Albert

The official advice, now accepted by the Federal government, is that elimination remains the only strategy for Australia. NSW can eliminate it, but it's going to take them actually putting in proper restrictions, than than this patchwork stuff that keep going for. Sadly, they buggered up the response, but everyone saw this coming when it started. Gladys wanted to play politics with a virus and lost. 
I've honestly not seen any Australians complaining about exercising. Official policy in every state, to my knowledge, has been that exercise is fine. There are rules about it, eg only people from your household, etc, but it is encouraged. You've probably just come across a nutjob. 
The federal government have been pathetic from start to finish. The good stuff has been done by the states, Morrison and his rabble have achieved little, but made a lot of mistakes on the way to that during this past year and a half. 
It's like how Trump was giddy with excitement when New Zealand had an outbreak of a dozen or so people last year, because he got sick of hearing about how well they did, and basically wanted to celebrate their 'disaster in the making'. The reality is, Australia's method worked for protecting lives and livelihoods, and continues to do so. The states really saved us, as the Federal government really wanted to go down the UK's route, but the states kind of battled for who could be the strongest on it. 
The federal government, as I've discussed on here since mid last year, has been an utter shambles through this whole process though. Literally everything they've touched in regard to it has been a mess. Hotel quarantine, letting in the rich and powerful while leaving Australians stranded, supporting Palmer trying to force WA's borders open, not procuring vaccines, etc. 
The most egregious of all, however, has been their rhetoric around vaccines in general. Due to initial issues around supply, they wanted to blame 'hesitancy', despite there being no vaccines available, so they pushed the line that 'because of the advice from overseas, no-one wants AstraZeneca'. This was then further pushes by their Murdoch mates, which actually has generated a movement of people only wanting Pfizer. This was particularly stupid of them, because AstraZeneca is now in massive oversupply, but only about 15% of people are fully vaccinated, and they've basically bottlenecked us on Pfizer, which is entirely due to them turning Pfizer down last year. 
The majority of the country has been opened up for the majority of the pandemic. NSW at the moment looks in deep trouble, but as discussed on here a few weeks back, that's all thanks to the LNP bending over backwards for Murdoch 'n mates and their political hardon against lockdowns. 
Last year, we did so well in keeping our response largely apolitical, but sadly NSW ultimately succumb to the temptation to sling mud at other states to try and win a byelection, and so have been way too lax in their response since. They had the slowest burning of the recent outbreaks, but through lockdown hesitancy allowed it to get out of control. Thankfully, while the same side of politics, South Australia's government is actually competent, and despite a worse initial outbreak, managed to get control of that situation with a 7 day lockdown, and it now looks like it may well be in the clear. Still harsher restrictions on capacity, masks, etc, for the time being, but way better than the months of lockdown NSW now faces for Gladys' mistakes. 
As to percentage of population, the population of Australia is 25.36 million, compared to the UK's 66.65. Times Australia's numbers by 2.5, and you'll get a rough equivalent to what it would be like in a UK sized population. 

Got to be honest, Scomo having a "4 stage plan" never really fills me with confidence, as it always seems like him trying to market himself, but it, and the research that backed it, at least illuminate what that long term strategy is. 

This point about mutations is just people mixing up ideas. Mutations tend with numbers infected, and vaccinating people reduces the overall number of expected infections, hence reducing the likelihood of further mutations. Some people are confusing this with the idea that using antibiotics leading to antibiotic resistant bacteria, which is true, but the situation is more complicated. The biggest risk with antibiotic resistant bacteria is widespread use of antibiotics, while not using them effectively to drive the number of bacteria overall down. Examples of such issues are people only taking part of their course of antibiotics, or blanket giving antibiotics. 
The big risk for more variants of concern is if you open up too soon, and allow uncontrolled spread through the community, as having more infected people means that there's greater risk of new variants appearing. 

AZ is not recommended for under 60s, as opposed to banned. The current position in Australia is anyone over 18 can have it, but they need to speak with their GP first. Plenty of people under 60 are getting the AZ vaccine at the moment. 
The interesting one with NSW right now is it's exactly the concerns I raised on here months back. The Federal Government has been appalling pandemic long for Australia, and the vaccine rollout is just par for the course. The states handled things well individually, for the most part, but NSW has been a bit lucky throughout, and usually slow to clear outbreaks. The federal government, if anything, actively opposed much of the good work the states were doing, including actually supporting a legal challenge against WA's systems that were keeping them at zero. 
 
