[AMA] Tonight we're (again!) flying Emirates First Class to Europe using 455K Qantas Points Thanks To OzBargain!

z0s0 on 14/07/2021 - 20:16

You maybe remember that awful post I did a couple of years ago; well it's happening again and this time the missus is coming with me. All this time grounded enabled me to churn quite a few OzB sourced credit cards and accumulate the 455,000 points necessary for two first class tickets on Emirates from MEL to CDG.

We're currently sitting in the dreadful Marhaba lounge in Melbourne airport; the Qantas First lounge I was posting from 2 years ago is sadly closed, as is the Emirates business lounge. Once we board the plane I expect the experience to improve markedly!

Like last time; I'll post some pics to Instagram as the journey unfolds.

Meanwhile, I'll get the ball rolling by answering a few likely questions:

"How did you get permission to leave Australia?"
It's actually pretty easy to get a travel exemption if you can demonstrate that you're leaving for more than 3 months. Key points are to show that you have the means to support yourself, the necessary visas / passports allowing you to stay etc.

I should be clear about my opinion on this though: I think it's absolutely absurd and outrageous that Australia continues to deny their own citizens agency to leave the country. Were it not so simple to gain an exemption we would have simply left via the NZ "back door".

"What about COVID? It's a global pandemic!!! You're crazy!"
Well, we're both fully vaccinated. We weren't eligible for vaccines when we got them, so we walked in and asked for AstraZeneca and they just gave them to us. Handy to be vaccinated when you're heading to Europe, but let's see how much hassle it is getting them to believe in these super fake looking vaccine certificates the Australian Government gave us.

As for risk; I was actually in Europe for a few months last year also; obviously unvaccinated at the time. It didn't worry to much as I'm not in a risk category. Life goes on.

Introduce Yourself

closed Comments

      • fullmetal on 15/07/2021 - 11:24
        +22

        Edited: Survival of the richest

    • Chandler on 15/07/2021 - 13:16
      +11

      Whilst I appreciate the sentiment…

      That's incredibly selfish considering the cap on Australians coming home.

      He's leaving, not coming home.

      It's also terribly selfish of all these Australian's living/working overseas deciding "Oh shit, I suddenly don't like it here for some reason… Hey, government of a country I've not been in and contributed to minimally for the last X years, bring me home!" (yes, not everyone seeking repatriation is like this…)

      I hope you get stuck over there much longer than intended

      That's not very nice

      and have to wait at the very back of the queue to come home.

      Is it his fault that airlines prioritise those who are willing to pay more?

      • CheapskatePaul on 15/07/2021 - 20:22
        +3

        No, it's called capitalism. A system that ensures the wealthiest people have the most access to scarce resources.

    • daclaw on 15/07/2021 - 16:26
      +6

      In my view it's not selfish to get away from the crapshow .gov is running.

    • Duckie2hh on 16/07/2021 - 09:09

      Someone is just jealous….

    • cameldownunder on 16/07/2021 - 11:19

      It's actually NOT. We all should be free to go where and when we want. What we see here is DICTATORSHIP ! Cuba / East Germany Pre Gorbatschow / Northern Korea Style

    • dbui8743 on 16/07/2021 - 12:09

      There is no queue.

    • bkksam on 16/07/2021 - 18:35

      Not selfish.Provisional estimates of overseas trips in June 2021 show: A total of 103,500 arrivals.40,500 Australian citizens arrivals (39%).9,100 permanent visa holders (9%)
      43,800 New Zealand citizens (42%) and 10,900 temporary visa holders (11%).A total of 99,500 departures. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-trans…

    • Anonymous101 on 16/07/2021 - 21:19
      +1

      The places are already being taken by celebrities every now and then. The most recent one being Caitlyn Jenner who came here for Big Brother.

      There is no guarantee that if OPs spot will be allocated to someone who is in desperate need to return to Australia.

    • bmerigan on 16/07/2021 - 21:55

      Leaving stops someone coming home? Why is that?

    • The Wololo Wombat on 17/07/2021 - 07:03
      +5

      Oh gosh. The judgement here… is it resentment masked as moral outrage?

      What has Australia become? I left last July for Sweden.

