breaking covid rules [Archive]

Warb

30th June 2021, 01:09 PM

........ (Another is the government’s blundering supply and distribution “efforts”.)

Tl;dr - there's much nonsense in the media about the vaccines.

There's a great deal of criticism of the government, some is justified but not all. It's worth remembering that Pfizer are an American company and their priority market is the US - they are/were simply not selling very much outside the US, so the rest of the world had to use what they could source, mostly AZ. Initially, therefore, AZ was largely the only thing available and it's side effects were not known. Since then, the media pushed the "bad" aspects of AZ very hard, thus discouraging the uptake in Australia. They are now also pushing "AZ not accepted in the US", but don't mention the fact that AZ haven't (as far as I know) applied for registration in the US because Pfizer "own" the market so of course it's not accepted. It's not a reflection on efficacy, but certainly would interfere with travel plans etc..

We constantly hear that "nobody can get the vaccine", but in our area at least AZ is freely available - it's just that nobody wants it! The vaccination centre is deserted, the medical staff are just sitting around being paid to do very little.

Most of the staff at our local old peoples home (or whatever the politically correct name is these days) have stated they would rather lose their jobs than get the vaccine. It's going to be interesting to see what happens now it's being made mandatory for them to have the jab.

My personal opinion; we (government and people) are being stupid. Covid is here to stay, we have to learn to live with it. Zero cases, zero transmission, it's a pipe dream. Australia did a very good job of controlling the disease until we had geared up to deal with it, but we now need to change that mindset to one which suits the long term inevitability of covid being endemic.

verawood

1st July 2021, 11:00 AM

I would like to see a plan for the future that sets out a % of the population being vaccinated after which there would be no lockdowns unless something extraordinary occurs.
Also, to include what vaccinated and unvaccinated people can/can't do EG: airlines saying no jab no international flights.
I'm not advocating any particular action, just nominating an example.
But I am advocating for a clear understanding of the future.

Warb

3rd July 2021, 06:59 PM

An interesting few days. The PM has produced a very sensible plan, but unfortunately has not filled in the details of when the various phases will be executed - having a band of "experts" define the triggers at some unspecified point in the future renders the plan largely pointless, certainly meaningless until those triggers are set.

The rollout of the AZ vaccine through pharmacies (in NSW, I'm not sure about other states) is another interesting topic. It looks like many/most of the pharmacies selected for the trial are in rural areas. If they're anything like our rural area, much of the population still thinks covid is a hoax, refuses/argues about masks, and under no circumstances (they currently say) will they have a vaccine...... The AZ vaccine comes in 10 dose vials that expire 10 days after opening, and the minimum order quantity is 10 vials. Hopefully we'll see a change in attitude of rural people towards being vaccinated, otherwise there may be a lot of vaccine going down the drain!! With any luck, "the new 4 step plan" will persuade people of the need to get vaccinated - certainly one friend of mine who was previously a member of the "over my dead body" brigade has now decided that he might need to get vaccinated. But perhaps that's because he'll be able to get my wife to do it, and he likes her more than he likes the doctor!

BobL

3rd July 2021, 07:48 PM

An interesting few days. The PM has produced a very sensible plan, but unfortunately has not filled in the details of when the various phases will be executed - having a band of "experts" define the triggers at some unspecified point in the future renders the plan largely pointless, certainly meaningless until those triggers are set.!

Its most unlikely that the experts will define a single trigger,.
Science is not black or white, rather it's grey, and in this case very very very grey.
All they can hope to do is come up with something like this.

If you vaccinate to 85-90% and fix a grab bag of other factors and open up, your likelihood of significant outbreaks are X+/-x, with a hospitalisation rate of Y+/-y, and a death rate of Z+/-z etc
If you vaccinate to 80-85% etc, your likelihood of significant outbreaks are A+/-a with a hospitalisation rate of B+/-b, and a death rate of C+/-c
If you vaccinate to 75-80% etc

In other words there's be no single trigger but a matrix of triggers.

The final trigger point (what the pollies think the majority of voters/punters/plebs) will stomach, will be chosen by pollies, they wont say they chose it - they'll say the boffins determined the trigger which they did.

A bit like sports and car park rorts, get an independent mob to set up a selection (triggers) and then we'll determine which ones to apply.

Warb

3rd July 2021, 10:44 PM

Science is not black or white, rather it's grey, and in this case very very very grey.

The science is fairly well black and white, it's the rest of it that's grey. The "plan" requires 4 trigger points but, as you say, it's a risk because the lower the vaccination rate (for each phase) the greater the risk of disease outbreak. The problem is that without the risk of disease and death, there is no driver for the population to get vaccinated - the uptake here has been slow because (and let's leave the supposed vaccine shortages out of the debate for the moment because they may or may not be real) nobody perceives any great risk, and the AZ vaccine has been trashed in the press. In my area we have vaccination clinics with nobody to vaccinate, and hourly arguments with people who won't wear a mask because they believe "it's all a hoax". The trouble with an effective lockdown system is that there is no real "proof" to the man in the street that there is any great risk, and so there is no driver to get vaccinated. Contrast that with the UK, where my sister and aunt didn't go outside their houses for months, and everybody knows multiple people who've had covid and many have died from it. 50% of the UK population are fully vaccinated, compared to 6% over here.

We have a vaccination clinic in the next town (40km) that has more free appointments every day than actual "used" appointments. They sent a mobile clinic to our local town, and they were phoning around at the end of the day because they had so many unused doses. The only ways to change that are either fear of the disease (i.e. let it run around a bit and suffer some deaths) or restrictions on what un-vaccinated people can do. Restrictions are hard, especially in rural areas because very few people go abroad so "no jab no fly" means nothing. Perhaps "no jab no NRL" would inspire a few?

Once again, the authorities are between a rock and a hard place. If they contain the disease the vaccination rate will be very low/slow, but if they let it rip they will get blamed for the deaths. Meanwhile the rest of the world develops "herd immunity" (we're probably calling it something else because that term gained some bad press early on, even though it's clearly what always had to happen either by vaccine or post-recovery immunity) and starts to open up, as is already happening.

It's a tricky problem!

yvan

4th July 2021, 11:30 AM

Warb,

".....We constantly hear that "nobody can get the vaccine", but in our area at least AZ is freely available - it's just that nobody wants it! ..."

Hmmm, I don't recall my parents being given the choice, let alone the opportunity, to say No to their son being vaccinated against Polio at school !!!

"...Most of the staff at our local old peoples home (or whatever the politically correct name is these days) have stated they would rather lose their jobs than get the vaccine. It's going to be interesting to see what happens now it's being made mandatory for them to have the jab...."

Let them lose their job then! How stupid is it to think that the least resistant members of our society can be exposed daily by staff who are not vaccinated because they don't want to vaccinated!

During the initial lockdown at least, family members & friends were prevented from visiting residents in nursing homes. As a result, the only vector for the virus to infect a resident would have been through the staff....

I'm off me soap box

Yvan

verawood

5th July 2021, 10:36 AM

Like BobL says, the experts will come up with a scale of estimations and the pollies will pick one.
The decision will be driven by what the pollies think will get them through the next election.

Mr Brush

5th July 2021, 10:42 AM

The only ways to change that are either fear of the disease (i.e. let it run around a bit and suffer some deaths) or restrictions on what un-vaccinated people can do.

Yup, I think a lot of us feel the same way.

Lappa

5th July 2021, 03:59 PM

Warb

5th July 2021, 04:19 PM

A comment was made (I think by Dan Andrews) that it should not be, say, when 85% get vaccinated, it should be when, say, 85% have been offered the vaccine which would include those who got vaccinated and those who refused.

If we had to wait for 85% to get vaccinated before freedom from lock downs etc. and 20% refused to get vaccinated, we would never get our freedom back.

I agree, but how do you demonstrate % offered?

As I said previously, in our area we have a vaccine clinic that has unused appointments. Additionally a mobile clinic that came to our local town - a well advertised visit, mentioned on local radio and the local paper, Facebook etc. - and left with unused doses after actually calling the pharmacy at the end of the day to see if they knew of anyone wanted a jab. I would interpret that to mean that 100% of people over 50 (at the time, AZ was for over 50's) in my area have been offered the vaccine and refused it......

Bohdan

5th July 2021, 04:28 PM

Like BobL says, the experts will come up with a scale of estimations and the pollies will pick one.
The decision will be driven by what the pollies think will get them through the next election.

Even if it isn't one of the choices that the experts came up with.

Warb

5th July 2021, 04:45 PM

Even if it isn't one of the choices that the experts came up with.

Normally I'd agree, but in this case there's a lot to lose. Even the most intellectually challenged and thick skinned politician must (surely) not want thousands of deaths on their conscience for going against medical advice? I suspect they will pick the option that suits them best, but make sure they have someone else's name on the paperwork so they can shirk responsibility if required!

ian

5th July 2021, 05:34 PM

I suspect they will pick the option that suits them best, but make sure they have someone else's name on the paperwork so they can shirk responsibility if required!
rather than "if" I think you really mean "when" a scapegoat is required.

posted by a forum member who has been Covid stuck in Canada since May 2020 -- and based on "Scotty from Marketing's" decision to reduce international arrivals by a further 50% looks to not make it back home till the middle of 2022 !!

Very not happy Jan

Warb

5th July 2021, 06:26 PM

posted by a forum member who has been Covid stuck in Canada since May 2020 -- and based on "Scotty from Marketing's" decision to reduce international arrivals by a further 50% looks to not make it back home till the middle of 2022 !!

If you don't mind me asking, why are you stuck there? I haven't even attempted international travel in the covid era, so I have no personal knowledge of the situation, but it seems from the press as though some people manage to come in and out whenever they want, whilst others are apparently stuck overseas. There was a news article quoting a (Queensland?) politician who said that many people had come and gone several times, with a few up to about 6 trips (from memory). A friend of my wife flew in with her entire family (all un-vaccinated) back to NSW to visit her parents, and is now heading out again, and a local kid and his girlfriend came back from (by coincidence) Canada around the middle of last year. Why can some people come and go seemingly at will, whilst others can't? Is it related to the (Australian) state they are coming to, where they are coming from, or just whether they can afford to pay for flights and quarantine? I'm genuinely interested to know - we read stuff in the media but normally don't get to find out the whole story!!

pippin88

5th July 2021, 06:47 PM

Aus system seems to be whoever can afford tickets and manages to get them. Number of plane seats / arrivals is limited but airline decides who gets the seats.

There is no central allocation / allowance / queue system.

ian

5th July 2021, 07:27 PM

If you don't mind me asking, why are you stuck there? h
I have a child who was doing their final school subject at Calgary's National Sports School when Covid started and the Canadian-US border was closed in March 2020. My child's school moved to full-time on-line learning in March and also cancelled all April and June 2020 diploma exams. As a family our joint decision was to remain in Canada so my child could complete high school. (The relocation to Canada was to give my child the opportunity to both train for their sport and at the same time complete their high schooling.)
Pulling out of the Canadian school in March 2020 would have meant that my child would not have graduated from a Canadian school and because of differences in curriculum requirements between Alberta and NSW, once back in Australia, the child would have been required to repeat Years 11 and 12 as what is called a "mature age student". This is something we didn't want to contemplate, so we stayed in Canada, for what we hoped would only be a few months.

As of today (July 5, 2021) the Canadian-US border remains closed.
The last direct flights from Canada to Australia was in March 2020.
Even though we had booked a Qantas flight from Canada to Australia for June 2020, Qantas stopped flying to any overseas destination while the kid was still finishing school.
As non-Canadian residents, if we cross the US border we can't return to Canada. So we would find ourselves paying for hotel accommodation in LA while waiting for confirmation that we could board on a flight back home. For all of 2020, sitting, perhaps for months, in Covid infested LA was not an attractive option. I think at one stage, serum testing was indicating that 1 in 12 LA residents had been exposed to Covid.

