Sometimes denial is a first response, it seems.
From one of the comments on the article in question:
If the research remains to be proven or accepted, speculation seems a kinder word. The web is full of academic and other research that offers many different views.
Which choice should we make?
Accept the current COVID-19 virus is mutating frequently per the one small item from the web published report.
IE The content that was highlighted and is being challenged, or accept for now the current view of the WHO and current advice of our Chief Medical Officers?
If the one tiny part of the referenced article is not challenged are we being asked to accept the web source, one that clearly states it does not “Fact Check” as being correct and the WHO is wrong?
Yes, in the future we may have to respond to a mutating version of COVID-19. For now it’s unproven.
Note:
In essence the content in the long reference article is not about the post Covid-19 world, but rather about what is important concerning our responses over the next 18 months.
The mutation graphic is a very minor item buried deep within the main document.
The nature of the mutations suggested by the graphic would require direct access to generic material from the virus from many sources and subsequent high level analysis. Such detailed work would likely be headed and supported by nationally recognised teams of experts across several continents, and with their support and knowledge.
I await some clarification that the source research Re mutation has that level of access, recognised national accreditation and acceptance.
In the interim, “speculation”, or unproven research?
2 Likes
One part of an answer.
who? Dr Muscle.
I’d like to think he is wrong.
It’s all in the eyes apparently.
1 Like
I’m being cautious about handling money. Yesterday I sold a chest freezer that was surplus to my requirements - it was snapped up very smartly! The woman who collected it dropped her cash into a small plastic bag that I held out to her, and I will let it sit for a few days. I reason that if a virus can be transferred from hand to hand, then it can go from hand to money to hand in quick succession. I understand that the virus can live on steel and plastic for longer than most other surfaces, and I’m counting the money as plastic. Overly cautious? Probably, but it keeps me happy.
This is interesting - however, starting to get a little off topic. Mutations and evidence around them is a fascinating topic but can I suggest you start a separate thread for it?
1 Like
Another thing I’d like to see in a post-COVID world: pedestrian lights that you don’t have to touch to activate! They should be automatic, just like they are (in most cases) for cars.
1 Like
I always use the back of my hand.
2 Likes
They already ‘work’ automatically for crossing in some places since most of the time they are purposefully inoperative but the button makes us feel better that we can get priority. Psychology over substance?
I would like to see pedestrian sensor that actually prioritise us over vehicular traffic.
1 Like
Three hours should be sufficient.\
As I understand it there’s still uncertainty about this. The initial British research indicated a couple of days, but today there was something about it surviving a couple of weeks. I don’t know, I’m no expert. Just trying to stay safe and without spreading virus or panic. The money can stay were it is for the time being.
Perhaps 30sec on high in the microwave will deal with any viruses on bank notes. I’m not sure if it would melt the notes though!
Money Laundering:
Being Aussie money, there is always the option to don gloves and give it a good 20 second wash and scrub in hot soapy water, plus rinse. Then sun dry on both sides. 
3 Likes
Love it!
As long as there is no moisture, the bank note shouldn’t heat up…however, moisture would be needed to denature the virus in a microwave as the virus would also not heat up unless it is encapsulated in a droplet/material containing water.
Dunking in a strong bleach (or acetic acid?) would do the trick and would make the notes potentially cleaner.
1 Like
My wife has just had to launder some money, as I posted in another thread- just using soapy water.
The microwave does heat the note, but would need quite a long time. 40 sec on high made it maybe 5C warmer.
1 Like
I know this would be unpopular… but I hope the alcohol purchasing restrictions in WA become permanent.
They came into being not because of panic buying, but because the state government recognised that misuse of alcohol creates a huge strain on our health system (and a trip to any ED in WA on Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening will confirm that), and our health system And our police force needs resources wasted on alcohol-related incidents diverted into other areas.
The limits are still relatively generous, and they’re only per person per day, so someone who wanted to have a responsible party could plan ahead a few weeks and buy every day, but it will deter people who go out and blow half or more of their pay on alcohol on pay day.
I think it would help long term with a really wide variety of problems our community experiences.
I don’t think there is such a thing these days!
This topic set me thinking. That’s always dangerous. 
Specific to Australia, a few thoughts:
http://david.boxall.id.au/202003/default.html
COVID-19: Risks, Opportunities and Questions.
The COVID-19 epidemic will end. What can we learn from it? How can we make Australia a better place?
Last update: 26 March 2020
Work in progress
We’re setting our world up for more crises, in health and other fields. We may well find that this is just prologue. What can Australia do to make itself stronger in the face of what’s to come?
Globalisation
Our reliance on supplies and services from overseas has proved problematic. What should Australia be able to do within our borders, even if it’s cheaper to have done overseas? What should we be able to do in cooperation with near neighbours, even if its cheaper to have done further afield?
Within the current globalised regime, Australia is poorly managed. Why haven’t we, for example, invested in the level of fuel reserves recommended by the International Energy Agency?