      Couldn't be happier, love it. I had COVID (mild, of course) in Dec and have been enjoying life, Paris in January, went Skiing in Feb, visited the Caribbean in March, Romania and Greece in October and I'm travelling to Croatia tomorrow for a cruise. It sounds crazy.. but that is because you don't know what it's like here in Europe now lol. Hardly anyone cares about COVID anymore…

      Back in Aus, there seems to be a level of fear, judgement and distrust of others… what's the end game for Australia, now that the vaccines are here?). Mental health and individual autonomy are so important - have you forgotten that?

      • ozhunter on 17/07/2021 - 07:31

        Hardly anyone cares about COVID anymore…

        Seems like that to me as well, but I am in WA. I guess those that are so afraid can stay if they choose, good them, good for everyone else too.

    • eman resu on 18/07/2021 - 01:54

      Rowan says it best

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dy-VhtGcXw

  • Lysander on 14/07/2021 - 20:23
    +9

    Everybody is in the risk category - they are just different risks.

    • ozhunter on 14/07/2021 - 20:24
      +3

      It's like that with everything…

      • Lysander on 14/07/2021 - 20:27
        +13

        But this is fairly irresponsible. There is the infection spreading risk, and the risk to have life long effect. Maybe the risk to die is lower at a younger age (although that does happen too) but the number of people who were very fit before, then got infected, and now cannot even walk up one flight of stairs is increasing.
        Guess who will be paying for such a thing when the poster returns and gets something like that - you and I and everyone as he will then use Medicare or a private health fund extensively for a very long time.

          • Ughhh on 14/07/2021 - 22:30
            +16

            @brendanm: The consequences and effects of Covid is not the same as the Flu, thus the risk is not the same. Flu is less contagious and symptoms appear earlier, thus earlier detection.

            You wanna put down the fire while its still tiny and controllable, waiting until a couple of rooms are on fire to react is too late.

          • gidxg03 on 15/07/2021 - 08:29
            +15

            @brendanm: Why is it so hard for some people to understand the key difference is the number of people that would need hospitalisation (ICU to assist breathing). Without it many many more would die. Australia has been gold standard for suppression which means the hospitals have not been overrun. If we hadn’t suppressed deaths would have far exceeded deaths from flu. Look at what happened in Italy. Don’t listen to the politicians but do listen to the health experts, doctors and nurses who all said at the start this was their fear.

            • cloudy on 15/07/2021 - 10:25

              @gidxg03: Whenever these discussions come about I always look at our friends in Sweden and google how they are going.

              I haven’t done so in months, so I did it again just now.

              https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe…

              This article talks about excess deaths, what I think most experts see as the true number we all target. How many more people has covid killed?

              It’s always important to acknowledge we have no parallel universe to run side by side experiments to run what Ifs.

            • Chandler on 15/07/2021 - 13:19

              @gidxg03: Look at places like Egypt where they ran out of oxygen at a hospital… yes, not solely caused by the pandemic, but still a terrible, terrible event.

              • Other on 16/07/2021 - 14:51

                @Chandler: I somehow think our hospitals would be better than Egypts.

                • Chandler on 16/07/2021 - 15:52
                  +3

                  @Other: They are. But they're also not being inundated by patients needing ventilation.

                  Hospitals only have so much space, so much equipment, and so many consumables.

                  That was the whole point early on with "flattening the curve": so that hospitals weren't stressed. We just handled that so well we basically eliminated the virus in the community.

          • RecklessMonkeys on 15/07/2021 - 20:36
            +5

            @brendanm: The flu would fall well short of killing a million people each year.
            Covid has killed 4 million despite lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc.

            • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 06:23
              -7

              @RecklessMonkeys: Where did I say the flu killed a million a year? I said hundreds of thousands.

              Covid has killed 4 million despite lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc.

              It's new, no one has any antibodies yet. The only thing masks and social distancing accomplishes, is pushing people apart and destroying any sense of community.

              • g1 on 16/07/2021 - 09:52
                +2

                @brendanm: Have you considered that there are people who may feel and think differently? Have you considered that there are people who feel at more ease when they wear a mask and people around them wear masks? Have you considered that people can feel and have more sense of community when during times of respiratory illness breakout people wear masks? Have you also considered that when there is a respiratory illness breakout and someone chooses to not wear a mask (but there is no medical reason for them to not wear one)! That person not wearing a mask breaks down the sense and feeling of community?

                So other than your own view, have you considered others? That your view may in fact be damaging to community? Have you considered that some people may view communities as about the group first and individual second? That some people may see a group where individual is first as a group of individuals and not a community?