The recent 50% reduction of flight capacity have just made life more difficult.
Earlier this evening my wife looked at the cost of travelling back to Sydney in September 2021 and the fare quoted is more than AUD $33,000 EACH. Paying a few thousand for quarantine is nothing compared to a having to find $100,000 just for three airfares.)

so as I said, not happy Jan.

Pagie

5th July 2021, 08:38 PM

Bugger.

Warb

6th July 2021, 08:10 AM

so as I said, not happy Jan.

I understand the problem, but to be fair none of that is the Australian governments fault. It looks like the only reason you can't get back is the price of the flights, which is not really under the control of the government.

BTW, if you're not worried too much about airlines and routes, have another look for flight prices. There is a guy and his girlfriend in my town who flew back from Canada because his dad was sick, and he's now gone back again. I was talking to my wife last night, and we realised there was no way he could afford the kind of prices you are talking about so I did a quick search, not least because I may have to go and visit my aunt in the UK. Anyway, cheapflights.com.au are listing return flights, Toronto to Sydney (2 stops, LA and Fiji), 23rd September, for below AU$3K, the cheapest being $1800. I have no idea of the accuracy, or what other restrictions might apply, but they are saying they have seats available. Might be worth a look?

Bushmiller

6th July 2021, 11:06 AM

May be time to take a vacation to the states. We're generally walking around maskless here in and out of doors and there's little covid around (even the delta variant, which is present, but isn't spreading here like it is elsewhere because we've mostly got mrna vaccines and much of the rest of the population has had covid.

I don't know if you can get pfizer or moderna there, but if you can, have a couple of shots of it and head over here to the beach. It's like the old days.

D.W.

Interesting comment from a country that to date has had 33,722,290 cases reported and 605,567 deaths attributed to the virus as of 6 July 2021.

Australia on the other hand has had 30,803 cases and 910 deaths. Ah, but I hear you say look at the difference in population. Very true: So on a percentage basis America has had 10% of the population infected and 0.1% have died as a result.

Australia has had 0.1% infected and 0.003% have died as a consequence.

We also have to remember that the efficacy of the vaccines is not 100%. They vary from about 60% up to 80% (roundish figures) depending on which type has been administered and whether the second booster shot has been received. It would be a very confident and complacent person to wander freely in many communities. Incidentally, "confidence" is the state of mind experienced immediately before true reality manifests itself.

:)

Regards
Paul

Ps: Source: COVID-19 Map - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center (jhu.edu) (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html)

Warb

6th July 2021, 01:27 PM

Interesting comment from a country that to date has had 33,722,290 cases reported and 605,567 deaths attributed to the virus as of 6 July 2021.

Australia on the other hand has had 30,803 cases and 910 deaths. Ah, but I hear you say look at the difference in population. Very true: So on a percentage basis America has had 10% of the population infected and 0.1% have died as a result.

Australia has had 0.1% infected and 0.003% have died as a consequence.

On the other hand, the US have/are bouncing back, travel is possible, and life is getting back to normal. In comparison, half of Australia is in lockdown and (most importantly, I'm sure you'll agree) my holiday to Tasmania has been cancelled and everyone is out of stock of the spindle sander I want to buy.

Playing Devils Advocate again, the vast majority of deaths from covid are of people who are old and/or have significant underlying health issues. Earlier in this thread [edit: sorry, this may have been a discussion in an entirely different forum!] we touched on "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", where we justified vaccination of aged care workers to protect their patients. In that case the few (those who didn't want to be vaccinated) were deemed to be less important than the rest of us. Now, on the other hand, we are suggesting that the needs of the 0.1% of Americans who died from covid outweighed the needs of the 99.9% who didn't. It's an interesting philosophical issue - how much harm/discomfort/restriction should we put on 99.9% of the population in order to protect the 0.1%. And for how long? Have the 0.1% been asked? I'm in my (late!) 50's, and my kid's schooling and lives in general have been stuffed around by covid. If I was in my 80's and living in a retirement home, I'm not sure whether I'd think I was being fair to them........

The vaccine is not 100% effective, as you say. It is also now blatantly obvious (and, in fact, has been from the start) that this disease is not going away. Like many other diseases we are going to have to learn to live with it. Currently Australia boasts low death rates, low infection rates and equally low vaccination rates. Unless we are live as a permanently isolated country in "perma-lockdown", I don't see how those numbers can last. Even with higher vaccination rates, that 60% efficacy rating of the vaccine means that 40% of the immunised population will still get, and spread, covid. The evidence suggests that those who are immunised experience less severe symptoms, but will that really help the old/weak/sick? Are we just delaying the inevitable (yes, I realise that death is always inevitable, but you know what I mean!)?

Devils advocate, as I said!!

ian

6th July 2021, 02:03 PM

We also have to remember that the efficacy of the vaccines is not 100%. They vary from about 60% up to 80% (roundish figures) depending on which type has been administered and whether the second booster shot has been received. It would be a very confident and complacent person to wander freely in many communities. Incidentally, "confidence" is the state of mind experienced immediately before true reality manifests itself.
the 2nd jab of vaccine that I am scheduled to get tomorrow is rated as being 94% effective against Covid.

However, as (after tomorrow) a fully vaccinated person I can still spread Covid should, perhaps I should be honest and say when I catch the disease.
Calculations in Canada suggest that 90-95% of people over 12 need to be vaccinated in order to protect the under 12s who at present can't be given the jab.
Most importantly, the reason I'm rolling up my sleave is that two weeks after the 2nd jab, my chance of being hospitalised or dying from Covid reduces to nearly ZERO. It's not that I won't get Covid or spread the virus to others, it's that when I do, the people I pass the infection onto will, if they are also vaccinated, not get so sick that they require hospitalisation.

I know it's been said by others much less qualified than I, but Covid should be seen as the 21st century equivalent of influenza -- the common flu.
Up until 15 months ago, people were still dying from the flu. The current global pandemic appears to have wholly replaced influenza as a cause of death.
As a society we need to accept this fact and get back to our normal, pre-pandemic lives.

Bushmiller

6th July 2021, 02:07 PM

On the other hand, the US have/are bouncing back, travel is possible, and life is getting back to normal. In comparison, half of Australia is in lockdown and (mostly importantly, I'm sure you'll agree) my holiday to Tasmania has been cancelled and everyone is out of stock of the spindle sander I want to buy.

Playing Devils Advocate again, the vast majority of deaths from covid are of people who are old and/or have significant underlying health issues. Earlier in this thread we touched on "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", where we justified vaccination of aged care workers to protect their patients. In that case the few (those who didn't want to be vaccinated) were deemed to be less important than the rest of us. Now, on the other hand, we are suggesting that the needs of the 0.1% of Americans who died from covid outweighed the needs of the 99.9% who didn't. It's an interesting philosophical issue - how much harm/discomfort/restriction should we put on 99.9% of the population in order to protect the 0.1%. And for how long? Have the 0.1% been asked? I'm in my (late!) 50's, and my kid's schooling and lives in general have been stuffed around by covid. If I was in my 80's and living in a retirement home, I'm not sure whether I'd think I was being fair to them........

The vaccine is not 100% effective, as you say. It is also now blatantly obvious (and, in fact, has been from the start) that this disease is not going away. Like many other diseases we are going to have to learn to live with it. Currently Australia boasts low death rates, low infection rates and equally low vaccination rates. Unless we are live as a permanently isolated country in "perma-lockdown", I don't see how those numbers can last. Even with higher vaccination rates, that 60% efficacy rating of the vaccine means that 40% of the immunised population will still get, and spread, covid. The evidence suggests that those who are immunised experience less severe symptoms, but will that really help the old/weak/sick? Are we just delaying the inevitable (yes, I realise that death is always inevitable, but you know what I mean!)?

Devils advocate, as I said!!

Warbs

The devil's view gives perspective and the philosophical question is interesting to put it mildly. Of course I also have to declare my prejudice as somebody who looks back on middle age as a missed opportunity as opposed to the beginning of the end. My take is that the virus tends to home in on those who have a medical weakness or are to some degree otherwise susceptible. The older age groups naturally are most exposed to this category. However, the stance of them being sacrificial by virtue on being the most likely to die in the near future is a difficult one to sell politically and a little bit hard nosed at best. Premature exodus from the mortal coil tends to be frowned upon, if it can be prevented.

Quite apart from the death statistics it seem not to be just another flu. Have a quick look at Post#1 in this thread (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/rob-streeper-usa-c19-virus-234426?highlight=rob+streeper) for Rob Streeper's account of an early confrontation with Covid-19. Rob is a pharmacist, who has recently patented a drug for use in combating diabetes. I mention this to explain that it is not the rant of a panic merchant, but a reasoned, and worrying, account by a health professional.

I would agree that a plan should be mapped out for the future and made clear to the public. The bare bones ( four stage proposal by the government) have been rolled out without timelines, but the shortcomings of the vaccine should be made crystal clear and in particular emphasised it is not 100% effective. The vaccine itself and the rollout here in Oz is another issue that we cannot address retrospectively, but at least should be learning from our mistakes and making every effort to expedite vaccination much more rapidly than is current. I have to say I don't understand people who are not traditionally anti-vaxers, declining the jab. With our comparatively low levels of infections I can see an argument to set a timeline to become immunised or suffer the consequences of infection when restrictions are completely removed..

I don't believe we are at that point yet.

Regards
Paul

ian

6th July 2021, 02:15 PM

I understand the problem, but to be fair none of that is the Australian governments fault. It looks like the only reason you can't get back is the price of the flights, which is not really under the control of the government.

BTW, if you're not worried too much about airlines and routes, have another look for flight prices. There is a guy and his girlfriend in my town who flew back from Canada because his dad was sick, and he's now gone back again. I was talking to my wife last night, and we realised there was no way he could afford the kind of prices you are talking about so I did a quick search, not least because I may have to go and visit my aunt in the UK. Anyway, cheapflights.com.au are listing return flights, Toronto to Sydney (2 stops, LA and Fiji), 23rd September, for below AU$3K, the cheapest being $1800. I have no idea of the accuracy, or what other restrictions might apply, but they are saying they have seats available. Might be worth a look?
I just mentioned this to my wife.

Sydney Airport is not currently showing any flights arriving from Fiji.
At best that $1800 air fare is a fishing expedition. At worst it's blatant bait pricing.

The Toronto to LAX flight (Air Canada or United or Delta) should be fine.
but LAX to Fiji and then onto Sydney is so highly doubtful (with the number of seats limited to 25 per flight) that as a family it represents too much uncertainty.

Warb

6th July 2021, 02:26 PM

I have to say I don't understand people who are not traditionally anti-vaxers, declining the jab.

I suspect the problem is twofold. Firstly, in my area at least, we (unbelievably) have a large number of "covid deniers" who think the whole thing in a hoax. I kid u not, they believe it is just big business or [insert some derogatory name for the PM] trying to manipulate them - these people also won't wear masks, possibly because they don't fit over their tin-foil hats. The second reason is more understandable, however. I worked in big pharma for many years, and I know how long it take to develop a drug and do the required efficacy and safety testing. I have heard the experts views that "vaccines are different", but historically that hasn't normally been the case. Yes, there is a new 'flu vaccine every years to address the current strain, but that is not starting from scratch each time. The covid vaccine is new, and we don't have long term testing for it - the blood cot thing, and now the heart problems with Pfizer, demonstrates that problem. I took the decision to get vaccinated, because I'm old enough not to matter. But would I recommend my kids to be first in the queue?... their chances of a severe case of covid are minimal, so I think I'll maybe let a few others go first and see what happens!

