multi o/s Viruses into Drains into Toilets > WavePool
No Govt bio security with common ongoing source of untold contamination.
Sewage trace Covid by the drop but Stormwater floods covid from Airports 24/7.
tbb is only saying that again...biggest known viral mix is not on our radar...fishing?
Aircraft Aircon (25 pages of it!)https://www.science.gov/topicpages/c/cabin+air+conditioning
The Aircraft aircon air also contains several nasties that would kill coronavirus.
Aircraft air runs VOC cocktails (Call it Jet Lag or Petrol Sniffing)
Consider the ramping of Covid Cleaning agents in the Mix (Untested/Volumes!)
Quite possible this gen of Flight crew will later suffer cancers from the effects.
Current Airline GTX aircon combo should Nuke any poor Coronavirus...
The aircon needs to run continuously...
When passengers are most viral (boarding) there is no aircon running! (Correct?)
So the filter is of no use when all pass the virus around with no aircon in operation?
Semi retired Jets (Whole Wide World)...quickly grow mould spores if turned off.
Once turned back on these weeks /months old mould spores become a Petri Dish
Big Aircon pushes them deeper into yer lungs much like killer ventilators.
50% of Covid deaths are by bacteria in ribbed vent lines with blocked Exalt filters.
Flight attendants don't drink onboard water tea or coffee for same reason.
In fact they wouldn't dare wash their hands in the sinks.
Again when planes are out of operation the bacteria sets in more so & danger lurks.
Space station basically Nukes everything on a recycle...
Coronavirus BLS4 (Animal) Labs > OZ/US/*China
These 4 level HEPA filters can best challenge Coronaviruses but even then fail.
These are the only Labs that can brew a virus / vax - but sadly *couldn't contain it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level
What's weirder is 100,000 Melbourne Swab Tests with no Lab mask in sight!https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/100000-covid-19-tests
I have a real phobia about touching handles and rails and things. Can't stand touching escalator handrails or public toilet door handles, grab straps on trains, sitting in taxi's, things like that.
After living in here for so long, I even feel weird shaking hands.
Zen you shoulda seen the guy at leavers walking from party to party with 4 salvaged toilet seats from other bungalows around his neck...
And thanks crew for the HVAC discussion
My work was at the stage where systems had been in operation for 30 years+ and like tbb says about the mould in planes, they are dirty inside up in the big ducting in the plant rooms and in the overhead ducting on each floor... In fact after reading tbb's knowledge, I'm going to get my own plane...
Yup, older systems tend not to be the cleanest...
Not as big a problem these days with modern microbial control standards etc.
"The survey coincided with an encouraging report from the Victorian Coroners Court showing the number of suicides has not surged in lockdown. Every life lost remains a tragedy. But the state total in the year to August 26 – 466 – happens to be the lowest since 2017. This figure echoes the trend in New Zealand, where the national suicide rate is also at its lowest level in three years, according to New Zealand’s chief coroner Judge Deborah Marshall."
If someone could explain the science behind Australians not being allowed to leave the country and the Melbourne curfew , I’d appreciate it.
It's the nanny state mate. The government knows what's good for you. Just be quiet and do as you're told.
The ban on leaving the country makes no sense....at least none that anyone has been able to explain to me. The curfew makes some sense as it reduces the risk of people socialising in large groups, but still seems a bit harsh.
In Melbourne police are now going to people's homes to question them about social media posts they've made.
The ban on leaving the country probably has something to do with Australians having the right to return home. Currently there's a massive backlog of citizens trying to get back into the country. Hotel quarantine is massively under the pump so passenger numbers arriving into Australia have been capped. To clear the backlog of people who are trying to return with the current cap is 6 months.
There's also the massive headache of Australian citizens getting stuck in places and putting demands on embassies, (with limited capacity to help due to Covid 19).
Allowing OS travel for non-emergencies is like adding extra pieces of shrapnel to a hand grenade.
"angry online, smiley in the brine"