                For some people when there is a virus that is flaring up that people have few antibodies against majority wearing masks brings a sense of ease and ability to be closer. As opposed to fearing others and forcefully keeping distance?

                Maybe consider that there are other experiences out there? That people who are wearing masks do it because want to live well amongst their communities?

                • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 10:30
                  -5

                  @g1: I've considered plenty of these things, have you considered that I, and lots of others, don't care? If wearing a mask makes you feel safe, go ahead and wear one. I personally don't like seeing everyone as a faceless npc.

                  Not sure how it "brings people closer" when you can't see someone's facial expressions, can't tell if people are smiling or frowning at you, and can't hear a word they are saying without telling at each other. Then there is the constant "stay 1.5m apart", really brings people together.

                  I've had people thank me for not wearing a mask recently, people are completely sick of this rubbish. More and more people not wearing masks everyday. Went to sanctuary cove the other day, where most people are of a "covid danger" age, half of them not wearing masks.

                  I don't normally get upset at things I can't control, but this over the top authoritarian bullshit is really starting to get to me.

                  • g1 on 16/07/2021 - 12:11
                    +2

                    @brendanm: "people are completely sick of this rubbish."
                    people are also completely sick of people not wearing masks and spreading infection.

                    In your 'I don't care' statement lies a lot of care for community?

                    • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 12:17
                      -2

                      @g1:

                      not wearing masks and spreading infection.

                      Sure mate. The magic little masks that people don't know how to wear correctly, and wear for a week without changing or washing, and completely effective.

                      • g1 on 16/07/2021 - 12:24
                        +2

                        @brendanm: Because you know about all people everywhere and you also know all about infection control in all situations? Because you know what outcomes result from partial infection control? If you do know everything about all people and you know everything about infection control then share accurate data please.

                        These read like empty words: "The only thing masks and social distancing accomplishes, is pushing people apart and destroying any sense of community." when followed by "I've considered plenty of these things, have you considered that I, and lots of others, don't care?"

              • RecklessMonkeys on 16/07/2021 - 13:00
                +3

                @brendanm: I wasn't quoting you. They are my assertions.

                You did say :

                Same risk with the flu

                Which is nonsense.

                destroying any sense of community

                As opposed to burning dead bodies in the streets?

    • Lysander on 14/07/2021 - 20:29
      +23

      Ask yourself why it is like that. 1000 like the poster could devastate the country on their return.
      Vaccination is not one hundred percent protection.
      In the Netherlands, at a festival where only vaccinated people, or people who had Covid and recovered were allowed, there were 1000+ infections!

      • Clear on 14/07/2021 - 20:53
        +27

        Vaccination is not one hundred percent protection.

        The amount of people who think being vaccinated means you can't get COVID is too damn high. No it reduces the likelyhood of you having to go to hospital, potentially dying or having more long term effects among other things. You can still get it.

        • ozhunter on 14/07/2021 - 21:00
          -1

          The amount of people who think being vaccinated means you can't get COVID is too damn high

          Anyone thinking that in this thread?

          • Clear on 14/07/2021 - 21:45
            +1

            @ozhunter: Did I suggest that? No. A lot of people in general I've found. Even in healthcare and the hospital's I work at.

        • ln28909 on 15/07/2021 - 22:41
          -3

          That's why recommending people to take this experimental drug is dumb, it encourages recklessness while being not effective

          • Clear on 15/07/2021 - 22:54
            +3

            @ln28909: 68 vaccines in development, testing or currently being rolled out. No vaccine for a specific illness has ever been more thoroughly researched, tested and criticised.

            • ln28909 on 15/07/2021 - 23:06

              @Clear:

              Thoroughly researched

              Doubt, no matter how hard you tried, you can't rush things that require time

              • Clear on 15/07/2021 - 23:36
                +4

                @ln28909: And an antivaxxer is just wasting their time on me.

                • ln28909 on 16/07/2021 - 00:34
                  +2

                  @Clear: Vaccine proven to work is fine, experimental drug however is not

            • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 06:20
              -1

              @Clear: In that case, what are the long term side effects, if any?

              • Clear on 16/07/2021 - 07:11

                @brendanm: Different levels of protection against future strains of COVID.

            • Other on 16/07/2021 - 14:55
              -1

              @Clear: And yet none have FDA approval.

              Anything approved this fast is always going to have issues - period.