On the "up" side, my wife has started telling customers that we will be doing the vaccine and as of yesterday there are 25 people who want it. For a while we were contemplating not even getting any vaccine because nobody seemed interested. So it looks like attitudes are changing!

A Duke

6th July 2021, 03:33 PM

Ranting
Hi,
I do not think the leader of the opposition's frenzied rantings against the PM and his government are helping the situation at all.
I doubt he could or would have done any better.
Regards

JK_Qld

6th July 2021, 05:32 PM

Ranting
Hi,
I do not think the leader of the opposition's frenzied rantings against the PM and his government are helping the situation at all.
I doubt he could or would have done any better.
Regards

I'm no fan of the current government but I have to agree, Albanese has not portrayed an aura of effectiveness, he's going to get trounced at the next election.

Bushmiller

6th July 2021, 06:21 PM

the 2nd jab of vaccine that I am scheduled to get tomorrow is rated as being 94% effective against Covid.

However, as (after tomorrow) a fully vaccinated person I can still spread Covid should, perhaps I should be honest and say when I catch the disease.
Calculations in Canada suggest that 90-95% of people over 12 need to be vaccinated in order to protect the under 12s who at present can't be given the jab.
Most importantly, the reason I'm rolling up my sleave is that two weeks after the 2nd jab, my chance of being hospitalised or dying from Covid reduces to nearly ZERO. It's not that I won't get Covid or spread the virus to others, it's that when I do, the people I pass the infection onto will, if they are also vaccinated, not get so sick that they require hospitalisation.

I know it's been said by others much less qualified than I, but Covid should be seen as the 21st century equivalent of influenza -- the common flu.
Up until 15 months ago, people were still dying from the flu. The current global pandemic appears to have wholly replaced influenza as a cause of death.
As a society we need to accept this fact and get back to our normal, pre-pandemic lives.

Ian

I am not sure that the two vaccines available in OZ, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca (both are not available to all people in Oz and some don't appear to be available to anybody) are better than 80% at most. I don't think the populace at large have been advised that they can still contract the illness or that they can still be infectious post vaccination. As you say, it minimises the effect on an individual and gives a reasonable amount of protection to prevent you dying as a result.

As to Covid-19 replacing the common flu, I would suggest that Covid-19 is a little more intense than that. The common flu may well have disappeared because of people staying at home and not contributing to community transmission. However Covid-19 replacing the common flu is like replacing Mussolini with Hitler or Stalin.

Covid-19 is a nasty, insidious disease.

Regards
Paul

Warb

6th July 2021, 06:48 PM

I think perhaps the meaning is not that covid is the same as the 'flu from a symptoms and effects point of view, more that it is or will be endemic and part of life in the future, in the same way that the 'flu has been in the past. Yes, it's nastier, but it's here to stay.

As for politicians and the media, neither can be trusted to say anything other than what suits the story they are pushing or creates more drama and therefore sales (either $ sales for the media or "points" for politicians). It's also unfortunate that people believe what they want to believe, don't investigate anything beyond what their favourite shock-jock, influencer, politician or podcaster says, and often don't have any clue about the underlying science in any case. If people only ever read the headlines in the information source they have preselected to suit their belief system, they will only ever know what that information source wants them to know...... Having a well educated and fully informed population is, I suspect, the worst nightmare of every politician, journalist and marketing manager!

Bushmiller

6th July 2021, 06:58 PM

As for politicians and the media, neither can be trusted to say anything other than what suits the story they are pushing or creates more drama and therefore sales (either $ sales for the media or "points" for politicians). It's also unfortunate that people believe what they want to believe, don't investigate anything beyond what their favourite shock-jock, influencer, politician or podcaster says, and often don't have any clue about the underlying science in any case. If people only ever read the headlines in the information source they have preselected to suit their belief system, they will only ever know what that information source wants them to know...... Having a well educated and fully informed population is, I suspect, the worst nightmare of every politician, journalist and marketing manager!

Warbs

Ain't that the truth. Well said.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

7th July 2021, 01:53 AM

Dr John Campbell is worthy of watching if you are interested in a 100% fact based science update.

His shows are on daily and are highly informative.

Dr. John Campbell - YouTube (https://youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching)

ian

7th July 2021, 04:51 AM

Ian

I am not sure that the two vaccines available in OZ, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca (both are not available to all people in Oz and some don't appear to be available to anybody) are better than 80% at most. I don't think the populace at large have been advised that they can still contract the illness or that they can still be infectious post vaccination. As you say, it minimises the effect on an individual and gives a reasonable amount of protection to prevent you dying as a result.
Paul,
I can't comment in much detail about the effectiveness of the Astra Zeneca vaccine -- as it's approval for "emergency use" in Canada has been "withdrawn ?" and I'm not sure it got past the application stage for approval in the US -- but based on the stage 3 vaccine trials in the US over the last northern summer, 2 shots of Pfizer (a mRNA vaccine) is 96% effective against severe illness and 2 shots of Moderna (the other mRNA vaccine) is 94% effective. I believe that Australia, and other countries using the same two vaccines, used the US Stage 3 trial data when granting their "emergency use approvals".
I fully expect that the "effectiveness" data in Australia will be similar.

BTW, Pfizer is showing early signs of having a not good influence on the heart muscle -- I don't recall the full details and the reported sample size is only 27 individuals most of whom are in their 20s and early 30s and are military personnel.
So there remains a risk with at least one of the mRNA vaccines.
But from my perspective, getting really sick with Covid is a much higher risk than contracting a probably non fatal heart condition.

As to Covid-19 replacing the common flu, I would suggest that Covid-19 is a little more intense than that. The common flu may well have disappeared because of people staying at home and not contributing to community transmission. However Covid-19 replacing the common flu is like replacing Mussolini with Hitler or Stalin.
I apologise if you interpreted my reference to "influenza" as the common flu. Influenza used to regularly kill several thousand Australians every year and infect around 300,000 others. Since April 2021 there have been a total of 358 cases of laboratory confirmed influenza (Department of Health | Australian Influenza Surveillance Report and Activity Updates (https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-surveil-ozflu-flucurr.htm#current)) in Australia. I won't say influenza has been eliminated, but it's prevalence has been so reduced that the statistics around it have become unreliable.

My conclusion is that Covid-19 has replaced influenza as the disease to be concerned with.
Covid-19 vs Influenza might be akin with comparing "Hitler" with "Mussolini", but at the end of the day Covid is just another endemic disease that we, as a community, need to learn to live with.

Bushmiller

7th July 2021, 09:01 AM

Ian

I, too, may have been over zealous in my wish to describe Covid-19 as an illness not to be trifled with so no apology required. To some extent it is unfortunate that it is regarded as and named as a flu because it is amongst the most virulent within that category. Covid-19 is not Ibola, for example, where the death rate averages 50%, but you still don't want to get it if is possible to avoid it (by vaccination).

I would agree that it is here to stay or if not Covid-19 a similar derivative. To that end we need, in Oz, to speed up the vaccination programme and to arrange dedicated quarantine facilities.

Just on vaccination I have previously commented that vaccination has different levels of availability depending on where you reside. Here in the sticks it has not been made easy. One of my work colleagues, this last week, who is 50 years old tried over a period of three days to obtain a vaccination in Toowoomba which is the largest inland city in Australia. He persisted and it took him over seven hours on the telephone to arrange an appointment.....which will be in September providing the vaccines don't run out in the meantime!

I don't know how they measure the efficacy of vaccines. Does it stop you getting the illness? Does it stop you getting very sick? Does it stop you being admitted to intensive care? Does it stop you dying as a consequence? I think it is all of that, but at which of those points is the efficacy measured? Pfizer is available (when it is available) only for the under sixties. The information here is that it is 80% effective. Is this part of the mis-information as you are seeing 96% for what I assume is the same product? Or is the efficacy quoted at the different points: 96% to prevent you dying, but 80% that you will not be very sick for example.

Regards
Paul

verawood

7th July 2021, 10:31 AM

woodPixel

7th July 2021, 10:32 AM

I find it interesting about how many people are doubting vaccines.

In the early 90's I had to travel to South America (Chile, Bolivia, Peru) for some time to some remote places. VERY remote.

The disease and poverty I saw vividly stick with me to this day. The effect of preventable disease on the communities was devastating.

In our lifetimes, many here, will have childhood memories of rampant TB, rubella, small pox... polio.

This is no "Bill-Gates 5G Arsenic magnetic sterilisation Tracking Devices" designed by Lizard People in Government. It is science. It is evidence based.

The level of stupid exhibited by the mummy-blogging anti-vax Truther brigade is beyond conception. It is a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

One thing I really enjoy about Dr John Campbells videos (https://youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching) is that he takes great care not to produce opinion, but rock-solid evidence-based science and facts.

Vaccines are the right approach.

Pagie

7th July 2021, 11:02 AM

It would be nice if we could get some factual data. I don't suppose the Gov want us to know anything. But our polies are going to the Olimpics. :?

ian

7th July 2021, 11:30 AM

I don't know how they measure the efficacy of vaccines. Does it stop you getting the illness? Does it stop you getting very sick? Does it stop you being admitted to intensive care? Does it stop you dying as a consequence? I think it is all of that, but at which of those points is the efficacy measured? Pfizer is available (when it is available) only for the under sixties. The information here is that it is 80% effective. Is this part of the mis-information as you are seeing 96% for what I assume is the same product? Or is the efficacy quoted at the different points: 96% to prevent you dying, but 80% that you will not be very sick for example.
Paul,

My understanding is that the phase 3 trial for the Pfizer vaccine involved over 43,000 individuals who were randomly assigned to either a control (placebo only) group or the vaccine test (Pfizer mRNA) group. There were 162 positive Covid results in the control (placebo) group vs 8 in the vaccine group. More details here Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | pfpfizeruscom (https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine)
A bunch of statistical maths I will admit to not fully understanding gave a reported efficacy of 95%. Note that the reference I've provided is to a Pfizer press release, not a peer reviewed scientific paper, but to quote Pfizer: "Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%." and "There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group." I believe that a "severe case" is one requiring hospitalisation. While I would need to do a bunch more reading to be sure, those ratios -- 1 (severe) to 17 (Covid cases) -- roughly equates with what is seen here in Canada in respect to hospitalisations. So to my mind they seem reasonable.

I "think" Australia's recommendation that Pfizer be administered to under 60s has to do with the risk profile of the vaccine vs getting Covid.
If you are under 60, the risk of blood clotting from taking Astra Zeneca is assessed as too great vs the risk of a being hospitalised from Covid.
If you are over 60, the risk of blood clotting reduces. I believe that the political assessment is that, the risk from getting severe Covid is greater than the risk of blood clotting from the Astra Zeneca vaccine. HOWEVER, I'm not sure if Australia's vaccine recommendations are based on the incredibly small Australian Covid case numbers (less than 31,000) or the much bigger case numbers in the UK and Canada.

But as I said, here in Canada, we have a huge surplus -- something like 600 million doses have been ordered to vaccinate around 35 million people. The coverage ratio is something like 20 to 1. The vaccine secondary market will soon be awash with "surplus" vaccine.

Bushmiller

7th July 2021, 01:22 PM

But as I said, here in Canada, we have a huge surplus -- something like 600 million doses have been ordered to vaccinate around 35 million people. The coverage ratio is something like 20 to 1. The vaccine secondary market will soon be awash with "surplus" vaccine.

