breaking covid rules

[Lappa]

Great sign that should be all over billboards and in newspaper adverts.

499250

[Warb]

If 50 can't be done simultaneously (of which I was being arbitrary/facetious), why not 10. Ten is better than one.
....
And why not 50? What are the incidences of anaphylaxis.... is it so common that 50 can't be done? Curious questions.
.....
* how hard is it to have a FAQ which answers 95% of all questions? Read it before one even turns up....

The local Government "immunisation centre" does about 6 at a time (6 nurses giving shots), and they have a doctor on hand for any emergencies (a tiny number of people have a reaction to almost any injection, not just covid). They also have a very large room (actually a hall at the showground) so can have a large pre and post waiting area without social distancing issues. They also have separate nurses to do the check-ins, so the consent process is significantly quicker (the nurse vaccinator does ONLY the consent and a small amount of data entry, the receptionist does most of the data entry). They therefore have a much higher throughput, most of which until recently was wasted drinking coffee! As for a FAQ, well I believe there is one but sadly most people would rather believe what their mate said in the pub; the value of a FAQ when up against "mates" and social media is very much reduced.

There's a few other things to note, however. Firstly those staff in the government facility are hourly paid, they don't have to make a profit. Which is lucky because until recently they've been sitting around with nothing to do - in fact a report I read (in the ever-trustworthy media, but supposedly quoting government data) said that even the week before last, in Sydney, a government facility injecting AZ had 50% unused appointments - the staff are being paid to wait for the occasional patient! In a pharmacy situation, the pharmacy is paid by the injection. If it takes 2 minutes and you do 30 an hour you make money. But if you do the job properly and do 4 an hour you make a loss. [Edit: I'm talking about number of shots per "vaccinator", not just the total number, and I'm using random figures just as examples!]. How you view this depends on whether you are the concerned patient, the already vaccinated person being locked down because of the "vaccine hesitant", the greedy business owner or the conscientious healthcare professional.......

When all's said and done, the biggest issue is still that the media scared the hell out of people with the "AZ will kill you dead" reports, so people didn't get the vaccine months ago. Even now there are people who are waiting for Pfizer because they think it's "better", whilst others are panicking and blaming the world for their own lack of preparedness. Still others are continuing to say covid is a hoax (we hear that every day!).

Being able to give many vaccines is only relevant if you have many arms to put them in!!

[forrestmount]

I was entitled to the vaccine and booked in back in April. When I was already at the doctor he told me to see the front desk and make the appointment. Appointment made 6 weeks into the future for the astra Zeneca shot. Someone from the front desk called me the day before and said I was not entitled to it and would not stop talking before hanging up the phone. I literally did not say a word.

So I thought I would register online

The online QLD portal said I was entitled to a shot. I entered my email and phone number but that was 2 months ago and I have not heard a thing. It a confirmation nothing. Others I have spoken to said the got the same lack of response

I really don’t understand how this works, from I I have been told you don’t book and just show up and you get a shot. This seems insane to do this during a pandemic when systems exist to book.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[woodPixel]

I'm not sure of the ages of many here, but I'd wager we are all in the "doomed of you catch it" group.

You all should be getting pushy for a shot. Canute can only hold back this tide for so long. Check my video from above.

I went to South America for a while in the early 90's. I saw poverty and disease there like I'd never seen. I absolutely don't need to be pushed into vaccination!

People hesitating are fools. They will die. Long COVID is a thing. Its serious.

I'd wager many of our USA forumites know of someone no longer with us.

[woodPixel]

I saw this on Reddit last week :)

499264 499265

[woodPixel]

I saw this interesting study on long COVID...

There Are More Than 50 Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 | RealClearScience (https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/08/10/there_are_more_than_50_long-term_effects_of_covid-19_789293.html)

[Bushmiller]

WP

It is somewhat baffling how much emphasis has been placed on the chances of having an adverse reaction to the vaccinations (blood clotting, anaphylactic etc) compared to the chances of contracting the illness, particularly if you live in the cities, and even more so the after effects of what is now collectively called "long covid."

If you are one of the susceptible few, which are not that many, but more than those at risk of vaccine after effects, Covid-19 is, as I have mentioned before, a very nasty insidious disease. We were treated to this in the very early days with Forum member Rob Streeper's account of how it laid him low for six months and he was still experiencing some side effects. That was way back in the first half of 2020.

Perhaps there are a few people out there who could benefit from 20:20 vision. :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

[D.W.]

..about people walking around like nothing is going on in the states....well, how delta has changed things!

Where I am (pennsylvania, pittsburgh actually), the rates here are relatively low for delta, but I'm sure they're a lot higher than they were.

Still, most people are walking around maskless (the vaccinated rate here is very high).

Nonetheless, until data changes, it looks like pfizer is only about 40% effective in preventing delta, but highly effective still at preventing hospitalization and even more effective as a percentage in preventing death.

I don't personally want to have covid (and don't *think* that I have), but not looking forward to the idea of getting a booster shot a few months after most folks were just finished with their second shots.

Wouldn't want to be chancing it without a vaccine, but also don't want to be tied to vaccines if the chance of serious covid after two shots is low and building natural immunity from there is more effective.

[Warb]

Nonetheless, until data changes, it looks like pfizer is only about 40% effective in preventing delta, but highly effective still at preventing hospitalization and even more effective as a percentage in preventing death....

Wouldn't want to be chancing it without a vaccine, but also don't want to be tied to vaccines if the chance of serious covid after two shots is low and building natural immunity from there is more effective.

The western world may have to adapt its attitude towards life expectancy! It's a difficult thing to contemplate, and just as difficult to discuss without upsetting people, but currently we use medicines to keep people alive well beyond the point where nature would have "reclaimed" them. We are defying nature, and perhaps it is inevitable that nature will attempt to redress the balance? Sooner or later it will succeed!

In the case of covid, the virus (like all "lifeforms") is constantly evolving. At present, the delta strain is the one causing us most problems, but next week/month/year a new mutation will arise that is more efficient at spreading. There will, of course, be a great many mutations that are less efficient at spreading, but those will die out simply because they _are_ less efficient. The difficulty (for us) starts when the new mutation that spreads more effectively is also one that does more harm - from an evolutionary standpoint I assume the "damage" trait can't be described as "efficient" because the virus gains nothing from killing us! Nonetheless, rapid spreading plus high damage is bad for us!!

All this, it must be remembered, is nothing new. All diseases act the same way, which is why influenza kills many people every year, and also why we have a new 'flu vaccine every year - developed to address the strain (or strains) currently causing problems. It would be reasonable to assume that the situation with covid will be much the same, an annual booster developed to act against the latest strain(s) of covid.

Natural immunity is derived from the body being infected and "learning" to produce antibodies. Unfortunately the body has to learn, and produce sufficient antibodies, before the disease kills it! Subsequently the body has to "remember" how to produce those antibodies, and over time (for some diseases) it forgets. So the body, ideally, needs constant/frequent re-exposure to the disease in order to maintain its immunity. When put together, this explains "life" - the young and fit survive the new disease, develop immunity, and then enter an "arms race" with the disease to see whether the body, or the disease, can develop faster and "win". The old and unfit can't develop and maintain their immunity, so nature reclaims them. Science has stepped in and developed vaccines that allow the body to learn to produce the antibodies without having to survive the disease, but in many/most cases we need booster shots every year, five years, whatever. We, as individuals, often choose what vaccinations to worry about - as a farmer I make sure my tetanus vaccination is always up to date, for example. I also vaccinate my livestock, who also get boosters as required.

With covid, I have no doubt, we have another disease that will require frequent boosters. We have already seen that all the current vaccines decrease in efficacy over time (as the body forgets!), so unless we have constant low level re-exposure a booster seems likely. We have also seen that covid has developed some more "efficient" mutations, and that the current vaccines vary on their efficacy against the various mutations, so again a booster seems likely.

Interestingly (well, I thought so!) I was reading a paper that suggested that in fact covid is mutating at a lower rate than many other viruses, but that the mutations tend to be better (from the viruses viewpoint) and so survive and spread. Apparently many other viruses mutate at a significantly higher rate, but the mutations tend to be inferior to the parent and therefore don't survive/reproduce. That's an interesting concept, because it could be taken to mean that those other viruses have more or less reached the top of their game, but covid might still be a way from its peak variant. If anyone needed prompting to get a vaccination, perhaps this should be taken in to consideration..... we should get on top of the current strain(s) before they have the ability to mutate in to something even worse!!

[D.W.]

I have two thoughts -from the outset, they told us that it would be a slow mutating virus, and that's true. When a new variant comes up, it lasts for months at least and other dominant strains are slow to come along. I don't know that life expectancy is something that we need to seriously adjust, but we have something that will take advantage of certain types of vulnerabilities (diabetes, serious heart diseases, immune systems damaged by cancer treatment).

What's not well established yet is whether or not boosters will be more effective than vaccine and then natural sickness on a relatively regular basis (annually).

Delta can get past two pfizers, but the death rates are only high for the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. So, we need to seriously contemplate in the long term once someone is vaccinated and has a low chance of death or morbidity if we're going to compare boosters or natural immunity, and that data needs to be made public.

what's totally clear is that having any comorbidities and going head long into a high viral rate transmission of covid is *bad*. The nursing home in WA state (washington in the USA) showed that lesson early - folks didn't know they were breathing huge amounts of covid and the employee group with a median age of 38 went to the hospital at a rate of 50%. The death rate among the elderly was high.

I somewhat expect that we'll find transmission rates after vaccine or illness are higher in the presence of high levels of virus in the air vs "solidly enough to catch it".

I'm sure the CDC is tracking the kind of data that I mention, but we hear little about the death rate of those who had covid previously vs. the vaccinated (in terms of the infection on the second go around). We hear constantly how much better the vaccine is, but it's only compared to the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. It may be that after everyone has the vaccine, we're not generally better off in the long term living on boosters.

[Warb]

I'm sure the CDC is tracking the kind of data that I mention, but we hear little about the death rate of those who had covid previously vs. the vaccinated (in terms of the infection on the second go around). We hear constantly how much better the vaccine is, but it's only compared to the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. It may be that after everyone has the vaccine, we're not generally better off in the long term living on boosters.

My suspicion is that it will depend on the background health of the individual. Much the same as for 'flu, the young and healthy can (relatively) easily deal with an annual case of the 'flu, they can survive the illness long enough for their body to learn/remember how to create the required antibodies. The old and infirm have more trouble - for influenza in Australia the death rate increases massively with age (and additional health issues).

I suspect, therefore, that the vaccination situation will go the same way as for 'flu, being that young fit people don't even know a vaccine exists, whilst older and infirm people are strongly advised to get it. I had never had a 'flu vax until I was over 50, now I get one every year and this year my doctor also recommended the pneumococcal vaccine.

Of course all this is dependent on covid staying relatively constant. If it mutated to a form that is as transmissible as delta but as with the mortality rate of SARS (10%) or MERS (35%) then all bets are off!!

[D.W.]

I think you're right. There is some back and forth at the CDC in terms of financial interest in vaccines and continuing to test them (as there is with the university health systems here that get grants to test vaccines. For example, one of the individuals on the panel that's more or less deferred clinical testing on ivermectin has involvement in a university health system that is declared as the only system qualified to do ongoing testing - the grant size was 9 figures. Regardless of what anyone thinks of ivermectin, that should've been disclosed.

The CDC generally retracts identities of individuals in some of the committees, though I think there's a two part answer for that:
1) they should disclose information requested in FOIA requests here in the US
2) despite the FOIA issues, if they do disclose individuals involved, the nutters who think covid doesn't exist will attack

Metaanalysis suggests ivermectin is pretty effective taken at symptom onset (50-85%) as an antiviral, and potentially with some prophylactic effect. It shouldn't be used *in place* of vaccines, but potentially along with it.

I believe Merck is developing a "low cost" antiviral regimen to be taken early in covid cases (it will "only" be $700 or so).

Strangely, their comments about how it must be used match when ivermectin is or isn't effective in meta-analysis (e.g., ivermectin doesn't show much improvement in mortality if given late - to my knowledge, nothing so far really shows effectiveness for long haulers carrying a whole bunch of nonviable proteins).

My point being in the US that if there are two alternatives, the one that continues the flow of money better will be the one that's chosen. The fact that a clinical trial of ivermectin hasn't been done here based on findings of meta-analysis is bonkers.

On the investor side, Pfizer has stated that they expect that the covid vaccines will become "durable long term revenue" like the flu vaccine.

Many here (young or not) do get the flu shot every year. I've generally always gotten it - only learned last year that as someone who has respiratory sickness each year (not critical, just annoying - bronchitis) that there's a fair chance that the flu vax increases the likelihood I"ll end up with bronchitis (this conclusion is the result of trivalent vaccine clinical trials and is statistically significant with an expected multiplier of 4). I'm a little that nobody has ever mentioned that to me as bronchitis is a multi-week totally survivable non-threatening but completely miserable state to be in. I've never had a case of the flu that lasted more than a couple of days, and even at that only one of those days in each case (twice in the last 21 years) was a partial loss.

At any rate, if the data suggests categories of individuals should be getting boosters often (I think that will be the legitimate case for vulnerable individuals who don't have an effective robust response), and some large cohort is just as well off (comparing covid symptoms and outcomes to the same with vaccine, plus vaccine side effects), we won't know for quite some time.

It seems appropriate right now for them to be studying third shots for the vulnerable, and I think they are. It seems just as appropriate to measure the long term outcome of the non-vulnerable groups to vaccine vs. actually getting covid as the idea that the vaccinated can't get or spread covid is now no longer accurate.