The issue for NSW is that they had some super spreader events, and still haven't fully locked down, instead being in a 'lockdown', as politically they turned their voting base against full lockdowns. Elsewhere, things are pretty under control, and honestly, have been close to normal for the last 12 months. The week I've spent in lockdown in the last 12 months has been worth of the other 51 of pretty much normal. Apart from NSW, which are in trouble of their own making, things are pretty stable here overall, though NSW is now seeding new outbreaks, like Victoria's new one, and the scare here in SA. 

The issue with the vaccine rollout is that it's been done federally, while the good work controlling the virus was on a state level. Broadly speaking, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia have done very well for themselves. Victoria, after lockdown hesitancy before their second wave, have done exceptionally despite the federal government's best efforts, while New South Wales have lived dangerously, but before now done okay as they've tended to drop the political theatre and lockdown when things spiral out of control. 
Funnily enough, the Federal Government was actually against the strategy adopted at state level, and have helped others campaign against it, such as Clive Palmer v WA. The federal approach, sadly, is essentially to claim credit for the States good work, while sitting on their hands otherwise. This has included, in no particular order:
 - Failing to develop a long term strategy for quarantine, instead relying on 'medihotels', which have been pretty much universally the source of leaks that have lead to more outbreaks. 
 - Failing to secure enough doses of the vaccines. 
 - Turning down a deal with Pfizer which would have secured enough vaccines last year. 
 - Not dealing with the issues around aged care at all, despite all the investigations being pretty clear about what needed to be done. 
They've tried to palm off a lot of the issues around the vaccine rollout to the states, and with that failing, they've cooked up a 'vaccine hesitancy' story with their Murdoch mates. The reality on the ground though is that there just isn't the supply. 
Their latest galaxy brain action at the top is to first recommend the AstraZeneca vaccine to only over 60s, then when these outbreaks started suggest that under 60s can take it, but they should talk to their GP first. They pretty much actively pushed for more vaccine hesitancy to distract from their ballsup in not accepting the offer from Pfizer last year, and now, want to palm blame off to the individual instead. It sells well in the Murdoch press though, so I suspect they'll get away with this.
Honestly, we'd have been better off with Scomo pulling another Hawaii moment and just leaving the vaccine procurement and rollout to the states. Everything his government has touched in this pandemic has been a disaster unfortunately. That all said, the states have kept things under control, and honestly, where I am, things really aren't that different from 2019 this year. 

Why are you using a chart from last August? 
I'd have thought by now you'd have learnt the basics of this discussion. 
Lockdowns are a means of control of infection rates, they're not a response to deaths, they're a means of preventing them. Countries that have used them effectively use them in short sharp bursts. For example, the state where I am, we've been in lockdown less than a week in the last year, and have had no Covid deaths in that time at all. The lockdowns come when there is any community transmission as a means of getting on top of the outbreak. 
The issue the UK has had is that due to political pressure against actually dealing with the situation properly, lockdowns have largely been used as a reactionary measure, not a proactive one, and using them for this purpose leads to long rolling lockdowns, which while effecting, are no where near as effective as the short proactive ones. 
It's also interesting that this 'flu has claimed x deaths' line has come back from you. For one, the flu and pneumonia combined, which is quite constellation of diseases, has not claimed more than 35k lives in the UK in over 20 years. Covid-19, without making it through the entire population, has claimed over 120k, likely over 150k, in 18 months. That there is the point of controls, boosters, etc. The disease is on another scale to other viruses that cause things like pneumonia.
The expectation would be that if a variant of Covid-19 got out of control again, there would be lockdowns. A set of seasonal diseases, running through the whole population killing 25-35k would not lead to lockdowns, because it's doing so in a way that burns itself out, while Covid-19 is not, as well and truly demonstrated by this point. 