Ian

Could I ask you to send a quick email to Scotty from Marketing for him to keep his eye on Ebay for cheap vaxes?

:wink:

Regards
Paul

hughie

7th July 2021, 05:34 PM

Warb

8th July 2021, 09:28 AM

Influenza used to regularly kill several thousand Australians every year and infect around 300,000 others. Since April 2021 there have been a total of 358 cases of laboratory confirmed influenza (Department of Health | Australian Influenza Surveillance Report and Activity Updates (https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-surveil-ozflu-flucurr.htm#current)) in Australia. I won't say influenza has been eliminated, but it's prevalence has been so reduced that the statistics around it have become unreliable.

My conclusion is that Covid-19 has replaced influenza as the disease to be concerned with.

I was thinking about this, and I suspect it is only temporary. Clearly influenza spreads from person to person, and mutates/evolves constantly. The new strains move around the planet, carried by travellers and then redistributed in each new country by person to person transfer. Every year the world produces a new influenza vaccine, targeted at the the latest major strain on the disease. During the covid pandemic, there has been an enormous reduction in international travel, together with social distancing rules and the occasional lockdown. We have also been far more careful (at least in theory!) to stay at home if showing "flu-like" symptoms, wear masks, and our attitudes to taking coughing/sneezing kids to see grandpa have changed completely. Given that the majority of those people who die from 'flu are the same target audience as for covid (old, sick, weak etc.) it is hardly surprising that they have been exposed to far fewer sources of 'flu. Additionally it is entirely possible that the current situation has persuade more people to get 'flu shots and perhaps take other measures to protect their health in general. Our local doctor has been writing vitamin D (thought to help in resistance to respiratory diseases) to quite large numbers of people, together with additional vaccinations such as Prevenar (pneumococcal).

The massive reduction in 'flu deaths is therefore likely to be a side effect of the changes to our way of life. This also means that, by extrapolation, when we eventually relegate covid to "just another endemic disease" status*, stop wearing masks and locking down, then influenza will most likely return.

* I notice that the NSW Health Minister yesterday [got trapped in to admitting]/[had his statements interpreted as meaning]/[hedged around the fact that] the latest covid outbreak in NSW might never get under control ["unless EVERYBODY does the right thing"] in which case we will just have to quit the lockdown and let it go. Now, this "statement" could be seen as an attempt to scare people into doing the right thing, but it could also be an initial airing of exactly what much of this thread has become about - i.e. learning to live with covid as an endemic disease......

twosheds

8th July 2021, 10:13 AM

So to summarise as I see it,

Learning to live with covid 19 as an endemic disease.... the same as we have already learnt to live with influenza as an endemic disease.

The only real question is the timing of this in Australia. The UK and USA (and others) have already commenced this process.

Regards
Twosheds

Bushmiller

8th July 2021, 10:41 AM

Twosheds

It seem to me that learning to live with a disease comes at a cost, in human kind more than monetary cost, and it all comes down to where we draw that line. There is one line for serious sickness and another for death. If we live as a hermit, it is unlikely that we will get sick from such a disease, but do we wish to sacrifice to that level? Probably not! I think all our attitudes would be vastly modified once we ourselves found ourselves in intensive care or at least somebody very close to us.

It would be fairly easy for me, being somebody who is generally healthy (crossed fingers at that statement), to be quite blasé: Not quite so comfortable perhaps if we are placing a dearly beloved in a wooden box! So the question comes down to what price is acceptable?

We may well point to the likes of the US and the UK "apparently" emerging from lockdowns and resurrecting their economies, but look at the cost there (see here (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html) for worldwide statistics) and in truth their own situations were forced upon them by various factors including, but not limited to, incompetence and denial.

Arguably Australia had an advantage because of our natural, geographical isolation, but unfortunately it led to complacency and indecision despite early warnings to the contrary. We can let that advantage slide or we can continue to tackle outbreaks vigorously until such time as the vaccines are more readily available and immunisation has been largely completed. Then, if you contract the disease and haven't been vaccinated, you only have yourself to blame (excluding those who for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated).

Regards
Paul

Warb

8th July 2021, 01:23 PM

woodPixel

8th July 2021, 03:21 PM

Imagine how different today would have been IF our incompetent government had simply immunised everyone at the start.

We had no shortage of vaccines available. The government simply stuffed it up at every level.

12 months ago we could have rolled this out. 12 months ago there would have been orderly queues at chemists, shopping centres and Bunnings. No big deals.... didn't want it? Fine!

But we should have been given the chance.

Now its July, 18 months into this shitshow and the gov is STILL effing it up.

3.2 Billion doses have been administered worldwide. We needed only, what... 50 mill for everyone? Maybe 20 if we were being tight arses?

--> Are we seeing the results of the overarching religious ideology that is the Conservative Liberal gov? Their anti-science stance and using their power to frustrate the process?

--> Is anyone angry enough to vote these people out? Nope. Seems not.

Bushmiller

8th July 2021, 04:05 PM

Devils Advocate, again:

Everyone living in the developed world at this time has been brought up to believe that life expectancy is, what, 80 years or so (give or take a bit for different countries, male/female etc.). 100 years ago, it was 55 or so, that's a 50% increase, attributed to lifestyle, living conditions, medicine etc.. The western world has also developed the attitude that death is bad, and must be delayed as long as possible. Perhaps both these concepts need to be rethought? Staving off death at all costs can, in my opinion, be an awful thing - when you watch someone fade over a period of years, to the point that they are just skin stretched over bones, completely uncommunicative on a bed and fed through a tube, is keeping them alive really an act of "love"? Perhaps it's just selfishness, not wanting them to die because of the impact it will have on us? Unfortunately in our "enlightened" politically correct society, discussing such concepts is largely unacceptable and risks being labelled a ghoul or heartless. Maybe nature, in the form of covid, is pointing out that people relying on armfuls of pharmaceuticals every day, or being grossly obese, diabetic, or just plain old, is not a natural state of life? Maybe we should start to consider whether our current attitudes towards death and many other things are actually sensible or sustainable?

(DARFC...)

Warb (aka: Devil's Advocate :) )

I agree entirely that we, in the West, do not deal with death either responsibly or well. In fact I wish I had a dollar for every time SWMBO has unleashed a chorus of: "In this modern age we are not allowed to die." This reminds me I have to get around to that end of life declaration thingy or whatever it is. This is probably a subject for discussion elsewhere, but in principle, when a life is bereft of quality, it is time to go.

We have to be careful of those average age things from the early twentieth or nineteenth centuries, where they are even more dramatic, as they are averages and they take in the huge mortality rates during infancy and, in the case of women, during complication resulting from child birth. This is the failing of an average. I recall from my school years that in the early decades of the nineteenth century the average age for the poor in London was 17 years, but for the wealthy was 37 years. I can't now recall the exact county, but it may have been Shropshire, a predominantly rural region of the UK, the poor lived to an average of 37 years and the wealthy 53 years. Time may have clouded my memory slightly ( I don't know why that would be :rolleyes: ) but the principle is there. If you reached twenty years old, you were probably as tough as nails and could have a reasonable life expectancy to 60 or 70. Not as good as today but not nearly as bad as the average suggests.

My point here is that advances in medicine allow us a better chance to survive into early adulthood. I do take on board your question as to what extent and how long we should allow those advances to keep people alive: Another difficult philosophical dilemma.

Regards
Paul

Warb

8th July 2021, 04:13 PM

We had no shortage of vaccines available.

Not sure that is correct. We had no local manufacturing and could only buy from overseas, and most of the overseas manufacturers were busy ramping up production to supply their own local markets. The government did in fact place orders for large quantities of the AZ vaccine (pretty much the only one that was initially available), which is still arriving, as well as arranging local manufacture. If we did in fact have sufficient vaccine, where has it gone? We gave 300,000 does to PNG, but I suspect all our other "donations" have been promises for the future rather than physical deliveries, but I may be wrong. The issue of local manufacture applies to far more than vaccines. Manufacturing ANYTHING in Australia is massively expensive, and pharmaceutical manufacture is massively expensive in any case. Put those two things in a country with a tiny population and no real ability to export, and it's a dead end. But I digress.

Since the initial orders were placed, unfortunately, the AZ vaccine has been crucified by the media to the extent that nobody wants it. We are now getting information that is very muddled - "we can't get the vaccine" does not necessarily mean "we can't get ANY vaccine", it might mean "we can't get Pfizer". Not the same thing, and it might be unfair to blame the government (or anyone else) for ordering a product that was the right product at the time, but has now become unpopular. As it stands, my wife will shortly be getting 300 doses of AZ delivered (the current minimum order) but has only 25 people who want it......

The subject of the roll-out is even more complicated. Big business wants to make a profit. More than that it wants to make more profit every year, so it expands. Woolworth sell insurance, phones, and anything else they can make a buck from. They are desperate to get in to pharmaceuticals, but current legislation prevents that. Pharmacies (who I believe do a far better job than Woolworths, or even the "proud to be cheap" chemist chains, ever would) are therefore desperate to become "health care providers" because otherwise they'll all fold when (and it might take years but it's almost certainly "when" not "if") supermarkets get pharmacy. Doctors, through the AMA, are absolutely dead set against pharmacy providing health care, because it eats in to their revenue. So Doctors don't want Pharmacists to even give 'flu shots (which they currently can), let alone covid jabs. The AMA lobby is very powerful, they hold the trump card of being able to stand up and say "the government bla-bla-bad-stuff and you'll all suffer" and that has a huge impact. So Doctors don't want anyone else giving covid shots, but at the same time want to charge $$$ to give them and don't always have the time anyway. The government don't want to upset the doctors, or Woolworth's (they don't seem too fussed about Pharmacy, sadly) so they have to bluff and delay until the problem gets big enough that the doctors can't argue. Fun, isn't it?

That leads me on to the issue where I do think the government is perhaps making mistakes, in that we have millions of doses of AZ being locally manufactured, that nobody wants. And we'll still (as taxpayers) pay for them, even though we're paying a local manufacturer. Much of that production will end up being given to other countries, which is a lovely act of humanitarianism if that floats your boat, but a waste of money if it doesn't. It also creates a financial problem, because we're paying for something we don't want, whilst not getting what we do. But we've already placed the orders and seemingly (lots of "no comments" or "for commercial reasons") can't get out of them... I don't know the details of the contracts, but this does seem like a problem!

Warb

8th July 2021, 04:27 PM

If you reached twenty years old, you were probably as tough as nails and could have a reasonable life expectancy to 60 or 70.

Your point is entirely correct, but (there's always a "but") those weaker-than-nails individuals who now survive to adulthood are the target audience of covid. From an evolutionary viewpoint, nature weeds out the weak and allows the survivors (best adapted) to breed. We could, perhaps, be seen to have sidestepped that process. Is nature now itself evolving to redress the balance?

Where did that come from? What fumes came out of that tree I was cutting up this morning? Damn.....

A Duke

8th July 2021, 04:56 PM

Hi,
Nobody has mentioned the allocated life span of three score and ten.
Go's back to Biblical times I think.
Regards

Bohdan

8th July 2021, 06:11 PM

Don't know what the gov has set up but it don't work.

Tried to book my second shot at a local mass vac centre and was directed to the gov website.

At that website I chose walk in and that I was over 60.

Off the walk in locations list chose my local mass vac centre. This centre states "only with appointment".

Went to the appointments page only to find that none are available.

Rang my doctor and was told to come in tomorrow.

If that is an example of how the gov has organized the vac process then it is no wonder that there is such a low take up.