              Even the testing kits were complete rubbish for a while.

      • bunkymag on 15/07/2021 - 09:45

        So your opinion is stay shut forever then?

      • fenetic on 15/07/2021 - 10:56

        Could you link the source? I'm curious to know which vaccine they took.

      • eckers19 on 15/07/2021 - 14:27

        then again the MCG had 77,000 on Anzac and most of them were un vaccinated

        • Note, I will be getting the vac when I'm eligible, don't want to above statement to seem like I'm anti vac
    • Quantumcat on 14/07/2021 - 20:29
      +36

      That's like saying it is absurd to mandate seatbelts because we have a low rate of driving accident deaths so we don't need them. We have a low infection rate because of the rules, it didn't happen in a vacuum.

        • popsiee on 15/07/2021 - 14:32
          +12

          I don't think you need to be a Rocket Scientist to know that mostly elderly people caught it here hence that rate .

          • ozhunter on 15/07/2021 - 21:07
            -1

            @popsiee: Lol, the average age of deaths due to covid is 80, in the UK(the mean is 83)

            With the US, 80% of deaths are elderly….About 78% of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese at had I think it was a median of 4 comorbidities at death.

            At least be more ingenuous about it.

            • edumacation on 15/07/2021 - 23:04
              +2

              @ozhunter: I work at a hospital and most of the ventilated patients weren't obese or overweight. I've seen people who had it last March and they've had long standing issues and haven't reached their fitness/health levels from before contracting it. Sure COVID doesn't kill most people but the long lasting effects are pretty poor to live with, not only your lungs but your heart, kidneys and other organs start declining

      • brendanm on 14/07/2021 - 21:21
        +1

        Seatbelts have no downsides.

        People also still drive, despite the risk, and accept that it is simply part of life.

        • morse on 15/07/2021 - 04:39
          +4

          People might choose or be warned not to drive in a severe storm, cyclone, through a bushfire or into flood waters because the risk of driving becomes too high vs the benefit.

          Difference being that most of the time people don’t get fined if they do. However I believe they can be fined, particularly if they endanger others eg child in the car, or put emergency services at risk. They’d be unlikely to be fined if they were say escaping a bushfire ie essential travel, but might be if they were a ‘bushfire tourist’ which is unfortunately a thing. Or if someone drove into flood waters because they wanted maccas and then had to be rescued, the community wouldn’t be impressed.

          So I guess COVID restrictions are similar where the gov has determined there are risks when leaving the home under certain circumstances. The question is has the government done a good job of risk assessment and mitigation strategies?

          I feel the gov is trying to create a zero risk environment, which isn’t sustainable.

          On one hand I get it, since it’s not just the impact on each individual nor the risk of death but the risk of overloading the health system to a point where our ambulance, services, hospitals and particularly ICUs can’t cope. There’s not that much capacity to ramp up those services when needed. The problem is that once covid gets into a community it’s spread is exponential. However I do think some restrictions are ridiculous, like the cases where vaccinated people who’ve returned negative tests are denied access to dying relatives, home quarantine etc. In these circumstances I feel there’s the opportunity for better risk assessment and management.

          In OPs case I think the risk to Australia is low, apparently so does the Australian gov since they’ve let him leave.

          • HelpMeiCantSee on 15/07/2021 - 11:51
            +2

            @morse: It’s not so much about being a danger to others as it is a danger to the number of others. Driving through a storm puts a limited number of people at risk. Coming back infected puts exponentially more people at risk, hence the difference.

            • morse on 15/07/2021 - 13:51
              +1

              @HelpMeiCantSee: That’s true, but he says he’s not coming back anytime soon. Realistically we can’t stop people leaving Australia and coming back forever. He knows the rules re quarantine at the moment and has taken that risk. He would have to pay for his quarantine if it’s still in place by the time he gets back. He’s gone and been vaccinated too, so he’s making an effort not to harm others. The government has also approved him to leave, so they must be satisfied with the risk. It’s actually good to see it’s not just athletes and pollies being allowed to leave. (Unless OP is one). OP also isn’t responsible for the others stuck overseas, that’s for the government to work out.

      • z0s0 on 14/07/2021 - 23:22

        Seatbelt = covid vaccine. Travel ban = "we've discovered driving is dangerous so we've banned it completely"

        Which, as a cyclist who doesn't own a car, would actually suit me fine. But hey I'm sure you can comprehend the analogy.

