Good evening.
It's clear the time is now
for every Australian to do their bit
to defeat the coronavirus.
Significant parts of the country
are going into shutdown tonight,
borders are closing,
but it will be up to
each and every one of us
to help protect lives.
We're standing by here
to take your questions
from right across the country.
Things will be different for a while,
but this is your show,
so we're here to get you
the critical information you need.
You've got loads of questions
tonight,
so let's get you some answers.
Welcome to Q&A.
Hello there.
Good evening and welcome.
Joining me in the studio tonight -
he's the doctor
turned medical journalist
that Australia has turned to,
Dr Norman Swan.
Joining us from Melbourne
is infectious diseases expert
Professor Sharon Lewin,
whose team at the Doherty Institute
is working on both a vaccine
and treatment for COVID-19.
And in Canberra, the Deputy Chief
Medical Officer and epidemiologist,
Professor Paul Kelly.
And you can stream us
from a very safe distance at home
on iview and YouTube as well,
and join in on Facebook,
Twitter and the Gram -
#QandA is the hashtag.
Now, Paul Kelly,
I want to start with you
before we get to any questions,
because it is clear
that many Australians
are simply not
taking the warnings seriously,
and you want to say something
tonight.
Yes, Hamish, and thank you
for the opportunity to do so.
This IS serious.
No-one expected 2020
to start as it has.
We've had bushfires,
we've had floods,
and now this virus.
So whilst we've been preparing
for many years
for a pandemic similar to this,
this is unexpected at this time.
The world has changed,
Australia has changed,
and we're all in this together -
young and old -
and we all need to play our part to
get past this crisis that we're in.
I want people tonight to really
start listening to the messages.
Listen to the experts.
We've got two others
on the program tonight -
listen to them.
Keep safe, keep calm,
and keep your distance.
And wash your hands. Alright...
And wash your hands.
Let's take
our first question tonight.
It comes from Chris McMenimen
in Manly in New South Wales.
I've been speaking to him on Skype.
Chris, your family's
in an awful predicament.
Can you explain
the situation they're in?
My parents and my younger brother
are on a ship off South America
with 150 other Australians.
They're currently,
with the assistance of the ship,
trying to negotiate a place
where they can disembark
and get on a chartered flight home,
because there's currently
no commercial flights
that are running.
The situation is still
up in the air, and we understand
the relevant authorities
are trying to negotiate things,
but there's really no certainty
as to when they can get off.
And your brother has special needs.
As I understand it, as well,
in the last sort of 24 hours,
conditions onboard have started
to deteriorate pretty significantly.
Can you talk us through that?
Yes.
My brother is...
He has intellectual
and some physical disabilities
and my parents are
his primary carer.
This was the trip
of a lifetime for them
to go to Antarctica
and take Jono with them,
but, mentally, the situation
is taking a huge toll on everyone,
particularly as they're having
great difficulty
in negotiating disembarking
and getting on flights home.
I guess we're seeing around
the world that borders are shutting,
it's becoming more difficult
for governments to work together
to try and repatriate their people.
And this seems like there's
a critical point in time now
to try and get people
such as my family home
who are in
this unfortunate situation.
What's your question
for the panel tonight?
There are a number
of passengers onboard
who are medical practitioners,
including my parents,
and there are people onboard
who need essential medicines
for their underlying
pre-existing conditions,
unless the authorities
can work together
to find a way
to get these passengers home.
It's obviously
a very delicate situation.
But would you agree
that there are real concerns
for those Australians onboard?
And don't we need these medical
professionals back with us now
to help us face the COVID-19 crisis?
Paul Kelly, we will have a response
from the Foreign Minister
in a moment,
but from your point of view,
how urgently does Australia need
people like these back
to help fight against this crisis?
Well, as I said in the
opening statement, Hamish,
it's all pulling together,
and certainly the health
professionals are key to this
for all of our care
that's required.
And this is
a very difficult situation,
obviously,
for this particular family
and for the others onboard.
We know that there are,
I understand,
3,000 Australians on 30 cruise ships
around the world
and many of them are
in this similar predicament.
Very unpredictable things
are happening -
borders are closing,
not only here in Australia
but international borders,
the number of flights
that are coming into Australia,
but all around the world,
have decreased enormously
over the last month or so -
and so it's very difficult.
But I do know that DFAT
is aware of the situation
and, amongst others, are wanting
to do whatever can be done
to bring people back to Australia
that want to come back.
Alright, we have had a statement
tonight
from the Foreign Minister,
Marise Payne.
It says:
Qantas has also told us today
that it is ready and willing to help,
in concert with the government,
if passage to an aircraft
can be facilitated.
Alright, our next question
is a video question
from DB Porter
in Ocean Shores, New South Wales.
We arrived at
Brisbane International Airport
last Friday morning
on a plane full of people
from all around the globe.
Upon arrival,
there were no thermal cameras,
no thermometers,
no testing, nothing -
just a few minor questions
and a pamphlet.
Customs officers,
Border Force officials
and duty free attendants
were not wearing masks.
Is this as strange and negligent
as we think it was?
Thanks.
Dr Norman Swan,
we've had so many questions
from people
who have returned to Australia
and seen what they perceive to be
very relaxed processes
at our borders.
One of the problems that's been
throughout this whole episode so far
has been contradictions,
and it's unsettled the public.
And we talk about the borders,
closing the borders,
and people's experience
of that has been different,
and we've seen cruise ships
discharging,
and it's a common story
that they've got off at the airport
and just they walk straight through
and they know
there might be a problem,
and they don't seem to be
paying attention to it.
Sharon Lewin, have we simply
let our guard down
as far as what appears to be
a trust system
with people coming into the country
and being told
they must now self-isolate
but really leaving it up to them
and not doing much
further monitoring of it, if any?
Well, traditionally,
in public health,
we rely on trust
and education of people.
That's traditionally
how public health works.
But this is serious.
It's a serious time.
We're all in it together,
as you heard from Paul before.
And there may be a need to sort of
increase the amount of observation
we have with people in quarantine.
At the moment, it has been
an issue of trust.
I still am a strong believer
that's the best way
to practise public health -
educating and empowering
the public -
but we may need to increase
the levels of observation
'cause of the significance
for all of the community
when people don't stay
in self-isolation.
What should that look like, then?
Well, other countries
use different techniques.
Of course, most of us
have mobile phones,
they're easy to track,
you can ring in every day.
