around 2:30pm today. Basically the same time or a whisker before the Commonwealth CMO fronted the microphone. After VIC and SA (and earlier, QLD and WA) made their announcements. He misleads at best, conflating Northern Beaches restrictions with the rest of Sydney. Also tROoPs.

wow now Palasczuzk is up. Btw Morrison took a few seconds of his 3-minute piece to camera, posted to the gram, to say that “everybody is doing their job” lol a deadset giveaway.
the QLD Premier is also putting restrictions in place on greater Sydney. Now is not the time to visit the Sunshine State thanks Sydneysiders, she says. Not dissimilar to VIC, she says.
Dr Young (Queensland CHO) says greater Sydney is a declared hot spot, which includes the extended south coast to central coast areas, from 1am tomorrow. Queenslanders returning home will have to quarantine.
Qld CHO says tougher border restrictions necessary because so many other restrictions around Qld have been lifted. Few exemptions will be granted, she predicts. Anyone who has come to Qld from greater Sydney asked to test and notify Qld health authorities.
Dr Young moves on health advice (as opposed to enforceable restrictions). She goes through the masks and social distancing advice.
number of close contacts in Queensland (from Sydney outbreak sites) has increased from 11 to 15. Warning that new strains may be emerging. Hygiene and checking in measures reiterated.
Queensland (cops? rangers?) will be doing a pre-Christmas blitz of businesses to check all health regs are in place re distancing markings, hand sanitiser etc. No more pen and paper: e-registration to be in place at all venues within next 72 hours.
Qld compliance measures ~ con ~ advice to businesses on wiping surfaces etc. People quarantining at home subject to random checks. No visitors allowed.
Qld deputy premier Dr Stephen Miles is up. He refers to the new arrangements (restrictions on people from NSW, hot spot declaration of greater Sydney) as a hard border closure. He stresses the preventative aspect of the measures.
chief Qld cop up to describe the Q pass (quarantine declaration) system and border check points being set up. He mentions Sydney flight crew member who broke quarantine rules.
questions. Palasczuzk is less emphatic on the “hard border” language. She says random checks and border check points are being set up with a view to moving to a hard border closure depending on numbers in NSW and how the Vic hard border with NSW goes.
Qld CHO reiterates that anyone from the Sydney northern beaches who is in qld has to quarantine now. As of 1am, anyone coming in from greater Sydney (nb includes Illawarra and central coast) has to quarantine.
Palasczuzk says if there are as many cases coming out of NSW in the next few days as the last few days, she thinks national cabinet should convene. Telling the prime minister to break from his bone idle lazy habits and turn up to work, in other words.

More from World

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?