        • RecklessMonkeys on 15/07/2021 - 20:53
          +5

          A car accident is not an infectious disease subject to exponential growth.
          Most Australians have not been vaccinated.
          So the better analogy is someone putting on their seat belt whilst drunk, and shrugging their shoulders at the risk posed to defenceless cyclists who they proceed to clean up.

      • ozhunter on 15/07/2021 - 20:57
        -1

        Lol, that the fact your equating injecting drugs into your system to putting a piece of material momentarily across your body is hilarious.

        • MagicMushroom on 15/07/2021 - 23:10
          +1

          putting a piece of material momentarily across your body is hilarious

          Didn't know you can survive without eating or drinking

    • Vote for Pedro on 15/07/2021 - 14:15
      +5

      Of the 900 cases in NSW, 75 are hospitalised. Thats 8%. If you let it run rampant and get 10,000 cases a day, then thats 833 hospitalised a day. How long before hospitals are overwhelmed.

      Its our success in keeping the virus suppressed that has give rise to silly opinions such as yours.

  • ozhunter on 14/07/2021 - 20:32
    +5

    Life goes on.

    +1

    • [Deactivated] on 14/07/2021 - 20:47
      +8

      Until you get infected and die.

      • ozhunter on 14/07/2021 - 20:52
        +14

        Or if you die by any of the other million ways…

        • morse on 15/07/2021 - 05:45
          +7

          Death isn’t necessarily the biggest issue - health service capacity to manage morbidity and mortality associated with COVID at a community acceptable level is.

          Notwithstanding avoidable death is also something as a society we try to prevent (with the exception assisted dying and active palliation, for those where there is no hope and quality of life, which I fully support). Hence we have a health system for both prevention and treatment for cancer, cardiac conditions, strokes, road trauma etc. These services and prevention measures are there for everyone irrespective of age, it’s up to each individual (or their guardian/EPOA) if they want to receive/not receive treatment by way of an advance care directive (ACD) including if the person chooses to be NFR. If there’s no ACD the default is to attempt to preserve life unless measures to do so are futile. Some disagree with the current community standard/view on preventing avoidable death - it’s a difficult one to draw a line on what is acceptable to the community or not. For example the gun related injuries and death seen in the USA would be unacceptable to most people in Australia. At the moment Australia has decided we want to prevent COVID related deaths, with a minority disagreeing with this principle.

          • ozhunter on 15/07/2021 - 05:50
            -5

            @morse: And yet with all our lockdowns, restrictions, caps on returning citizens, and a good medical system, our mortality rate of those infected is 65% more than the USA.

            AUS = 912 deaths out of 31,429 positive cases
            US = 623,435 deaths out of 34,807,813 positive cases

            • morse on 15/07/2021 - 06:16
              +2

              @ozhunter: Not familiar with that data, but happy to accept it even though the sample size and demographics make comparing the US to Aus kind of pointless. I imagine they’ve got pretty good at treating COVID in the US, they also have exceptional services for gun related trauma. If I was going to get shot I’d want to be somewhere like Baltimore (if I had health insurance), but if I wasn’t in Baltimore, I’d have less chance getting shot in the first place.

              The US also has almost 50% of its population fully vaccinated. We know that vaccination doesn’t prevent all people from being infected, but that for those that are vaccinated and get infected it reduces severity of illness. This would significantly reduce the death rate for those infected.

              The infection rate is very much lower in Australia, that’s what’s preventing the deaths (and other harm) from COVID at the moment. The current policies are preventing total morbidity and mortality to the level the community currently expects. What is acceptable to the community may change, but if the majority of people get vaccinated we may not have to accept the onslaught to our health system the US had to, nor the associated death and ongoing health issues from COVID in our community to the same extent.

              • ozhunter on 15/07/2021 - 06:22

                @morse: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=home…

                Just from the numbers here, which seem to be consistent with other sites.

                The US also has almost 50% of its population fully vaccinated

                That's only very recently, most of the deaths were in 2020.

                • morse on 15/07/2021 - 08:40
                  +19

                  @ozhunter: The death rate for people who are infected is only relevant if you have a whole lot of people infected. Australia's restrictions (border control, lockdowns, masks etc) are aimed at preventing infection in the first place.