Lappa

8th July 2021, 07:40 PM

As to pharmacy’s giving Covid shots, I hope the rest out there are better than one of our local ones. A friend of ours, in her 70s, asked a question re a flu shot and whether they gave the free one for the over 60s. She was told there was no difference, they were all the same and they would be happy to give her a shot but it would cost $19.95. She declined, mainly due to cost, went to the doctor and was informed that the pharmacy information was incorrect and that the vaccines were indeed different. My GP totally agreed re the different vaccines

Bushmiller

8th July 2021, 08:45 PM

Your point is entirely correct, but (there's always a "but") those weaker-than-nails individuals who now survive to adulthood are the target audience of covid. From an evolutionary viewpoint, nature weeds out the weak and allows the survivors (best adapted) to breed. We could, perhaps, be seen to have sidestepped that process. Is nature now itself evolving to redress the balance?

Where did that come from? What fumes came out of that tree I was cutting up this morning? Damn.....

Warb

Survival of the fittest is a thing of the past. As with so many things we have become too smart ultimately for our own good.

Regards
Paul

Bushmiller

8th July 2021, 09:57 PM

That leads me on to the issue where I do think the government is perhaps making mistakes, in that we have millions of doses of AZ being locally manufactured, that nobody wants.

Warb

I had thought the older section of the population were comfortable with AZ. In the first instance it seems sensible to take the offer of a vaccine that provides a modicum of protection that will be bolstered by the second shot given after three months. The time lag there is not ideal but information seems to indicate that while it can be given up to two months earlier the optimum result happens around the three month period.

Subsequently additional protection can be sought by a shot of Pfzier when that becomes available: Probably when the main panic has subsided. If older people decide not to take up the AZ option they run the risk of contracting the illness while they wait. Not the best course of action I would suggest.

Regards
Paul

Warb

8th July 2021, 10:27 PM

I had thought the older section of the population were comfortable with AZ.

Good grief no! The government says it's fine for over 60's, but....

"who believes the government? They said it was fine for everyone and then changed their minds. No, we'll wait for the one that won't kill us, thank you very much"

In saying that I'm only talking about the people in our area, perhaps other areas are better?

BTW, I do agree with your logic, sadly many around here don't, and we've had no covid locally so they "aren't in a rush".

Bushmiller

8th July 2021, 10:35 PM

and we've had no covid locally so they "aren't in a rush".

Same here. Covid free zone.

Regards
Paul

woodPixel

9th July 2021, 12:33 AM

... and we've had no covid locally so they "aren't in a rush".

Until they are.... then its the toilet paper situation all over again. :) Everyone hits the exits all at once.

Better some immunity than none.

Warb

9th July 2021, 08:10 AM

Until they are.... then its the toilet paper situation all over again. :) Everyone hits the exits all at once.

Better some immunity than none.

Agreed - I get my second shot next week.

Unfortunately there's many who don't agree, don't believe or just can't be bothered. Our society pushes the line that actions don't have consequences, or perhaps more accurately that someone else will deal with the consequences and bail us out. So people don't think, don't act sensibly, and then complain that "the government isn't helping" when the consequences bite them on the butt. My wife comes home from work every day wife the same statement - "people are so [redacted] stupid". A large proportion of the population of NSW is in lockdown and she is still dealing with people who won't wear a mask, or who can't sign in because "they don't have a phone" (when bizarrely they managed to post their location on Facebook from the café next door!). Then there's the guy arrested for driving from Blacktown to visit the hook-up he met on Tinder.......

Which leads me to...

Survival of the fittest is a thing of the past. As with so many things we have become too smart ultimately for our own good.

Or perhaps survival of the fittest has been temporarily suspended, until the "ultimately for our own good" clause kicks in and we prove to not be as "fit" as we think we are?!

Log Dog

9th July 2021, 09:21 AM

I live in a rural location in Nth Qld
A couple of months ago everyone in Qld were required to wear masks for a period of time
Particularly when out in the community
Not everyone complied :no:
In fact there was great resistance
I remember reminding a punter and his wife,who were inside a local service station,that masks were to be worn
They both told me to #_@& off!
Wonderful :~
'No covid up here' was the regular chant
Denial after denial
Complacency is NO excuse people
This virus does not discriminate
A lot of interstate travellers visit my town
Indeed caravan parks in the region are bursting at the seams
Cape York resembles Pitt Street on a Saturday morning!
Mexicans EVERYWHERE :o
'No covid up here' they say....
I am holding my breath :C
Log Dog :)

Pagie

9th July 2021, 09:24 AM

Until people start to die they will not comply. :?

Warb

9th July 2021, 09:44 AM

Until people start to die they will not comply. :?

At which point they will blame the government.... :doh:

ian

9th July 2021, 01:48 PM

We are now getting information that is very muddled - "we can't get the vaccine" does not necessarily mean "we can't get ANY vaccine", it might mean "we can't get Pfizer". Not the same thing, and it might be unfair to blame the government (or anyone else) for ordering a product that was the right product at the time, but has now become unpopular. As it stands, my wife will shortly be getting 300 doses of AZ delivered (the current minimum order) but has only 25 people who want it......that might be Australia's vaccination "problem" right there.

If you are under 60, the "authorities" (the ATAGI) recommend that you get Pfizer not AstraZeneca. If vaccine wastage (for AstraZeneca) is over 90%, no wonder the Australian vaccine rollout is a "well managed" disaster. I don't know the demographic profile (age breakdown) of your regular customers, or their vaccination status, but across Australia in 2016 approximately 5 million people were aged over 60. Perhaps when discussing the number of people who can be vaccinated per shipment, I should drastically revise downwards my estimate of the number of people who are able to be vaccinated per shipment of vaccine. If vaccine wastage is over 50% -- which is still well under your reported 90% wastage -- Australia will need around 60 million doses of Pfizer to fully vaccinate everyone aged between 12 and 60. But perhaps the country will need more than 100 million doses [of Pfizer] before everyone has received two jabs.

That leads me on to the issue where I do think the government is perhaps making mistakes, in that we have millions of doses of AZ being locally manufactured, that nobody wants. And we'll still (as taxpayers) pay for them, even though we're paying a local manufacturer. Much of that production will end up being given to other countries, which is a lovely act of humanitarianism if that floats your boat, but a waste of money if it doesn't. It also creates a financial problem, because we're paying for something we don't want, whilst not getting what we do. But we've already placed the orders and seemingly (lots of "no comments" or "for commercial reasons") can't get out of them... I don't know the details of the contracts, but this does seem like a problem!according to ABC news Australia has donated 2.5 million doses of AstraZeneca to Indonesia.

But what really gets me is the really small number of people who have so far been vaccinated in Australia.
The daughter of a really good friend is a nurse. Because she is in her late 20s she should be getting jabbed with two shots of Pfizer. But when will that be ???

woodPixel

9th July 2021, 02:27 PM

Link government payments to COVID vaccination?

Warb

9th July 2021, 02:28 PM

If vaccine wastage (for AstraZeneca) is over 90%, no wonder the Australian vaccine rollout is a "well managed" disaster.

The wastage is not 90%, 300 doses is just the minimum order quantity for pharmacies. Each vial contains 10 doses, and the shelf life (unopened vial) is 6 months. So the pharmacy will book 10 people (or multiples of 10) on any given day, and use a complete vial - 0% wastage. The other vials will sit on the shelf (actually in the fridge!) until they are used. I hope (!) that people will come to their senses and start getting vaccinated. If not, there are mechanisms in place to return unused medicines (well before their expiry dates) for use elsewhere.

My point was not that vaccine is being wasted, merely that it (AZ) is in fact available but people don't want it!

The Pfizer vaccine is still in short supply. Much as the Australian media likes to tout our "special relationship" with the US, and our (largely imagined) importance on the world stage, in fact we can only get what those overseas manufacturers will provide, which at this point is not very much. That will improve once their local demand decreases [I was going to say "dies down", but that sounds wrong!]. I'm not sure (even in my own area) if there's a prioritisation of Pfizer jabs for health workers, but back when I got my 1st AZ shot there was most definitely prioritisation of healthcare workers (over 50) for AZ. The early rollout in my area targeted healthcare and other associated workers, together with those with pre-existing medical issues.

It's not really relevant to this discussion, it just popped in to my head, but it's interesting to note that the medical profession makes huge numbers of recommendations. Don't smoke, don't drink too much, don't be obese, do exercise, eat healthily. It's funny how people pick and choose which "medical advice" to follow and which to ignore.

BTW, "has donated" doesn't necessarily mean they've actually been sent. Politicians are very good at making grand gestures and then taking months if not years to deliver on their promises!

ian

9th July 2021, 03:01 PM

Link government payments to COVID vaccination?
Ha, Ha, Ha

At the current pace of the vaccine "roll out" it will be 2023 before there's enough vaccine doses in Australia to actually implement this idea.

Of course, the Government could implement the policy change from Monday July 19, but given that at the current rate of vaccine deliveries, it will be late 2022 before there's enough vaccine to go around. I don't think the Government really wants a rerun of the Robo Debt debacle?

ian

9th July 2021, 03:29 PM

The wastage is not 90%, 300 doses is just the minimum order quantity for pharmacies. Each vial contains 10 doses, and the shelf life (unopened vial) is 6 months. So the pharmacy will book 10 people (or multiples of 10) on any given day, and use a complete vial - 0% wastage. The other vials will sit on the shelf (actually in the fridge!) until they are used. I hope (!) that people will come to their senses and start getting vaccinated. If not, there are mechanisms in place to return unused medicines (well before their expiry dates) for use elsewhere.

My point was not that vaccine is being wasted, merely that it (AZ) is in fact available but people don't want it!Well given the extremely low number of cases in Australia. Excluding Ruby Princess, folks in aged care and those in quarantine, how many cases has there been?
less than 5,000 ? In terms of the risk of having a really bad outcome if you catch Covid vs getting blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine -- the relative risk of AZ looks about the same to these eyes.

And by providing Drs with an indemnity, the Commonwealth Government has just reinforced the PERCEPTION that the risk of getting jabbed with AZ is excessive.

Being trapped in a country where, between January and April, the health authorities were drawing six Pfizer doses from a five dose vial really puts the failure of Australia's vaccination effort into some sort of perspective.

Warb

9th July 2021, 04:44 PM

Well given the extremely low number of cases in Australia. Excluding Ruby Princess, folks in aged care and those in quarantine, how many cases has there been?

Excluding, I have no idea. In total there have been just shy of 31,000 cases of covid, and 910 deaths. That's a 2.9% case death rate (quite poor compared to Canada and the US, both at 1.8%) . The risk of clots (TTS) with the AZ vaccine is 2.7 in 100,000 for those over 50-59, that's 0.0027%. Of those 2.7 people, the current death rate is 4% - that's 4% of the 2.7 out of every 100,000, which is about 0.1 people per 100,000 who get vaccinated, which in turn is about 0.0001%. The risk decreases with age.

So, WHEN you catch covid (let's assume that eventually if you're not vaccinated you WILL get it) you have a 2.9% chance of dying, which increases with age and underlying conditions. Alternatively you can take the massive 0.0001% chance of dying from an AZ jab.

Those are Australian figures. In the UK there have been 395 cases of blood clots (70 deaths), with around 25million first jabs (21million 2nd jabs, but I'm not sure they've ever caused an issue). So that's a 0.0003% chance of dying from the vaccine, compared with 2.6% who die from covid. Keep in mind that currently AZ is recommended for anyone over 40 in the UK, and those numbers also include the younger people who had it before the side effects were known, and before treatments for those side effects were developed - initially 25% of cases of TTS died, now, as I said, it's down to 4% because we have a better understanding of what is happening.