Under those International Energy Agency (IEA) obligations, Australia, like many other countries, is expected to hold 90 days of net fuel imports in reserve.
In its most recent assessment at the end of last year, the Department of Environment and Energy put the actual level at 53 days.
Where else might greater investment in buffer stocks and capabilities have served the nation well?
Market failure
The epidemic has disrupted markets nation wide. Government policy has had some influence:
Operations will continue in Queensland because services are underwritten by the State Government.
Even more radical interventions have been mooted:
Nationalisation talk also continues to swirl around Australia’s two airlines, national carrier Qantas and challenger Virgin Australia.
Perhaps the most egregious market failure is the waste of human capital evident in the underemployment rate. Coronavirus has not helped. A nation’s most valuable assets are its people. Before this crisis, Australia was not doing well (political spin notwithstanding). As market mechanisms fail, what are our options? What can we do to make our society and economy more robust when we face the next shock?
Suggestions
Media
One market failure can be seen in the closure of Australian Associated Press (AAP). AAP chairman Campbell Reid offered a solution:
“If someone wanted to make an offer, there is nothing stopping them.”
A free society depends on freedom of information. The people need accurate, trustworthy and timely news. Public sector media come under repeated political attack, but they’re still the best we have. If the private sector can’t sustain AAP, then perhaps it should join the public sector. An agency providing text and images for media outlets would fit in well with the ABC and SBS. Of course, any expansion of public media will need to have adequate funding, protected from political interference. The agency/commission (history shows that corporate structures really don’t work very well) would need legislated protections from predatory politicians.
Employment and the public good
In The Australia Institute 's Response to Second Stimulus Package, Senior Economist Matt Grudnoff observed:
… this is a structural problem. And if we don’t act now and recognize that structural problem, then we’re not going to solve it. … This is an opportunity for the government to employ people directly. This is an opportunity for the government to commission projects that employ people. At the moment, all the government is trying to do is to stop business from laying off workers—and that’s a very good thing to do—but in tandem to that, the government needs to also employ people and commission things to employ people. The added advantage of this is that when this crisis is over, we can have sustainable infrastructure. We can have things that have benefits for decades to come. If the government doesn’t do this, all we will end up with is having handed out money and there’ll be no long-term benefits.
The following day, Giles Parkinson commented in Renew Economy:
Have you ever swum in any of those tidal pools along the Sydney shoreline? Turns out many of them were built at the time of the Great Depression. Some 90 years later, these are assets that are still being used by many Australians. It’s time to think what else could we build or do now which will have benefits down the line.
More direct government involvement in economic activity should see more done that the nation needs done, make better use of our human resources and mitigate the impacts of market failure (depression, mental illness, suicide, etc).
One obvious mechanism would be for government to act as labour hire provider. Business would be able to source the skills they need, as needed, and people who want it would be guaranteed work, training and income. This combines elements of a jobs guarantee and Universal Basic Income. When not working for the private sector, workers could be employed on necessary projects, such as community services and the infrastructure that Australia so sorely needs. Isn’t that a better use for public monies than forcing people to apply for non-existent jobs?
Comments
Capitalism
From observation, the more extreme the Capitalism, the weaker the economy and society. Nations like China, South Korea and Singapore, where the economy is more controlled, have fared better.
It has been said that Capitalism doesn’t do economics very well. The tendency to suppress wages and concentrate wealth, so fewer people can afford to participate in retail markets, is a case in point.
Adam Smith recognised that Capitalism probably has a best-before date:
one should bear in mind that, if growth is the great theme of The Wealth of Nations , it is not unending growth. Here and there in the treatise are glimpses of a secularly declining rate of profit; and Smith mentions as well the prospect that when the system eventually accumulates its “full complement of riches” … economic decline would begin, ending in an impoverished stagnation.
That date has passed it seems, but parts of Capitalism might still be useful.
Exploitation
Business and politicians are prone to taking advantage of crises, such as the COVID-19 epidemic. Already, Victoria has been opened to gas exploration while the public were distracted by the epidemic. South Africa has rushed to build a border wall. Civil liberties temporarily suspended to fight the outbreak won’t necessarily return to normal.
Naomi Klein called it Disaster Capitalism and some say that Capitalism is the disaster. Whatever it is, we need to guard against those who would profit by making the situation worse for the rest of us.
5 Likes
I’d be careful posting anything in this thread - the government isn’t that smart and it might give them ideas !! 
3 Likes
A number of changes in behaviour will appear. For example, an increased use of online shopping for groceries and other essentials; greater use of credit cards; and more people working from home.
There will likely be a change in the political landscape once the dust settles and people realise how neglectful governments have been in preparing for situations like this despite being warned about the risks. Similar reaction to the increased intensity of the recent bushfires.
It will take years to recover from the shock to our economic system. High unemployment will persist for most of this decade, and businesses, those that survive, will take a long time getting back on their feet.
We live in interesting times.
3 Likes