(the odds are on our side for covid to become more transmissible but no more severe - long-term experience with virii always leads to the most deadly having a short widespread public life due both to their effectiveness (incapacitating their hosts and limiting spread) and our response. But something like delta that leaves most people ambulatory and can spread before they show symptoms could have a long lifetime until something as mild but even more transmissible comes along).

[Warb]

One thing I learned in my years as a consultant in big pharmaceutical companies is that profit is the only driver behind the business. It's nice to be able to say "we saved humanity" (or whatever) but it's still not worth doing if it can't be turned into $$$$....

Regarding the "high damage" mutations, yes indeed they do tend to suffer from killing the host before they can spread - the reason I said earlier that high damage isn't really "efficient" for a virus. However, given the "long covid" symptoms that are currently being publicised, there is room for strains that last long enough to spread but still do significantly more damage than current strains, even without a high rate of rapid mortality.

The ivermectin situation is slightly more complicated than perhaps it would appear on first glance (assuming that it does actually work, which I haven't investigated). Ivermectin is a heavily used anti-parasitic. In various formulations it is used for everything from headlice in kids through to worms in dogs and cats. We buy it in 20litre drums to drench cattle and sheep, and the injectable version for cattle is 500ml for $90, with a dose rate of 1ml per 50kg animal weight, so assuming the same rate (based on nothing at all!)- a 100kg man would take a 36cent dose! This creates a few problems for the covid indication. Firstly, it is very hard to justify a great deal of expensive testing for a drug that is know to be dirt cheap - the pharmaceutical companies can't charge $hundreds a dose for something you can buy over the counter at your local rural supplier. If they globally raise the price of the active they will lose the agricultural sector, which is almost certainly a far bigger loss than anything they might make from covid treatments, and if they don't then they risk people taking animal drenches as a prophylactic. On a more light-hearted note, it might also call in to question many existing regulations, for example we cannot use ivermectin in animals within (from memory) 48 days of slaughter for human consumption - that would seem a strange requirement if people started taking it as a prophylactic for covid! I was talking to another farmer when Donald Trump started talking about ivermectin, and we were joking about all kinds of possibilities - perhaps farmers could pre-dose meat with ivermectin, like water is dosed with fluoride?..!

[woodPixel]

From memory, wasnt this why the CSIRO was enacted?

To pursue science for the people, rather than profit? They look into things like Ivermectin and other necessary things that Big Pharma refuses to?

Guess that's all been culled now. :(

[Bushmiller]

From memory, wasnt this why the CSIRO was enacted?

To pursue science for the people, rather than profit? They look into things like Ivermectin and other necessary things that Big Pharma refuses to?

Guess that's all been culled now. :(

WP

Government of the day decided it didn't like scientists very much and has gradually reduced funding to the CSIRO. One PM even found it unnecessary to appoint a science minister :(

Regards
Paul

[Mr Brush]

Bah.....who needs science when you have......"thoughts and prayers" :rolleyes: :D

The longer COVID remains in the community, the greater the chance of a new 'Epsilon' mutation (or some other more deadly/transmissible variant) popping up. And here we are struggling to deal with Delta.

[Bohdan]

Who needs scientists, who make decisions based on evidence and logic, when we have "experts" who rely on political expediency and looking good for the next election.

[Warb]

Who needs scientists, who make decisions based on evidence and logic, when we have "experts" who rely on political expediency and looking good for the next election.

This is certainly part of it, but by no means the only reason. All government agencies are taxpayer funded, and whilst at times like these (or for certain industry sectors) we are very keen to have government agencies doing research, most people, most of the time, would rather have lower taxes. Very few people, if they are honest, want their hard earned pay being taken for things they have no interest in! So agencies like the CSIRO are run on tight budgets, to minimise costs. It is also quite hard for them to effectively monetise their research, because that involves production/manufacturing/marketing which are not in their remit, and also attracts the criticism that "my tax has paid for the research, why do I have to pay more for the results?".

In contrast, "business" can, when it desires, through money at something if they think it will be profitable. That includes staff salaries..... So whilst I have no doubt that there are some talented people in the CSIRO, the problem remains that the really talented people often get poached by big business. It takes a very dedicated person to turn down a doubling of their salary and the opportunity to have as much of the latest equipment as they need! This happens across the board, not just in science - governments (worldwide) tend to be at the low end of the pay scale for most job sectors, and therefore often lose their better staff to big business. That's always assuming that those talented people don't get picked up straight out of university by the corporate graduate recruitment programs.

The result of the above is that agencies like the CSIRO are often very good at doing "steady research" for sectors like agriculture, but perhaps not quite so successful in other areas. When they do have a success, more often than not it is then licensed or sold, so the credit goes to the manufacturer who brings it to market, and the taxpayer never knows what their money was used for..... So political expediency is to reduce that funding, reduce taxes etc. etc.

[Log Dog]

Rolled my sleeve up yesterday :
First of two jabs
Was only scared of one thing :C
That was the needle itself :B
Log Dog :)

[Bushmiller]

This is certainly part of it, but by no means the only reason. All government agencies are taxpayer funded, and whilst at times like these (or for certain industry sectors) we are very keen to have government agencies doing research, most people, most of the time, would rather have lower taxes. Very few people, if they are honest, want their hard earned pay being taken for things they have no interest in! So agencies like the CSIRO are run on tight budgets, to minimise costs. It is also quite hard for them to effectively monetise their research, because that involves production/manufacturing/marketing which are not in their remit, and also attracts the criticism that "my tax has paid for the research, why do I have to pay more for the results?".



Whilst I would have to agree that pressure and results are not a primary concern for such institutions as the CSIRO, I would expect, but don't know, they are increasingly having to justify their existence in the this commercial world. However, to say the government is reducing their funding because of taxpayer concerns I believe is exceeding generous towards the politicians and I don't see it as any more than a money grab for political expediency.

In this instance, as in Covid-19 times, the agency could have diverted attention to this pandemic if they had not had their structure so disabled. The argument against would be that it cost too much to keep things running for such an event: My comment would be can you afford not to do this? All hypothetical now, but very short sighted. I would also comment that we, as a group of people, are extremely self-centred and apparently are incapable of seeing a greater good. I can understand that attitude from people barely eeking out a living. I cannot accept that is the right attitude from people who are "comfortable."

Regards
Paul

[BobL]

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out.
I'm thinking of the manipulation of the roll out by various forces, especially the Govt and possibly even people like the AMA.

Instead of starting from day one with mobile mass vaccination clinics, the GPs and their inherently slow processes were dragooned into the first charge,
Given that most GPs were already flat out with regular patients it was my initial impression that most practices were simply not in a position to deliver.

Even though I was in some sort of priority group it still took me 2 months from when I asked about an appointment with my GP to get my first shot which I received at 4pm on a Saturday arvo and they apparently had appointments booked up to 6pm.
My GP said it was being done all wrong. They were all roped in to do this, resulting in their regular patient services being compromised, and their admin staff being overwhelmed. The GPs were also losing money hand over fist having to largely do this after hours and only at medicare rates.

My GP also said that many people do not have a personal GP but instead use drop in GPs and hospital emergency departments and this is why ssohe many people in the high priority groups are still not vaccinated.

SWMBO's GP told her she'd be better off going to a mass vaccination clinic as they were booked solid with priority cases.

My suspicion is the govt hoped the way they set it up would gain them more kudos/power, and the AMA hoped it would generate more "MONEY" and perhaps control for their members.
Instead we ended up with a giant cockup along with the availability debacle.
Were's the accountability??

As has been said many times - shoulda given it to the local school tuck shop ladies.

[Warb]

Whilst I would have to agree that pressure and results are not a primary concern for such institutions as the CSIRO, I would expect, but don't know, they are increasingly having to justify their existence in the this commercial world. However, to say the government is reducing their funding because of taxpayer concerns I believe is exceeding generous towards the politicians and I don't see it as any more than a money grab for political expediency.

Reducing taxes is what most people want. What gets sacrificed to do this is only of concern when the thing being sacrificed is something that particular taxpayer "likes". The average person therefore doesn't care what is cut, as long as their taxes are reduced. Many government funded organisations have very loud (or influential) supporters, but science? Under normal circumstances I'm not sure many people would notice or make a fuss about funding reduction for science (recently we have had the STEM push, but that's still quite recent and targeted at schools) so it's an easy target! The taxpayer concerns are not specifically anti-CSIRO, they are simply "less tax".


In this instance, as in Covid-19 times, the agency could have diverted attention to this pandemic if they had not had their structure so disabled. The argument against would be that it cost too much to keep things running for such an event: My comment would be can you afford not to do this? All hypothetical now, but very short sighted. I would also comment that we, as a group of people, are extremely self-centred and apparently are incapable of seeing a greater good. I can understand that attitude from people barely eeking out a living. I cannot accept that is the right attitude from people who are "comfortable."

It's not always possible for science to redirect. A bunch of scientists may be experts in breeding better wheat, and may be very well equipped to do that, but it is unlikely they could quickly (or perhaps ever) refocus on a viral disease of humans. If they were suitably qualified and equipped "medical" researchers, then such a redirect is far more likely, but such people and equipment is massively expensive to maintain, so........

One thing that covid has made very clear is that "the common good" is not something that is universally understood. We seem to be a very selfish and short-sighted society!

[Bushmiller]

One thing that covid has made very clear is that "the common good" is not something that is universally understood. We seem to be a very selfish and short-sighted society!

Warb

I think you have hit on the essence of humanity's failing there.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out.

There are/were two big problems with the vaccine roll-out. Firstly our 19th century "state" system, where health is a state run service. Secondly the media trashed the AZ vaccine so people didn't (and in many cases still don't) want it. There were/are many other contributing factors, but those caused the biggest proportion of the problem.

[doug3030]

In contrast, "business" can, when it desires, through money at something if they think it will be profitable. That includes staff salaries..... So whilst I have no doubt that there are some talented people in the CSIRO, the problem remains that the really talented people often get poached by big business. It takes a very dedicated person to turn down a doubling of their salary and the opportunity to have as much of the latest equipment as they need! This happens across the board, not just in science - governments (worldwide) tend to be at the low end of the pay scale for most job sectors, and therefore often lose their better staff to big business. That's always assuming that those talented people don't get picked up straight out of university by the corporate graduate recruitment programs.

There are also government incentives for companies to conduct research. I have a relative who works for the Research and Development Tax Incentive Office of the Federal Government. There are Australian companies as well as International companies operating in Australia who have their annual tax burdens reduced by BILLIONS of dollars per year for the research they are carrying out in Australia.

So it's not only the money spent to run CSIRO and other Government bodies that comes out of money that would otherwise be available to the government for other purposes.

[BobL]

There are/were two big problems with the vaccine roll-out. Firstly our 19th century "state" system, where health is a state run service. Secondly the media trashed the AZ vaccine so people didn't (and in many cases still don't) want it. There were/are many other contributing factors, but those caused the biggest proportion of the problem.

I'm not sure I agree. Every doctor I speak to says, "Feds are all crap at "human services" delivery", EG Centrelink, quarantine, NBN, the aged care vac roli out. If anything its the feds failure to properly use the state systems that has us where we are now.

I think the media AZ beat issue is also a convenient excuse to not have order enough of a range of vaccines to begin with.

[Lappa]

Our GP had no problems. We rang up to get an appointment for a flu shot. They booked the flu shot and made an appointment three weeks after that for the first AZ and another 12 weeks later for the second AZ shot. Smooth as silk. Sent out reminders as well. They are a busy practice with 8 doctors and we have been going there for years.

[Bushmiller]

I think there is a scale issue involved. Last night I was surprised when SWMBO told me that our local pharmacy could give the jab. BUT, there was a catch. She overheard the booking and the condition was they had to get ten people in, because as has been mentioned in this thread, the vials come in ten dose quantities. If only one person rocks up for the jab, the remaining doses are wasted.

Regards
Paul

[ian]

I'm not sure I agree. Every doctor I speak to says, "Feds are all crap at "human services" delivery", EG Centrelink, quarantine, NBN, the aged care vac roli out. If anything its the feds failure to properly use the state systems that has us where we are now.

I think the media AZ beat issue is also a convenient excuse to not have order enough of a range of vaccines to begin with.
:whs:

[Warb]

In answer to the last few posts, in no particular order:

1/ Feds are crap at human services delivery: Yep, as are all governments. However, health is state run, so doctors are in fact dealing with state systems so may not be in a position to accurately comment on federal systems. We work closely with several doctors, and it is interesting to hear their views on each other, as well as to observe how differently they are dealing with the situation - our local doctor has completely shut down everything, moved to 100% telehealth, and is not doing vaccines. Our next nearest doctor is running an enormous vaccination centre in addition to their usual practice.....

2/ The AZ media beat-up is a convenient excuse: Australia bought a sufficient quantity of the most available vaccine to do the staged roll-out it had planned. That vaccine has been used to dose the entire population of other countries. In Australia we didn't have a massive death toll, so people weren't desperate to get vaccinated. Then the media pushed the issues with AZ and after that almost nobody wanted it. Had it been Pfizer that had been publicised as being bad, the government would have been heroes for not wasting money, (edit, shouldn't have rushed!) but not if they had split the purchase. We still, on a daily basis, get told by patients that they'll wait until Pfizer is available... That is changing, even today (Sunday), because we have now got local cases of covid and people are texting us (private phones, the pharmacy is closed) to get vaccinated with anything available.

