Total lockdown is not the only way of dealing with the virus and other countries have had great success with strict border quarantine and testing. I'm a little concerned about NZ, without a strict quarantine on incoming arrivals we'll be doing another 4 week lock down soon enough. We're doing voluntary self isolation for incoming travellers at the moment but while the majority do abide by the rules there are plenty of people who don't. I'm sure the government has weighed the cost and decided it too expensive, but surely it is less expensive than a second (or extended) lockdown?
My wife's co-worker and her partner have developed some symptoms. They called Healthline and were told they met the new criteria to be tested for the virus. They then spoke with their GP who said that while they met the ministry's new criteria, that clinic was still only testing people that met the old criteria (having traveled overseas or had contact with somebody who had in the past 14 days). Presumably this is because they are struggling to cope with demand for tests? But they were basically told to sod off. This is for an essential worker who has been in direct contact with over a dozen residents in a care facility. She has elected to self-isolate but without a test result there won't be any push to isolate those who have been in contact with her. For example my wife is continuing to go into work because she is needed there.
I mean I fully expect the #1 impediment to getting on top of this situation will continue to be test availability. But it's pretty concerning to see it play out right in front of you.
Most of Australia has the advantage of low population density compared to other cities and countries in the world, which means you actually HAVE 4 square meters to yourself and there’s actually space on the street to observe safe distancing. That means more people can still be out and about with a slightly higher frequency than other places and get away with it.
I honestly think that, plus being an island nation, has been Australia’s saving grace. Our circumstances - rather than our decision making and behaviour - are doing a lot of heavy lifting, to be sure.
lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
A police officer came to my workplace today after I left.
Apparently he was there due to social distancing concerns. Or at least that's what it looked like as he was shown talking to a few people from another team.
Guess offices aren't exempt from police popping in.
And considering I'm in Victoria this is super scary as no one wants to potentially get a up to a $1.6k fine while coming to a workplace that's been harassing us with mass text messages every night about the importance of coming into work.
A police officer came to my workplace today after I left.
Apparently he was there due to social distancing concerns. Or at least that's what it looked like as he was shown talking to a few people from another team.
Guess offices aren't exempt from police popping in.
And considering I'm in Victoria this is super scary as no one wants to potentially get a up to a $1.6k fine while coming to a workplace that's been harassing us with mass text messages every night about the importance of coming into work.
Anyone know what the legalities involved here are?
If your boss requires you to come into work, or threatens to (or does*) fire you for refusing to come into work, and you're fined on company property for abiding by corporate policy, gotta assume that you've got some legal protections in requiring the company foot that bill? In the US, no, their labor laws are fucking awful. But we've got some protections, right?
* And unfair dismissal for refusing to follow illegal requirements, no?
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
This has to fall under Worksafe duty of care regulations. Any time your boss asks you to do something unsafe you are not just allowed to, but technically required to refuse to do so. Which should include government-mandated requirements around social distancing.
This has to fall under Worksafe duty of care regulations. Any time your boss asks you to do something unsafe you are not just allowed to, but technically required to refuse to do so. Which should include government-mandated requirements around social distancing.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
Most of Australia has the advantage of low population density compared to other cities and countries in the world, which means you actually HAVE 4 square meters to yourself and there’s actually space on the street to observe safe distancing. That means more people can still be out and about with a slightly higher frequency than other places and get away with it.
I honestly think that, plus being an island nation, has been Australia’s saving grace. Our circumstances - rather than our decision making and behaviour - are doing a lot of heavy lifting, to be sure.
Australia also has relatively rigorous investigations on entry.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
I think the idea, if there is one, is that with only critical workers working, there'll be less kids in the childcare. So.. you don't need as many nappies I guess? The fixed costs and wages don't go away magically.
Also that the Jobkeeper payment might cover some of the gap.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Luxury fashion houses? That shirt doesn't actually cost $450 to make...
+3
Options
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
A police officer came to my workplace today after I left.
Apparently he was there due to social distancing concerns. Or at least that's what it looked like as he was shown talking to a few people from another team.
Guess offices aren't exempt from police popping in.
And considering I'm in Victoria this is super scary as no one wants to potentially get a up to a $1.6k fine while coming to a workplace that's been harassing us with mass text messages every night about the importance of coming into work.