Singapore does things like
get people to take a photograph
of where they are
and send that in to the authorities.
That is a sort of...
I think in 2020 that's
the kind of best sort of tracking
that we can do, taking advantage
of electronic technology
and mobile phones - one option.
Professor Paul Kelly,
is that being considered?
Is that an option
that is before us right now?
Yes, and we're certainly learning
from other countries.
Singapore is
a particular case in point
and I've been in touch with people
in the Ministry of Health in...
..in Singapore
to learn what we can from them.
We're a different country
to Singapore.
We're different
to every other country
that's been facing this crisis
so far.
Just to add to Sharon's point there,
I've a been working
in public health for 30 years
and during that time I've always
been able to trust people,
once they've got the message clearly
about what's required,
that they will do the right thing.
These are extraordinary times,
however,
and we're certainly looking at
the powers that are available
under public health acts
in all of the states and territories
and indeed the Biosecurity Act,
which...
We've had a declaration
of a biosecurity emergency
in the last week
which gives the Minister for Health
at the national level
quite extraordinary powers
to do things
if it is deemed necessary, and...
Can I ask, though...
You began this program, though,
by saying that you've been planning
for a circumstance like this
for years.
Why is tracking and apps
not something that you already have
at your disposal?
Oh, look, there are many things
that we have at our disposal.
Just... And that's one of them.
And indeed those powers
that I mentioned.
So, you already...
Sorry, you already have
that technology available to you?
Well, we all have mobile phones,
and location services
are on mobile phones.
But these are difficult decisions
to make
in terms of people's privacy,
but I think we need...
SWAN: But, Paul... Paul, you just...
You haven't introduced
these technologies. Singapore has.
You've had weeks now
to introduce those technologies,
and they haven't been done.
I mean, the...
And it's not a question of trust.
We should be testing
every single person
that comes off one of these planes
because the asymptomatic spread
is what we need to be worried about.
And at least you've got a baseline,
so you know,
when they got off the plane,
whether they were positive or not.
You can't guess this.
We have a process of testing
which is only based on symptoms
and contacts...symptoms,
and if you come in contact
with somebody,
if you're coming from overseas.
And symptoms, as we've seen
with the Diamond Princess,
as we've seen with South Korea,
are not a good sign of the people
who might spread this virus.
So, everybody coming off a plane
or a boat should be tested,
regardless of whether
they've got symptoms or not.
We need a baseline.
Sharon Lewin,
do you think that's appropriate?
In an ideal world, I think it is.
I think it's important to realise
that there are limits to resources.
We've been testing extensively
in Australia, actually. The...
If you look at the frequency
of testing per 100,000 population,
we're at around 480
per 100,000 population
as of yesterday.
And Korea, which is held up
as one of the sort of
best places in the world,
is around 600 per 100,000.
But if...
And the US is...
With respect, if we take the example
of the Ruby Princess,
this ship that docked in Sydney -
3,000 people on it,
about 1,000 staff -
if we had tested all of them,
wouldn't we now be in
a very different position
as a country?
The Diamond... Yeah.
As the Diamond Princess...
I think I heard you correctly.
The Diamond Princess,
as in off the coast of Japan?
No, no, I'm talking about this boat
that came to Circular Quay
last week in Sydney...
Oh, right. Yes.
..and, well, it's now been reported
that almost 50 people
are confirmed cases of COVID-19.
Yeah. Well, I was just going to...
Yes, we know that cruise ships
are probably
quite different entities
to what we know in the community.
There seems to be significant spread
within cruise ships,
as we learned originally from Japan
and then subsequently.
I think cruise ships are probably
a separate indication.
I was talking about
how we use the resources of testing
and where we're going to get
the best bang for our buck
at the moment in a time
where the resources are limited.
We don't have unlimited testing,
for example.
We're doing lots and lots
to increase our capacity
for testing.
There are new technologies
on the way.
There are new strategies to increase
the throughput of testing.
But while testing
has got some limits,
we need to direct it to where
we're most likely to find a positive
and that is what determines
the current rules around testing.
However, there are new technologies,
and I think we'll be able
to expand our testing
quite quickly over coming months.
Cruise ships are another story.
Others may want to talk about
cruise ships in particular...
Paul Kelly...
..which I think are quite different.
..are we going to change
the guidelines
for testing in Australia?
Yes.
When?
This week.
Mostly, the guidelines for testing
are about...
..include a travel component,
and the travel is decreasing.
I'd just like to come back
to Norman's point, though,
about what we're doing
at the border.
When we first changed the...
..put in border restrictions
in relation to China,
there were still
quite a few people - Australians -
coming from China,
the very epidemic of...
..very epicentre of the pandemic
at that time.
We actually, very carefully,
looked at over 30,000 people
coming off the planes,
looking at symptoms,
checks by health personnel,
testing when required.
Two of them were positive.
Two out of 30,000.
So, that was one of the reasons
why we've gone
to this new way of doing it -
making sure that anyone that
comes in from any country must...
And this is a must, and this is
a message to everyone out there
that's come back in this period
from any country in the world -
they must self-isolate.
And when I say self-isolate,
it means they must stay at home.
And different jurisdictions
are different,
but, for example, in Queensland,
everyone coming through the border
in Queensland
is getting a public health order,
which they sign,
saying that you must stay at home.
Every person
that's coming into the border,
into every airport, at the moment,
is now having a stat dec
with their phone number,
their signature, their name,
and those are being given to
the state and territory authorities
as they come off...over the border.
And it's up to
the state and territories then
to do what they feel they need to do
in relation to making sure
people take that message seriously.
Alright. Well, we do have
another question tonight
specifically about testing,
and it is, in fact,
a federal politician.
Senator Rex Patrick
has been confirmed positive
with COVID-19 today.
He's at home in self-isolation
in South Australia.
Good evening to you, Rex Patrick.
How are you doing?
Yeah, good, thank you.
Were you...?
No symptoms.
How surprised were you
when this test came back positive?
Well, very surprised,
because I have had no symptoms
and, as such, when I got the test,
or when I got the test results,
I was anticipating negative,
but it turned out to be positive.
And in terms of contact tracing,
are you clear on
where and how you got this?
I was most likely infected
by Senator Bragg
more than two weeks ago
at a Senate inquiry.
So, that's the most likely source
of my virus.
And so what's your question
tonight, Senator?
Well, the day...
My question's to Paul.