Why are you using a chart from last August? 
I'd have thought by now you'd have learnt the basics of this discussion. 
Lockdowns are a means of control of infection rates, they're not a response to deaths, they're a means of preventing them. Countries that have used them effectively use them in short sharp bursts. For example, the state where I am, we've been in lockdown less than a week in the last year, and have had no Covid deaths in that time at all. The lockdowns come when there is any community transmission as a means of getting on top of the outbreak. 
The issue the UK has had is that due to political pressure against actually dealing with the situation properly, lockdowns have largely been used as a reactionary measure, not a proactive one, and using them for this purpose leads to long rolling lockdowns, which while effecting, are no where near as effective as the short proactive ones. 
It's also interesting that this 'flu has claimed x deaths' line has come back from you. For one, the flu and pneumonia combined, which is quite constellation of diseases, has not claimed more than 35k lives in the UK in over 20 years. Covid-19, without making it through the entire population, has claimed over 120k, likely over 150k, in 18 months. That there is the point of controls, boosters, etc. The disease is on another scale to other viruses that cause things like pneumonia.
The expectation would be that if a variant of Covid-19 got out of control again, there would be lockdowns. A set of seasonal diseases, running through the whole population killing 25-35k would not lead to lockdowns, because it's doing so in a way that burns itself out, while Covid-19 is not, as well and truly demonstrated by this point. 

Why are you using a chart from last August? 
I'd have thought by now you'd have learnt the basics of this discussion. 
Lockdowns are a means of control of infection rates, they're not a response to deaths, they're a means of preventing them. Countries that have used them effectively use them in short sharp bursts. For example, the state where I am, we've been in lockdown less than a week in the last year, and have had no Covid deaths in that time at all. The lockdowns come when there is any community transmission as a means of getting on top of the outbreak. 
The issue the UK has had is that due to political pressure against actually dealing with the situation properly, lockdowns have largely been used as a reactionary measure, not a proactive one, and using them for this purpose leads to long rolling lockdowns, which while effecting, are no where near as effective as the short proactive ones. 
It's also interesting that this 'flu has claimed x deaths' line has come back from you. For one, the flu and pneumonia combined, which is quite constellation of diseases, has not claimed more than 35k lives in the UK in over 20 years. Covid-19, without making it through the entire population, has claimed over 120k, likely over 150k, in 18 months. That there is the point of controls, boosters, etc. The disease is on another scale to other viruses that cause things like pneumonia.
The expectation would be that if a variant of Covid-19 got out of control again, there would be lockdowns. A set of seasonal diseases, running through the whole population killing 25-35k would not lead to lockdowns, because it's doing so in a way that burns itself out, while Covid-19 is not, as well and truly demonstrated by this point. 

The issue with the vaccine rollout is that it's been done federally, while the good work controlling the virus was on a state level. Broadly speaking, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia have done very well for themselves. Victoria, after lockdown hesitancy before their second wave, have done exceptionally despite the federal government's best efforts, while New South Wales have lived dangerously, but before now done okay as they've tended to drop the political theatre and lockdown when things spiral out of control. 
Funnily enough, the Federal Government was actually against the strategy adopted at state level, and have helped others campaign against it, such as Clive Palmer v WA. The federal approach, sadly, is essentially to claim credit for the States good work, while sitting on their hands otherwise. This has included, in no particular order:
 - Failing to develop a long term strategy for quarantine, instead relying on 'medihotels', which have been pretty much universally the source of leaks that have lead to more outbreaks. 
 - Failing to secure enough doses of the vaccines. 
 - Turning down a deal with Pfizer which would have secured enough vaccines last year. 
 - Not dealing with the issues around aged care at all, despite all the investigations being pretty clear about what needed to be done. 
They've tried to palm off a lot of the issues around the vaccine rollout to the states, and with that failing, they've cooked up a 'vaccine hesitancy' story with their Murdoch mates. The reality on the ground though is that there just isn't the supply. 
Their latest galaxy brain action at the top is to first recommend the AstraZeneca vaccine to only over 60s, then when these outbreaks started suggest that under 60s can take it, but they should talk to their GP first. They pretty much actively pushed for more vaccine hesitancy to distract from their ballsup in not accepting the offer from Pfizer last year, and now, want to palm blame off to the individual instead. It sells well in the Murdoch press though, so I suspect they'll get away with this.
Honestly, we'd have been better off with Scomo pulling another Hawaii moment and just leaving the vaccine procurement and rollout to the states. Everything his government has touched in this pandemic has been a disaster unfortunately. That all said, the states have kept things under control, and honestly, where I am, things really aren't that different from 2019 this year. 

