Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

Got a source for your 80% figure?

There is a community stats site that collects figures and had it at 80% a month ago. It has not been updated since but the trends were going toward where your source of under 60% suggests it should be by now.

Logically if the vaccine is 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation, and you have 93% vaccination then unvaccinated should be in a minority or the vaccine is more effective than they are saying.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Logically if the vaccine is 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation, and you have 93% vaccination then unvaccinated should be in a minority or the vaccine is more effective than they are saying.

The 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation is not a static figure. It wanes every day from when the last jab was taken hence the need for boosters.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

In Singapore they have started charging unvaccinated for their hospital stays. Unlikely to happen here.

I would be happy for that to occur. Provided they also made people pay 100% for other medical treatments for lifestyle choices.

ie:

- Type 2 diabeties and other obesity related diseases.
- Smoking and all other drug related illnesses, including alcohol and recreational drugs
- All injuries obtained by recreational activities, including watersports
- All serious complications from plastic or elective surgeries.
- Any other medical costs associated with something someone could have avoided by choosing to do something different, like getting in a car accident on the way to a cinema or resturant.
- Any injuries from riding a motorbike.

All these can be avoided by choosing a safer path....

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

The 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation is not a static figure. It wanes every day from when the last jab was taken hence the need for boosters.

Actually I am not sure that is true, although the figures are pretty arbitary and different between vaccines, I just picked 90% as a line in the sand. I agree studies show the antibody response wanes and this reduces (the already poor) effectiveness in preventing the vaccinated contracting and spreading the virus.

However the protection against severe disease is more to do with longer term T and B cell response and this is not seen to be waning in the studies. That is the reason many experts are saying that the boosters are rubbish and do little unless you are at high risk and any top up of preventing infection is beneficial no matter how small.

Boosters are a political move not a medical one. Just look at NZ not wanting to open until everyone gets thier booster. But now boosters are every 3/4 months and they will be in a never ending cycle of trying to catch up with the latest booster dose.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

kiterboy said..
No, it isn't demonstrating anything about the 'vaccines'.

In all probability, there were thousands of asymptomatic people getting around and untested before the experimental treatments were rolled out.

Hahaha, haven't you got a dragon to feed?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Flying Dutchman said..

The 90% effective at reducing hospitalisation is not a static figure. It wanes every day from when the last jab was taken hence the need for boosters.

Actually I am not sure that is true, although the figures are pretty arbitary and different between vaccines, I just picked 90% as a line in the sand. I agree studies show the antibody response wanes and this reduces (the already poor) effectiveness in preventing the vaccinated contracting and spreading the virus.

Unless these guys are wrong, it's waning.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1017309/S1362_PHE_duration_of_protection_of_COVID-19_vaccines_against_clinical_disease.pdf

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Flying Dutchman said..

Unless these guys are wrong, it's waning.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1017309/S1362_PHE_duration_of_protection_of_COVID-19_vaccines_against_clinical_disease.pdf

In protection against infection (clinical disease) yes definately waning. For hospitalisation and death not so much, unless you are in a high risk group as I mentioned.

Direct quote from your soruce:

"There is some indication of waning against hospitalisation from 15 weeks after the second dose, in particular among recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine, though this waning appears to be predominantly in clinical risk groups. This is a broad group of clinical conditions including those who are immunosuppressed, where faster waning may be predicted. Nevertheless, protection against hospitalisation remains high throughout the follow-up period and even within clinical risk groups, VE against hospitalisation at 15-20 weeks is 75-90% with the AstraZeneca vaccine and over 90% with the Pfizer vaccine."

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
...... I'll be conservative and say at least 80% of those patients in NSW ICU would've had at least one underlying health condition even though this report from the USA states that 93.7% of ICU patients had at least one underlying health condition.

Qld press conference this morning said 93 people in hospital in Qld with Covid, none in ICU.

Also then said only 8 of those were being treated for Covid symptoms.