Anyone know what the legalities involved here are?
If your boss requires you to come into work, or threatens to (or does*) fire you for refusing to come into work, and you're fined on company property for abiding by corporate policy, gotta assume that you've got some legal protections in requiring the company foot that bill? In the US, no, their labor laws are fucking awful. But we've got some protections, right?
* And unfair dismissal for refusing to follow illegal requirements, no?
Thing is our desks are spaced far enough apart, so maybe the Police officer's concern was some people socializing in groups due the breaks.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Luxury fashion houses? That shirt doesn't actually cost $450 to make...
Conspicuous consumerism and artificial scarcity/inflated pricing are absolutely still things. There is very much a market catering towards a target audience who will buy that $450 shirt simply because most other people can't. With enough money, the price tag is basically irrelevant, and if you're not wealthy enough for that to be the case, then don't bother.
People can wax poetically about fine leather or some cotton sourced from one tiny farm in the middle of fucking nowhere or whatever, but it's all just a marketing ploy. It's aimed at people who can afford to own that kind of shirt, and want to be seen by others so they can show off just how little such things impact them.
So, yeah, entirely agreed.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Following up, childcare in Canberra is expensive, so it sounds like it's more 1/4 of the income (which is much less than the 1/2 provided by the CCS normally).
Our childcare normally charges us slightly more than the top rate payable by the childcare subsidy.
An illegal brothel that caused a traffic jam in a Victorian street has been slapped with a fine for not complying with COVID-19 rules.
In the past 24 hours, Victoria Police has issued 13 fines for breaching rules designed to stop the spread of coronavirus, including to the Geelong brothel and an escort.
Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton said the illegal operation came to police attention as the street was so busy.
"It astounds me. We were called there to this brothel because the street was that busy, at one stage it became a traffic jam," he told reporters on Thursday.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Following up, childcare in Canberra is expensive, so it sounds like it's more 1/4 of the income (which is much less than the 1/2 provided by the CCS normally).
Our childcare normally charges us slightly more than the top rate payable by the childcare subsidy.
The daycares are getting the CCS subsidy based on their attendance numbers from approx March 12. I guess the idea is that some staff will be reduced and attendance will also be reduced so the outlay will not be as high. I can see how in some instances that would be better than just paying outright for those that are attending, but would certainly think it should be a greater of their proposal or the full rate for those actually attending.
Our childcare has been basically made insolvent by the government's free childcare, because the government only pays half the normal fee.
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
Following up, childcare in Canberra is expensive, so it sounds like it's more 1/4 of the income (which is much less than the 1/2 provided by the CCS normally).
Our childcare normally charges us slightly more than the top rate payable by the childcare subsidy.
The daycares are getting the CCS subsidy based on their attendance numbers from approx March 12. I guess the idea is that some staff will be reduced and attendance will also be reduced so the outlay will not be as high. I can see how in some instances that would be better than just paying outright for those that are attending, but would certainly think it should be a greater of their proposal or the full rate for those actually attending.
My childcare centre both:
- Has a higher per hour hourly rate than the maximum in the CCS
- Has a longer number of hours served per fortnight than the maximum 100 paid by the CCS
So half the CCS maximum hourly rate may well be closer to 25% income.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited April 2020
A 65 year old who returned to NSW from Indonesia was ordered to self isolate at home.
She was found today in a shopping Center, having visited 7 stores including a supermarket.
This is why I’m okay with $1000 fines for being an idiot. We’re smarter than this, so the only other options are not caring about the community’s wellbeing or being deliberately malicious.
In a pandemic, be smart and follow authorities instructions. You can go shopping later.
Also, someone told by police to leave Bondi beach deliberately coughed on police officers, then told them he'd tested positive. Just what the fuck.
Actual post-travel self-isolation means you can’t even leave your house for supplies.
Even if grocery delivery services are booked up, that's a time to ask friends/family/neighbours to grab some things for you, or if they can spare a little.
As someone who has come home to an all but barren fridge after traveling, I can understand not necessarily being able to survive for weeks without a resupply, but yeah, try harder.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The ex-Vatican treasurer, 78, had been the most senior Catholic figure ever jailed for such crimes.
In 2018, a jury found he abused two boys in Melbourne in the 1990s.
