Coronavirus Outbreak

[Tiger5150]

Do people on here honestly believe that our current secretive government would have handled things better than China have, such as close our borders, had the outbreak begun here. Hell, ours are only just closing now to try and prevent further damage, and we still don't have adequate testing, despite having knowledge and months to prepare.

Plus, let's get real, it's only one leader that is calling this the China virus and mostly his regular parrots, whom are also mostly racist, that are doing similarly.

What are you talking about? China NEVER closed borders, there were 10's of thousands of Chinese students who flew out to Australia MONTHS after this started. You can still fly INTO China today.

You mention that Australia are only closing its borders today and ask would they have done that if it originated here, well firstly, we were the second country in the world to close our borders to China and Iran and secondly, if it ORIGINATES in your country, what the hell does it do to stop people coming IN?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Do people on here honestly believe that our current secretive government would have handled things better than China have, such as close our borders, had the outbreak begun here. Hell, ours are only just closing now to try and prevent further damage, and we still don't have adequate testing, despite having knowledge and months to prepare.

Plus, let's get real, it's only one leader that is calling this the China virus and mostly his regular parrots, whom are also mostly racist, that are doing similarly.


What are you talking about? China NEVER closed borders, there were 10's of thousands of Chinese students who flew out to Australia MONTHS after this started. You can still fly INTO China today.

You mention that Australia are only closing its borders today and ask would they have done that if it originated here, well firstly, we were the second country in the world to close our borders to China and Iran and secondly, if it ORIGINATES in your country, what the hell does it do to stop people coming IN?

I am obviously comparing people's expectations of other nations to ours and suggest you take another look if you did not pick it up first time around.

 

[Geo]


Sheesh just got real...

 

[Tim Sheens]


Sheesh just got real...

Yeah our Lions Club fundraising barbeque at the local one has been cancelled and doesn't that onion look tasty.

 

[earl]

Do people on here honestly believe that our current secretive government would have handled things better than China have, such as close our borders, had the outbreak begun here. Hell, ours are only just closing now to try and prevent further damage, and we still don't have adequate testing, despite having knowledge and months to prepare.

Plus, let's get real, it's only one leader that is calling this the China virus and mostly his regular parrots, whom are also mostly racist, that are doing similarly.

This is what I've been saying and people get upset. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon was recently stating "don't worry about it. It's just a cold".

Well for 80 percent of people that is exactly what it is !

It's an epidemic. It's not like a couple of people catch it and it's cold. If you are the leader of the USA it's much more than a cold.

I'm not a Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon hater and he appears to have changed his tune but he has made massive mistakes and definitely tried to hide or belittle the situation.

We shouldn't just pick on him though. Europe have handled this situation terribly as well.

 

[weststigers]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

 

[earl]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Yeah. I'm not sure what to do though. Do you bail out the travel agents as well ?

 

[pawsandclaws1]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

Well thought out post. I take the view we help but Qantas and Shareholders pay this money back with interest.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Do people on here honestly believe that our current secretive government would have handled things better than China have, such as close our borders, had the outbreak begun here. Hell, ours are only just closing now to try and prevent further damage, and we still don't have adequate testing, despite having knowledge and months to prepare.

Plus, let's get real, it's only one leader that is calling this the China virus and mostly his regular parrots, whom are also mostly racist, that are doing similarly.

This is what I've been saying and people get upset. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon was recently stating "don't worry about it. It's just a cold".

Well for 80 percent of people that is exactly what it is !

It's an epidemic. It's not like a couple of people catch it and it's cold. If you are the leader of the USA it's much more than a cold.

I'm not a Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon hater and he appears to have changed his tune but he has made massive mistakes and definitely tried to hide or belittle the situation.

We shouldn't just pick on him though. Europe have handled this situation terribly as well.

If he’s to be believed (lol) he knew it was a pandemic all along and knew it before anyone else. Even though he’s on record multiple times since January in interviews and on Twitter calling it a Democratic hoax. He was totally backed into a corner, and it was a situation that even he, a master of distraction could not play down.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

All valid points. Is QANTAS not majority owned by the government still? It's in their interest to ensure their investment survives which would be my first guess. Probably a shedload of super funds tied to them as well I'd wager a guess. I am not against the government propping up primarily nationalised companies, as they will return to work for a business that will earn a profit, and not join the dole queue.

I'll admit I'm not au fait with the details of the package. If anyone has a good link to the details of it I'd be very appreciative.

 

[weststigers]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

Well thought out post. I take the view we help but Qantas and Shareholders pay this money back with interest.