The day after
I met with Senator Bragg,
he had flu-like symptoms,
but he did not qualify
for a COVID-19 test
because he hadn't been overseas
and he hadn't been in contact
with anyone who was
a known COVID-19 carrier.
A week later,
he became aware of others
that had gone to a wedding
that he'd been to
that had contracted coronavirus,
and at that point,
he did qualify for a test.
If he had been tested
when he first had symptoms,
I would not have spent eight days
working in country South Australia,
SA Health would not have spent
the entire day contact-tracing me,
and those around me
over the last couple of weeks
would not be in a situation where
they might have to self-isolate.
Why is the test criteria so strict?
Can you see how 10 minutes
two weeks ago
could have saved so much time
and significantly reduced the risk
of my infecting anyone?
Professor Paul Kelly.
So, several points to make there.
Firstly, that wedding
that has been mentioned
is a super spreading event.
So, I believe, out of the 140 or so
people that were at that wedding,
there are now 35
or perhaps more cases
that have proved positive.
It demonstrates, firstly,
how infectious this is.
It's much more infectious than flu.
It does spread quickly.
And, actually, as Senator Patrick
has pointed out there,
reasonably short contact
can actually allow that
to be spread from person to person.
So, I think these are the messages
that we're giving out
about people that are sick
not mixing with others,
and that asymptomatic carriage,
it makes it extremely difficult
for us to keep this under control,
and so that's why those other
social distancing measures
we've brought in in the last week
also are important.
But this is...
In terms of...
This is a question, though, about...
About the testing, yeah.
..community transmissions
and testing.
I mean, can you speak to that,
please?
Yeah. So, the testing...
Sharon's already mentioned this.
We...
So, a couple of things
I'd like to say about that.
We need to test where
it's most likely to be positive,
and up to this point,
it's most likely to be
in people that have been returning
from overseas.
More than half -
still more than half - of the cases,
of the 1,709 cases
we have currently in Australia,
are directly...directly came
from an overseas traveller.
So, we've been testing
those ones first
because of two reasons.
One, that's the most likely place
we'll find it. Secondly...
Sorry, but isn't it
the most likely place
because that's where
you've been doing the testing?
Isn't the data reinforcing itself
because you're only focusing
on those people
that have come back from overseas
and those people
that have been in direct contact
with a confirmed case?
Yes, that's true.
We have had, up to now,
a shortage of the laboratory tests.
That's well known.
We're... Not only in Australia,
but that's a global thing.
This is very new. We've had...
The first tests were...you know,
in Australia came in within a week
of the first cases
as we became aware of them,
and since then,
we've really ramped up testing.
140,000 tests -
way more than the US, even,
with 10 times the population.
So, I mean,
I've got great sympathy for Paul.
You know, it's a no-win situation
for the Chief Medical Officer here.
But the reality is we keep on
getting these statistics trotted out
that we've done
hundreds of thousands of tests
and what have you,
but if the tests
are in the wrong place,
it's not necessarily
getting us anywhere.
And, for example, at that wedding,
are we testing everybody
who was at that wedding,
regardless of whether
they've got symptoms?
Are we then tracking them down
and are we repeating those tests
a few days later?
So, are we?
No, I don't...
Well, Paul might contradict me now.
But, for example,
with the Diamond Princess,
yes, we quarantined people
off the Diamond Princess,
but we missed people
off the Diamond Princess
who were asymptomatic,
went into the community.
And it was predicted on 1 March
that there would be a hockey stick
on 20 March
because that's
two incubation periods away
from the virus.
So, the virus goes underground,
it multiplies in people,
like the Senator,
who are asymptomatic, and then...
..and then you...then it burbles up
and you get this uptick -
this hockey stick -
that we're seeing now.
It can be traced back to
inadequate testing
on the Diamond Princess.
So, we're not saying that
everybody with a sniffle
should actually be tested,
but we could be much more
targeted after people,
repeating tests,
going after the contacts,
not letting it go.
In some environments,
60% of infections
come from asymptomatic people.
OK, I do want to move on
from this,
but, Professor Paul Kelly,
if there are going to be changes,
what will the new protocols be?
Well, we'll be removing
the traveller component,
but we're working on that
at the moment. So...
So, there'll be announcements
about that over the coming days.
Just...just back to the wedding,
everyone who has been...
been seen as a close contact,
they're all in isolation,
and they're being monitored.
In terms of the Diamond Princess,
the people that came
and were in Howard Springs
were monitored twice a day,
including temperatures
and including symptom checks.
Twice a day for the whole time
they were there.
If they showed any sign
of even a small sniffle,
recognising they had come from
a very...very intense epidemic,
they were tested.
Many of them were negative.
Some of them were positive.
There was no-one that was removed
from there in that 14-day period.
Similarly, no-one came back from...
The only people that came back
from...from Japan
from the Diamond Princess
were people that had been
found to be positive.
Some of them were asymptomatic
on the ship,
but they were not allowed back
until they'd two negative tests.
And those that were...that were...
that had been negative were...
..had to stay in Japan for 14 days.
So, I think that's a coincidence,
Norman, with respect.
I believe there probably has been
some circulation in the community,
perhaps as far back as January
before we recognised
the issue in Wuhan.
OK. Let's take
our next question tonight.
It's a video from Claire Sellar
in Ermington, New South Wales.
As a current Year 12 student,
I feel the level of anxiety
amongst my peers is increasing
when we think about the impact
of COVID-19 on our education.
We are in one of the most
stressful years of our lives,
and the additional stress
from the way this pandemic
is being treated
can only be detrimental,
affecting our mental,
if not physical, health.
Does the panel think
that keeping schools open
is the appropriate way
to deal with this situation?
And what do you see
as the long-term impact
on the mental health of students?
Professor Sharon Lewin,
let me put this to you,
because we have been overwhelmed
with questions from people
across the country, wanting to know
whether kids should be in school,
whether they shouldn't be in school.
What is your view?
It's a difficult question,
and you can see
there's great divisions
in what experts are saying.
And whenever you have a division
in what experts are saying,
it's because there...
The reason is
'cause there is no clear answer.
There's pros and there's cons
of keeping schools open,
and I'll talk about some of the...
some of the pros,
and I'll talk about
some of the cons.
I guess, first of all,
we know that children do not get
very unwell with COVID-19.
We certainly know that children
can get COVID-19 and can spread it,
and that they can do it
when they're asymptomatic,
meaning that they've got
absolutely no symptoms.