3/ The ten jabs per vial issue: The industry has now been told that we have ample stocks of AZ, and no attempt needs to be made to save doses. We are also now being told that the written informed consent process can be ignored, as long as the "tick boxes" in the online system are completed with the patient giving the appropriate answers. This translates to "just shove it in to anyone who'll have it, no matter what".

4/ Government incentives to companies carrying out research: Yes indeed. Unfortunately, contrary to what many people and some politicians think, Australia is a tiny country with very little real clout. We also have a great deal of government micro-management by way of laws, and an employment system that makes it far harder and more expensive to run a company than in many other countries. So to get those big companies to do research here requires, er, encouragement. And once you start providing encouragement, the next company says "I'll only do it if you give me the same or more" and it spirals. The encouragement is done in several ways, both direct grants and also tax reduction based on expenditure - so the more a company spends on research, the more it can offset against tax. This is not just in Australia, many countries operate such schemes. The results are "interesting"; because the incentives apply to "research", the R&D branch of a company can spend more or less whatever it wants, whilst other branches may not. In one company in the UK, I was a consultant in the R&D division and I had a budget that I never got to the end of, we just bought whatever we thought we might need. In the next building, a good friend of mine worked for the "corporate" division of the same company (sales, accounting, all that normal stuff) and they were using out of date "coal fired" computers, and were unable to buy anything until months, and many pleas, after the old one broke beyond repair. Our R&D spending created tax benefits, theirs didn't! R&D conferences and meetings were in flash hotels overseas. He never left the office..... but they did give him a push-button phone!

[Bushmiller]

This link is the account by a nurse (Anne Elliott), who was present in the UK during the early days of the virus, (now back in Australia) and a doctor (Stephen Parnis). They walk you through the four stages of the way in which Covid-19 grabs hold of you. It would be frightening if you were thirty and fit: Mortifying (literally) if you are eighty and fundamentally infirm.

This is what COVID-19 does to your body and why it can kill - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-31/how-covid-delta-kills-patients-virus/100335290)

Interestingly, Elliott herself contacted the virus in the UK and even after the illness had subsided she did not feel "well" for some time subsequently.

Regards
Paul

[woodPixel]

I hounded "The Kids" (24, 25, 27) into going out this bloody weekend to get their shots.

The chemist was giving them out and I told them to just turn up. The kids wanted to fill out online forms and wait. Such good drones - but I ranted at them. They finally relented, went up and the chemist gave them ALL the jab with no appointment. It was busy, but there was no wait. Five people at a time.

This was the first weekend of chemist availability, also to young people, plus the first week of Canberras hard lockdown.

Now if this was only done 12 months ago.....

Goddam Fcn government.


EVERYTHING, and EVERY FAILURE lays at the feet of those in charge and all levels of government. Hold them accountable at the next election. They PLAYED WITH YOUR LIVES.

[Warb]

I hounded "The Kids" (24, 25, 27) into going out this bloody weekend to get their shots.

Good work to get your kids vaccinated!

What follows is a rant, caused by lack of coffee. It is not targeted at anyone, and is largely just a vent.

The vaccine rollout in Australia was targeted towards those most at risk. It was not perfect, and as always when so many people have their hands in the pot, the waters got very muddied. However, at least in my area, it went very well. The old folks homes held clinics, mobile clinics visited to deal with the elderly and other "high risk" people very early on. A large clinic was set up in the next town (rural area) where high risk, old, essential services people (etc.) could get their shots. There was no constraint on supply or appointments - I made an appointment (for the following week) and then had to change it due to unforeseen circumstances, and they rebooked me for the following day. The clinic was largely empty when I had my shot, the nurses were bored and the "on site" doctor (in case of emergency) had almost finished his book!

The rollout through pharmacy is interesting. The AMA are dead set against pharmacy getting the ability to vaccinate - 'flu shots have been available through pharmacies for some time, but that was a battle. The AMA certainly didn't want covid shots in pharmacy. The process of getting that through was time consuming, and only happened at all because the vaccination uptake was so low. People are happier to talk to a pharmacist than to a doctor, so it was seen as an answer to getting shots in arms. However it was a long process, and started with a trial run with a very small number of pharmacies (we were one of them) to demonstrate it was possible. That pilot run was in fact cut short, due to the Sydney/NSW outbreak, and the fact that in the face of the outbreak nobody could really argue or delay it any further.....

However, with all that said, we (locally) still hear, every day, "I can't get a vaccination". It's now 6.30am, and I already have a missed call on my phone (it's in silent mode until 6.30am!) which I know for a fact is an "I need a vaccination" plea. That call is from someone who could have been vaccinated months ago, but they weren't interested. Two local cases and now everyone has to drop everything to poke a needle in them, and they'll tell you it's the governments fault. Is it? Really? Those people at the old folks home, staff and residents, who chose not to have Pfizer when the nurse was there waving the needles around and begging for arms to stick them in, are now blaming the government because they can't instantly get a shot. When did we lose track of personal responsibility?

This is my opinion. Australia has (had?) done a very good job at supressing the virus until everyone had got vaccinated. It had created a reasonable (not perfect) vaccination plan. The lack of deaths unfortunately (?) meant the population had little interest in getting vaccinated, and then the media stepped in and trashed AZ, making the uptake even less. The multiple layers of healthcare responsibility meant that apparently some areas had better access to vaccination than others, some doctors gave vaccinations whilst others didn't, and I have no idea as to the reality of those situations in other areas. In my area it was fine. Anyone over 50 could have been vaccinated at any time in the last two or three months, the old, infirm, essential workers etc. since around March (can't remember exactly!). Under 50's have also been eligible for long enough that those who wanted it have been done.

Here's the problem. Governments are stupid, and they stupidly believe that people will "do the right thing". That's why the Sydney lockdown was not a "ring of steel" - the government believed that people were clever/sensible enough to see , and abide by, the "spirit of the law". But people aren't. People (not all, but many) are selfish and, dare I say it, lazy. They did what suited them, in the case of the vaccination it was "nothing", and in the case of the lockdown it was "whatever they wanted to". So nobody got vaccinated, and the virus spread. Now, when the truth starts to dawn on them, they blame the government, the doctors, the pharmacists, or anyone else that they can think of to avoid admitting that their own actions, or lack of actions, have landed them in a bad situation. In my area we now have covid. And guess where it started? At a petrol station, brought in by someone from Sydney travelling when they should have been locked down.

[pippin88]

There has been a very strange and excessively "risk averse" approach to these vaccines. (I say "risk averse" in quotes because it is people thinking they are being careful and cautious but are in fact causing harm)

Making people wait 15 minutes.
Asking a bunch of questions about past health which have no known bearing on (very low) risk of adverse effects.
Restricting AZ due to an incredibly rare risk and running the numbers as if we won't have any COVID in the community. (If the disease doesn't exist then of course the treatment of riskier, but the disease is in fact highly contagious...)

We should be doing what other countries like the UK and Canada have done.
Stadiums, churches, mobile clinics.
25,000 people vaccinated at a stadium in Toronto in one day.


Instead we spend 6 weeks building 'mass vaccination clinics' with pretty walls that can only do a couple of thousand per day.


The sum of the above is that a significant proportion of the population are fearful of COVID vaccination. Despite it being incredibly safe and effective.
And vaccines have been more difficult to access for those that want them.

And there are still many GPs/Drs telling people to hold out for Pfizer.
Or that someone can't have AZ because they have had a clot in the past - which has completely different pathophysiology. (There are no known risk factors for the vaccine induced clotting problem, apart from it being a little bit more common at younger ages)

[Warb]

There has been a very strange and excessively "risk averse" approach to these vaccines.

The 15 minute wait is standard for all/most vaccinations, as are the questions. 15 minutes for possible anaphylaxis (a risk with most vaccinations) and the questions to avoid/identify any risks, because there are factors that impact the risk. They also help with future analysis (and legal defence!) should there be a problem.

The building of vaccination hubs was, I suspect, an attempt to be seen to be doing something when in fact the existing facilities (at that time) were only at 50% capacity because nobody wanted the jab!

The population is/was generally fearful, but that is the fault of the media who shouted loudly about the (minimal) dangers in a way that made it sound like it was Russian roulette. It's very hard for a doctor, pharmacist, or government to persuade someone that something is safe when the media is telling them (as are all their friends) that it's not! In countries where hundreds of thousands have died of the disease it's easy to ignore the handful who died from the cure, but in Australia we had minimal covid deaths and a very well publicised, albeit small, number of deaths from the vaccine.

Overall, however, at this time I agree. We should be using any available facility to inject everyone who is willing. Those who are not willing should go to the back of the queue for both "mind changes" and also treatment if they should get the disease....

[doug3030]

Here's the problem. Governments are stupid, and they stupidly believe that people will "do the right thing". That's why the Sydney lockdown was not a "ring of steel" - the government believed that people were clever/sensible enough to see , and abide by, the "spirit of the law". But people aren't. People (not all, but many) are selfish and, dare I say it, lazy. They did what suited them, in the case of the vaccination it was "nothing", and in the case of the lockdown it was "whatever they wanted to". So nobody got vaccinated, and the virus spread. Now, when the truth starts to dawn on them, they blame the government, the doctors, the pharmacists, or anyone else that they can think of to avoid admitting that their own actions, or lack of actions, have landed them in a bad situation. In my area we now have covid. And guess where it started? At a petrol station, brought in by someone from Sydney travelling when they should have been locked down.

If common sense was indeed common, there would be no need for most of the laws that exist. But as people get stupider, stupid governments seem to think that making more stupid laws will fix the problem. the real problem is that governments and law enforcement agencies have become extremely selective about which laws they enforce. They concentrate on things that can be pretty-much automated - speed/red light cameras and breathalyzers because they are easy to catch and fines/convictions are pretty much indefensible. Yet equally dangerous behavior such as tailgating or failure to give way, is largely ignored. You rarely see a police vehicle pull over a driver for a traffic infringement any more. I doubt that more than one Melbourne driver in 20 even knows the correct rules for right of way when changing lanes. Too many people now ignore or don't even know the rules that are not actively enforced. Lockdown laws are not being enforced to a sufficient degree to ensure anywhere near satisfactory compliance.

I recall that when Melbourne's first lockdown was called last year, they gave 48 hours notice that the lockdown was going to happen. Thousands of people went online to change their addresses online on their drivers licenses to locations in Rural Victoria and fled Melbourne to escape the lockdown, many of them taking the infection to the rural areas. They did ANYTHING that they could to avoid lockdowns designed for the safety of he community.

Our four-month lockdown did not end until people started to realize that if they did not obey the restrictions we would never get out of it. From where I sit, people in Sydney still have not reached that point. Having their Premier tell them that they are under the toughest lockdown any community in Australia had experienced when it was, and still is not, as harsh as Melbourne went through for months certainly does not help the matter and only adds to community frustration when they are told that conditions will have to get tougher still.

I rarely have anything nice to say about the Premier of Victoria, but he did well when he called Lockdown 6. He gave only 3 hours notice and locked down the whole state - thereby stopping the exodus of people into Rural Victoria, as that would be locked down too. But then after a week, he opened up the rural areas and immediately all the roads out of Melbourne were filled with car towing caravans, camping trailers and carrying gear for extended stays at holiday homes or friends places. All those people who fled were still supposed to be under the 5km radius rule but once they got out of Melbourne they were "free". Too many Melbournites either never learned the lessons of the four-month lockdown or have forgotten already.

499527

[Lyle]

With regards to lockdown rules, seems like everyone can make their own.
I live inside a reasonably large lga. Recently I received in the mail a cheque from rms.
Why it wasn't direct deposited to my bank??? Who knows.
This necessitated a trip to the bank. Our local bank closed several months ago. So next closest bank is approximately 30Km away, but still within my lga. There are closer banks, but outside my lga and further than 5Km from home.
Arrived at bank, no covid security other than qr checkin. Promptly told by teller I should have waited until lockdown finished to come in and make the deposite. No problem I said, if your bank waives any overdraw penalties. Nope.
But other establishments have tight covid security, and avidly check qr checkin.
Places are very quiet, except for takeaways...

[GraemeCook]

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out. I'm thinking of the manipulation of the roll out by various forces, especially the Govt and possibly even people like the AMA. ...

I had my final phizer shot in early June: what a shemozzle!

My GP's clinic is not doing covid vax, and referred me to the state government program.
First: I had to find the enrolment pages on an extremely difficult to navigate website,
Second: I had to complete an online enrolment form, including a medical history,
Third: I had to find the clinic; it actually was in the bar of a closed hotel,
Fourth: I had to complete the medical history again, and wait about half an hour past my appointment time,
Fifth: I had my shot - took 20 seconds,
Sixth: Then I had to wait 15 minutes for "side effects" - sound practice,
Then I went home and waited 3 weeks for second shot.

Each time I attended there were about 12 staff members present, doing the check in, supervising the waiting queue, supervising the after effects waiting, but only two peolple actually doing the vaccinations. Engage a few more vaccinators and the throghput could easily have been raised by a factor of five or six.

But blind Freddy does not work for Health Tasmania.


... SWMBO's GP told her she'd be better off going to a mass vaccination clinic as they were booked solid with priority cases. ...

Many GPs down here are refusing to give covid vaxs as "Health" - not sure if its state health or federal health - are insisting that they do an eight hour attending or online course on how to give a covid vax. Most feel insulted and have declined.

A GP friend was "bludgeoned" into attending by his large practice - "someone has to do it" - and he describes the course as a total waste of time and worse than anticipated. He says that the only thing he learned is why covid vax comes in ten shot vials - all other vax vials are single shot. The reason is simply that the international glass industry could not gear up fast enough to produce the hundreds of millions of little glass bottles required. By going multishot they reduced the number of vials required by 90%. They will probably start producing single shot vials in 2023 or 2024.