To put these numbers in to perspective, statistically you are more likely to get hit by lightning than die from the AZ vaccine. Taking an aspirin every day (to prevent heart disease etc.) kills 10 out of every 100,000 a year (compared to AZ at 0.1 people per 100,000). The odds of winning the smallest (AU$3million) Powerball jackpot are 1 in 76million.

Another way to look at it is that 910 people in Australia have died of covid ALREADY, even though only 31,000 have had the disease. AZ would kill (statistically) 0.1 people per 100,000, which means that if everyone over 50 got an AZ shot, and let's say that's around 7million people (just a guess), 7 would die. If (when) those 7 million get covid, 2.9% of them - that's 203,000 - will die.

Sadly many people seem to have been entirely taken in by the media's view that AZ kills everyone who even touches the bottle. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

ian

10th July 2021, 04:08 AM

Well, I never thought that Australia would become a "developing economy" when it came to approval and adoption of human vaccines. But with the AstraZeneca vs Pfizer debate, it appears to have become one.

Many years ago there was a discussion -- I think on the ABC's Science Show -- about why countries identified as "developing economies" were reluctant to endorse the use of a vaccine NOT APPROVED for use in the west (USA, Canada, Western Europe). The example country may have been India, but it's a long time ago now and I was more interested in the ethical question -- why a country should endorse a less safe vaccine when there was a "safer" vaccine alternative -- than the actual details of the particular country.

In a nut shell the discussion was -- why should a country endorse, for domestic use, a vaccine that was not approved for general use by the US CDC? The consensus response was that politically it wouldn't look good for a government to endorse a vaccine that was not approved by the CDC. A country might be able to endorse a vaccine where the side effects were in the same order of magnitude as that of an approved vaccine, but when the side effects were an order of magnitude (10x), or more, worse local endorsement wouldn't politically be feasible.

Parallels with Australia in mid-2021?

But Australia's "problem" is that almost all our eggs are currently in the AstraZeneca basket, and there is nowhere nearly enough Pfizer doses on order, let alone due in country this year, to fully immunise the entire population.
And while we are talking of Pfizer (and Moderna) mRNA vaccines, on June 23, health.com (Heart Inflammation a Rare Side Effect of mRNA COVID Vaccines in Young People | Health.com (https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-vaccine-heart-inflammation-myocarditis)) reported that: "early data for adolescents and young adults ages 12 to 39 suggests that these problems are occurring at a rate of 12.6 per million doses" That would be 1.26 cases per 100,000. (The chart of AstraZeneca's adverse side effects -- Who can get the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Australia and what are the risks? - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-29/covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-australia-new-no-fault-indemnity-gps/100251376) -- doesn't provide data for the 12-39 cohort -- perhaps the numbers don't exist? -- but the early CDC data suggests that the mRNA vaccines are about 1/3 "safer" than AstraZeneca.

As an aside, AZ's "problems" around CDC endorsement for emergency use seem to relate to the large number of instances where only half doses were administered to volunteers during one of the trials.

ian

10th July 2021, 04:57 AM

Another way to look at it is that 910 people in Australia have died of covid ALREADY, even though only 31,000 have had the disease. AZ would kill (statistically) 0.1 people per 100,000, which means that if everyone over 50 got an AZ shot, and let's say that's around 7million people (just a guess), 7 would die. If (when) those 7 million get covid, 2.9% of them - that's 203,000 - will die.
If you want to arrive at a more accurate guess than 7 million, try 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2019 (https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3101.0Jun%202019?OpenDocument) which has an age break down by sex (Male / Female) and year. For Australian's aged over 50, ABS reports an estimate of 8.51 million in a total "resident population" of 25.36 million. To which should be added about 1 to 2 million "visitors".

Having used ABS statistics in a past life, I know that you are able to obtain the detailed age and sex population break down for your part of the Central West.

Using Orange as an example:

<tbody>
Age cohort
Orange (C)

All ages
42 451
0 - 4
3 222
5 - 9
3 085
10 - 14
2 974
15 - 19
2 618
20 - 24
2 493
25 - 29
2 896
30 - 34
3 026
35 - 39
2 784
40 - 44
2 541
45 - 49
2 637
50 - 54
2 457
55 - 59
2 414
60 - 64
2 254
65 - 69
2 083
70 - 74
1 795
75 - 79
1 240
80 -84
968
85 and over
964

</tbody>

so, if your part of the Central West is Orange, the population over 60 as at the end of 2019 was 10,754, or 25.3%

Warb

10th July 2021, 09:44 AM

Many years ago there was a discussion -- I think on the ABC's Science Show -- about why countries identified as "developing economies" were reluctant to endorse the use of a vaccine NOT APPROVED for use in the west (USA, Canada, Western Europe).

The approval's of medications, and many other things, is largely based on international data. Very few countries have the resources or time to carry out full scale trials on every product - whether that product is a vaccine or a powerdrill. So what normally happens is that a mass of international data is presented to whatever authority is in charge, and then that authority will decide whether any local testing is required to fill in gaps in the data to satisfy any local requirements. The "international data" might be test results from a recognised lab overseas, or the results of trials in a mass of other countries. In pharma, a company will organise clinical trials in several different countries, normally those who are both initial target markets and who have more involved/fussy approvals processes. The results of those trials go back to base, the numbers are crunched by an army of SAS programmers and the results then presented to the various authorities.

The reason that developing countries prefer to use drugs approved by the major economies is actually very simple. They don't have the resources to develop and/or test drugs themselves, so piggy-backing on the work of someone else is the easiest and cheapest option. Simples.

In the case of AZ in the US, there is also a political issue. Pfizer is a US company, AstraZeneca isn't. From both political and financial viewpoint, the US would prefer to use a US made vaccine so approval of their local product is prioritised. Also remember that clinical trials are a very expensive process, and usually take years. Rushing trials through in countries where you potentially don't have a big market due to local competition (or perhaps even the ability to manufacture in sufficient quantity) is a waste of resource, especially if you have an inkling that your product might get what should I say, maybe "delayed a touch", for political reasons.

Above all this there are still three points that seem to be slipping past. Firstly, when Australia ordered the AZ vaccine, there was no reason to suspect it had any issues. Secondly, the risks are absolutely trivial - 1/3 less risk is irrelevant when the risk is so small to begin with -1/3 the risk of a side affect against 5 orders of magnitude greater risk from the disease. Lastly, the production of these vaccines is still limited, and it is difficult to change production and distribution just because some tiny little country "wants more", especially when your own government wants everything that you can produce.
It's really a pointless discussion, because the media have created an issue - presumably for politicial reasons - that has no bearing in real life. The result is that instead of having a good proportion of the population vaccinated, people are more scared of the vaccine than a disease that is 28,000 times more likely to kill them. And if/when the Sydney outbreak really takes off, tens of thousands will die as a result.

OTOH, going back to survival of the fittest, perhaps this is the new evolution? Those smart enough to get vaccinated........

Lappa

10th July 2021, 10:21 AM

. The risk decreases with age.

In actual fact, it goes UP after age 70 if the information from the Australian Govt is correct.

497735

Beardy

10th July 2021, 10:27 AM

The biggest issue I see is poor communication from the government. Scomo does a poor job of controlling/ managing the media. I don’t think they necessarily do a bad job or make a lot of poor decisions but they don’t sell it or explain it well and don’t counter the dribble that the media carry on with so things get out of hand and he sits silently and lets it fester.
The fires was an embarrassment to the Libs by the way it was viewed / portrayed but I don’t think they got it that wrong as a lot the responsibility was at a state level but they copped a lot of flack because they handled the communication with the public poorly. I was embarrassed watching him visiting the communities during the fires.
Covid has been a similar thing although he started out strong as have our state leaders but he is second rate compared to the state guys when it comes to addressing the public and getting them onside with his decisions

If you cut all the crap out and look at the facts and don’t judge in hindsight they appear to have made reasonable decisions on the day with what was known at the time.
I don’t know why they don’t publicly set out the timeline and decisions that were made and explain why they were made at the time for everyone to see clearly the chain of events so we can put to bed the media circus and political point scoring that is going on and give the public some confidence that we are doing the best we can under the circumstances.

Warb

10th July 2021, 02:25 PM

In actual fact, it goes UP after age 70 if the information from the Australian Govt is correct.

Well, it decrease after the age of 50-59, and then creeps back up - but still staying below the levels of the 50-59 bracket. Once again, we are comparing tiny numbers - remember that only 4% of those experiencing TTS will die, so in real terms the death rate difference between the 1.4/100,000 (60-69 year olds) and 1.9/100,000 (80+ year olds) is 0.2 people per million who get the jab. So if 5 million of each age group get vaccinated, 1 more 80+ year old will die compared to the 60-69 years old.

1 additional person over 80 out of "every" 5 million......

Compare to the death rates from covid - in Australia there have been just under 400 deaths from covid, and about 55 of them have been people under the age of 70. That means that the 2.7% case death rate from covid is almost entirely directed at the elderly. The case fatality % for the under 60's is below 0.1%. For the next three age groups it is about 1.5% (60-69yrs), 26% (80-89yrs) and 34% (90+). So 1 in four 80 year olds who get covid will die, compared to 0.76 in 1 million that will die from the vaccine.

Still the same problem, we're fixating on tiny risks whilst the whopping great big risks are bearing down on us.... 50 new cases in NSW yesterday, all but 13 have spent all or some of their infectious period wandering around the community.

ian

10th July 2021, 02:47 PM

In actual fact, it goes UP after age 70 if the information from the Australian Govt is correct.

497735I think that Warb's point is that given the relative risk -- catching Covid and becoming so ill that you require hospitalisation vs the risk of getting a blood clot from the AstraZeneca vaccine (3.1 per 100,000 for those under 50) -- there is nothing inherently wrong with the AstraZeneca vaccine. I tend to agree with Warb, given the choice -- take the AstraZeneca jab vs get Covid badly enough to send you to hospital -- the vaccine is the better option.

However, my basic point was that the approval of a vaccine is ultimately a political decision NOT a health one. cf Australia in July 2021.
When faced with a choice between two or more nearly equal [in their efficacy] vaccines, "developing countries" tend to choose the one with the lower rate of [reported] adverse side-effects. This political decision, persists even when doing so means that because of the substantial difference in cost between the alternatives, the "developing country" can only afford to treat less than half their target population. Dredging my memory, the political decision persisted even when the disease being vaccinated against resulted in 100x the death or disability rate that the "inferior", but less expensive, vaccine would treat.
For example,
if the death rate of the disease itself is 3 in 100 (which approximates the Australian experience of the Covid death rate),
and the vaccine alternatives 'A' or 'B' will reduce that to 1 in 100,000 all might be good if the cost per treatment and adverse side-effects was the same for both vaccines.
However, if vaccine 'B' is significantly less expensive that vaccine 'A' -- in practice meaning that significantly more of the target population can be treated for the same dollar amount -- but vaccine 'B' will result in the death/disability of 3 in 100,000 (think AstraZeneca for under 60s), while vaccine 'A' will not.
The political decision will be to go with vaccine 'A', despite vaccine 'B' still producing a 1000x better result than not being vaccinated at all.

It will be interesting to see how the Australian media play out the recent news regarding heart muscle issues associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Initial indications (reported by the US CDC) are that for those under 35, the mRNA vaccines have a similar adverse side effect risk profile as does the AstraZeneca for those over 60.
(I understand that in Australia AstraZeneca has generally NOT been available for those under 40 and the mRNA vaccines are in very short supply.)

Perhaps, in their "wisdom" Australia's pollies, led by Scotty from Marketing, will revise their vaccine recommendations to take account of the emerging health data.

