breaking covid rules

[mature one]

Well whether you believe or not in the Covid problem a lot pf people suffer greatly when someone doesn't comply with the rules.Just have a look at the latest breech and you will perhaps think of someone other than yourself when you consider a breech of the rules [like them or not ]the majority suffer for the actions of brainless individuals,I know this is a hot topic and I don't like being told what i can and can't do but you have to think of the consequences before you act.I don't make the rules.

[D.W.]

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.

[skypig]

Most of the time, in most places in Australia we have it pretty good. With some pretty harsh procedures in place to keep Covid out/“at bay”.
This is one of the reasons that the take up of vaccinations has been slow. (Another is the government’s blundering supply and distribution “efforts”.)

When we get an outbreak - We get temporary, but extra harsh restrictions, which no one like, but most understand, to reduce the chances of it “getting away”.

As proven by many countries: Vaccination is the best option for a long term solution.

[Warb]

........ (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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Warb]

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]

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]

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!