... My suspicion is the govt hoped the way they set it up would gain them more kudos/power, and the AMA hoped it would generate more "MONEY" and perhaps control for their members. ...

Probably true, but then they still managed to shoot themselves in the foot. For 100 years the AMA opposed nurses being able to administer injections. SWMBO is a RN and for the first 10+ years of her career registered nurses were not permitted to administer injections - "only doctor can".


... As has been said many times - shoulda given it to the local school tuck shop ladies.

Too sensible.

[woodPixel]

A fair criticism from post #133, but my wife and I had out shots (AZ) on the very first day we were eligible. Same with the three kids. Very first day.

The probabilities of adverse immunisation reactions are meaningless and not worth consideration. The probabilities of complications of COVID are vast.

I've been shouting about this disease since Dec '19. I saw the initial outbreak and said to all who would listen that "this will be a thing" but I was written off as a conspiracy nutter. I personally believe that its going to get 100 times worse before it gets better. (OK, I might be a bit nuts....) :)



Overall, however, at this time I agree. We should be using any available facility to inject everyone who is willing. Those who are not willing should go to the back of the queue for both "mind changes" and also treatment if they should get the disease....

On this, I saw one German(?) pollie posit an idea.... "No immunisation? You pay full price for your subsequent care."

I like this idea.

If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission!

That's if they make it.... maybe their estate can pay otherwise....

[GraemeCook]

... The probabilities of adverse immunisation reactions are meaningless and not worth consideration. The probabilities of complications of COVID are vast.

... If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission! ...


No; they do not have the right to infect you, or me or the kids down the street.

Another approach that is working.
A favourite niece is an RN in a very large hospital that was right in the front line of the battle - many covid patients, many infected staff, many staff in covid quarantine, very major staff shortages, very excessive shifts, exhaustion, barrier nursing, PPE, etc. Medical Superintendent arraged for early vaccination of all staff and obtained sufficient phizer and A-Z. Pharmacy staff were vaccinated on day 1 (they warehoused the vax) and virtually all professional staff were very quickly done - doctors, nurses, nutritionists, physiotherapists, OTs, psychologists, etc. There were a lot of hold outs amoung support staff - orderlies, cleaners, kitchen, etc. Then the MedSup introduced daily testing for non-vaccinated staff at the start of every shift. A very unpleasant proceedure with a swab about 50mm up a nostril. Now most staff are vaccinated.

[Bendigo Bob]

If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission!

...or left wing anti-vaxxer? Or non-Christian nutter?

They come from all spectrums guys. I know! Ive got them in the extended family from all those spectrums.

It's the fringes - and the fringes of a table cloth hang NWS&E

I've given up long ago batting away at their various tropes. Not worth it.

[woodPixel]

My local chemist just told me (today) he will be doing AZ vax's by the end of the week.

He apparently needed "training" and an approval.

Jesus wept. He's a compounding chemist with a PhD. Training, for a needle. Must be a tricky one indeed if a bloke like him needs training....

[Warb]

My local chemist just told me (today) he will be doing AZ vax's by the end of the week.

He apparently needed "training" and an approval.

Jesus wept. He's a compounding chemist with a PhD. Training, for a needle. Must be a tricky one indeed if a bloke like him needs training....

Yep, it's laughable. It was exactly the same here, giving 'flu vaxes every day but needed training for covid. But if you could see how much time my wife wastes on accreditation, re-accreditation, writing and maintaining standard operating procedures, and the myriad of other nonsense they have to do, you'd cry, you really would. Like I said in an earlier post, Australia micro-manages everything to a ridiculous degree...

It's not just medicine though, it's everything. I read an official "government" (or whatever board/council sets the rules) thing about what electrical work you can DIY. It stated, and I quote (as near as I can remember!);

"Australia has very much more restrictive rules about electrical work than many other countries. There's a very good reason for this, electricity is dangerous and can kill you".

Hang on. The "very good reason" for Australia being more restrictive than other countries is that electricity is dangerous? But isn't it equally dangerous in those other countries?......

Or; I used to fly a drone around my farm, to check water troughs etc. after some surgery made me immobile for a while. Then they changed the rules, so I had to apply for an exemption from needing a license to fly my drone. Then, when they had my details, they changed again so I had to register my drone and get a license. It's the same thing, ever increasing licensing requirements that achieve nothing except keeping a bunch of paper-pushers in a job....

Same thing with farm chemicals. Same thing with 'roo culling (sorry if this is offensive to anyone). Every time the license needs renewing the process is more onerous and the new license lasts a shorter time. And (back to governments stupidly believing people will do the right thing!) every time they make the requirements more onerous, fewer people bother following the rules! It's completely counter-productive.

[Bendigo Bob]

It's not just medicine though, it's everything. I read an official "government" (or whatever board/council sets the rules) thing about what electrical work you can DIY. It stated, and I quote (as near as I can remember!);

Have you seen the current training programs for someone to hold a stop/go sign these days??? Wow!

Money is good though :)

[GraemeCook]

...or left wing anti-vaxxer? Or non-Christian nutter?

They come from all spectrums guys? ...


Local teenager summed it up best. "He's an AAS" - pronounced "***". Sounds like a word you are not allowed to use on the Forum.


AAS = arrogant and stupid.

[Lappa]

I was chatting to my GP while getting some scripts about things in general and he gave me an example of a new drug ruling brought in by some bureaucrat in Canberra.
Its for Nexium - a common drug for gastric reflux. It’s available in 20mg and 40mg doses. You can buy 20mg over the counter but it’s twice the price of that on prescription. You can get 5 repeats for the 20mg on the script.
40mg is quite a common dose but now the doctor has to ring Canberra to get a release number AND they can’t get repeats so every month a patient has to come in, pay a consultation fee, the doctor has to ring Canberra and then writes a script. He said the guys in Canberra taking the phone calls are spewing.
Also a drug used to treat one type of cancer is subsidised and costs $50 a month but take the same drug for another type of cancer and it costs $70000 a year?

Damn this lockdown - gives one too much time to mull over things.

[Warb]

Damn this lockdown - gives one too much time to mull over things.

The medical system does that kind of mucking about all the time. It's supposedly to save money, but it is decreed by people who don't seem to understand how things work. For example, the diabetes registration now lasts for only 6 months (?) before the patient has to see a doctor and get a new form signed. I'd bet that if you totalled the cost of all the patients seeing the doctor twice as frequently just to get a form signed, it would cost far far more than the money that might be wasted by a small number of people who (apparently) recover from diabetes and therefore didn't need blood sugar testing consumables but still get them....

The prescription vs over the counter pricing is also fun, and it gets better. The discount pharmacies advertise "cheap" prescriptions. What they often do, in fact, is to supply the product as a private script, so the customer pays the over the counter price rather than the PBS price. Because some drugs are quite cheap, this does sometimes give a lower price..... but..... the private script price doesn't count towards the patients "safety net", so whilst the individual price is cheaper, for those people who take a lot of medication they never hit the safety net limit. That means they pay that lower price all year, rather than getting it for free once they've hit the safety net. Of course the cheap pharmacies don't tell people this! We've had some very angry people who, towards the end of the year, suddenly realise that their total medication bill is far higher because they "saved" a few cents on some scripts!

[doug3030]

The prescription vs over the counter pricing is also fun, and it gets better. The discount pharmacies advertise "cheap" prescriptions. What they often do, in fact, is to supply the product as a private script, so the customer pays the over the counter price rather than the PBS price. Because some drugs are quite cheap, this does sometimes give a lower price..... but..... the private script price doesn't count towards the patients "safety net", so whilst the individual price is cheaper, for those people who take a lot of medication they never hit the safety net limit. That means they pay that lower price all year, rather than getting it for free once they've hit the safety net. Of course the cheap pharmacies don't tell people this! We've had some very angry people who, towards the end of the year, suddenly realise that their total medication bill is far higher because they "saved" a few cents on some scripts!

Warb, you may be able to answer this. Do you mean the pharmacies who offer the $6.60 scripts that pensioners and us DVA Gold Card holders are entitled to at $5.60? I thought that these still count towards the safety net but at the cheaper price meaning you still hit the safety net when you have spent the same amount. I go to a chemist who charges me the $6.60 so that I hit the safety net earlier than if he gave me the $1 per script discount that others do. Once I hit the safety net my scripts are free for the rest of the year and so are my partner's. My annual expenditure on scripts is the same whichever way I go but by not getting the discount, my partner's full price scripts become free earlier in the year.

Have I got this right?

[Warb]

Warb, you may be able to answer this.

I believe there are various different approaches, but I want to make sure of the details before I answer! My wife is in a video conference at the moment, if I'm still awake when she gets out I'll ask her (otherwise tomorrow morning!) and let you know.

[ian]

The medical system does that kind of mucking about all the time. It's supposedly to save money, but it is decreed by people who don't seem to understand how things work. For example, the diabetes registration now lasts for only 6 months (?) before the patient has to see a doctor and get a new form signed. I'd bet that if you totalled the cost of all the patients seeing the doctor twice as frequently just to get a form signed, it would cost far far more than the money that might be wasted by a small number of people who (apparently) recover from diabetes and therefore didn't need blood sugar testing consumables but still get them....
I'm not so sure about that.

I seem to recall that the AMA's lobbyists* had a dust up with the pharmacy guild's lobbyists around the time Turnbull was toppled.
The pharmacy guild's lobbyists wanted to make medicines "cheaper" overall by doubling the number of repeats allowed on each script. The AMA's lobbyists didn't want a bare of that as it would mean that doctors only saw the "cash cow" half as frequently. Guess who prevailed?

My guess is that the "diabetes registration only lasts 6 months" is an outcome of that lobbying campaign around the number of repeats permitted on a script. More Medicare income to the quacks and screw the patient.
It certainly won't be about "saving money" for either the patient or the Commonwealth ...







* elsewhere I've seen "lobbying" described as large scale institutionalised bribery.
Little wonder there's no Federal anticorruption commission

[Warb]

Warb, you may be able to answer this.....

OK, this might get complicated!

All PBS listed medications have a government defined/agreed price. For a PBS script, that price is what the patient pays (the co-payment), however the price is also subject to a co-payment cap. The cap is $41.30 for "ordinary" patients, or $6.60 for pensioners. So, using metformin as an example, the agreed price is about $20, and that is what a patient pays, but a pensioner only pays $6.60 due to the pensioner co-payment cap. If the medication in question had an agreed price of $100, the normal patient would pay $41.30 whilst the pensioner would pay $6.60. All of these payments count towards the safety net.

With me so far?

In order allow some competition, pharmacies requested the ability to reduce that $6.60 pensioner co-payment (out of their own pocket/profit, as it were) and it was decided (the industry is government regulated) that they should be allowed to give a $1 discount on that co-payment. That's the reduction from $6.50 to $5.60.

The "safety net" is reached when the patients family (it is family, not individually based) spends a certain amount in a (calendar, I believe) year. The amount is roughly $1300 for a normal patient, $300odd for a pensioner (these numbers are from memory, pre-coffee and subject to early morning inaccuracy!). When the patient has spent that amount, the safety net kicks in and subsequent scripts are free for the remainder of the year. All the co-payments discussed above, $6.60, $5.60, and the "up to $41.30" count towards the safety net.

The added complexity is that the government agreed price does not always reflect the actual price of the medication. So for example, the metformin I mentioned above has an agreed price of $20ish, but is actually dirt cheap, costing only a few dollars, but under the PBS, the price is $20. So the option for the pharmacy is to supply the product as a "private script". Private scripts normally cover medications that aren't listed on the PBS, and are basically a way for doctors to supply medications that are outside the PBS system. So a pharmacist can in fact dispense a script as "private", and thus outside the PBS rules. This means that a dirt cheap drug like metformin could be supplied at a dirt cheap price, but would not count towards the safety net. Depending on how much medication a patient and their family takes, this might produce a saving. However it also risks them missing the safety net, which might means over the course of the year they spend more, not less! The difficulties arise, of course, when the pharmacy neglect to explain all this, the patients take the "instant savings" and then halfway through the year start to wonder why they're still paying for their medications....

Some extra notes! There are a couple of other components to the price that muddy the waters still further (of course there are, this is Australia!). There is a small dispensing fee wrapped up in the pricing, and also sometimes a brand premium if there is a cheaper generic product that the government would prefer you to have. Additionally, some medications are in fact cheaper to buy over the counter (Panadol etc.) though I'd guess most doctors wouldn't bother writing a script for them. Also Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders all get the pensioner prices, or free if they are themselves pensioners. Lastly, there has been some discussion on whether the $1 discount on the co-payment is in fact a good thing, and talk of it being dropped. The bottom line is that all PBS pricing is regulated, whilst dispensing things as private removes the (price) regulations but also the safety net.

As one final point, seeing as we are talking about community spirit and acting for the common good. The PBS is massively expensive, and it's budget is constantly increasing. Whilst it certainly benefits the pharmacy for people to get their medications, as a tax payer it is worth remembering that unused medications still cost the government money, and they get that money by charging income tax. If you (generic "you"!) don't need the medication, don't get it! The pharmacy regularly see's bucket loads of medications being brought back by relatives of old people who have died. They sometimes have hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of medications, yet they have still had their latest script for the same meds dispensed just days previously. We also see people getting scripts that they have no intention of taking, or things like antibiotic repeats (written by the doctor "in case you need them") when they have already recovered. They get them "just in case they might need them in the future" when they self diagnose something entirely different (risky in itself!). Whilst it's free for them, it still contributes to our tax bills!