Warb

10th July 2021, 04:34 PM

Now we're getting closer to the real issues. Everything is a political decision, and every political decision is based on the politician's perceptions of what will get them votes. The dangers inherent in such a system are many and varied, but basically come down to the fact that no matter what you do there are people who will criticise, and if they shout loudest the politicians will start to believe that those loud voices represent the views of the majority. So for example, if you look at the SMH "live Covid blog" (shared with The Age, I believe), and read the comments, you will believe that everyone in Australia thinks "Scotty from Marketing" (or some other derogatory name) is bolloxing up everything he touches and that nobody will ever vote for him again. The reality, of course, is that the majority of those comments (which are, by the way, curated such that they are only published if they "fit" the story the paper is pushing with just enough opposing views to make it look believable-ish) come from a small number of people who would refuse to say anything nice about the government under any circumstances. If you go and look at a more right-wing paper you'll get the opposite view, but exactly the same conditions - biased reporting, curated comments, etc..

So, both politicians and the populace in general are lead around by the nose and fed the, ahem, "facts" that suit their chosen information source. In the case of the politicians, that information is "look at what these un-biased members of the public are saying, they think you're rubbish". So the politicians change their approach to try and gain support, only to find themselves labelled as "doddering" or "indecisive" or whatever. Under all circumstances, if they get it wrong - even only if judged in hindsight (e.g. the choice of AZ vaccine) - they are crucified, and if they get it right either attention is redirected to something else, or someone else (state or senate) from the "other side" tries to claim it was all down to them..... This, by the way, applies to both side of politics not just the current government(s).

Now here's the rub. If the media wanted to inform the public, rather than manipulate them, they would produce unbiased, objective reports. But that doesn't sell papers. And if politicians in office wanted to improve the country, they would do what is in the long term good of the country as a whole, even if it meant doing things that might annoy their "faithful", and not just what they think will get them votes in the short term. And if politicians in opposition wanted to improve the country, they would do what is in the long term good of the country as a whole, even if that meant sometimes agreeing with whoever is in office at that time, and even it it meant sometimes agreeing with things that might annoy their faithful, and not just what they think will get them votes in the short term. This applies to ALL politicians, it is not party specific.

But, of course, that's not the case. Both sides cherish votes above all else.

The end result is a population who by and large have no idea about the facts around ANY situation, but KNOW FOR CERTAIN that "the other side" are completely wrong in everything they say or do. They also know that Prince Harry is actually a space alien, because it said so on the cover of "No Idea" magazine. Politicians, on the other hand, quite possibly know the real facts (or have advisors who do) but are caught between doing what they know to be right (but which might get them bad press) or what they hope might engender support. Buridan's Donkey?

With the exception, of course, that opposition politicians (either side, not just at the current time) can make any statements they want because they aren't making the decisions, so there will never be any repercussions, no judgement of right or wrong, people will never suffer, no money will never be lost etc. based on what they say. When was the last time anyone demanded the resignation of an opposition politician because they said a government decision was wrong and in fact it turned out that it wasn't?

None of this is new, of course, and normally it really doesn't matter too much. Parties get voted in and out, taxes go up and down, "workers" get extra benefits, "the rich" get tax breaks on their fourth home, politicians get massive salaries and lifelong pensions, journalists get paid, newspapers get sold, etc. etc. blah blah. Been going on for years. This time, however it's different. Think for a moment what happens if covid breaks out of Sydney and as a result Australia's death toll goes from 400 to 100,000, or 200,000, or more. We could have got people vaccinated in the time we have bought ourselves, but in fact we haven't. Why? Is it because the Commonwealth Government stuffed up? Or State Governments? Are those government stuff ups the result of terror of doing anything for fear of getting it wrong? Or in-fighting between layers of government? Or mis-information from the media making people too afraid to take a vaccine that would have saved 99.9% of those lives?

It doesn't really matter, I guess, because it will have happened. And it will have happened because we've had it so easy in the recent past that we've been able to lose track of the importance of unbiased factual news reporting, or thinking outside our own little "party political" box, or supporting someone you wouldn't normally support because it's for the good of society as a whole. In the recent past we've been able to [redacted] around without any significant consequences, so that's what we've grown accustomed to doing. Perhaps we should regard the current situation as a wake-up call and start to try to improve, rather than continuing to regard it as an opportunity to score "pointless political points".

==================

This has been an anti-political broadcast, brought to you by Warb's "my god, they're arguing about the colour of the bullet proof vest whilst someone's shooting at them" party.

==================

I think I might bow out now.......

Bushmiller

10th July 2021, 05:39 PM

Warb

That is such a cynical view. I am not sure I understand how you can attribute such obnoxious characteristics to our unselfish, community-minded politicians whose only objective is to ensure our welfare.

:rolleyes:

I enjoyed the read, but I will take one line, your first line, and and highlight that with no further comment required.

"Now we're getting closer to the real issues. Everything is a political decision, and every political decision is based on the politician's perceptions of what will get them votes."

Other than that, we can count on the fingers of a badly damaged hand the number of politicians who do not fall into that category.

I do have a query on the number of deaths in Australia. Johns Hopkins, which I have used for all my statistics on this thread, reports 910 deaths. This figure has not increased for some days, although the cases have indeed increased.

497785

The 910 deaths reported for Australia by JH is still remarkably low.

The disturbing figure from today is the milestone of 4 million deaths was passed. This is in itself a wake up call to all those who early on in the piece quoted that far more died as a result of the Spanish Flu post WW1. Today we have more advanced medicine and better facilities than were available in the twenties, the virus is clearly far from played out and the casualties ore still rampant.. The other issue I feel obliged to mention is that the cart above is compiled from reported cases, There are parts of the world where reporting is poor and the capability is not there. This is just what we know.

Regards
Paul

Warb

10th July 2021, 06:45 PM

The disturbing figure from today is the milestone of 4 million deaths was passed. This is in itself a wake up call to all those who early on in the piece quoted that far more died as a result of the Spanish Flu post WW1.

Figures for the Spanish Flu are a bit vague, due to the limited technology of the age, however the usual estimate is 50million deaths worldwide from around 500million cases - 10% mortality with around a third of the population infected. In the US there were estimated to be 675,000 deaths, whilst covid has so far caused 606,000. But remember that the US now has 3 times the population that it did in 1918, so if we scale that up it would be nearly 2million deaths for the US alone. The Spanish flu is still "winning", but I'm not sure that's anything to celebrate!!

More interesting is that there were 4 waves of the Spanish flu.......

Lappa

10th July 2021, 09:43 PM

I think that Warb's point is that given the relative risk -- catching Covid and becoming so ill that you require hospitalisation vs the risk of getting a blood clot from the AstraZeneca vaccine (3.1 per 100,000 for those under 50) -- there is nothing inherently wrong with the AstraZeneca vaccine. I tend to agree with Warb, given the choice -- take the AstraZeneca jab vs get Covid badly enough to send you to hospital -- the vaccine is the better option.

I totally agree - I’ve had the Astra Zeneca vaccine with only minor side effects.
What has got under my skin, is the harping on in the press re the side effects of AZ with barely a mention of the side effects of Pfizer and the incorrect information being broadcast. One needs to know as much correct information so they can make a informed decision re vaccination hence my posting of the facts re side effects and age.

BobL

12th July 2021, 09:52 AM

Figures for the Spanish Flu are a bit vague, due to the limited technology of the age, however the usual estimate is 50million deaths worldwide from around 500million cases - 10% mortality with around a third of the population infected.

Given there were no definitive viral tests in the early 1900's, the 500 million numbers are very rubbery. Remember many people that get Covid19 are asymptomatic (2 of my elderly Italian and one elderly Brazilian relatives have been in this category) and so are only picked up after being tested. For all we know the entire population of the world may have been infected with SF.

In the US there were estimated to be 675,000 deaths, whilst covid has so far caused 606,000. But remember that the US now has 3 times the population that it did in 1918, so if we scale that up it would be nearly 2million deaths for the US alone. The Spanish flu is still "winning", but I'm not sure that's anything to celebrate!!

I'm not sure that is a case of the SF flu winning, or advances in treatment of viral infections - even in 3rd world countries, drugs (not including vaccines) and ICU care has come a long way in 100 years, If we treated Covid19 in the same way we treated SF then I maybe more people might die from Covid19.

D.W.

12th July 2021, 10:20 AM

One thing to celebrate here is that delta is the dominant variant now, and where I live (pittsburgh), within the county and within the entire state, we are completely open, but due to the efficacy of the vaccine, we continue to see both declines in case rates and declines in positive testing rates (so the issue isn't lack of testing - the latter rats out the former as it rises if the cases haven't dropped).

when I say the vaccine, it's really the mRNA type. If there's a risk here that I'm aware of, it's pfizer (I have two pfizer shots - no issues in terms of side effects, though my wife was wiped out for a day and a half with her second shot). However, Pfizer expected to be able to get a "durable revenue stream" out of the vaccine and despite the case rates dropping in areas where most people are vaccinating, pfizer is appealing to the US and europe to get a waiver to start giving a third shot right away.

At this point, if you do manage to test positive for covid (most double vaccinated cases are actually asymptomatic or minor and the case load is less than a 10th of without the shots), you're almost lucky as the case will be minor and apparently a case of covid combined with the vaccines only increases the accuracy of long-term antibody B type cells as well as messenger T cells (as in, two shots may make it so you never get covid again. Two shots plus covid only appears to make it more likely that your immunity will be very very long term).

We paid our dues as a society here, though, so to speak. I only hope that all western societies observe just how different the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines are vs. the other types and citizens get the former and not the latter.

Beardy

12th July 2021, 11:28 AM

D.W.

12th July 2021, 12:04 PM

It sounds like instead of trying to figure out how they can make americans a "durable revenue source", maybe they should be selling doses to the aussies. It sounds like you guys need them more.

Lappa

12th July 2021, 03:01 PM

We paid our dues as a society here, though, so to speak. I only hope that all western societies observe just how different the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines are vs. the other types and citizens get the former and not the latter.

We over 60 have no choice at the moment. We can wait until October while Delta rips through Sydney and hope upon hope we don’t catch it or we get the AZ shot.
Pfizer efficacy may be slightly higher than AZ. Until the Johnson and Johnson vaccine came out you only had the MRNA and one more cynical than myself may suggest that the US stalling the approval of AZ has a lot to do with where the vaccines are manufactured and economic benefits.

D.W.

12th July 2021, 03:11 PM

We over 60 have no choice at the moment. We can wait until October while Delta rips through Sydney and hope upon hope we don’t catch it or we get the AZ shot.
Pfizer efficacy may be slightly higher than AZ. Until the Johnson and Johnson vaccine came out you only had the MRNA and one more cynical than myself may suggest that the US stalling the approval of AZ has a lot to do with where the vaccines are manufactured and economic benefits.

refusal to notice the efficacy of ivermectin as prophylaxis despite its use elsewhere has a lot to do with approval of pfizer and moderna, too. They are definitely more effective than ivermectin, but some things here never change.

As far as your choice goes, you get the AZ and you live. You might get sick, but you live. It seems like a simple choice.

You can always get a booster shot of pfizer later.

woodPixel

12th July 2021, 03:19 PM

The ABC is running a story that KRudd has got on the phone to the top dog of Pfizer and arranged for us to get some more vaccine and sooner
Dont know how much truth there is in it or how much is political point scoring

Here is a link to Reddit and some discussion on it: Senior business figures turned to Kevin Rudd to intervene in bringing forward Australia'''s Pfizer vaccine supply : AustralianPolitics (https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/oi1ulj/senior_business_figures_turned_to_kevin_rudd_to/)

It would seem to ring true. Rudd has no politics in this, only a solution.