It's definitely a viable option. I think Germany are providing loans to business rather than bailouts which protects the balance sheet of the government, but retards growth in the medium term until the loans are repaid.

Always pros and cons my friend - but I do like the idea of loans. The taxpayer doesn't lose out and the business survives...win/win

 

[weststigers]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

All valid points. Is QANTAS not majority owned by the government still? It's in their interest to ensure their investment survives which would be my first guess. Probably a shedload of super funds tied to them as well I'd wager a guess. I am not against the government propping up primarily nationalised companies, as they will return to work for a business that will earn a profit, and not join the dole queue.

I'll admit I'm not au fait with the details of the package. If anyone has a good link to the details of it I'd be very appreciative.

Here you go mate: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/airlines-get-715-million-bailout-to-keep-them-flying-20200317-p54b3x.html

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Let's not argue ladies and gents.

Whatever your personal beliefs are about where the weight of blame needs to lie or how much meat you should eat each week are now irrelevant.

Although my business revenue has gone to exactly $0, I've just finished 4 full days of contacting all my clients to see how they are doing and to assist them in arranging payment plans with banks if required. All in all, I've spoken to about 200 business owners in varying industries.

For the record, I mainly work with SME's. Here's the wrap.

1. All reporting turnover has decreased anywhere from 50% (in the construction industry for instance) up to 100% (I.e. hospitality, restaurants, cafes etc.). Typically, restaurants/cafes have said it costs less to close than to stay open for 1 customer. Makes sense.
2. Those that employ staff have cut casual hours as a minimum by half. Others have cut casual hours to zero. All have said this is the first wave of cuts just to keep the doors open.
3. Full-timers are next on the chopping block - only a matter of time.
4. Most have only 2-4 months reserves at best. Many are living month to month.
5. Enquiry for all businesses has dropped sharply. Minimum is 70% up to 100%.
6. Common view is that, even if this was to stop tomorrow, the damage already done is going to hurt them for the next 6-12 months until they can catch up again.
7. Some are holding stock they can't sell which has been bought at fair market value. As liquidations occur, there will be a glut of equipment and machinery on the market at drastically reduced prices. These people are fully invested in their current inventory, so are either forced into a fire sale to keep trading or into liquidation because they operate by financing their purchases.

There's much more, but to put it into perspective, these people have gone from relative prosperity to virtual poverty overnight.

Guys, here's an idea...instead of braving the crowds at Coles or Woolies, contact your local restaurant and ask them if they'll sell you some meat in bulk. They have a direct supply chain to farms and wholesalers and can help you skip the queues.

If you're still in an office, get your colleagues to pitch in and send them a catering order - catering allows them to know exactly what they need to buy to fulfil your order and there's no over-purchasing for the restaurant/cafe.

There's just 2 ideas for restaurants and cafes. Other industries are burning as well. There's some smart people on this forum, so I'm sure you can come up with ways to help your local businesses in such a difficult period. Coles and Woolies have made enough during this time.

And please...to anyone who wants to nit pick my post, save it for another time. On a personal level, this has devastated me financially and I'm only writing this post to give the forum a picture of what's happening out there and maybe it will spurn some people with the capacity to help out a mate/family member/colleague etc. and soften the blow for those people.

Some good ideas there mate. I'm sorry to hear your business has been decimated by this, and I hope you're able to make a prosperous recovery.

We're eating at our favourite cafe once a week for lunch on a weekend and making sure we spend a decent amount of money. Was heartening to see last weekend that despite the bushfires ravaging the mountains and then the subsequent drop in tourism and now the COVID drama that the cafe was absolutely bustling.

Thank you for the kind words my friend. So glad to hear your community is supporting each other.

We've had differences of opinion in the past, but we've always been extremely amicable about it and if never wish misfortune on someone purely for that, especially not a Wests fan.

It comes from an honest place when I wish you the best. Hoping the next couple of weeks see a bit of clarity and allow everyone stop living in the moment.

 

[happy_tiger]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

Well thought out post. I take the view we help but Qantas and Shareholders pay this money back with interest.

Had two family members (husband and wife ) who lost their jobs when ANSETT went under ...we don't need a repeat of that

 

[Tim Sheens]

Worrying rumblings coming out about part of an improved stimulus package. There is not full employment in Australia, where at the start of the month there was only enough work available nationally for some 95% of those wanting to participate, then say only enough for 90% of the population at the beginning of next month, yet we could see that addititional 5% of the working population get more and there be a two tier system.

I cannot fathom why someone soon to be looking for work from say next week should be getting more than one who lost their job last week. What are others thoughts on this?

 

[pawsandclaws1]

QANTAS is an interesting one.