And so, therefore,
there's this worry
that they're...
you're going to get spread,
and there's going to be
taking the COVID-19 home.
So, there's a number of...
And we know that influenza,
for example,
schools are a great source of virus
and spread within the community.
So, we look often to other countries
and see what other countries did,
and whether it was
a necessary factor in the response,
closing schools or not.
There are some countries that
did close schools, such as China,
other countries that
didn't close schools
and had a fairly
successful response,
such as Singapore.
One big issue...
But Singapore did...
..very different things to us,
though, didn't they?
They did indeed, yeah.
They test...took temperatures
to every student as they arrived.
They took temperatures
multiple times a day.
Taiwan is the same.
Are we right to compare our situation
to Singapore on that front
when we're not actually
doing the same things?
I'm just using it as one example
of why there's confusion,
so that...
I'm not using it as a direct copy.
I'm just using an example
of why there's confusion.
So, you see,
some countries that do well
that...have kept the schools open,
and some countries that do well
have closed the schools,
so therefore there's a question
of how important is school closure.
That's why I've brought up
school closure.
The big issue about...
about closing schools
are all the other impacts
of closing schools,
and the question...
..the person that asked the question
raised that very well,
about mental health
and education, etc.
And finally,
big impact on the workforce
if you close schools,
particularly health care workers,
which are so essential
to our response.
So, in making this decision,
we're weighing up all these factors
of...of risk to the community,
and all teachers of course,
you know,
occupying the workforce,
and whether it really...
how essential it is or isn't.
So, I see it,
closing schools or not,
as a package of interventions.
It certainly will increase
social distancing.
What we're trying to do
is reduce the risk
of people being exposed
to the virus.
The less contact we all have
with each other reduces the risk.
So, the question then is,
do you do everything to try
and reduce the risk to nothing?
And we all do want to reduce
the risk to nothing.
Or do you...you make some
compromises in some settings
because there are pay-offs with
this extreme social distancing?
And that's the sort of thinking
that's going through...
Me, I'm a bit pragmatic
at the moment.
I think we're in an important...
It's a really important time
for Australia to get it right,
because although we have
escalating numbers of cases,
we actually have
relatively few cases currently,
and we've been testing
quite intensively
since the beginning,
since our first case
in the end of January.
But...
So now is a really important time
to get it right,
and therefore I think I would err
on the side of going
a little bit harder now
in this precious time we have
to stop an escalation of infections.
So, I would err on closing schools.
We're coming up to the Easter break.
It's quite a pragmatic move,
but I was explaining the reason
why it's not black or white.
Paul Kelly, is it still
your advice in your position
that we shouldn't close schools?
Yes, and as Sharon says,
I see the counterargument.
My sister is a teacher.
I know that it's a struggle
for her every day,
and I mentioned in
a press conference last week
that she'd been abused
by parents about hygiene
and so forth in the schools.
And that's just not on, by the way.
We all need to be working together.
We can't be going around
abusing teachers
health care workers and people
in shopping...in grocery shops.
But, um...in terms of schools,
this is what we know
about this virus,
and we're learning more every day,
and we give that information
every day to the public.
First of all, this is not flu.
Everywhere where
the virus has spread,
around about somewhere between
1% and 3% of the cases
are in school-age children.
That's very different to flu,
where children are super spreaders,
usually.
They're the ones that are
often spreading the virus
and sometimes get extremely sick.
There was a paper published
over the weekend, which...
..which very...in some detail
demonstrated what had happened
in Hubei province
in terms of children.
Those that got sick, again,
a very small proportion.
About 2.4% of the...
..of...of the total cases
were...were children, under 15.
Only a third...
A third of those were asy...
Sorry, 15% were asymptomatic,
and about the same number
had very mild illness -
just upper respiratory
tract infection.
So...
And only one person...one child,
unfortunately, died,
but that was very, very low numbers.
Second of all,
all of those cases -
and this is what has been found
in other countries, tends to...
..tend to have come from the parents
and not amongst children.
Again, very different to the flu.
And then there's all the effects
that Sharon has gone into.
I won't repeat them.
But closing...closing schools
is a big thing,
and what we've been trying to do
right throughout this
is to look at
proportionate responses,
what actually needs to be done now,
thinking of that long-term game,
what is sustainable
over the long term.
This is not a two-
or four-week thing.
If schools close,
they are closed for
at least the next six months,
probably for the whole school year.
That is a big thing
for people like the person
that asked the question,
coming into
their final year of school.
That is a life-changing event.
We can't make
these decisions lightly,
and they may have
a place at some point.
Some people that...feel
that that point is now.
I...I and my colleagues
on the Australian Health
Protection Committee disagree.
SWAN: So, let's...let's...
let's just put this in perspective.
So, what we've got in Australia
is an only partially targeted
testing campaign.
We're missing asymptomatics,
and so we don't have
the best possible...
It's not about numbers
and gross numbers with testing.
We've got an inadequate
testing regime.
We've got an inadequate
quarantine regime,
which relies on trust -
it is changing a bit in some states.
And therefore we're not
actually under control,
and the hockey stick
illustrates that.
So, it's doubling
every two or three days.
So, you get a Year 7
primary school student...
And Sharon's right.
You know, it's lower numbers now.
We've got a chance now
to get it under control.
Now, when you've got...
not an adequate testing regime
and you've not got
an adequate quarantine regime,
what's left to us
is social distancing,
and all the mathematical modelling,
including what comes out
of Sharon's group,
tells you that social distancing
is what makes a difference.
And you've got to put your foot
on the brake harder
on social distancing
if you're not doing
the other stuff well.
So, if that's the case, Paul Kelly,
I know you have your own modellers.
Do the numbers that you are seeing
show that by shutting schools now
you will do more
to flatten this curve?
So...so, school closure
is one of our...
..one of our potential things
we can do.
It's in our plan,
and we've been very open about that
as something we would consider
at some point.
Sure, but, with respect, that's just
a very straightforward question
about whether your modelling shows
that, by closing the schools,
the curve would flatten.
Does it show that?
So, the... (SIGHS)
This goes to Sharon's point as well.
When you have
a range of interventions,
it's hard to know
which one would work the best.
But the modelling from London's
clear, Paul,
that you...it's not
the Magic Pudding here,
but each time
you put your foot on the brake,
you get more...a greater flattening
of the curve.
And the Imperial College London
group found that, in fact,
closing schools, in their model -
and they're one...some of
the best modellers in the world -
actually had the biggest effect.