Morrison has failed as a leader. His decision making is absolutely terrible. His personality is terrible. His ability to lead is terrible. The only thing keeping him in the job is the change in the Liberals constitution that prohibits him from being rolled (after the endless procession of changes, they changed their rules).

We are now stuck with a dud.

A dud.

Our country is facing a crisis. In the bushfires it was "I don't hold the hose mate"..... and during this plague he is absent. When he does appear he comes across as an imbecile.

We deserve what we voted for, but jjeessuuss can he get replaced, SOON!!!

... our very lives depend on it.

497878

edit: I saw this fabulous piece of writing and saved it. It describes him perfectly...
497885

Log Dog

12th July 2021, 03:19 PM

The ABC is running a story that KRudd has got on the phone to the top dog of Pfizer and arranged for us to get some more vaccine and sooner
Dont know how much truth there is in it or how much is political point scoring Political point scoring :o
Not from Kevin OO7 :no:
He was 'reaching out' as a concerned citizen
Makes me feel warm and fuzzy :B
Log Dog :;

Lappa

12th July 2021, 04:29 PM

Here is a link to Reddit and some discussion on it: Senior business figures turned to Kevin Rudd to intervene in bringing forward Australia'''s Pfizer vaccine supply : AustralianPolitics (https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/oi1ulj/senior_business_figures_turned_to_kevin_rudd_to/)

It would seem to ring true. Rudd has no politics in this, only a solution.

Pfizer has categorically denied this story saying they only deal with the Govt.

Seems like Rudd can’t help himself with trying to get brownie points based on a lie.

Lappa

12th July 2021, 04:39 PM

As far as your choice goes, you get the AZ and you live. You might get sick, but you live. It seems like a simple choice.

No different to getting a Pfizer shot. I’ve had my first AZ shot and in 5 weeks I get the second. Until then I stay hunkered down.

Beardy

12th July 2021, 05:56 PM

JGT
Here is a link to Reddit and some discussion on it: Senior business figures turned to Kevin Rudd to intervene in bringing forward Australia'''s Pfizer vaccine supply : AustralianPolitics (https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/oi1ulj/senior_business_figures_turned_to_kevin_rudd_to/)

It would seem to ring true. Rudd has no politics in this, only a solution.

Morrison has failed as a leader. His decision making is absolutely terrible. His personality is terrible. His ability to lead is terrible. The only thing keeping him in the job is the change in the Liberals constitution that prohibits him from being rolled (after the endless procession of changes, they changed their rules).

We are now stuck with a dud.

A dud.

Our country is facing a crisis. In the bushfires it was "I don't hold the hose mate"..... and during this plague he is absent. When he does appear he comes across as an imbecile.

We deserve what we voted for, but jjeessuuss can he get replaced, SOON!!!

... our very lives depend on it.

497878

edit: I saw this fabulous piece of writing and saved it. It describes him perfectly...
497885

Pfizer have since gone on the record to say it isn’t true and all discussions are only with the government and are confidential
I had my suspicions seeing as though it was reported by ABC and the Guardian. Whilst I agree Scomo could be handling things better I look around on both sides of the political fence and the pool is very shallow

Lappa

17th July 2021, 02:38 PM

Our Premier came out this morning with a harder lockdown and a statement that only essential businesses on her list can stay open. Then, in the next breath, she says you must wear a mask if working in outdoor markets or outside picking up a coffee.
Her list on the NSW site does NOT list outdoor markets and coffee shops as the essential businesses.

woodPixel

17th July 2021, 02:42 PM

Lappa

30th July 2021, 09:07 PM

11am Press conference the question is asked re the tight new mask restrictions in the red LGAs and possible exemptions. The answer was there will be no exemptions as exemptions can be confusing to understand and hard to police.

12.42pm they announce exemptions to these “blanket” restrictions

Looking like a lot longer than the four weeks announced.

doug3030

1st August 2021, 10:56 PM

ian

2nd August 2021, 05:39 AM

May be time to take a vacation to the states. We're generally walking around maskless here in and out of doors and there's little covid around (even the delta variant, which is present, but isn't spreading here like it is elsewhere because we've mostly got mrna vaccines and much of the rest of the population has had covid.

I don't know if you can get pfizer or moderna there, but if you can, have a couple of shots of it and head over here to the beach. It's like the old days.

based on media reporting, Pfizer jabs won't be widely available in Australia till the middle of 2022.

Good thing I didn't follow that advice :rolleyes:

US averaging 57,000 new COVID-19 cases per day due to delta variant - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeY1p-IQSy0)

BUT
almost all of those cases (>99.9%) are being detected among the large proportion of the US population who believe that Covid is a Democratic plot and consequently are declining to bother with getting the "jab". The "good news"(?) is that by getting Covid for real, the cohort who "don't trust the government" may inadvertently increase the effectiveness of the US vaccination strategy by developing immunity without getting the jab.

Based on what I've seen and read, I highly doubt that the US will ever achieve a vaccination rate greater than about 60% of those eligible.
There's just too many people who "don't trust the government".

But more importantly,
at 57,000 new cases per day, the risk of being detected* with Covid is currently about 17.3 per 100,000 (daily) -- that's about 5x the risk of getting a blood clot (for those under 50) from the AstraZeneca jab. I'm not currently on top of the outcome severity for being "detected" with Covid. The reported death data is too skewed by those folks in old persons care.
* I won't equate "detection" with "catching" Covid as, like what is being reported for Sydney, you don't get tested for the disease unless you are really worried you have already have caught Covid.

ian

11th August 2021, 01:51 PM

unfortunately, the AZ vaccine has been crucified by the media to the extent that nobody wants it. We are now getting information that is very muddled - "we can't get the vaccine" does not necessarily mean "we can't get ANY vaccine", it might mean "we can't get Pfizer".

Not the same thing, and it might be unfair to blame the government (or anyone else) for ordering a product that was the right product at the time, but has now become unpopular.

As it stands, my wife will shortly be getting 300 doses of AZ delivered (the current minimum order) but has only 25 people who want it......
Warb
living (and working) in the Central West, have you seen a marked uptake in the willingness of your customers to get the AstraZeneca jab?
e.g. of the 300 doses your wife ordered, how many have been administered?
are you actually "delivering" 10 doses per AZ vial into arms, or are you administering what you can and tossing the unused shots away at the end of each day?

a few days ago, I saw a report on the ABC News that one of those who had recently died from Covid had received their 1st shot back in April, but were waiting for the Pfizer vaccine to be available before getting their second shot.

Also, ABC News was reporting in the last week that the Moderna mRNA vaccine, when it eventually becomes available, will need to have any unused shots disposed of the day the vial is taken out of the freezer and thawed out.

Warb

11th August 2021, 03:20 PM

Warb
living (and working) in the Central West, have you seen a marked uptake in the willingness of your customers to get the AstraZeneca jab?
e.g. of the 300 doses your wife ordered, how many have been administered?
are you actually "delivering" 10 doses per AZ vial into arms, or are you administering what you can and tossing the unused shots away at the end of each day?

Yes, we have certainly seen an increase in the number of people wanting AZ, or anything else. We still have the out and out anti-vaxxers, to whose number has now been added the "I'm not getting it until they pay me" people (there are other words to describe them!) who have latched on to the monetary incentive concept that the press have been talking about. [As an aside, my god what are the media and authorities thinking, what a precedent to set, "don't bother doing the right thing, if you wait long enough you'll get paid to do it!". Crazy.]

The pharmacy is also getting hundreds of calls each day from people wanting the vaccine. They are still dealing with callers politely, but the veneer is wearing thin;

Caller - "My dad is 92 and he needs a vaccination, the government have really f**ked this up"
Pharmacist - "The vaccination clinic was open for people of his age since April, and we had mobile clinics visiting regularly, why didn't he get it back then?"
Caller - "We didn't want it then, but we do now. The government are useless"
Pharmacist - "Well we're really sorry, but we're now booked solid for the next two months"
Caller - "The government have made a......"
Pharmacist - "Sorry"..... hangs up phone... "Yes, that's the governments fault, no doubt about it..... Moron...."

Together with assorted "I MUST have it NOW, I'm a healthcare worker at the old people's home", which had a clinic visit months ago and had Pfizer left over and thrown away because many staff and residents didn't want it. (They phoned around and managed to find volunteers to soak up a few spare doses).

The answer to the rest of that question is, um, "complicated". By the rules, the person giving the vaccination should sit down and go through the details of the shot, and the possible side effects, with the patient, and get their "fully informed" written consent. They also have to complete all the online (and some paper based) forms so the vaccination is registered for the client. A small number of people just say "yes", but many/most people have a great many questions, which take time to answer.* Once the injection has been given, the client has to sit for 15 minutes before they are allowed to leave. The shop, under covid-safe guidelines, has a maximum capacity which includes staff, people being injected, people waiting after their injection and other customers.... The result of all this is that to do the job properly, following all the regulations, is actually quite time consuming. Just out of interest, it is also a loss making process given the very low payment the pharmacy gets for each vaccination, unless they speed the process up by (ahem) "rushing" the consent process. Of course pharmacists, like everyone else, vary between those who will kill themselves to do the best job they can (my wife) and those who will cut every possible corner to make more money. Putting that all together, every single vial that has been opened in our pharmacy has been injected into an arm - even when people have not shown up or for some other reason have not received their planned jab those doses have been stuck in to people on the subs bench. On the other hand, we know of pharmacies who are opening several vials first thing in the morning and then throwing away most of it. Sadly the government at present doesn't seem concerned by this because (contrary to what the media would have us believe) we have far more AZ than we have arms to put it in!

*People tend to see pharmacists (real ones, perhaps not the "Chemists Whorehouse" factory workers) as more approachable than doctors or nurses. The result is that pharmacists often spend a great deal of time talking to clients about their medications, when the clients were too sacred/shy/confused (etc.) to discuss it with the doctor who wrote the script! The same applies to vaccinations, many people would rather go to the pharmacist who they can talk to, so the process becomes much more time consuming.

So in short, they have delivered 100% (in fact slightly more, because the vial is 10 doses plus a wastage allowance, which they use!) of all vaccine opened, they are seeing a massive increase in demand, and they are fully booked for the next two months. Given the low payment, it is simply not worth attempting to employ additional qualified "vaccinators" because it's a loss making endeavour. [Note that doctors are paid their normal consultancy fee in addition to any vaccination payment, so for them it's worthwhile to employ extra staff to increase the throughput].

a few days ago, I saw a report on the ABC News that one of those who had recently died from Covid had received their 1st shot back in April, but were waiting for the Pfizer vaccine to be available before getting their second shot.

Not sure how accurate that is (although it's believable, sadly) because we are still supposed to get "matching" shots, and the records show which 1st shot you had....... Some people are mucking about because the media at various times has reported that a mixed dose is more efficacious, but currently 2 of "whatever you can get" is better than 1 and a long wait...

Also, ABC News was reporting in the last week that the Moderna mRNA vaccine, when it eventually becomes available, will need to have any unused shots disposed of the day the vial is taken out of the freezer and thawed out.

Moderna (unopened) is stored at 2C to 8C for up to 30 days after defrosting, but only 12 hours at 2c to 25C after opening, and there are 15 doses per vial. We are supposed to be getting Moderna in September, and she's been talking about doing a few Sunday sessions specifically for "at risk" younger people. Mind you she's also been talking about selling the pharmacy, or just shutting it and walking away, because so many people have abandoned any semblance of civility and common sense!