You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Unless you've ever written an opinion piece praising Alan Jones, which seems unlikely, a disclaimer to that effect would at least warn readers of your bias.
Dear author,
I would like to comment on the reporting of comparing the incidents of COVID-19 by commentators and the media's reporting on the triaging procedures by intensive care specialists.
First, I do listen to Alan Jones. I found another flaw in Alan's comparison of COVID-19 and other influenza-type infections. True, more people have passed away from other influenza-type infections. But that is at the moment as at 23-03-2019.
Whether the COVID-19 infections arise from recent arrivals from risky areas around the world or by spreading through the community, the spread of infection is occurring exponentially with incidence of infections today is greater than the previous day's reports of infections.
People with other influenza-type infections may well be immune from other influenza-type infections when people move as a herd or crowd.Immunity from other influenza-type infections may be by individual humans being resistant due to previous infections OR by having influenza injections.
However, such a broad community/herd immunity from COVID-19 does not exist. The result is that Federal and State medical authorities advising our Prime Minister and Premious have implemented measures such as self-quarantine, keeping a safe 1.5m distance from other people and keeping a 4m-squared isolation in enclosed structures. Today, 23-03-2020, the Premiers have announced various businesses and religous institutions with enclosed structures to close. This is to reduce the chance of the spread of infection. Otherwise, if such measures are carried out too late, it may well be like the situation in Italy. Time will tell.
Second, the reporting on intensive care triaging has been sensational. On the 16th March 2020, the "Sunrise" program's news highlights on the hour and half hour broadcast a graphic of an extract of a section of a 'triaging' procedure by the ANZICS ('Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Specialists'), a specialist college for professionals in Intensive Care. The reporter said that the ANZICS will apply Italian-style triaging of patients by not treating patients over a certain age and letting them die.
These repeated reports on the "Sunrise" program resulted in me being in distress because I am caring a person who is not a "spring chicken" and if that person is infected she would not be treated and fobbed off to die.
I wrote to both "Sunrise" and ANZICS. "Sunrise" never replied but the CEO of the ANZICS replied "...Nowhere in our guidelines to the intensive care workforce, does it say there will be any triaging of patients along the lines purported by Sunrise. A journalist (with no medical background has drawn inappropriate conclusions to generate a sensationalist story)...", that this reply"....allays any concerns that you may have after seeing this ‘story’ on sunrise..."
In both situations the application of statistics without background information on immunity and the practice of news broadcasters sensationalizing stories should stop.
Thank you,
Anthony of Belfield
This is related to broadcasting the latest gazetted order from the NSW Minister of Health regarding reasonable excuses for being outside the house, under page 13 of Schedule 1, of the "Public Health (COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order 2020 [NSW] ", source https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/_emergency/Public%20Health%20(COVID-19%20Restrictions%20on%20Gathering%20and%20Movement)%20Order%202020.pdf, gazetted 31-03-2020.
What was broadcast on Ben Fordham's 2GB program 1500-1800 was notice to listeners of the 16 "reasonable excuses" as per schedule. The reasonable excuses ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE.
The program seemed to raise apprehensions in me in regards to what is not listed as a "reasonable excuse". Some callers wanted to know if that if a person was stopped by a police officer that if a particular essential service not listed in the "reasonable excuses" 16 point list, then the person would be UNJUSTLY fined $11000 as per Explanatory Note, bottom paragraph, of the document.
I too am concerned that, going to the petrol station or mechanic, the post office to pay bills and going to the bank are not listed as a "reasonable excuse", or whether "reasonable excuse" no. 1 covers this.
The no. 1 "reasonable excuse" is "...obtaining food or other goods or services for the personal needs of the household or other household purposes (including for pets) and for vulnerable persons".
Mr Fordham left listeners in the air by not contacting the the NSW Health Minister and asking whether going to the post office, bank, petrol station/mechanic comes under the "reasonable excuses's term "....other goods or services...."
If Ben had asked the Health Minister whether other essential services such as banking, post office, petrol and mechanic come under the ambit of "...other goods or services...", my fears would be allayed.
Then the Minister could pass this clarification to our Police, instead of Ben saying something on air like "....they'll (the police) eventually figure it out...."
But during the "figuring out time" you don't want to be an innocent person fined $11000 for going to the bank, post office, buying petrol or going to the mechanic which are essential services and then having to go to court and resolve this issue.
By the presenter or journalist not contacting the Health Minister I was left up in the air. Similarly, I could say the same issue for the report in the Daily Telegraph and SMH. The "comments" section in the Daily Telegraph left me none the wiser.