And, look, it's
a terribly difficult decision.
I mean, it's just an appalling
decision to have to make.
But they showed that it was
the biggest thing you could do
to make a difference to the curve.
OK, we've -
as we've already mentioned -
been pretty overwhelmed
with questions for tonight.
We're going to do a sort of
rapid-fire round of questions,
with basic questions, in fact,
about people's day-to-day lives,
and how they're changing right now.
So, the next two video questions
are from Sandy Thomas in Sandringham
and Jesse Giles
in Tambar Springs, NSW.
I'm a fit and healthy 67-year-old.
I play golf three times a week.
I have two grandchildren, 5 and 11.
I'd like to help care for them
during the school holidays,
but I'm not sure
whether it's safe for me to do so,
and for them.
Hello. My name is Jesse.
I'm 13 and live on a farm
in New South Wales.
Thank you for listening
to my question.
My question is, if me and my family
isolate for 14 days,
can I go see my grandmother,
who also is isolating?
I really want to see my grandmother.
Thank you.
Hi, Nanna!
(CHUCKLES)
OK. Let me put that to you,
Sharon Lewin.
Can grandparents babysit?
Can kids in isolation
go and visit their grandma?
Yeah. Difficult one.
I don't think
grandparents can babysit
unless they're practising
some social distancing,
and, with young kids,
that's really hard.
And the reason why this very
difficult advice is coming
is because older people have
a much worse outcome from COVID-19.
Data from China shows people over 80
have 15%-20% mortality rate.
And it is still elevated,
even over 60, up around 3%-5%.
So that's why there's this great
effort to protect the elderly,
and particularly the very elderly.
So how would you protect yourself
as a grandmother?
Well, if you go through...
Or a grandparent?
If you go through social distancing,
it's to remain...
..to keep a, you know,
fixed distance away from someone,
all the things
that we're talking about -
hand hygiene, etc.
And that is really difficult
with a younger grandchild,
perhaps a five-year-old.
11-year-old may potentially...
could work,
who would be able to respect
those distancing rules.
Now, out of quarantine,
again, once you've done your...
I didn't understand the reasons
for the self-isolation.
Well, let's just say
it was coming back from overseas,
where we're currently recommending
anyone that comes back from overseas
undergoes self-isolation
for 14 days.
And the reason for that is they may
have had a potential exposure,
and if they were to get sick
in those 14 days,
we wouldn't want spread
over that time
even if they were asymptomatic.
So, at the end of the 14 days,
you can come out of self-isolation,
and the same rule would apply -
if you were to mix
or see an elderly person,
is to keep that physical distance.
It's just a lot harder
if you've got little kids,
and they jump on top of you
or you pick them up,
and you can't control them.
Alright, that sounds like a no.
The next two video questions are
from Catherine Martin in Wollongong
and Matthew Best in Ulladulla.
Dr Norman Swan advised us
against swimming
in chlorinated pools.
What is the risk,
as far as COVID-19 is concerned,
in swimming in the ocean
or in ocean pools?
Hey, guys.
I'm a fit, healthy 29-year-old
from a small coastal town on
the South Coast of New South Wales.
I've just flown back in
from a trip to New Zealand,
and I'm currently on the fourth day
of a 14-day quarantine.
I was just wondering what
the guidelines were on exercising
and, in particular, surfing?
I'd like to both surf on my own,
run through the bush on my own.
Am I permitted to do this?
Can I exercise and surf
out in the open
where I'm easily able
to avoid contact with anyone else?
OK, so, Norman Swan,
the first question on swimming
in ocean pools and in the ocean.
So, this is loose lips sink ships.
So, what I actually said about...
We got a huge number of questions,
and I'm sure Paul and Sharon
have got questions, too,
about swimming pools.
So, the story about swimming pools
is actually the chlorine
probably kills the virus.
So, it's not
the swimming pool itself,
it's the fact that you're mixing
with a lot of other people.
And the general principle here
is the more that you mix
with other people,
the greater - I think
Sharon said that at the beginning -
the greater your risk
of actually getting infected.
And in that sense,
a crowded beach is no more different
from a crowded swimming pool.
That's...that's really
the issue there.
Ocean swimming, that kind of thing?
Well, if you're on quarantine,
you're on quarantine.
You don't go out,
because you just can't guarantee.
So, Matthew in Ulladulla,
no bush running?
No.
No surfing?
No, he stays at home.
Paul can fix me up on this one.
But I don't think you can. No.
Paul, is that agreed?
Yeah, quarantine means
stay at home. Sorry.
Alright.
The next question is a video
from Lilen Pautasso
in London in the United Kingdom.
I'm wondering, with the colder
months about to approach Australia,
as a government, are we confident?
Are we prepared for the changes
the actual seasons will bring
for this coronavirus outbreak?
Are we prepared to see...
to manage the spikes
that are going to be coming?
So, Sharon Lewin, winter,
does that make this scenario
different for Australia?
And take us forward
the next few months,
where are things going to be at?
Yeah, winter does make a difference.
It's not because coronavirus
necessarily gets worse in winter.
We don't know the answer to that.
The big concern with winter coming
is that flu is still around,
and so having flu together
with coronavirus
is not a good combination,
because both give
respiratory illness.
Plus, winter means
a lot of people are indoors.
In the absence
of all this social distancing,
you'd be indoors and mixing
and close...in close contact
with other people,
and that's also not so good.
We know that many viruses
have seasonal variation.
We don't yet know the full answer
for COVID-19
and whether we will see
dramatic increases in winter
compared to summer months.
But your teams have been working
on both treatments and vaccines.
Is there anything positive
for us to look forward to
in the coming months?
Because we're told the vaccine
is actually a long time off.
Yeah, we haven't spoken a lot
in the public around treatments,
and I think that they may play
a very important role
while we're waiting for a vaccine.
As you just said earlier, Hamish,
vaccine estimate,
even though vaccines
often take years to develop,
we potentially could have something
in 12 to 18 months.
But I just want to talk
about treatment for a minute.
So, at the moment, we have
no specific treatment for the virus.
People get better on their own,
or they get better
because they receive
supportive care in hospital.
But if we had a treatment,
an antiviral drug that
blocked replication of the virus,
it could potentially
do two things.
It could potentially
improve outcome -
people don't get so sick
and don't die -
or also reduce transmission
because most virus transmission
is related to how much virus
you have onboard.