But the High Court of Australia quashed that verdict on Tuesday, meaning the cardinal will immediately stop serving a six-year jail sentence.
More to come ...
This is the first trial, I think the second trial never went ahead.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
UGH
This Pell news is so shitty. April looks like it’s going to be much longer than March.
I don't know how you'd find a jury that didn't have any preconceived ideas to try Pell.
So I'm not sure how the High Court expects the alleged injustice in the procedure to be resolved.
I don't know how you'd find a jury that didn't have any preconceived ideas to try Pell.
So I'm not sure how the High Court expects the alleged injustice in the procedure to be resolved.
It appears by letting him go with no further examination of the crime.
I don't know how you'd find a jury that didn't have any preconceived ideas to try Pell.
So I'm not sure how the High Court expects the alleged injustice in the procedure to be resolved.
It appears by letting him go with no further examination of the crime.
Which is effectively trial by the bench of judges, instead of by jury.
Which might be a better way of doing all jury trials.
But as is, is likely just another out for charged people with money
A lot of people I know in SA Health are absolutely livid about the people that NSW Health let into the state that had the virus. It's screwing over some of our tourist regions they visited too.
So Western Australian schools will be open again next term with a “strong message of don’t send your kids”.
Why don’t they just close them then?
Schools need to stay open because our society is built around them being open.
You can't exactly tell a couple with a 7 year old with no work from home options or options to bring their child to work, no nearby daycare centers and no family available to care for them that their 7 year old needs to stay home alone.
The real problem with all this is there's no clear leadership from the government on what to do. Federal government wants kids in school. State governments all have their own opinions. Wealthier parents can afford better school equipment for their kids to learn from home, poorer families need to send them to school or have them miss out on education. Governments are not saying what's happening with end of year exams and such, so missing out on a large volume of education isn't a great option.
This whole thing around kids and school is entirely fucked and no one in government wants to figure it out.
So Western Australian schools will be open again next term with a “strong message of don’t send your kids”.
Why don’t they just close them then?
Schools need to stay open because our society is built around them being open.
You can't exactly tell a couple with a 7 year old with no work from home options or options to bring their child to work, no nearby daycare centers and no family available to care for them that their 7 year old needs to stay home alone.
The real problem with all this is there's no clear leadership from the government on what to do. Federal government wants kids in school. State governments all have their own opinions. Wealthier parents can afford better school equipment for their kids to learn from home, poorer families need to send them to school or have them miss out on education. Governments are not saying what's happening with end of year exams and such, so missing out on a large volume of education isn't a great option.
This whole thing around kids and school is entirely fucked and no one in government wants to figure it out.
Teachers are being told that they're expected to cater for both sets of students - those at home, and those at school. Like, not just "here's the work, off you go" but actual instructional time. For both those in your class and those at home. We had two students today, and they were supervised by non-teaching staff (EAs), but we could be back to 40% attendance next term. I just don't see how it's possible to actually cater for all in this situation. I'm for having kids at school who have no alternative (too young to be supervised, have essential worker parents), but it's nuts to expect teachers to be able to realistically deliver a curriculum in two different modes. Close the schools except for those kids, and use the EAs to supervise them as they engage with online learning like the other students at home.
The only reason they won't is because they want business as usual for as long as possible. That means parents have to send their kids to school so that they can keep on doing their essential job to earn their employer an essential profit.
So Western Australian schools will be open again next term with a “strong message of don’t send your kids”.
Why don’t they just close them then?
Schools need to stay open because our society is built around them being open.
You can't exactly tell a couple with a 7 year old with no work from home options or options to bring their child to work, no nearby daycare centers and no family available to care for them that their 7 year old needs to stay home alone.
The real problem with all this is there's no clear leadership from the government on what to do. Federal government wants kids in school. State governments all have their own opinions. Wealthier parents can afford better school equipment for their kids to learn from home, poorer families need to send them to school or have them miss out on education. Governments are not saying what's happening with end of year exams and such, so missing out on a large volume of education isn't a great option.
This whole thing around kids and school is entirely fucked and no one in government wants to figure it out.