                  If the concern (or lack of) is death rate in those infected the strategies are:
                  1. Vaccination (reduces severity and therefore death rate)
                  2. Quality and capacity of health services
                  3. Improved knowledge, use and availability of evidence based treatments e.g. corticosteroids, colchicine

                  I suspect you're just making a point about death rate amongst the infected because you don't agree with Australia's current restrictions (for preventing infection) and are more comfortable with accepting COVID related deaths than the general population. I think this is an acceptable position to have, just not majority view in Australia. You'd be better off just saying that than quoting irrelevant statistics.

                  Irrespective the lower death rate in the used is likely as treatment would have improved over time, now there is more knowledge of the virus. The USA has continued to have cases over time period, where Australia had almost none.

                  The relevant statistics to look at when deciding what an acceptable level of restrictions in Australia, is the death rate per population. According to this site https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat… (as I couldn't be bothered doing it myself) the death rate per total population:
                  US Total 1843.29/Million Last 7 days 4.68/Million
                  Australia Total 35.96/Million Last 7days 0.08/Million
                  So if we had the same death rate per/million from COVID as the US, to date 46,635 Australians would have died from COVID, not to mention the ongoing effects for those who survive and the inability for the health system to manage that (I don't think most of us would want that outcome). The reason we have had less COVID and less deaths is due to very tight restrictions including quarantine, limiting entries, lockdowns etc. So this is what the government considers when deciding on policy. Australia might decide in that future that 5 deaths/million/week is acceptable, although I still think that's a bit too high, considering that would be about 6,500 deaths/year, 4-5 times higher than annual influenza deaths.

                  Where we are positioned now in Australia, we will probably never have to accept the morbidity and mortality that they have elsewhere in the world if we can get the majority of our population vaccinated and don't rush into getting rid of restrictions.

                  Don't get me wrong, I don't like living with the restrictions either, I missed seeing my dad before he died due to state border rest my state once, I've had 7 COVID tests (and hated each one) since I'm a health worker with a snotty daycare kid. My only living relatives and some of my best friends are stuck overseas. I've had to change what I do at work to something I enjoy less since health service priorities have changed. I don't enjoy wearing a mask. Lockdown with a baby was tough (no mum's groups, play dates etc). I just think the reality is that Australia is now in a difficult position and has to decide what level of harm from COVID as a society they are willing to accept for improved freedoms. I suggest we don't want to be in the position the US and UK were.

                  • Other on 16/07/2021 - 15:07
                    -2

                    @morse: Australia has incurred $300 billion in debt directly (lets ignore indirect economic effects).
                    Thats $6,432,936 per person in expenditure.

                    The average citizen pays $765,000 in tax during their lifetime.

                    When you include the indirect effects, from an economic perspective, it probably would be better to let them die ($5.5M reasons to let them die).

                    (and probably freed up space in nursing homes).

                    We could of called it the 'Great Reset' or something…..

                    I should get upvotes for this.

                    • morse on 16/07/2021 - 16:11
                      +2

                      @Other:

                      let them die

                      Username checks out…

                      Yes, costing the value of life is a very interesting field indeed. Determining what is a reasonable $/Quality or Disability Adjusted Life Year (QALYs and DALYs) is certainly very subjective, especially when you consider it in reference to GDP.

                      It's probably worth considering that of the $300billion (a bit of a low ball figure), much of it would have been spent irrespective of border restrictions, lockdowns, etc and had the strategy been different the expenditure might have been the same, but spent on different things. For example, if less was spent on job keeper, hotel quarantine etc, and we just let COVID do it's thing, we would have other expenses, like heaps more ventilators, cost of health workers, welfare for those who became chronically ill from infection etc. Other expenditure would be accrued in either scenario, e.g. buying vaccines. If you're saying we just shouldn't do anything at all, no lockdowns, no border restrictions, you're not allowed to go to hospital if you have COVID at all, no extra hand sanitiser, masks, ventilators, corticosteroids etc, no vaccines - I dare say morbidity and mortality would be significantly higher again. Then you'd have to consider the costs associated with that, remembering that not everyone dies, and lots of people have ongoing conditions as a result of COVID, some meaning that they can no longer work.

                      If this is your thing, we should chat about how much other things cost, like treating and paying welfare support for people with cancer, spinal cord injuries, heart failure, liver disease, brain injuries, etc - in your world, we could let them all die and save $$$. However it seems most people like the idea that if it happens to them, there'll be a safety net.