Why are you using a chart from last August? 
I'd have thought by now you'd have learnt the basics of this discussion. 
Lockdowns are a means of control of infection rates, they're not a response to deaths, they're a means of preventing them. Countries that have used them effectively use them in short sharp bursts. For example, the state where I am, we've been in lockdown less than a week in the last year, and have had no Covid deaths in that time at all. The lockdowns come when there is any community transmission as a means of getting on top of the outbreak. 
The issue the UK has had is that due to political pressure against actually dealing with the situation properly, lockdowns have largely been used as a reactionary measure, not a proactive one, and using them for this purpose leads to long rolling lockdowns, which while effecting, are no where near as effective as the short proactive ones. 
It's also interesting that this 'flu has claimed x deaths' line has come back from you. For one, the flu and pneumonia combined, which is quite constellation of diseases, has not claimed more than 35k lives in the UK in over 20 years. Covid-19, without making it through the entire population, has claimed over 120k, likely over 150k, in 18 months. That there is the point of controls, boosters, etc. The disease is on another scale to other viruses that cause things like pneumonia.
The expectation would be that if a variant of Covid-19 got out of control again, there would be lockdowns. A set of seasonal diseases, running through the whole population killing 25-35k would not lead to lockdowns, because it's doing so in a way that burns itself out, while Covid-19 is not, as well and truly demonstrated by this point. 

For all the many things that Mel's regime have made a mess of, ironically, the one which will have the most direct consequences, actually seems to be the one where their ducks were in order. 
The truly bizarre part of it all is that the amortisation policy used is itself is a double edged sword. The start and end points are the same, it's just how it gets there that are different. 
Regardless of final outcome, however, the EFL have better PR overall, and given the bumbling nature of Mel's regime otherwise, Derby will come off looking bad regardless of the outcome. 

For all the many things that Mel's regime have made a mess of, ironically, the one which will have the most direct consequences, actually seems to be the one where their ducks were in order. 
The truly bizarre part of it all is that the amortisation policy used is itself is a double edged sword. The start and end points are the same, it's just how it gets there that are different. 
Regardless of final outcome, however, the EFL have better PR overall, and given the bumbling nature of Mel's regime otherwise, Derby will come off looking bad regardless of the outcome. 

For all the many things that Mel's regime have made a mess of, ironically, the one which will have the most direct consequences, actually seems to be the one where their ducks were in order. 
The truly bizarre part of it all is that the amortisation policy used is itself is a double edged sword. The start and end points are the same, it's just how it gets there that are different. 
Regardless of final outcome, however, the EFL have better PR overall, and given the bumbling nature of Mel's regime otherwise, Derby will come off looking bad regardless of the outcome. 

There is so much about this that doesn't pass the sniff test, the big ones being Alan Nixon's name being attached, and the notion that a decision could already be made but 'kept secret'. 
Edit: Also, they were only appealing the lesser charge, which doesn't have precedent for a large points deduction to my understanding. 

There is so much about this that doesn't pass the sniff test, the big ones being Alan Nixon's name being attached, and the notion that a decision could already be made but 'kept secret'. 
Edit: Also, they were only appealing the lesser charge, which doesn't have precedent for a large points deduction to my understanding. 

There is so much about this that doesn't pass the sniff test, the big ones being Alan Nixon's name being attached, and the notion that a decision could already be made but 'kept secret'. 
Edit: Also, they were only appealing the lesser charge, which doesn't have precedent for a large points deduction to my understanding. 

The drunken match report is back.
What a day. 
Seeing the people I haven’t seen for a long, long time at the pub. The people I’ve gone all over the country with. To Grimsby, to Preston, to god knows where.
Yes, it’s embarrassing that we had to survive on the final day. But I don’t care. I’ve celebrated us pulling something out of the bag on the final day.
I’ve created a memory that I’ll cherish forever.
I love football. I love Derby County.
Up the bloody Rams.

Nobody deserves singling out after this,  you do your best and that's all anyone can ask
I have not forgotten the countless times he saved a goal, and made one at the other end.
The fact is he gave his all for our club, and deserves credit for that!

What a second half. They fought for it, and ultimately, it was enough. 
A huge offseason ahead though. A lot of work to do for next season not to be a repeat. 

The players put in a real shift today. You only need to see the celebrations to see that they do care.

Never in doubt ?

I can't watch; this is too much. 

Goal for Cardiff, there is some hope!

Goal for Cardiff, there is some hope!