Teachers are being told that they're expected to cater for both sets of students - those at home, and those at school. Like, not just "here's the work, off you go" but actual instructional time. For both those in your class and those at home. We had two students today, and they were supervised by non-teaching staff (EAs), but we could be back to 40% attendance next term. I just don't see how it's possible to actually cater for all in this situation. I'm for having kids at school who have no alternative (too young to be supervised, have essential worker parents), but it's nuts to expect teachers to be able to realistically deliver a curriculum in two different modes. Close the schools except for those kids, and use the EAs to supervise them as they engage with online learning like the other students at home.
The only reason they won't is because they want business as usual for as long as possible. That means parents have to send their kids to school so that they can keep on doing their essential job to earn their employer an essential profit.
The problem is catering to some rather than all creates an education gap, mostly down wealth lines. You're going to have kids miss out because of the situation around the virus, even if they want to learn.
And again, every state seems to have their own idea of how to deal with it, which is far from ideal, since it means there's uneven education this year from state to state.
It's a shit situation. I'm not offering any solutions - that's not my job. Just saying, it's shit for the students this year.
In 2018, a jury found he abused two boys in Melbourne in the 1990s.
But the High Court of Australia quashed that verdict on Tuesday, bringing an immediate end to Cardinal Pell's six-year jail sentence.
The Australian cleric had maintained his innocence since he was charged by police in June 2017.
His case rocked the Catholic Church, where he had been one of the Pope's most senior advisers.
A full bench of seven judges ruled unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour, finding the jury had not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial.
The cardinal argued that the jury, and previous appeal judges, had relied too heavily on the "compelling" evidence of the alleged victim.
The cleric's lawyers didn't seek to discredit that testimony, but rather argued that the jury had not properly considered other evidence.
The High Court agreed, ruling that other testimonies had introduced "a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place".
"The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt," said the court in its summary judgement.
This is a horrid ruling, and shows why appeals courts should not rule on findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law.)
Posts
I found this article comforting. Hopefully it rings true
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I mean I fully expect the #1 impediment to getting on top of this situation will continue to be test availability. But it's pretty concerning to see it play out right in front of you.
lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck
Apparently he was there due to social distancing concerns. Or at least that's what it looked like as he was shown talking to a few people from another team.
Guess offices aren't exempt from police popping in.
And considering I'm in Victoria this is super scary as no one wants to potentially get a up to a $1.6k fine while coming to a workplace that's been harassing us with mass text messages every night about the importance of coming into work.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Anyone know what the legalities involved here are?
If your boss requires you to come into work, or threatens to (or does*) fire you for refusing to come into work, and you're fined on company property for abiding by corporate policy, gotta assume that you've got some legal protections in requiring the company foot that bill? In the US, no, their labor laws are fucking awful. But we've got some protections, right?
* And unfair dismissal for refusing to follow illegal requirements, no?
Abso-fucking-lutely! Report it to worksafe!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Wait, what?
I thought they were covering all costs? How can they argue for keeping chldcare open, if they're not going to pay at LEAST the basic rate. You'd expect at least a minor bump on top to account for extra time and resources for cleaning. But "Yeah, we're only going to pay half the cost" is just going to force closures either voluntarily or through bankruptcy.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/02/free-childcare-what-do-the-governments-coronavirus-changes-mean-for-my-family
They say it's about half the normal fee.
Which for my centre is about what they'd get from the government from the childcare subsidy normally, except now I don't have to pay them the other half.
Australia also has relatively rigorous investigations on entry.
That's dumb as fuck.
To the public. "We're going to cover childcare so you're not out of pocket."
To childcare "We're not actually going to be paying you any more. You're going to have to absorb those costs."
I can't think of an industry where you can cut gross income by a half, and still be viable.
I think the idea, if there is one, is that with only critical workers working, there'll be less kids in the childcare. So.. you don't need as many nappies I guess? The fixed costs and wages don't go away magically.
Also that the Jobkeeper payment might cover some of the gap.
Luxury fashion houses? That shirt doesn't actually cost $450 to make...
Thing is our desks are spaced far enough apart, so maybe the Police officer's concern was some people socializing in groups due the breaks.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Conspicuous consumerism and artificial scarcity/inflated pricing are absolutely still things. There is very much a market catering towards a target audience who will buy that $450 shirt simply because most other people can't. With enough money, the price tag is basically irrelevant, and if you're not wealthy enough for that to be the case, then don't bother.