We know lots about that,
particularly from HIV.
And just recently, we've become
aware of one drug in particular.
It's actually an arthritis drug.
A very small study, but being tested
now quite widely showing that
that drug reduced
the amount of virus
that we could measure
in someone's swab.
And we actually can measure the
amount of virus quite accurately,
and it definitely decreased
with this particular arthritis drug.
So, one thing that we might see
in the not so distant future
is a lot of understanding
about drugs that block replication.
And that could have implications
for both clinical outcome
as well as how infectious you are.
So, I'm a little optimistic
about that.
A vaccine...you know, there's lots
going on on the vaccine front.
Lots of different trials.
One vaccine now
in what we call phase one trials,
human studies looking at safety.
We'll see that field
accelerate quickly,
but it still takes time
to make sure you've got
a really safe vaccine
and then also have something
that works.
Norman Swan?
Everybody's hanging out for
a vaccine. It's really important.
It's amazing the technology
that has been deployed
around the world, in Australia,
in Queensland, and overseas.
There is a worry about the vaccine
which people really need to know,
and it's why
it might take a bit longer.
So I understand that, when they were
developing a SARS vaccine,
and they tried it out on primates,
what happened was that
it was fine, it looked safe,
and then when they were challenged
with the infection,
they actually got seriously ill,
and you got an overreaction
of the immune system
similar to the fatal disease
that SARS caused.
So it depends on how closely related
this virus is to SARS,
whether the vaccines have
a different technology.
Sharon knows a million times more
than me about this.
Somebody at her institute was
involved in developing that vaccine,
and there is a potential risk here,
and it may delay the development.
I don't know
what Sharon thinks about that.
Will it?
Yeah.
Can I answer, Hamish?
Go for it.
Yes. Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
We...the immune system
is very complex.
We generally make good vac...
Good vaccines generally make
something called antibodies
but antibodies are not all the same.
So, you can have good antibodies
and bad antibodies, basically,
and we need to really understand
that the antibodies
that the vaccine's inducing
just, you know, get rid of the virus
and aren't causing other
activation of the immune system,
exactly as Norman says,
which is why you need
to really understand your vaccine
in different animal models,
usually more than one animal model,
and we're still developing
animal models,
and then also know
that it's really safe in humans
because you're about to give it
to millions of people.
So, it will take some time,
though the optimistic side of this,
as Norman alluded to,
is that there
are many new technologies,
and some of these newer technologies
that actually use the genetic code
of the virus
in order to make the vaccine
can be ramped up with production
very quickly.
That's another big barrier
for vaccine development.
OK.
You might get a vaccine,
but then to make enough of it
and to make it available
is another big challenge.
Alright. A couple more of these
quick-fire questions.
This video is from Louise McCallum
in Lindfield.
Hi. We keep hearing that the virus
doesn't survive
in high temperatures.
Is that actually true?
And if so, does that mean
we should be consuming hot liquids?
My barista would especially like
to know that.
Paul Kelly, you can deal
with this one quickly, please.
I think the answer is no.
There are... Every day,
myself and Professor Murphy
get the magic cure for COVID-19 sent
to us by email or other methods.
Unfortunately,
there is no magic cure.
There are some hopeful medications
and some clinical trials going on,
as Sharon has mentioned.
We're all hanging out
for the vaccine.
OK. The next question is a video
from Pamela Virtue
in Potts Point in New South Wales.
She's an 81-year-old with what
she says are less than ideal lungs.
Would we wrinklies,
in the case of a ventilator
shortage...
..would we, as in Italy, be denied
the use of a ventilator
in an emergency?
Norman Swan, what's the reality?
Well, the reality depends
on whether or not our hospitals
get overwhelmed.
So, the predictions at the moment,
if this hockey stick
doesn't change that much,
is that we'll be out of ICU beds
in New South Wales -
Victoria will be behind that -
by April 10th.
And in that case, ICU physicians
will be faced
with some very difficult decisions.
And in...you know, overseas,
30% to 40% of ICU beds
are filled with young people.
There's one ICU, I'm told,
in Melbourne at the moment,
where there's an 18-year-old
and a 40-year-old in ICU.
And so, these are difficult
decisions.
And if you're already sick
and frail,
you don't necessarily put up
very well with a ventilator,
or the heart-lung bypass,
which is the ultimate treatment.
Paul Kelly, do you agree
that our hospitals
will reach capacity
by around April 10?
No, I don't.
There is a laser-like focus
on looking at what we have
in terms of current ICU capacity -
current intensive-care capacity,
not necessarily intensive care unit
capacity, ventilators and the like.
We are really ramping up
what we can do there.
We've been assured by our state
and territory colleagues
that a doubling of capacity
is a relatively simple thing.
A tripling of capacity
is also possible. We...
The capacity of ventilators,
or capacity of ICU beds?
Well, the two mainly go together.
But the point is, I guess,
back to the hockey stick,
we can't be distracted
from the public health measures
that we've discussed already
about making that curve much flatter
than might be the case
without those sort of interventions.
So, that's the first thing.
But in the midst...
So, that will decrease the demand.
The second part is really ramping up
what we have in intensive care.
We have strategies, also,
to take pressure off
the hospital system more broadly,
not just intensive care units.
So, look, we are not Italy.
I've seen some people say,
when they look at the curves
of what Norman's referring to there,
the epidemiological curve,
that we're two weeks behind Italy.
We are not two weeks behind Italy.
We have been testing
and finding many more mild cases.
Italy mainly tested
the top of the pyramid,
the very serious cases,
as they came into hospital.
That's what their first 1,000 were.
Our first 1,000
are mainly community cases,
mostly involved with travel
from overseas.
We've only had 20 people
through this whole period
that have been in intensive care.
We've had seven deaths,
unfortunately, all in older people.
The average age is... The lower age
is 77, the average 86.
Can I just check with you
about capacity, though?
Because this is an important point,
and it's a question
we've had from many people.
You have said that you expect
between 20% to 60% of the population
to get COVID-19.
Is that still the case?
Well, that's if we didn't have
these interventions,
and didn't flatten the curve -
that's what that was referring to.
So, just...we know the biology
of the virus.
We can... We know what...
There's been talk
about herd immunity, and so forth.
What we would also need to get to
if a vaccine was produced,
and was successfully rolled out
into the population
to protect all of us,
and that's where the 60% comes from.
So, that would be an uncontrolled
epidemic, or one that's...