[BobL]

I'm not so sure about that.

I seem to recall that the AMA's lobbyists* had a dust up with the pharmacy guild's lobbyists around the time Turnbull was toppled.
The pharmacy guild's lobbyists wanted to make medicines "cheaper" overall by doubling the number of repeats allowed on each script. The AMA's lobbyists didn't want a bare of that as it would mean that doctors only saw the "cash cow" half as frequently. Guess who prevailed?

I have a so called "diabetes check up" with my GP once a year but whenever I need meds for any of my "conditions" I just email my GP and he write me up prescription and next time I'm driving past his practice I stop in and pick them up. Maybe thats because I see him so often for other stuff?

[MichaelGT]

The solution to all these medication problems is to rethink and raise our consciousness levels and restructure society.
What I mean is that we are all healthy beings until we get it wrong.
Nature has all solutions for our wellbeing. If we eat natural locally grown foods in season our health will be maintained.
We can enjoy a long healthy life without many ailments.
Processed foods, frozen and transported foods are not healthy. Grow our own or use community gardens for health foods and use the local farming community.
Restructure housing so we are in smaller communities looking after each other, socially, mentally and physical wellbeing.
Financial reset worldwide back to precious metals backed currencies. No Fiat currencies printing money at will causing inflation. This will stabilise housing costs and take pressure off debt and income earning, allowing time for families to spend precious time together. with reduced working hours.
Off the couch getting exercise as a daily practice.
We would easily be able to counteract physically any pandemic because of our better health and avoid any restrictions and the need for vaccines.
This is a brief summary which could invite much more discussion and create controversy. However the principles are sound and can be easily verified with research and an understanding of the alternatives to which our current society operate.

[doug3030]

I have a so called "diabetes check up" with my GP once a year but whenever I need meds for any of my "conditions" I just email my GP and he write me up prescription and next time I'm driving past his practice I stop in and pick them up. Maybe thats because I see him so often for other stuff?

One of the most common-sense things to come out of Covid is the Telehealth appointments. Bob, your doctor is probably claiming an appointment fee from Medicare when he writes you up a script under the relaxed arrangements we are currently benefiting from.

If all I need from my doctor is new scripts or regular referrals I make a telehealth appointment and instead of going and sitting in the doctors waiting room for an hour and a half breathing in whatever diseases other patients might be breathing out, I sit at home and she calls me. She emails the scripts to the Pharmacist, who loads them onto the App and I order over the App. When I get a message telling me the scripts I ordered are ready to collect I go in and out of the pharmacy within two minutes. She also emails referrals to the relevant practitioners. Why haven't we been doing this forever? It just makes sense. I only need to go and physically see the doctor if I have a new condition, or if she needs to review me, like maybe once a year. Doctors still get paid, Pharmacists still get paid. I get the medications and treatment I need. If I am in doubt or the doctor is in doubt I can be called in to the surgery for a face-to-face consultation.

Why does it take COVID to bring in reforms such as this? It's like working form home. After a year and a half, companies are realizing that they have not lost control of their employees and they are not paying for office space. Employees are happier with the "short commute" form the bedroom to the spare bedroom. Jools is not catching filthy diseases on the train and bringing them home to me. If it were not for the deaths and suffering, COVID could have been the greatest reformer of society ever.

[Pagie]

I tried to do a Telehealth for my dentist and they wouldn't let me.

[Warb]

It's like working form home. After a year and a half, companies are realizing that they have not lost control of their employees and they are not paying for office space. Employees are happier with the "short commute" form the bedroom to the spare bedroom. Jools is not catching filthy diseases on the train and bringing them home to me. If it were not for the deaths and suffering, COVID could have been the greatest reformer of society ever.

This I disagree with. It is an unfortunate fact that the human species is inherently lazy and selfish. There are people who struggle to be better, but the majority don't, or at least may try to fool others (and perhaps themselves) but deep down are doing what's best for them. Working from home is an example of something that is too easy to abuse for most people to resist - that's why Netflix were asked to reduce video quality to save bandwidth when so many were "working from home". Unless you are a movie critic, why are you watching Netflix?

One of the reasons that I'm so cynical about this is that big pharma is a high-pay employer and therefore (in some situations) create a "luxury" work environment. 20 years ago I was involved with two different big pharma "work from home" situations. One was in the US, and it was largely accepted that "working from home today" simply meant a day off, but was genuinely part of the company policy - "they" believed that people were actually working. The second situation was just before the internet became ubiquitous, and I was involved with installing network links to people's houses so they could "work from home" using the companies network (no internet at home in those days). We monitored the use of those network links and the usage of the laptops we supplied - not secretly but we didn't shout about it either - it was (pharma, remember) in spirit a "blind study". Guess what. Almost nobody used either the laptops or the network links when they were "working from home". Sometimes people would log in for half an hour in the morning to check their email, but that was about it. The project was canned.

Now it must also be remembered that things have changed since then. A friend of mine who was working for a large IT company told me, a couple of years ago, that his staff (by company policy) got free use of their phones all day, to do whatever they wanted (not work related!), and a raft of other non-productive measures had been taken for "employee welfare" reasons. As a result, the output had dropped to almost nothing, he had twice as many staff producing half as much output, and he was just about to call it quits because he was over it. He was unable to keep his customers happy because his staff did nothing, and that (apparently) was completely acceptable to the company as long as the staff were happy. So perhaps if that is a true reflection on the modern workplace then working from home is no great loss?!

[BobL]

The GP will also do referral renewals direct to my 3 specialists without any physical appointment. This Gp is very popular. It not unusual to have an official wait time of 10 business days for an appointment but I usually keep him updated by email about any developments any let him decide if I should go see him and if required he usually sees me within a day or so. For my latest left ankle situation I have seen him once and after that I must have sent him at least a dozen email updates. He’s subsequently referred me for 3 scans. Ankle is still rubbish despite any meds we’ve thrown at it.

[doug3030]

This I disagree with. It is an unfortunate fact that the human species is inherently lazy and selfish. There are people who struggle to be better, but the majority don't, or at least may try to fool others (and perhaps themselves) but deep down are doing what's best for them. Working from home is an example of something that is too easy to abuse for most people to resist - that's why Netflix were asked to reduce video quality to save bandwidth when so many were "working from home". Unless you are a movie critic, why are you watching Netflix?

It is not the people working from home that are the big users of Netflix etc. It is all the others who can't go out and clog up the supermarkets and shopping centres or going to school/uni. Their bandwith usage was leaving very little bandwidth out of the total available on the internet for the work from home people to make use of. For example, we are on a 250mb/sec plan and when I do a speedtest through the day I generally get somewhere between 20 and 50 mb/sec. It is just enough for Jools to work from home and a little bit left for me to browse the web or maybe the music in the shed.

For most people working from home now, they log into the work network over the internet and their supervisors have many ways to monitor their activities. They really do WORK from home. Supervision could be via the PC camera/microphone, screen monitoring or monitoring their work queue and key stroke frequency. Others may be taking phone calls redirected through their link with the work network. The supervisor would know when they are logged in to take calls and if they are actually on a call. It is possible these days for the supervisor to micro-manage the worker even more closely than if they were actually in the office, and the supervisor could be doing it from their own spare bedroom. Not only can they be monitored, a recording can be made of the worker's activities for use to defend illegal dismissal charges.

The company my son-in-law works for are now saving $25 million per year in office space leasing costs and have said that they will NEVER bring their "desk workforce" back to the office. Times have changed.

Edited to add: I had also meant to say that reducing the resolution on Netflix would also help in the cases where there was someone working from home while other members of the household such as children were home from school watching netflix. There might still be people watching netflix while working form home but they would also have to keep their productivity up for the other reasons I mentioned above.

[woodPixel]

Working from home, if you've the job for it, is a fabulous innovation. It goes directly to what MichaelGT (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f28/breaking-covid-rules-241949-post2250914#post2250914)was saying.

For @MichaelGT's post above (#133), I completely agree with what you are saying, except that I feel that frozen food is a fantastic resource and reduces food waste (which is a scourge given poverty and hunger). I personally feel sugar and processed white flour are pure evil. Tasty, but cancer-causing evil.


I also feel our society has become a "cult of being busy" and work is seen as a virtue. I've disagreed with the virtues of endless pointless toil for the sake of being busy.

I'd heavily wager that if we interviewed old men on their deathbeds about their greatest regrets in life "working more" would NOT be one of them.... being with the family, having relaxed pleasurable time with friends and companions and actually seeing their kids grow up would be #1.

[Warb]

For most people working from home now, they log into the work network over the internet and their supervisors have many ways to monitor their activities. They really do WORK from home. Supervision could be via the PC camera/microphone, screen monitoring or monitoring their work queue and key stroke frequency. Others may be taking phone calls redirected through their link with the work network.

I suspect it varies with what sort of work is being done. One of my nieces works for a bank, and when the first "work from home" push happened she was able to work from home where I could see what she was doing, just by chance. Because her job, at that time, was telephone based, it was exactly as you say. She had a VPN to the bank network, all voice and data went through that VPN and therefore she "could" be monitored closely. I honestly have no idea whether such monitoring actually happens, or in fact is "legal" - these days almost anything can be seen as an invasion of privacy, I'm not sure that monitoring by camera would survive a good lawyer! In any case, she did seem to take calls, but I also noticed a fair number of breaks to get coffee. On the other hand, I suspect that (given what my friend told me about the IT company in the UK) she probably didn't do too much more when located in an office!

For such jobs as hers it's quite easy to monitor activity, but much harder for other jobs that don't revolve around voice or keyboard time. But that has always been the case. Years ago I ran a consultancy company and had some programmers that worked from home. It was interesting watching their working habits. I had one guy who was almost nocturnal, all his work, all his access to the systems, was after midnight. He did a good job so it wasn't a problem, but had his job involved any significant communication with customer or other staff it would not have been tolerable!

Overall I do agree that things have changed, but I also suspect that many people will still do as little as they can get away with, and working from home plays directly to that failing. I guess we will learn in time whether the savings in reduced office space do indeed outweigh any reduction in output (if such reductions actually happen!). Of course, given the constant decline in customer service provided by many large companies, the attitude may be "it really doesn't matter as long as it saves money".....*

*On Monday I spent over 4 hours trying to get a replacement VOIP phone from Telstra. The phone was dropped, so physically damaged and now works sporadically. It is one of those situation where Telstra provide the hardware and state that non-Telstra hardware may not work and isn't supported, so I can't just get something else. After spending nearly 30 minutes trawling through Telstra's web site and failing to find anything even remotely applicable (I can buy any number of mobile phones, but nothing else!), I decided to call their business "support" service. The first attempt to call phone support involved being on hold for 15 minutes and then the call being dropped. The second attempt involved 20 minutes on hold, followed by a conversation with someone who was very hard to understand, who kept having to put me on hold whilst he checked things with someone else, and finally (40 minutes later) told me that my local Telstra shop would be able to supply the new hardware. He was unable to help any further.... So I called the Telstra shop. They laughed and said "not a hope in hell". Next I tried the online "chat" system. This involves typing messages to someone who is clearly dealing with about 30 other chat sessions at the same time, so there is a 5 to 10 minute delay between typing and getting a response. Firstly I had to identify myself, by providing details that nobody, NOBODY, would ever know. So I had to contact "the office" and get those things emailed to me. So 40 or so minutes in, and I was now apparently authorised! Another hour or more of "ten minute lag" chat responses, during which I had to find out what hardware Telstra had supplied, because apparently they don't record such trivia, and finally a promise to post me out a replacement. "Is there anything else I can help you with today"? Damn it Warb, why didn't you quit?! Stupidly I asked if there was an online portal where I could just order the hardware from Telstra. He gave me a link to telstra.com and said "they're on there". No, no they're not, If they were I wouldn't have needed to call you. "Oh, then try your local Telstra Business Centre, here's a link to tell you where it is". Used the link, the answer is "Broadmeadow, Newcastle". 280km away, in a lockdown. Really? "Oh, well you could phone them..." OK, well thanks anyway!

I later got an email saying the order for my part was being processed. Hurrah........ The following morning I got an email saying it was out of stock, and they would email me again when it was available to despatch - no ETA, nothing. I am told (not by Telstra) that one Telstra Business Store has had this exact part on backorder for weeks, and has no hope of ever seeing it.

I eventually resorted to buying a dubious "used" one from eBay, and hopefully I can cobble it together to make it work long enough that I can move away from Telstra to a provider who at least pretend to care about their customers.

Sorry for the rant! However I guess this is relevant in two ways. Firstly it goes to my comment about "saving money" being far more important than actually working, or keeping your customers happy. Secondly, and you've probably seen this coming, THIS IS THE PHONE IN THE PHARMACY, SO THEY CAN'T RELIABLY COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO BOOK COVID SHOTS!!!

[Warb]

I also feel our society has become a "cult of being busy" and work is seen as a virtue. I've disagreed with the virtues of endless pointless turmoil for the sake of being busy. I'd heavily wager that if we interviewed old men on their deathbeds about their greatest regrets in life "working more" would NOT be one of them.... being with the family, having relaxed pleasurable time with friends and companions and actually seeing their kids grow up would be #1.

Working "for the sake of being busy" is stupid, I agree. But I'm not sure where that comes from. I've never done it; I've been paid, or charged someone, or got something that I needed or wanted in return for my work. When I've worked "more" it's because I wanted or needed something "more".

