Commenting on the story: New SA aged care restrictions to protect “most vulnerable” from COVID-19
I guess the devil is in the detail as to how much PPE is deemed appropriate. Is it just a Level 1, 2 or 3 Ply surgical mask or is it P2/N95 or KN95 or D95+ Grade masks required?
What about CPE gowns, gloves, goggles and face shields? A blanket statement of PPE required does not really say much.
As someone who has co-ordinated group orders of PPE for GP clinics here in SA, and am now co-ordinating for Vic, NSW, Qld and ACT, feedback from colleagues interstate are a real worry about the handling in Residential Aged Care Facilities.
Who is to provide the PPE? Staff? Health professionals visiting?
One pertinent issue highlighted is in Victoria, for example. It was up to the private nursing homes to provide PPE to their staff. Word is some nurses received masks but not catering staff, cleaners and handymen, in spite of them being “employed” by said RACFs and had contact with aged care residents. – Alvin Chua
I do hope this new rule regarding masks to be worn by staff when attending to people in aged care, does not apply to ‘dementia units’.
Residents in dementia units will be very confused and frightened if their carers and nurses wear masks when they attend to them.
They do not have any idea what we are talking about when we introduce a discussion about Covid; they may nod their heads but won’t understand or remember the conversation. – Sue Berry
I noticed there was no mention of agency staff. My wife works for a large agency and many of the facilities she works at can have multiple agency staff working there at one time.
Many aged care facilities rely on these agency carers and nurses on a daily basis.
My wife can be called to three or four different places a week, sometimes at very short notice because of issues with staffing levels. How will this work with this crucial part of the industry? – Anthony Charvetto
Commenting on the story: Mutual obligation confusion over Centrelink payments
It was suggested that I apply for a delivery position with a leading supermarket.
I’ve had a hip replacement and it’s recommended by my surgeon that I do not drive a truck. I also have had wrist surgery on my nerves and tendons so therefore cannot use my left hand efficiently.
The job placement company knows my medical limitations. Go figure. – Glenn Gorin
Commenting on the opinion piece: This might be the most stupid decision in the city council’s history
David Washington has missed the whole point of the decision by City of Adelaide Council to approve a “driver’s month”.
He is forgetting that the council, which has an ever widening sinkhole in its budget, needs $$ fast.
It owns many of the off-street commercial carparks (UPark) and makes money from parking fines. You don’t get this from cyclists/public transport.
In fact, council recently introduced UPark + to give discounted parking rates to subscribers, but due to its success, they’ve already had to raise the rates at several addresses and restricted access at Central Market.
As a city worker who lives in the outer suburbs however, I would prefer that marketing budget for driver’s month be used to reduce parking fees.
My bus takes an hour to get to the city, I can drive in 40 minutes. It’s also not always practical to take public transport or cycle when shopping.
All those lovely green cycle lanes are useless without more end of trip facilities for working cyclists anyway. – Name supplied
Commenting on the story: City development set for approval despite Govt Architect concerns
Please don’t become like The Advertiser and become overwhelmingly negative in your reporting of new developments in the Adelaide CBD.
Despite the extremely vocal and tedious NIMBY brigade – who seemingly oppose any development over a few storeys – many people like myself have been excited to see the transformation of the Adelaide city centre over the past decade or so.
The whole area feels much more vibrant, safer and generally exciting, particularly for us younger people. Continued developments like the one such as this help to bring more people to the CBD to further enhance its vibrancy, as well as create construction jobs in these difficult economic times.
Also, to consider a 17 storey building in a capital city centre as overly tall is absurd and smacks of unnecessary Adelaide resistance to any sort of change. – Louis Rankin
Want to comment?
Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.
We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.
Make your contribution to independent news
A donation of any size to InDaily goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. South Australia needs more than one voice to guide it forward, and we’d truly appreciate your contribution. Please click below to donate to InDaily.