Sure, but you had said that
20% is best-case scenario.
Is that still the case?
We may get less, but that's 20%
without the major interventions
that have gone into place this week,
and with potentially more to come.
OK, so you actually think it will be
lower than 20% of the population
that would contract COVID-19 now.
For the time being.
We need to be really clear about
what the endgame is here, Hamish.
So, we're all hoping
for a vaccine in the future.
If we get a vaccine that works
and is effective,
then we're protected and, fantastic,
we can really defeat this virus.
If we go into lockdown,
as many people are suggesting
we should do now,
this is not
a two- or four-week phenomenon,
it's until we get the vaccine.
And if we do that,
less people will be infected,
but every time we take
our foot off the brake...
And I've heard Norman talking
about this very well today
in relation to that paper
he mentioned earlier
from Imperial College.
Every time we take the foot
off the brake,
more people will get the infection.
That's just the way
the infection will be.
We cannot completely eradicate
this infection
unless we get a vaccine.
So, is, in some sense, herd immunity
part of our ultimate plan
if there is no vaccine?
Is that what you're saying?
Well, herd immunity
is the alternative
to total lockdown and total closure
of the borders, and so forth.
That's one option,
the vaccine is another option.
And herd immunity is another option.
We're not pursuing that one
at the moment
because that means many more people
will get the infection.
But we don't have a vaccine,
and we're not doing total lockdown.
We're not, but there's been
many of the things
that have been introduced
in the last couple of days
which are heading in that direction.
Right.
But the other option might be,
if I could just jump in,
after, you know, severe
social-distancing measures which...
When you say "lockdown",
that might be confusing for people,
you know, of what that means.
You have a range of different
social-distancing measures
and we may not...
we may need all of them,
but we maybe could get away
with some of them.
So, one approach, strategy is that
if you relax some of those measures,
you have really souped-up testing,
So, you just pounce
on every single infection
and its associated contacts.
And if we had, you know, locked down
and really reduced the numbers
of infections,
and had time to really ramp up
those aggressive testing measures,
like what South Korea
and Singapore are doing,
that's another potential
exit strategy,
or ways to relax the severity
of social distancing.
All eyes are on China at the moment,
if you can believe
what's coming out of China.
Yeah.
And it's hard to know.
But they're taking their foot
off the brake,
and only 1% of people are immune.
So, a lot of people are vulnerable,
and it will be interesting
to see what happens.
The London group suggested
actually pulsing the pedal...
Yeah.
..exactly as Sharon said.
Take it off for a little bit,
see what happens.
Because Paul is right,
people don't realise
what we're actually entering now,
we have not experienced
for 102 years.
And this is ancient epidemiology.
This is difficult stuff,
where we're changing the way we live
for an indefinite period.
It's actually... You know,
it's clearly scaring government.
And when you put your foot on
the brake, you can't take it off.
I understand all these decisions.
And then, what happens
with the curve,
and here's
the uncomfortable truth,
is if you actually look
at these epidemic curves,
they come from
the 1918 flu epidemic.
It's not convincing
that you actually save lives
in the long term,
but you actually...
The hospital system...you don't
kill as many doctors and nurses,
to be blunt, and your hospital
system stays intact,
and you're able to have a much more
humane society along the way.
It's like planning for battle,
and working out, at the Somme,
how many you're willing to lose,
and it's terrible decision-making.
I'm not saying terrible
decision-making that's taken,
but it's terrible
to be in the position
to have to make those decisions.
But it's a profound change
we've never experienced before
in living memory.
We wanted to look a little bit more
closely at one of these places
that is taking a really focused
approach to tracking down cases.
And so, we're going to take a look
at Taiwan briefly
because they've got a similar
population size to Australia,
23 million,
but only 169 confirmed cases,
two confirmed deaths so far,
even though it was predicted
to be one of the worst-case
scenarios, globally.
I've been talking to Dr Jason Wang,
a paediatrician and policy strategist
at Stanford University.
They had merged the immigration
and customs database
with the national
health insurance database.
That allowed them
to quickly identify people
who had travelled to epicentres -
these hotspots.
And so, when the doctor sees
these patients in their clinic,
they're alerted that they have been
to areas where there's COVID-19,
and then they took precautions
when they see them,
and then they order a test.
Dr Wang, Taiwan's also
been pretty rigorous
in checking people's temperatures
coming into the country,
going to schools,
going into public places.
How have they done that?
How effective has it been?
So even before COVID-19,
they have been doing that.
So, as you enter the country,
there's a scanner
and if your head lights up,
then that means you have fever
and they will ask you to step aside
and check for additional symptoms.
And they've been doing that
in regular times
but definitely more rigorous
during COVID-19.
In schools and public buildings,
they check
every student's temperature
and every visitor's temperature.
So, if somebody has fever,
they will just stop them
from going to the building
and ask them to, you know,
seek additional care
and make sure that they don't
have symptoms of COVID-19.
I've also read that
after the SARS outbreak,
Taiwan established
a national coordination centre
for a situation like this.
Has that worked?
Yeah, so
the National Health Command Center
was established in 2004,
a year after SARS.
So, the Command Center is a
compound that could host 100 people.
And so when this epidemic started,
they activated the Command Center.
So, people started
to work there 24/7.
And so data would come in
from local governments
and the central government
and get analysed
and then get reported
so that decisions could be made.
So, this way, they could
make decisions based on data
and then report it to the public
in a media room
also at the compound,
at the
National Health Command Center.
So, that way,
the public will be informed.
And this really builds trust
because they were using
real-time data to inform decisions,
then they would then tell the public
why they're doing it
and what they're doing.
Professor Paul Kelly,
it's pretty clear now
that communicating this stuff
to the public is crucial.
Do you accept that mistakes
have been made up to date?
Mistakes in terms of communications?
Yeah.
Look, I think we need to be clearer
with our messaging.
I think that's come through
from many sources.
So, we're certainly
listening to that.
I would say that between myself
and Professor Murphy,
we have stood up
and done press conferences
45 times since the 21st of January.
We've got a lot of information
on our website
and people are going to it.
We've had 30 million people
go to our website.
We have fact sheets for...
So many fact sheets
for specific industries,
for specific circumstances,
and to explain the virus.
We were late with our social media
campaign, I recognise that.
But it's...now is the time
when people need to be listening.
And I made this point the other day,
Hamish,
that communication
is a two-way thing.
People are really primed to listen.
We are trying to get those messages
out now in as many ways as we can.