Normally I would agree with paws and formerguest when they say Governments should not bail out businesses (think Holden debacle).

One key difference is that ultimately, the government took measures to temporarily stop QANTAS being able to run their core business (i.e. travel bans). QANTAS were not in financial trouble prior to any of this and although they reduced their capacity significantly, some revenue would still be coming in were it not for a complete ban on travel. Also, the bailout was largely a moratorium on fees and charges rather than a cash handout - given it's impossible for them to trade due to a government decision, it may been seen as a reasonable trade-off to cut fees and charges.

QANTAS also employs around 30,000 people - it's a big employer in the aviation industry. If these people lose their jobs, it's not like there's another airline they can all flock to and regain employment. Add to this, the only places really hiring at the moment are supermarkets, you're pretty much left with 30,000 people on welfare for a really long time.

QANTAS not only employs people. Other businesses feed off the back of QANTAS as well. Think airline catering, baggage handling, refuelling contractors. The list goes on.

If QANTAS goes, so do these other businesses. The flow on effect runs deep.

On the other hand, we could take an Economic Darwinism approach and let struggling businesses fail. I'm not against this either. However, will that have an impact on businesses being confident to operate in Australia in the future?

Would you want to risk billions of dollars in a country that makes a snap decision that can send your company bust?

Another view might be, why are QANTAS job losses and those that would stem from QANTAS failing more important than an equal number of individual small businesses in the economy? Or an equal number of unemployed people?

My view is that there are pros and cons to the argument. The question is always do the pros outweigh the cons?

I dare say, when I weigh up the situation, I'm ok with the bailout, but at the same time question whether $720 million could have helped more than 30,000 during this time?

Well thought out post. I take the view we help but Qantas and Shareholders pay this money back with interest.

Had two family members (husband and wife ) who lost their jobs when ANSETT went under ...we don't need a repeat of that

According to aviation analysts, Qantas is one of the most well positioned airlines in the world and could survive a year in this environment. That twat Joyce bragging about being the fittest airline, yeah with the handouts from taxpayers. Correctly, the TWU advising the brunt of this being pushed onto workers and lost leave entitlements.

 

[earl]

Do people on here honestly believe that our current secretive government would have handled things better than China have, such as close our borders, had the outbreak begun here. Hell, ours are only just closing now to try and prevent further damage, and we still don't have adequate testing, despite having knowledge and months to prepare.

Plus, let's get real, it's only one leader that is calling this the China virus and mostly his regular parrots, whom are also mostly racist, that are doing similarly.

This is what I've been saying and people get upset. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon was recently stating "don't worry about it. It's just a cold".

Well for 80 percent of people that is exactly what it is !

It's an epidemic. It's not like a couple of people catch it and it's cold. If you are the leader of the USA it's much more than a cold.

I'm not a Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon hater and he appears to have changed his tune but he has made massive mistakes and definitely tried to hide or belittle the situation.

We shouldn't just pick on him though. Europe have handled this situation terribly as well.

If he’s to be believed (lol) he knew it was a pandemic all along and knew it before anyone else. Even though he’s on record multiple times since January in interviews and on Twitter calling it a Democratic hoax. He was totally backed into a corner, and it was a situation that even he, a master of distraction could not play down.

I find the guy funny and even likable. He gave himself a 10 out of 10 for the way he has dealt with the crisis so far. Can anyone remember that Iraqi minister of defense when Iraq was being invaded. He would state "we've driven America back" and stuff like that that was so delusional. That is how Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon looks to me.

I don't know if anyone read about the Chinese propaganda story though. They are blaming the US for this and disseminating conspiracy theories. This seems worse to me. It's intentional whereas the western world have just been incompetent admittedly under pretty difficult situations.

There has also been crazy conspiracy theories on here.

Someone above asked me for a list of all the outbreaks for the past 70 years. If you go to the CDC website you aren't getting a small list and you don't have to go back 70 years. They list heaps of outbreaks every year and only go back to 1996.

 

[Cairnstigers]

Cairns has its 1st case confirmed
International tourist recently arrived from overseas
Here we go

 

[earl]

I cannot fathom why someone soon to be looking for work from say next week should be getting more than one who lost their job last week. What are others thoughts on this?

I think the government needs to be careful not to push us into a depression for the next 10 odd years. We can't go broke over this. I think it's not that bad a virus and if we can get through even this flu season we can turn it all around relatively quickly.

 

[happy_tiger]

Cairns has its 1st case confirmed
International tourist recently arrived from overseas
Here we go

Talk about getting doubly hit

First getting coronavirus and then finding out your stuck in Cairns for 2 weeks