                      As it stands, based on your figure of $300 billion, that's about $11,700 per Australian. It's going to more than double most likely in the coming years. So yes, quite substantial but not that crazy in the context of how much tax we pay already. Much of the $300 billion is to keep the economy going, which will help us pay for the debt. I'm not saying the government is perfect, but saying that we could have saved the full $300billion is a bit of a ridiculous statement, whether you want upvotes or not.

                    • nigel deborah on 16/07/2021 - 19:17

                      @Other: $6.4M per Person * 26,000,000 People =~ 170,000,000,000,000 or 170 Trillion.

                      Might want to check your maths out on that one.300B / 26M is actually closer to $120 per person (fair bit higher per taxpayer, though).

            • BigBirdy on 15/07/2021 - 08:50
              +3

              @ozhunter: America’s liaise fair attitude towards Covid, especially under Trump, probably meant their infected cohort have a slightly younger average age, noting also that most of our deaths were among aged care residents, despite most elderly Australians actually living in the general community. Apples vs oranges

      • brendanm on 14/07/2021 - 21:14
        -1

        Yeah, that 0.0001% chance of death if you are healthy is really scary.

        • Lurk Hartog on 15/07/2021 - 08:18
          +1

          How about passing it on to someone with a 1% chance of dying?

          • brendanm on 15/07/2021 - 18:17

            @Lurk Hartog: A bit like if someone were to pass the flu onto that same person?

            • smartazz104 on 15/07/2021 - 23:05
              +3

              @brendanm: You know when you have the flu before passing it on, unlike COVID 19. Why do idiots keep equating COVID with the flu?

              • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 06:19
                +1

                @smartazz104: 1 in 3 flu infections are asymptomatic.

                Why do idiots keep equating COVID with the flu

                They both kill certain groups, they both change, they both aren't going away.

                • ChaseAus on 16/07/2021 - 18:18
                  +2

                  @brendanm: Nah, you've just been watching too much Sky news. That's why you equate it to the flu. Any sane person with an appreciation of doctors, scientists, research and expertise, knows that when they tell us that it is much worse than the flu, it's coz its true.

                  • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 19:00

                    @ChaseAus: Don't have sky news sorry.

                    • stayhome on 16/07/2021 - 19:26
                      +1

                      @brendanm: Don't have a medical degree either.

                      • brendanm on 16/07/2021 - 19:29
                        +1

                        @stayhome: Nor do 99.99% of people on here, not do any of the politicians pulling rules out of their asses.

                        • Quantumcat on 16/07/2021 - 21:53

                          @brendanm: The rules come from the chief medical officers

                          • brendanm on 17/07/2021 - 09:25
                            -2

                            @Quantumcat: They make suggestions. Whether these suggestions are their own, or what they are told to say, we don't know.

  • SF3 on 14/07/2021 - 20:47
    +69

    Narcissism is strong on this one.

    • [Deactivated] on 15/07/2021 - 18:01
      +7

      Bogan too 👣

      • Other on 16/07/2021 - 15:10

        A NarcBog?

  • [Deactivated] on 14/07/2021 - 20:47
    +7

    I for one hope you get stuck overseas and are unable to return to Australia until you're financially ruined.

    • ozhunter on 14/07/2021 - 20:59
      +5

      Lol, that is not very nice.

      If you trust the government to put a cap on returning citizens, you should also trust them to allow those leaving is within being reasonable?. I mean, why not just make no one is allowed to ever leave or enter the country? Surely, it would be safer for us.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/07/2021 - 22:11
        +7

        I think that those stranded outside of Australia since the beginning of the pandemic should be brought home and the government(s) now need to foot the bill.

        We shouldn't be allowing international sports people into the country before our own citizens.

        Anyone wanting to leave Australia should be allowed to leave, and stay out.

        But going on a vacation? Screw them completely.

        • DiscoJango on 15/07/2021 - 13:21
          +5

          the government footing the bill is you the tax payer footing the bill

      • Inshulate3 on 16/07/2021 - 19:52

        You know the government has bungled the vaccine program right? You know the state government has bungled the hotel quarantine too right?

        Not saying they aren't acting in the best interest of the citizen but at the end of the day, people working for the government are only human. Mistakes will be made, so I don't think just having "trust" is enough.

    • Ughhh on 14/07/2021 - 22:35
      +2

      It'll always be the Scomos fault for whatever happens.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join