I don't agree with this framing tbh. Even if we were to have hermetically sealed rooms, the risk of an outbreak from hotel quarantine will never be zero
The only way out long-term is vaccination #auspolhttps://twitter.com/normanswan/status/1385395293026340868 …
-
-
Thanks for the reply, I wasn't missing that though. In terms of an ultimate strategy I understand that HQ is never going to be a substitute for pop. immunity, and never going to allow us to let our guard down, but I don't think that's the only consideration. 1/
-
If the costs of outbreaks are greater than the costs of preventing them, it seems pretty obvious to me to view better prevention as a very real improvement. Regardless of to what extent it allows us to relax public health wise. 2/2
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, we can't relax the readiness in the community. But reducing risks in quarantine should affect our calculations for how many people we can safely bring in. Cutting intake is a bad mitigation strategy. Perfect is the enemy of good, but we definitely can reduce risks further.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree it doesn't change the urgency of vaccination. We can't relax until we achieve herd immunity. However, by not addressing airborne transmission, we're wilfully allowing preventable outbreaks to occur. Why, when the cost of prevention is lower?https://twitter.com/dandbab/status/1385443836311265280?s=21 …
-
Just to be clear - this is not an argument against investing further in HQ. I'm simply disagreeing with the framing that there is a way to reduce risk of HQ enough that we will never have outbreaks
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.