People can wax poetically about fine leather or some cotton sourced from one tiny farm in the middle of fucking nowhere or whatever, but it's all just a marketing ploy. It's aimed at people who can afford to own that kind of shirt, and want to be seen by others so they can show off just how little such things impact them.
So, yeah, entirely agreed.
Following up, childcare in Canberra is expensive, so it sounds like it's more 1/4 of the income (which is much less than the 1/2 provided by the CCS normally).
Our childcare normally charges us slightly more than the top rate payable by the childcare subsidy.
They were found out because there was a queue of punter's cars around the block which caused a traffic jam.
https://7news.com.au/news/crime/vic-illegal-brothel-fined-over-rule-breach-c-948212
The daycares are getting the CCS subsidy based on their attendance numbers from approx March 12. I guess the idea is that some staff will be reduced and attendance will also be reduced so the outlay will not be as high. I can see how in some instances that would be better than just paying outright for those that are attending, but would certainly think it should be a greater of their proposal or the full rate for those actually attending.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/a-disaster-childcare-services-may-be-forced-to-close-despite-government-funding-due-to-pandemic
My childcare centre both:
- Has a higher per hour hourly rate than the maximum in the CCS
- Has a longer number of hours served per fortnight than the maximum 100 paid by the CCS
So half the CCS maximum hourly rate may well be closer to 25% income.
She was found today in a shopping Center, having visited 7 stores including a supermarket.
This is why I’m okay with $1000 fines for being an idiot. We’re smarter than this, so the only other options are not caring about the community’s wellbeing or being deliberately malicious.
In a pandemic, be smart and follow authorities instructions. You can go shopping later.
Also, someone told by police to leave Bondi beach deliberately coughed on police officers, then told them he'd tested positive. Just what the fuck.
was she looking for toilet paper? cause sometimes you have to go to quite a few places
Welp, hope they enjoy their assaulting a police officer charge.
Even if grocery delivery services are booked up, that's a time to ask friends/family/neighbours to grab some things for you, or if they can spare a little.
As someone who has come home to an all but barren fridge after traveling, I can understand not necessarily being able to survive for weeks without a resupply, but yeah, try harder.
This Pell news is so shitty. April looks like it’s going to be much longer than March.
WTF, 2020.
So I'm not sure how the High Court expects the alleged injustice in the procedure to be resolved.
It appears by letting him go with no further examination of the crime.
Why don’t they just close them then?
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
Which is effectively trial by the bench of judges, instead of by jury.
Which might be a better way of doing all jury trials.
But as is, is likely just another out for charged people with money
Late response, but yeah. Fucking furious
Schools need to stay open because our society is built around them being open.
You can't exactly tell a couple with a 7 year old with no work from home options or options to bring their child to work, no nearby daycare centers and no family available to care for them that their 7 year old needs to stay home alone.
The real problem with all this is there's no clear leadership from the government on what to do. Federal government wants kids in school. State governments all have their own opinions. Wealthier parents can afford better school equipment for their kids to learn from home, poorer families need to send them to school or have them miss out on education. Governments are not saying what's happening with end of year exams and such, so missing out on a large volume of education isn't a great option.
This whole thing around kids and school is entirely fucked and no one in government wants to figure it out.
Teachers are being told that they're expected to cater for both sets of students - those at home, and those at school. Like, not just "here's the work, off you go" but actual instructional time. For both those in your class and those at home. We had two students today, and they were supervised by non-teaching staff (EAs), but we could be back to 40% attendance next term. I just don't see how it's possible to actually cater for all in this situation. I'm for having kids at school who have no alternative (too young to be supervised, have essential worker parents), but it's nuts to expect teachers to be able to realistically deliver a curriculum in two different modes. Close the schools except for those kids, and use the EAs to supervise them as they engage with online learning like the other students at home.
The only reason they won't is because they want business as usual for as long as possible. That means parents have to send their kids to school so that they can keep on doing their essential job to earn their employer an essential profit.
The problem is catering to some rather than all creates an education gap, mostly down wealth lines. You're going to have kids miss out because of the situation around the virus, even if they want to learn.
And again, every state seems to have their own idea of how to deal with it, which is far from ideal, since it means there's uneven education this year from state to state.
It's a shit situation. I'm not offering any solutions - that's not my job. Just saying, it's shit for the students this year.
This is a horrid ruling, and shows why appeals courts should not rule on findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law.)