Now, in my pseudo-retirement, I work at woodturning because I want to get better. I work at farming because I want to produce more sheep, or do it more efficiently. I work fixing people's IT problems because I enjoy it (I don't even charge people any more, it's just for fun!).

I'm not certain what you mean by "turmoil for the sake of being busy".

[woodPixel]

Working "for the sake of being busy" is stupid, I agree. But I'm not sure where that comes from. I've never done it; I've been paid, or charged someone, or got something that I needed or wanted in return for my work. When I've worked "more" it's because I wanted or needed something "more".

Now, in my pseudo-retirement, I work at woodturning because I want to get better. I work at farming because I want to produce more sheep, or do it more efficiently. I work fixing people's IT problems because I enjoy it (I don't even charge people any more, it's just for fun!).

I'm not certain what you mean by "turmoil for the sake of being busy".

Sorry Warb, I wasnt explicitly targeting you. Apologies if it seemed that way. My comments are intended to be broad, generic reflections of society.

Turmoil --> toil. Typo.

[Warb]

The solution to all these medication problems is to rethink and raise our consciousness levels and restructure society.......

For most of my life, certainly my adult life, I have really wanted to believe this. I've spent many hours thinking about it, and discussing it with various people. But I always end up concluding that it can't ever actually work. Even if we accept the concept that eating correctly and exercising (etc.) can prevent disease, which I suspect is only partially true, the system always breaks down for two reasons.

Firstly, no matter how noble the intention, human greed always results in a community split between "workers" and "rulers". The rulers want ever more luxury, and the workers are required to constantly produce more for less. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Aztecs, or the communist countries, the end result is the same. The lack of equality results in unequal distribution of wealth, food, power, knowledge, with all that entails.

Secondly, regarding small communities and local food, WE BREED. As long as our life expectancy is longer than the time it takes to raise two kids to breeding age (and assuming we have two kids), our numbers will increase. That does not result in small communities, nor communities with small local food production because you can't produce a year round food supply for an ever growing population from small local farms.

If we were able to stop/control our breeding, such that communities could stay small, and we could overcome our desire to be better than our peers, then the concept might work. Sadly neither of these things seem likely, they are both genetically programmed traits "designed" to ensures that "our" genes continue in to the future.

[Warb]

Sorry Warb, I wasnt explicitly targeting you. Apologies if it seemed that way. My comments are intended to be broad, generic reflections of society.

Turmoil --> toil. Typo.

No need to apologise, at no point did I think you were targeting me! When I said "I've never done it" it wasn't a denial, just an expression of my lack of understanding. "I", and I assumed everyone else, works for gain. That is logical - I want more so I go and get more! Working to appear busy is illogical*, so I wasn't sure what you meant.

*Actually now I think about it, in the corporate world I did meet people who were "working to appear busy", but that was in fact "trying to impress the boss and get a promotion", so it's still not pointless (in their minds!). I suspect this is not what you meant though?

[GraemeCook]

Dog walking at lunch time and ran into a GP friend who basically confirmed Warb's view (Post #151 above) but added two wise observations.

ONE. Telehealth has been a boon of GPs for such things as routine script repeats, minor worries and "pre-screening" - "you do not really need to see me for that". But it is absolutely loathed by the practice receptionists; every hyperchondriac and every prescription druggy thinks that the telehealth system was designed specifically for them.

TWO. In the debate between the interests of the medical profession, the pharmacies and the public there is another hidden player in the game - the "theoretical doctors" in Health HQ in Canberra who purportedly "represent" the interests of the GPs despite never or rarely actually having practiced as a GP.

[Bushmiller]

*Actually now I think about it, in the corporate world I did meet people who were "working to appear busy", but that was in fact "trying to impress the boss and get a promotion", so it's still not pointless (in their minds!). I suspect this is not what you meant though?

Warb

I think there are groups of people in the commercial world who generate work to keep themselves in a job. Bureaucracy is one of the largest culprits, but by no means the only one. Various regulatory institutions seems hell bent on creating an environment that keeps them in a job. Australia has unfortunately become more regulated than the majority of countries in the Western world.

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

.....
ONE. Telehealth has been a boon of GPs for such things as routine script repeats, minor worries and "pre-screening" - "you do not really need to see me for that". But it is absolutely loathed by the practice receptionists; every hyperchondriac and every prescription druggy thinks that the telehealth system was designed specifically for them.

Telehealth has certainly been a boon for some doctors - our local surgery no longer sees any patients, every appointment is telehealth. That is great for the doctor, both in reality and (sarcastic) as a "kerching" for next to nothing. It should also be a boon for patients, for things like repeat prescriptions that don't need tests. However, this is where the problems start. Telehealth cannot measure your temperature, nor your heart rate, blood pressure etc. Also, when done on the phone (most old people around here have no idea about technology) the doctor cannot see how you look, and is solely basing his view on what the patient says. Old Bob (made up name) who has been bullied into talking to the doctor by his wife, tells the doctor "I'm fine" when he could be dying. At the end of the consultation, the doctor says "I'll email a script to the chemist". The following morning the patient turns up at the chemist, who has no idea what has been discussed and certainly no emailed script. The patient gets very upset..... When the doctor wants to know the temperature of the patient, or their blood pressure, they say "go to the chemist and call me with the results". The chemist does not get paid for measuring someone's BP, and why indeed should the customer have to pay for something that the doctor has already "kerchinged" for?

The result of this is that only yesterday, my wife - the nicest and most self sacrificing person you could meet (she puts up with me!) - phoned the doctors surgery (where only the receptionist is at work, the doctors "work from home") to say she has had enough of trying to chase non-existent but "promised" emailed scripts. She is now the only health practitioner in town who is seeing patients, the mini-hospital have stopped doing covid tests or vaccinations because they have "staff shortages" and the doctors are working from home (supposedly) doing telehealth. I get to hear about it every night when she comes home!!

So, much like the "working from home" issues also in this thread, telehealth is a great idea that is being ruined....

[woodPixel]

Old Bob (made up name) who has been bullied into talking to the doctor by his wife, tells the doctor "I'm fine" when he could be dying.

Blokes are the very worst.

I saw this first hand while I was at the doctors surgery waiting for an appointment.

Old Boy harassed into going to doctor by wife as he's had "heart burn" for a couple of days.... Didn't want to bother anyone, apparently. He was in fact having a full blown cardiac arrest and the ambulance screamed him to hospital.

[BobL]

Old Bob here was in complete denial about diabetes and it nearly killed me twice over.

I had skipped 3 blood glucose tolerance tests, was needing to pee every 40 minutes, ruined sleep, and no matter how much water I drank it would not flake my thirst. The only thing that would briefly help was a fizzy high sugar drink! It was not until one night in bed I had a massive right lower leg cramp that pulled my calf muscle - I could not walk but desperately needed to pee. I staggered out of the bedroom into the hallway and fell through a plate glass door. Ended up in hospital with 27 stitches. I kept blurting I was probably diabetic but the emergency docs kept saying go to the GP. A week later when getting stitches out at the GP the blood sugar reading was off the chart. My right left continued to hurt but I flew to QLD for work and the trip home was one of the worst flights in my life nd stop don't know how I mangled to walk off the plane. Next day a scan showed a 1" long blood clot in my leg so I had 4 weeks of work while that got sorted.

[Warb]

I'm always fascinated by the metro-centric views and statements of politicians and the media. Today it has been announced that in all of NSW, including regional areas, it is now mandatory to wear a mask when "outside your home". I'm unable to find anything that improves on that definition..... I do accept that in Sydney you could be in your own garden and still touch your neighbours house, so perhaps such a rule is valid. But if I leave my "home", if we assume "home" means "house", it's a kilometre to the next inhabited building. It's also 700metres to the road, and even if I stood on my boundary (which is 15m away from the road) it seems unlikely that I would catch covid from the occupants of a vehicle travelling along at 100kph. More likely I would be hit by a truck!!

It's also going to be very hard to communicate with my son (who is part of my household) when we are doing farm work. Hearing what is being said over the noise of sheep when working in the yards, or from the other end of the fence we are currently building, is hard enough normally - but wearing a mask?

I've tried very hard to follow the rules, but I'm assuming that this one is for people who are likely to pass within a few metres of other people, not for us out here!

[woodPixel]

Warb, sounds like you are a Regular Law Breaker.

Better follow the rules of we'll dob you in!


https://youtu.be/5knGCXwTcSE

[ian]

I'm always fascinated by the metro-centric views and statements of politicians and the media. Today it has been announced that in all of NSW, including regional areas, it is now mandatory to wear a mask when "outside your home". I'm unable to find anything that improves on that definition..... I do accept that in Sydney you could be in your own garden and still touch your neighbours house, so perhaps such a rule is valid. But if I leave my "home", if we assume "home" means "house", it's a kilometre to the next inhabited building. It's also 700metres to the road, and even if I stood on my boundary (which is 15m away from the road) it seems unlikely that I would catch covid from the occupants of a vehicle travelling along at 100kph. More likely I would be hit by a truck!!

It's also going to be very hard to communicate with my son (who is part of my household) when we are doing farm work. Hearing what is being said over the noise of sheep when working in the yards, or from the other end of the fence we are currently building, is hard enough normally - but wearing a mask?

I've tried very hard to follow the rules, but I'm assuming that this one is for people who are likely to pass within a few metres of other people, not for us out here!
but, what constitutes "your home"?
for me "your home" is not equivalent to "your house".

While I agree that in Sydney and some regional locations, "outside your home" will be equivalent to being outside the front door of your apartment, in a "normal" suburb (one with enough land for a front and/or back yard), "your home" will include the entire block "your house" sits on. Even if you can spit on your the wall of your neighbour's house.

In your situation, "your home" would include at least "your house's" curtilage and, unless there is something odd with the titles of the surrounding landholdings, would include the entirety of the property "your house" sits on.

I know if I needed to go to the long drop dunny, the only mask I would be wearing would be one that countered the smell.



On balance, I consider "your home" is a better choice of words than "your house". "Your home" includes the property "your house" sits on.

[ian]

or are you taking the ??

[ian]

In the debate between the interests of the medical profession, the pharmacies and the public there is another hidden player in the game - the "theoretical doctors" in Health HQ in Canberra who purportedly "represent" the interests of the GPs despite never or rarely actually having practiced as a GP.
But the "theoretical doctors" in Health HQ are supposedly there to look after the public interest. If they are actually looking out for the GPs, then that would suggest they have undergone regulatory capture.





BTW
One of the senior health bureaucrats was the best man at my wedding and although he is addressed as Dr, the "Dr" refers to his PhD, not his medical qualifications.

[Warb]

Warb, sounds like you are a Regular Law Breaker......

I think I'll mail-order a bell for my tractor to "frighten policemen" like Toby did... That'll learn 'em!!

[Warb]

or are you taking the ??

Only partially!

It's another of those issues where people need to follow the "spirit of the law", I suppose - though I don't know if it will be policed that way! It would be laughable for us to wear masks out here, whether in our "garden" or on the rest of the farm, but a garden in a town or city where people chat with their neighbours over a fence is a different matter entirely! If, as is currently suggested, delta can be contracted simply by walking through the "wake" of an infected person, then I suppose it must be assumed that an errant breeze could easily blow the virus over a fence....... That in turn would mean that the powers that be are indeed suggesting "home" to mean the actual building.

But like I said, I've yet to see a definition more specific than "home"!

[GraemeCook]

But the "theoretical doctors" in Health HQ are supposedly there to look after the public interest. If they are actually looking out for the GPs, then that would suggest they have undergone regulatory capture.
... .


Oops; poor choice of words by me - trying to be too succinct, and I failed.

I meant to say that the "theoretical doctors" purport to have expert knowledge on how a general practice works, but in reality do not have a clue as to the dynamics of any business enterprise.

As to regulatory capture, frequently also called client capture, is there any agency in Canberra (or Washington) that has not suffered some infiltration, if not outright capture?

[Warb]

But the "theoretical doctors" in Health HQ are supposedly there to look after the public interest. If they are actually looking out for the GPs, then that would suggest they have undergone regulatory capture.


As to regularity capture, is there any agency in Canberra (or Washington) that has not suffered some infiltration, if not outright capture?

If there is a single politician (activist, advisory panel, whatever) in Australia who is genuinely there to look after the "public interest", I would be stunned. Looking after the people you class as your supporters, by the way, doesn't count as "the public interest" - keeping your supporters happy is "self interest".

[ian]

It ["your home" vs "your house"] is another of those issues where people need to follow the "spirit of the law", I suppose - though I don't know if it will be policed that way! It would be laughable for us to wear masks out here, whether in our "garden" or on the rest of the farm, but a garden in a town or city where people chat with their neighbours over a fence is a different matter entirely! If, as is currently suggested, delta can be contracted simply by walking through the "wake" of an infected person, then I suppose it must be assumed that an errant breeze could easily blow the virus over a fence....... That in turn would mean that the powers that be are indeed suggesting "home" to mean the actual building.

But like I said, I've yet to see a definition more specific than "home"!
like you I heard Gladys's 11 AM statement this morning (it's amazing what you can follow on streaming radio these days) and immediately interpreted her use of "your home" as meaning outside your apartment or in the street beyond your front fence.

Gladys's (or was it Kerry Chant's) example of "catching Covid if you merely bumped into another person", clearly implied to me that the "Covid threat" was the other side of your boundary. Inside your property you only interact with people who are within your own "bubble" -- but you should put on a mask BEFORE opening the door to a person from outside your bubble. And wash your hands after. :D




To put a bit of context to my apparent casualness around catching Covid.