Journalists or radio presenters leaving other essential services "up in the air" without contacting the Health Minister and asking these questions leaves the listener and reader in a state of apprehension.
In conclusion: RADIO PRESENTERS AND JOURNALISTS. YOU HAVE THE DUTY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND NOT LEAVE PEOPLE IN THE AIR IN REGARDS TO ACCESSING ESSENTIAL SERVICES NOT ELABORATED IN THE "REASONABLE EXCUSES" LIST OF SCHEDULE 1 .
Thank you,
Anthony of apprehensive Belfield
An update as at 2-4-2020
This is a continuation of the media coverage in NSW of the "reasonable excuses" for staying outside the "house" during the current pandemic.
Recall that the NSW Government gazetted 16 "reasonable excuses" on page 13 of Schedule 1, of the "Public Health (COVID-19 Restrictions on Gathering and Movement) Order 2020 [NSW] ", source https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/_emergency/Public%20Health%20(COVID-19%20Restrictions%20on%20Gathering%20and%20Movement)%20Order%202020.pdf, gazetted 31-03-2020.
One of the reasonable excuses is no 1 which is "...obtaining food or other goods or services for the personal needs of the household or other household purposes (including for pets) and for vulnerable persons".
What was not listed were other essential services such as banking, paying the bills at the post office, filling the car with petrol and mechanical repairs.
The sub-term in "reasonable excuse" no 1 is "....other goods or services for the personal needs....and for vulnerable persons"
In regards to the SMH, for example, the main article did not address this issue and neither was it addressed in the moderated comments section. Fortunately comments are moderated to prevent any kind of 'sledging' between commenters.
Even when one commenter at the SMH site asked a question about banking and car repairs, the reply was not answered. Source https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/six-months-in-jail-11-000-fine-for-leaving-home-without-a-reasonable-excuse-20200330-p54fg8.html#comments
On Ben Fordham's program (2GB, 1500-1800), a lot of the time was spent on callers wanting to know whether going to a partner's house in another location from the caller was allowed. There was some levity on whether one could read a book in a park. The answer was "....provided you do one situp between turning the pages..."
Importantly, Ben raised the very important issue about discussing such issues to a Minister from the NSW Government. NOT ONE MINISTER RESPONDED.
One of the topics that was drummed into students at the UNSW School of Law is the concept of the RULE OF LAW. Paraphrasing the Oxford Dictionary definition of the RULE OF LAW, where all members of society are equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.
The issue is that while the gazetted document is publicly disclosed, the terms are vague. The processes involved are the enforcement of the law by our Police. The issue then becomes that invidual officers have the discretion to determine whether a citizen is infringing or not infringing a law.
Consequently, there may be inconsistencies in decisions based on the discretion of the officers who may find favour for one citizen but not for another citizen for the same set of circumstances. For a citizen that the officer was not in favour could take the matter to court.
Importantly, a source of litigation whether in the civil or criminal jurisdiction has been based on the meaning of a vague term whether in contract or in criminal law. Litigation means taking the matter to court and that imposes extra time on the courts and expense and anxiety imposed on the citizen.
Currently the courts are slowing down the number of hearings and are adapting to the methods of conducting hearings during this pandemic, source, https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/local-court-postpones-raft-of-sentences-in-response-to-covid-19-pandemic-20200325-p54dnl.html
As a result, the citizen wanting to litigate for an unjust decision by the officer, the wait will be longer and the anxiety increase.
If the Minister of Health could provide a more comprehensive list of reasonable excuses through to the Minister of Police then through the Commissioner and inform the rest of the Police Force that would reduce the risk of inconsistent decisions made by officers for same given set of circumstances.
Otherwise when the Minister of Health or Police do not answer calls by 2GB's Ben Fordham or other media sources including the state government's site, to clarify the vague terms in the gazetted document will result in officers giving inconsistent decisions based on the same set of circumstances.
The effect of very vague terms is has the same effect of uncertainty and arbitrary decisions, a lack of the rule of law.
Finally, in order to seek clarification on non-listed essential services under Schedule 1 of the gazetted item, I also contacted my local member and 2GB's Ray Hadley.
I have written to my local member, a former 2HD breakfast co-presenter and have not yet received a reply in regards to the interpretation of "reasonable excuse" No.1.
I have also written to Ray Hadley (2GB, 0900-1200) at 0619, 1-4-2020 and received a very kind reply from him directly at 0632, 1-4-2020 and believed that my circumstances which includes caring for someone would apply.
The only person who gave frank and honest information was Ray Hadley. I thank him.
Thank you,
Anthony of relieved Belfield