I think the big message from Taiwan
is that they're unashamed
and unembarrassed about using data,
linking data,
and actually quite personal data
for the public good.
We're too nervous in Australia
to link...
We do some linked data, but we
could now be using this opportunity
to link data on a massive scale
and actually get synergies here
and be able to do
something similar to Taiwan
so that we know what's going on
and we can actually measure things.
And we need to actually get over
our fear of data.
Could it all be communicated better?
Just on that, very briefly, 'cause
we have to take one last question.
I think it's got better.
I think that they had
a terrible week two weeks ago
with the football and the Grand Prix
and I think it's settled down
and got a lot better.
Should there be set daily briefings
at particular times? Would that help?
Well, I've suggested
what they should do
is, every day,
they should publish the curve
and take...and that immediately
would actually...
..the government would take control
of the agenda,
rather than people like me
talking about the curve.
Let's just talk about the curve.
And the whole of Australia
will get behind it
and understand the dilemma.
Why don't you do that, Paul Kelly?
LEWIN: Can I say...
Go for it, Sharon.
I was just going to stay one thing
about Taiwan, Singapore,
South Korea, you know,
countries that - Hong Kong -
that actually have done
really well here.
And a common thread to all of them
is that they experienced SARS
and South Korea had MERS,
another coronavirus.
So, they...those governments
and those populations
felt how painful
these sort of outbreaks are.
And I think that gave
those governments licence
to go really hard and...
early and hard
which was acceptable to people
in those countries
when there wasn't a lot
of coronavirus there
or even around us.
So, I think this experience
will change us forever in many ways
but particularly with that lesson
around...around sort of
taking control very, very early,
which I think would have been
unacceptable to many Australians
very early in our outbreak.
OK.
One last question tonight now comes
from Peter Strohkorb in St Ives.
Hi. My question
to the panel is this -
why have both the media and
some of the politicians
focused on the rise of new cases,
the death rate in various countries,
including Australia,
and the fears...
and spread fear and loathing
about the virus
which has sent shoppers crazy?
Why has there been not enough
communication and information
about the very low mortality rate
of the virus
and that it's not an automatic
death sentence once you contract it?
Thank you.
Paul Kelly.
Oh, look, every time
I talk about the virus,
I talk about it mainly being
a mild illness for 80% of people.
But...and that's a clear component
of it and to give people hope.
The issue with...as people
are survivors
and leave hospital and so forth,
we've also been open about that.
But just to be clear, this is not
a minor illness for some people,
particularly elder people -
the mortality rate,
as Sharon mentioned,
is frighteningly high.
And so we need to all
be doing our part as a society
to protect the people
that are most vulnerable.
We've also,
in other parts of the world,
found people that are not elderly,
in the middle ages -
so from 30 and up -
who have been in intensive care,
who have got very severe illness
and died.
So, yes,
for most people, it's a mild illness
and I've been very open about that
as have others
that have talked about it.
OK. Well, that is all
we've got time for tonight.
We're leaving you with some music.
But first, to our panel -
Dr Norman Swan,
Professor Sharon Lewin,
and Professor Paul Kelly,
thank you very much for joining us.
And I do hope, as this goes on,
that we can have you all back
to continue the conversation.
And to all of you who sent in
your questions, we're so grateful.
We're going to keep doing this,
week in, week out.
So, do please keep them coming.
Next week, we're looking at how
this hits every Australian home,
family and wallet.
And in these unusual times,
it's obviously hard to get together,
connect and enjoy music and
a lot of the great things in life,
so we're going to commit ourselves
now to try and bring you
as much of that
as we can here at Q+A.
Next week, there'll be a huge treat -
singer/songwriter Montaigne
will be with us.
We're obviously the next best thing
to performing at Eurovision,
of course, which has been cancelled.
And tonight, I'd like to introduce
to you an incredible talent
who sings and performs and writes
and makes people laugh.
She's been thinking about love
in the time of coronavirus.
So, as we say take care,
wash your hands and goodnight,
would you please enjoy
the incredible Bridie Connell.
This song goes out to all the
romantics stuck in quarantine.
I know it's hard when you can't be
with the one that you love, yeah.
But don't despair, you know?
Isolation doesn't have to be unsexy.
Listen to me.
# I said I wanted to get you alone
but I didn't mean it quite this way
# I want to love you, you know I do
but from 15 feet away
# Maybe this is our chance
to really get connected
# Through Wi-Fi and devices that
have been thoroughly disinfected
# I know it's hard
and you miss your girl
# And you feel like
it's the end of the world
# You feel like it's Armageddon,
Armageddon
# But Armageddon it on
# You've got my heart
and you got my soul
# Boy, I want to touch you
but not without a 10-foot pole
# Armageddon it on
# Yeah
# This social distance
has my love life suffering
# Suffering
# Video chat don't work
because of the bu...
# Of the bu...
Of the buffering
# Boy, you know I like you
# I think you're a solid 10
2 x 5.
# No, I'm not ghosting you
It's just the NBN
# I know it's hard
but we got to persist
# If we want the human race
to continue to exist, now
# Armageddon
What you gettin'?
# Armageddon
What you gettin'?
# Armageddon it on
What you get it from?
# You've got my soul
and you got my heart
# I want to love you but I love you
from a metre and a half apart
# Armageddon it on
# Get down in the lockdown
# I don't have one lover
# No, you know I've got plenty
# COVID-19, have you met Glen 20?
Nice to meet you.
# Maybe the social distance
will bring us closer
# By the way, you should support
your independent grocer
# That last bit wasn't really
relevant to this song
# But it very important now
# Especially
in this changing economy, yeah
# Armageddon
What you gettin'?
# Armageddon
What you gettin'?
# Armageddon it on
Oh, yeah
# Ooh, I wanna give you a kiss
on those sweet
# On those sweet,
on those sweet apocalypse
# Armageddon it on... #
OK, everybody.
When I say "wash",
you say "your hands".
Wash!
Oh, no public gatherings.
# Armageddon
# Armageddon
Oh, yeah.
# Armageddon it on
Get the funk, y'all.
# Treat 'em clean and keep 'em keen
# And for God's sake,
respect the quarantine
# Armageddon it on
# Yeah, yeah
# There ain't no aphrodisiac
like knowing that our actions
# Will help the human race
bounce back
# Armageddon it on. #
Stay well...
away from each other.
Captions by Red Bee Media
Copyright Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