In Alberta the vaccination rate (two doses plus two weeks to develop initial immunity) is currently sitting at 58.1%. 65.6% have received at least one dose of the vaccine and have had the two weeks their immune system needs to respond. But remembering that around 15% of the Province's population is under 12 and therefore too young to vaccinate, the 65.6% (one jab cohort) becomes 77.1% of those eligible for the vaccine.
Today (August 19) Alberta's Covid numbers were 817 new cases (the 7 day moving average is 509), adjusting for the differences in population between Alberta and NSW that's equivalent to around 1600 new daily cases in NSW with a moving 7 day average of around 1000.
The Provincial Chief Medical officer also notes that 76.3% of people admitted to regular hospital beds are unvaccinated and 17.5% were partially vaccinated -- meaning that around 1 in 15 were fully vaccinated.
Of those in ICU, 90.7% were unvaccinated and 4.7% were partially vaccinated -- meaning that just under 1 in 20 ICU admissions were of fully vaccinated people.

In Alberta, the rest of Canada, and the US, Covid appears to have morphed into an epidemic among the unvaccinated.



BTW, I've been fully vaccinated since early July, but I still speak of "when I catch Covid", not "if I catch Covid"

[Warb]

Gladys's (or was it Kerry Chant's) example of "catching Covid if you merely bumped into another person", clearly implied to me that the "Covid threat" was the other side of your boundary. Inside your property you only interact with people who are within your own "bubble" -- but you should put on a mask BEFORE opening the door to a person from outside your bubble. And wash your hands after. :D

It's funny to contemplate the realities against the "announcements". If covid is spread via moisture in the breath, then the physical act of bumping in to someone is less important that the act of breathing what in Formula 1 parlance might be referred to as their "dirty air". On the other hand, my sister in the UK won't take anything (mail, deliveries, food, whatever) into her house without it first being sprayed with some form of kill-all, and then the item sitting in isolation in the shed for two days. Clearly it is her belief (which may or may not reflect the "official" view in the UK!) that physical contact is a big issue.

When the handwashing and masks were first suggested, the concept was that it was, ahem, "snot" being transferred that was the major issue. People wipe their noses with their hands, then touch things. The advice was therefore to avoid touching your face and to wash your hands frequently. There was lots of talk, at that time, of how long the virus could survive on various surfaces, but the concept was still snot-related. Obviously there is still a potential for people's clothes to be "contaminated" such that clothing to clothing contact could transfer the virus, so I'm not sure whether the "bumping in to people" was a metaphorical "bump" referring to physical closeness, or an actual bump.

I suppose, if physical bumps are a problem, they could address it by making it illegal to walk along whilst staring down at your phone and not paying attention to where you're going :;

Mind you, sometimes I wonder why the "experts" seem to miss things that appear obvious. I'm currently reading that the state of Victoria is very concerned because 26% of new cases are now in kids under 10, and another 20% in young people 11-19. Personally I don't find this surprising - people under 16 can't get vaccinated, and "kids" (which around here seems to be taken as anyone who can pass as under 18) are exempt from wearing masks. Every trip to the supermarket involves one or two adults not wearing masks (presumably for "medical reasons", though the tattoos and looks on their faces often suggest "looking for an argument" is a more likely reason!) and a mass of mask-less kids running around touching everything in the store. I'm not an "expert", but I'd guess there might be a connection?

[doug3030]

In Alberta, the rest of Canada, and the US, Covid appears to have morphed into an epidemic among the unvaccinated.

However, these statistics could be skewed because the vaccine is not evenly distributed among the population. More unvaccinated people might be catching Covid because they fall into a demographic which for various reasons is now more susceptible to exposure to the virus. While the original strain went through nursing homes etc and seemed to be hitting the older people harder, Delta, while still killing senior citizens, seems to be affecting younger people more. The younger ones are the ineligible cohort and are also more likely to be out and about doing essential work etc. Vaccinated people are still getting infected, admittedly at a far lesser rate than the unvaccinated but I believe more research would be needed to be certain of the reasons. Is it that they are unvaccinated or because they get exposed more due to age or other demographic reasons?

Meanwhile the Government is announcing more vaccines will be available and the younger people are now becoming eligible. Do not believe for a second that the Government tells us all that they know about what is happening.

A lot of people are concerned about the 50+ cases in Victoria yesterday and today, up from a run of mid-20's. Remember that the lockdown started on 5 August and several thousand people were declared close contacts at that time and ordered to get tested then isolate for 14 days. They got tested over a few days. This means that they all need to be given a second test on Day 13 after their first test. That's where all the extra cases are coming from. A lot of them will be the people who were tested as close contacts doing their day 13 tests after being infected but asymptomatic, sitting at home in isolation saying what a waste of time it all was. Now they have tested positive.

So those extra case numbers do not worry me because they will have been in isolation and will remain so until they test negative. What does worry me is that other countries are now requiring Delts strain close contacts to isolate for 21 days as the infection does not always show up in 14 days with Delta. But once our isolated contacts pass their 13 day screening they will be allowed back into the general population. Time will tell if some of them become contagious after the 14 day period.

[woodhog]

Wearing a mask worked fine for me last year and I never got sick.
I felt much better before the 1st and 2nd vaccinations. Was walking 1 -2 miles a day. Now I have much muscle and worse arthritis pain than before a few months later and can hardly perform daily activities.
I personally highly doubt I will get a booster vaccination until they say I cannot enter a grocery store without vaccination proof.
I did not name the vaccination manufacturer and will not.

[GraemeCook]

... In Alberta, the rest of Canada, and the US, Covid appears to have morphed into an epidemic among the unvaccinated. ...


... However, these statistics could be skewed because the vaccine is not evenly distributed among the population. ...

mmmmmmm! And where do QAnom supporters fit in this spectrum?

[ian]

Every trip to the supermarket involves one or two adults not wearing masks (presumably for "medical reasons", though the tattoos and looks on their faces often suggest "looking for an argument" is a more likely reason!) and a mass of mask-less kids running around touching everything in the store. I'm not an "expert", but I'd guess there might be a connection?
Very strange.
Up until July this year, you couldn't enter the supermarkets in the town (population about 15,000) where I have been Covid stranded for the past year and a half without wearing a mask. There was at least one person, ofttimes two, stationed at the door to make sure no one entered without a mask and although the supermarket might have had multiple doors only one set were unlocked. And once inside the store, arrows on the floor indicated the permitted (desired?) direction of movement and the desired spacing of shoppers.

During the period that mask were mandated I don't recall ever seeing a shopper inside the supermarket not wearing a mask.

[ian]

It's funny to contemplate the realities against the "announcements". If covid is spread via moisture in the breath, then the physical act of bumping in to someone is less important that the act of breathing what in Formula 1 parlance might be referred to as their "dirty air". On the other hand, my sister in the UK won't take anything (mail, deliveries, food, whatever) into her house without it first being sprayed with some form of kill-all, and then the item sitting in isolation in the shed for two days. Clearly it is her belief (which may or may not reflect the "official" view in the UK!) that physical contact is a big issue.

When the handwashing and masks were first suggested, the concept was that it was, ahem, "snot" being transferred that was the major issue. People wipe their noses with their hands, then touch things. The advice was therefore to avoid touching your face and to wash your hands frequently. There was lots of talk, at that time, of how long the virus could survive on various surfaces, but the concept was still snot-related. Obviously there is still a potential for people's clothes to be "contaminated" such that clothing to clothing contact could transfer the virus, so I'm not sure whether the "bumping in to people" was a metaphorical "bump" referring to physical closeness, or an actual bump.
I'm confident that the might "bump into someone" as stated by Gladys is the metaphorical bump. You, as the bumpee, primary goal is to avoid breathing in any of their "dirty air". A very difficult task given how poorly anything less than a medical grade N95 mask plus a face shield fits.


The Covid-19 virus is "similar" to the SARS virus. In fact I believe WHO's official name for Covid-19 is something like "SARS-Covid-19".
SARS is known to persist on hard surfaces for up to a week, so I understand your sister's caution.

[ian]

However, these statistics could be skewed because the vaccine is not evenly distributed among the population. More unvaccinated people might be catching Covid because they fall into a demographic which for various reasons is now more susceptible to exposure to the virus. While the original strain went through nursing homes etc and seemed to be hitting the older people harder, Delta, while still killing senior citizens, seems to be affecting younger people more. The younger ones are the ineligible cohort and are also more likely to be out and about doing essential work etc. Vaccinated people are still getting infected, admittedly at a far lesser rate than the unvaccinated but I believe more research would be needed to be certain of the reasons. Is it that they are unvaccinated or because they get exposed more due to age or other demographic reasons?
In the US the health system is admittedly dysfunctional. The US government has provided funding more than sufficient to allow all US residents -- not just US citizens or green card holders -- to become fully vaccinated. However, the correlation between the strength of a state's political affiliation (strongly republican vs not so strongly republican) and that state's vaccination rate is directly correlated with the number of severe Covid-19 cases presenting in each state. Low vaccination rates (in a strongly republican state) EQUALS a high severe Covid-19 rate in that state. High vaccination rates (in a not so strongly republican state or a democrat controlled state) EQUALS low numbers of severe Covid-19 cases.


f

Meanwhile the Government is announcing more vaccines will be available and the younger people are now becoming eligible. Do not believe for a second that the Government tells us all that they know about what is happening.of course not.

realise that the 1 million Pfizer vaccine doses imported from Poland will all be shot into the arms of the some of the citizens of Western Sydney by mid October, well before their expire date of the end of November.
BTW, fully vaccinating the citizens of Sydney will require around 10 MILLION vaccine doses.


f

A lot of people are concerned about the 50+ cases in Victoria yesterday and today, up from a run of mid-20's. Remember that the lockdown started on 5 August and several thousand people were declared close contacts at that time and ordered to get tested then isolate for 14 days. They got tested over a few days. This means that they all need to be given a second test on Day 13 after their first test. That's where all the extra cases are coming from. A lot of them will be the people who were tested as close contacts doing their day 13 tests after being infected but asymptomatic, sitting at home in isolation saying what a waste of time it all was. Now they have tested positive.

So those extra case numbers do not worry me because they will have been in isolation and will remain so until they test negative. What does worry me is that other countries are now requiring Delts strain close contacts to isolate for 21 days as the infection does not always show up in 14 days with Delta. But once our isolated contacts pass their 13 day screening they will be allowed back into the general population. Time will tell if some of them become contagious after the 14 day period.
Gee wiz. 50 cases. SO WHAT ??
Alberta, the earliest Canadian province to remove "all restrictions" had over 800 cases on both Thursday and Friday -- i.e. more than 1600 cases. In another response I've given details of the percentage of Alberta's population that is fully vaccinated and the number of fully vaccinated Albertans who have Covid-19 -- about 1 in 20.


Unfortunately for Australia, the Delta variant of Covid-19 is now endemic. A border "wall" between WA and the rest of Australia may keep the disease at bay long enough to allow the WA population to become vaccinated, but even when the population is fully vaccinated -- a very unlikely scenario -- around 5% of the population will still contract Covid.

[Warb]

Very strange.
Up until July this year, you couldn't enter the supermarkets in the town (population about 15,000) where I have been Covid stranded for the past year and a half without wearing a mask. There was at least one person, ofttimes two, stationed at the door to make sure no one entered without a mask and although the supermarket might have had multiple doors only one set were unlocked. And once inside the store, arrows on the floor indicated the permitted (desired?) direction of movement and the desired spacing of shoppers.

Here in NSW we have one of those "modern" beliefs systems, whereby political correctness and avoidance of "insulting" anybody is paramount. As a result, even after mask wearing was made mandatory there were a fair number of exceptions. Children (which I imagine the "spirit of the law" intended to be ankle-biters but some people interpreted as "under 18") and people who cannot wear a mask for medical or mental health reasons are exempted, for example. There are also other exemptions for OH&S reasons, where the wearing of a mask would be a dangerous (very sensible, if applied correctly!). Unfortunately nobody could be asked to "prove" those medical issues, and as a result in my area a large number of people chose that option. More recently the rules have been changed, the first change was to make it mandatory for those medical/mental health exemptions to carry proof of their exemption in the form of a letter from their doctor (etc.). Unfortunately, once again political correctness prevailed and now a statutory declaration has been allowed, so those who are happy to lie just write one and get it stamped at the newsagent (who correctly state it is not their job to validate the contents of a stat dec, only to validate the signature on it). The result is that "kids" of secondary school age, and some adults, still roam the shops maskless.

It must be understood that there are certainly people who have a genuine inability to wear a mask for medical of mental health issues. Unfortunately around here it always seems to be the "usual suspects" who have added not wearing a mask to the long list of rules, laws and conventions that they don't wish to follow.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the act of wearing a mask is interpreted by some as "having a mask somewhere near your face". So; around the chin, over the mouth but not the nose, or even hanging from one ear are all seen as OK by some people. Also, wearing a mask (see definition above) until reaching the checkout, at which point it is removed to chat to the checkout operator, is also fine. Sometimes the checkout operator will ask the customer to wear the mask correctly, but that's a tough call for a 16year old girl facing a man who is looking for an argument!

On the other hand, on Wednesday I saw a guy in boots, full Tyvek ("spray painting") suit including hood, goggles and mask walking around the supermarket. I wondered if it was being done ironically or sarcastically, but I suspect not. Funny thing is he was wearing a very poorly fitting "nuisance dust mask" with huge gaps between the mask and his face..... People are strange!

[Warb]

Unfortunately for Australia, the Delta variant of Covid-19 is now endemic. A border "wall" between WA and the rest of Australia may keep the disease at bay long enough to allow the WA population to become vaccinated, but even when the population is fully vaccinated -- a very unlikely scenario -- around 5% of the population will still contract Covid.

Some people "guessed", within weeks of the initial outbreak in China, that this would be the case. It was patently obvious, though not universally accepted, as soon as the virus started taking hold around the world. Some countries, like the UK, initially went with the "endemic" view, trying to achieve herd immunity, until the sheer number of deaths and the lack of medical resources meant such an approach was unacceptable, both practically and politically. However they, and most of the rest of the world, has eventually publicly accepted it to be the case. I say "publicly" because I find it very hard to believe that it wasn't always privately accepted as such, but that knowledge was not released to the public for fear of panic.

Australia has done a very good job of controlling the disease, we have had very few deaths. The delta variant has changed that, but also it has put some impetus behind the vaccine rollout, which was previously stagnating, ironically due to the total lack of panic!

What is scaring me at the moment is that the state Premiers are, in some case, still arguing for zero covid transmission before they'll open up. That is unlikely ever to happen*, and if it does it will be a very short term zero - the disease IS endemic to the world. Waiting for zero before opening up and instantly getting more cases? I cannot see any logic in that! The concept is to keep the numbers under control to avoid the health system imploding until the population has sufficiently high vaccination numbers.

*There is one way that it could happen, and that is if they start adjusting what zero means, or refers to. So, for example, zero does not mean ZERO, it might mean zero new cases that are not linked to known cases that have not been "isolating" for the entire infectious period, and.., and,... AKA "zero by accountancy". A typically government method to make 1+1=0

[GraemeCook]

Thanks, Warb, for your consistent and well thought out posts on this topic.


... Australia has done a very good job of controlling the disease, we have had very few deaths. The delta variant has changed that, but also it has put some impetus behind the vaccine rollout, which was previously stagnating, ironically due to the total lack of panic! ...

I put on my economists hat and, as the profession constantly reiterates, run the numbers.

Australia, principally NSW and to a lesser extent Victoria, has never had a worse situation as regards the covid infection rate. The Daily New Cases are presently higher than in the second wave in July-August last year.

499832

However, the death rate has not increased in proportion to the infection rate. As of last night, a total of 978 people had died from covid, but the cumulative death rate as of 31-12-2020 was 909. This means than only 69 people have died this calendar year in spite of the high infection rate from the delta variant. (I know, early days, the infection rate is still accelerating.)

So far the evidence seems to be that the delta variant is significantly more contageous, but also somewhat less deadly.

499834

[GraemeCook]

... Unfortunately for Australia, the Delta variant of Covid-19 is now endemic. A border "wall" between WA and the rest of Australia may keep the disease at bay long enough to allow the WA population to become vaccinated, but even when the population is fully vaccinated -- a very unlikely scenario -- around 5% of the population will still contract Covid....

This seems to be a horribly pessimistic projection, Ian, and I hope that you are wrong. But ....

Arguably, the US has performed abysmally in the managing of the covid epidemic and their cumulative infection rate is now 11.5% - but still rising! Will it peak at, say, 15% - who knows?

But if 80% vaccination rate is achieved and the vaccine is 60% effective against the delta strain and there is a "natural infection rate of 15% then we run the numbers:

Unvaccinated: 20% of population, 15% infection rate => 3% infected.
Vaccinated: 80% population, 60% imune, 40% exposed, 15% infection rate => 4.8% infected. [80*(1-0.6)*0.15]

Your 5% is then not unrealistic.

But if the vaccine effectiveness is actually 90% then the infection rate for the vaccinated drops to about 1.2%. Time will tell.

[Warb]

So far the evidence seems to be that the delta variant is significantly more contageous, but also somewhat less deadly.

I would be tempted to agree, but also somewhat wary of the change in circumstances. The biggest numbers of covid deaths were initially in the elderly and infirm. Those people have also been the target audience of the vaccine rollout, at least in the early stages, so the numbers of un-vaccinated "easy targets" now make up a much lower proportion of the whole. To accurately compare the death rate of delta vs. the earlier form(s) of covid, you would therefore need to work by age-group and only in the un-vaccinated - "total" numbers are bound to be skewed by the different levels of vaccination rates in the various age groups.

As I said in an earlier post, Victoria is worried that so many new cases are in the young, but this might be explained the same way - the elderly and infirm are vaccinated and so far fewer are being infected, becoming very sick and dying (the vaccines seem to reduce not only the chance of infection but also severity of symptoms and the mortality rates). As the death rate in younger people has always been far lower than in the elderly, this could go a long way towards explaining why delta "appears" less deadly than the earlier strains.

Whilst it is obviously the case that the death toll in Australia is so low as to make any analysis somewhat arbitrary, it is also worth noting the numbers of deaths amongst the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. I haven't checked in the last couple of days, but before that I recall only 1 death being of a fully vaccinated individual and (sad as it may be) in that case it was a very elderly - 90something - person in palliative care....

[ian]

This seems to be a horribly pessimistic projection, Ian, and I hope that you are wrong. But ....

Arguably, the US has performed abysmally in the managing of the covid epidemic and their cumulative infection rate is now 11.5% - but still rising! Will it peak at, say, 15% - who knows?

But if 80% vaccination rate is achieved and the vaccine is 60% effective against the delta strain and there is a "natural infection rate of 15% then we run the numbers:

Unvaccinated: 20% of population, 15% infection rate => 3% infected.
Vaccinated: 80% population, 60% imune, 40% exposed, 15% infection rate => 4.8% infected. [80*(1-0.6)*0.15]

Your 5% is then not unrealistic.

But if the vaccine effectiveness is actually 90% then the infection rate for the vaccinated drops to about 1.2%. Time will tell.Graeme
I wish I could be more positive, but based on Canada's experience to date, I believe the numbers I'm suggesting are realistic.


As to the US infection rate, back in early March 2021 serum testing in LA county (population 10 million) was indicating that between 1 in 4 (25%) and 1 in 2 (50%) of the county's population had been exposed to the virus. At the time, the best guess estimate was the mid-point of the range 37.5%, or 3 in 8 people. And that was after excluding the 2 million people who at that time had already been vaccinated.
Data from late March is not as positive suggesting that the "have been exposed to Covid-19" cohort could be as high as 55%.
Importantly, 40% of people who have the disease have no symptoms and perhaps don't even present for testing or, if they do, test negative.

Extrapolating the LA county data to the whole of the US might very much be "an excessively bold move", but if you do, the US is approaching the cusp of achieving effective "herd immunity" through a combination of existing exposure to the virus and vaccination.


Australia in many respects is similar to Canada.
Achieving a vaccination rate of 80% in Australia is probably not achievable, especially given that around 10-15% of the population are kids under 12 who are too young to receive "the jab". I think that Australia will likely top out with around 75% of the population vaccinated against Covid.

Re-running the AUS numbers using the exposure data from LA county


Unvaccinated: 25% of population (6.5 million), 50% infection rate (in LA county, in late March, it was 55%) => 3.25 million infected, around 40% of which (1.3 million) don't know they are infected so don't get tested. !!
Vaccinated: 75% of population (19.5 million), 50% exposure rate (9.75 million), of which 85% are either asymptomatic or sufficiently immune that their illness doesn't requite hospitalisation => 1.46 million who might require a hospital bed.



I think my estimated numbers are about right. But please correct me if I have erred.

[Lappa]

After listening to Dan and Gladys lately, I believe that the only Premier who believes we can achieve the magical ZERO figure is the WA Premier.

I stated graphing the NSW figures for some time and chose to also graph them over a fortnight spacing. Since June, the cases have been doubling each fortnight and the worrying stat is that, going by the graph, they shouldn’t have reached 800 cases until next Saturday :oo:

[Bushmiller]

As I said in an earlier post, Victoria is worried that so many new cases are in the young, but this might be explained the same way - the elderly and infirm are vaccinated and so far fewer are being infected, becoming very sick and dying (the vaccines seem to reduce not only the chance of infection but also severity of symptoms and the mortality rates). As the death rate in younger people has always been far lower than in the elderly, this could go a long way towards explaining why delta "appears" less deadly than the earlier strains.

Warb

Agreed.

I think that if the object of vaccination is to minimise serious illness and death, then even the slow uptake of the vaccination will tend to safeguard the groups most at risk. It just means that even with vaccination taking place at well below optimum speed it is having a benefit.

The incidence of younger people contracting the Delta strain is still worrying, but at least we have to assume their younger, bodily defence mechanisms are better able to cope. So again it gives the appearance of being less serious: Not necessarily the case.

Also, have we learnt our lesson and are we prepared for another variant? Or will it be back to square one as far as quarantine is concerned?

Regards
Paul

[doug3030]

I think that if the object of vaccination is to minimise serious illness and death, then even the slow uptake of the vaccination will tend to safeguard the groups most at risk. It just means that even with vaccination taking place at well below optimum speed it is having a benefit.

The incidence of younger people contracting the Delta strain is still worrying, but at least we have to assume their younger, bodily defence mechanisms are better able to cope. So again it gives the appearance of being less serious: Not necessarily the case.

I agree that any level of uptake of vaccination is going to be beneficial, but there is also the downside, and teh Delta strain is going to accentuate that downside. Vaccinated people are still able to become infected and they can infect others, just less likely to do so. They are also more likely to be asymptomatic, so as the vaccination takeup gets larger so does the chances of asymptomatic infected people being active in the community and not getting tested. This will mean an increase in unlinked mystery cases. Contact Tracers will find themselves having to work harder because they will be doing more tracing upstream instead of being able to concentrate primarily on downstream.

[Warb]

Also, have we learnt our lesson and are we prepared for another variant? Or will it be back to square one as far as quarantine is concerned?

As individuals, I don't think we have learnt anything. I made the shopping run in to town this afternoon. Now I do realise that the new "masks outside" (etc.) rules don't actually come in to force until midnight, but I would have thought that the "spirit" of those rules was clear and that maybe people wouldn't actually wait until the clock ticked over... But no. Couples and groups in the supermarket ("1 person to go shopping from each household once per day"), groups of 4 and 5 young men chatting with no masks, many people walking dogs with no masks, even one person sneaking in to the supermarket through a checkout to avoid checking in.

Hmm. I realise that most of those things are technically OK for the next few hours, but is it that hard to start following the requirements a few hours early?

The pharmacy still has people being rude, offensive and even abusive, refusing to wear masks (or wear them correctly) etc. They are still getting frequent calls from people who "want the visor" and, despite being 60+, refusing AZ.

A staff member at Bunnings told me that as soon as the lockdown was announced they were completely flooded with customers and had to put up barriers to herd people in to queues to get IN to the store in a controlled (and 4sqm/person) way. So clearly the "avoid contact with other people" message has fallen on deaf ears!

The politicians can't do anything but argue with each other, the various organisations involved can't give a consistent view or set of rules, and whilst I understand we have an "evolving situation" there were THREE different changes to the vaccination rules on ONE SINGLE DAY last week. I have been very supportive of the NSW vaccination program so far, but it's starting to fall apart due to inconsistencies between the various authorities. And saying "it's the vaccinators responsibility to keep up to date with the rules" is completely unfair if they change the rules every hour, and rules publicised on the different (government) sources say different things!

The staff in our shop (wife included) said that last week was the worst week they'd ever had. They even started closing for lunch because it was either 30minutes to reset or they were going to lock the doors and walk away.... They were so frazzled that one customer who witnessed another customer being "less than friendly" actually paid for a bunch of pizza's to be delivered to the shop from the Tapas bar up the street so the staff could recharge.

So overall, I don't think we've adjusted, nor do I think we're in a position to cope with a worse strain......

[Beardy]

Our State leaders constantly trying to score points attacking other State leaders is really getting up my nose. Can’t think of a better time for them all to be working together :?

[Bushmiller]

They were so frazzled that one customer who witnessed another customer being "less than friendly" actually paid for a bunch of pizza's to be delivered to the shop from the Tapas bar up the street so the staff could recharge.



Warbs

Love that. Goes a long way to restoring faith in mankind, but also the stuff of legends.

Regards
Paul

[Bushmiller]

As individuals, I don't think we have learnt anything.

.......................

So overall, I don't think we've adjusted, nor do I think we're in a position to cope with a worse strain......

Warbs

Exactly my take too. Also at the political level there is not enough being done for future pandemics and not only the government, but both sides of politics, who seem totally absorbed by self interest: They are absolutely not serving the interests of the people, but neither are the people helping themselves (apart from at the supermarkets). I have to say that I am on my high horse from a position where I have been largely unaffected (and uninfected) by this pandemic. It is easier for me to be "Hollier than thou" when the only thing I am prevented from doing is visiting our daughter in Brisbane.

Well Sydney is paying the price for not heeding the restrictions. Trouble is, their selfishness has now impacted regional areas and others that were not previously impacted.

:(

Regards
Paul

[doug3030]

Well Sydney is paying the price for not heeding the restrictions. Trouble is, their selfishness has now impacted regional areas and others that were not previously impacted.

As I see it, If NSW had implemented a proper lockdown in a timely manner and enforced the rules properly then Victoria would not be in it's current position. And taking it one stage further, all of Australia was pretty much COVID-free - until some genius decided we were doing so well - "Let's open the international border. We can contain it with Hotel Quarantine". Without that stroke of genius there would be no Delta in Australia. Even Dictator Dan could see that coming when he said "If we don't lock a few people out we will have to lock everyone down."