Even assuming 100% of the 8 being treated for covid symptoms was 100% due to covid that makes it about 92% of people in hospital with covid, but their hospitalization had little or nothing to do with covid.

They still make it on to the "93 people in hospital with covid" statistics though.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Nevertheless, protection against hospitalisation remains high throughout the follow-up period and even within clinical risk groups, VE against hospitalisation at 15-20 weeks is 75-90% with the AstraZeneca vaccine and over 90% with the Pfizer vaccine."

And what happens after 15-20 weeks?

Looks like the likely trend is downhill.


Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation all ages AZ & Pfizer



Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in individuals aged 80+ Pfizer

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
I would be happy for that to occur. Provided they also made people pay 100% for other medical treatments for lifestyle choices.

ie:

- Type 2 diabeties and other obesity related diseases.
- Smoking and all other drug related illnesses, including alcohol and recreational drugs
- All injuries obtained by recreational activities, including watersports
- All serious complications from plastic or elective surgeries.
- Any other medical costs associated with something someone could have avoided by choosing to do something different, like getting in a car accident on the way to a cinema or resturant.
- Any injuries from riding a motorbike.

All these can be avoided by choosing a safer path....

I think NSW toyed with the idea, but very unlikely to occur in Australia. Singapore has always been a pretty restricted society.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Qld press conference this morning said 93 people in hospital in Qld with Covid, none in ICU.

Also then said only 8 of those were being treated for Covid symptoms.

Even assuming 100% of the 8 being treated for covid symptoms was 100% due to covid that makes it about 92% of people in hospital with covid, but their hospitalization had little or nothing to do with covid.

They still make it on to the "93 people in hospital with covid" statistics though.

Sounds about right, Queensland vaccination rate is pretty high. Most likely just unvaccinated in hospital - their choice.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

Got a source for your 80% figure?

Currently it's more like around 66% according to Sky News link below.

NSW has a population of 8,166,000.

NSW unvaccinated population is 6.5%.

Therefore around 530,790 people in NSW are unvaccinated.

On 27 December there were 34 unvaccinated people in ICU out of 52 total with Covid.

(I'll be conservative and say at least 80% of those patients in NSW ICU would've had at least one underlying health condition even though this report from the USA states that 93.7% of ICU patients had at least one underlying health condition. If you have underlying health conditions then sure, get vaccinated, probably makes sense.)

www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

Out of the unvaccinated NSW population of 530,790 the percentage that is currently not in ICU is 99.999936%.

Therefore the percentage of unvaccinated people in NSW that is currently in ICU is 0.000064%.

For the remaining vaccinated population, what do you think are the chances for getting an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

Would it be conceivable the chances are slightly more than 0.000064% or 1 in 15,611?

Source: www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/coronavirus/majority-of-nsw-covid-patients-in-icu-unvaccinated/video/9e519c9a19f51ffbb11841ea357fdd22

Ok I come up with a different figure using the same source as you. Unvaccinated are 35 times more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated - their choice.

8M people in NSW, 95% vaccinated
7.6M are vaccinated
400K are not

52 in intensive care
34 unvaccinated
18 vaccinated

Unvaccinated chance of ending up in ICU is 0.0085% - 34 / 400000 x 100
Vaccinated chance of ending up in ICU is 0.00024% - 18 / 7600000 x 100

0.0085 / 0.00024 = 35.42

Oh, yes that source for the 80% in ICU was what the premier announced a few days ago - it's a rapidly moving target as so many more people are being infected daily.

The only fact you have to know though is that the unvaccinated are at a much greater risk of ending up very sick - 35 times more than the vaccinated as of yesterday.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

And what happens after 15-20 weeks?

Looks like the likely trend is downhill.


Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation all ages AZ & Pfizer



Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in individuals aged 80+ Pfizer

You don't do yourself any favours by cherry picking results, it just implies you are not open to the facts being presented. The study and the quote I shared from it clearly states that for those in a high risk group the effectiveness wanes. Your graph includes that demographic

Perhaps, as you well know, if you posted the Figure 5: vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation (age 40-64 years) by clinical risk group status

Then it would show a flat line for both vaccines with no waning for those not in the high risk demographic.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Qld press conference this morning said 93 people in hospital in Qld with Covid, none in ICU.

Also then said only 8 of those were being treated for Covid symptoms.


Even assuming 100% of the 8 being treated for covid symptoms was 100% due to covid that makes it about 92% of people in hospital with covid, but their hospitalization had little or nothing to do with covid.

They still make it on to the "93 people in hospital with covid" statistics though.

QLD has a funny way of classifying "in hospital". It includes a lot of people who are not symptomatic and not in an actual hospital, but are being cared for in some way by QLD health for social reasons. ie someone who has to be isolated elsewhere due to thier living circumstances and positive status.

The real figure is the 8 they mention as having symptoms being treated.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Flying Dutchman said..

Got a source for your 80% figure?

Currently it's more like around 66% according to Sky News link below.

NSW has a population of 8,166,000.

NSW unvaccinated population is 6.5%.

Therefore around 530,790 people in NSW are unvaccinated.

On 27 December there were 34 unvaccinated people in ICU out of 52 total with Covid.

(I'll be conservative and say at least 80% of those patients in NSW ICU would've had at least one underlying health condition even though this report from the USA states that 93.7% of ICU patients had at least one underlying health condition. If you have underlying health conditions then sure, get vaccinated, probably makes sense.)

www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

Out of the unvaccinated NSW population of 530,790 the percentage that is currently not in ICU is 99.999936%.

Therefore the percentage of unvaccinated people in NSW that is currently in ICU is 0.000064%.

For the remaining vaccinated population, what do you think are the chances for getting an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

Would it be conceivable the chances are slightly more than 0.000064% or 1 in 15,611?

Source: www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/coronavirus/majority-of-nsw-covid-patients-in-icu-unvaccinated/video/9e519c9a19f51ffbb11841ea357fdd22

Ok I come up with a different figure using the same source. Unvaccinated are 35 times more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated - their choice.

8M people in NSW, 95% vaccinated
7.6M are vaccinated
400K are not

52 in intensive care
34 unvaccinated
18 vaccinated

Unvaccinated chance of ending up in ICU is 0.0085% - 34 / 400000 x 100
Vaccinated chance of ending up in ICU is 0.00024% - 18 / 7600000 x 100

0.0085 / 0.00024 = 35.42

You're right myscreenname, I just realised my mistake & was going to edit it but you beat me to it. Thanks for correcting it.

So I stand corrected, the correct numbers are;

Unvaccinated in ICU is 0.0085%
Vaccinated in ICU is 0.00024%

Unvaccinated not in ICU is 99.9915%
Vaccinated not in ICU is 99.99976%

"Unvaccinated are 35 times more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated - their choice"
Fair enough.

I'd add the unvaccinated have a 0% chance of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.
What percentage the vaccinated? 0.2%? 1 in 500?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Flying Dutchman said..

And what happens after 15-20 weeks?

Looks like the likely trend is downhill.


Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation all ages AZ & Pfizer



Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in individuals aged 80+ Pfizer

You don't do yourself any favours by cherry picking results, it just implies you are not open to the facts being presented. The study and the quote I shared from it clearly states that for those in a high risk group the effectiveness wanes. Your graph includes that demographic

Perhaps, as you well know, if you posted the Figure 5: vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation (age 40-64 years) by clinical risk group status

Then it would show a flat line for both vaccines with no waning for those not in the high risk demographic.

Fair enough, Figure 5 is pretty flat line you're right Paradox.

What does 'clinical risk group status' refer to?

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
What does 'clinical risk group status' refer to?

It just means they seperate the groups between those that are considered a high risk from covid (ie those with known co-morbidities) and those of normal healthy disposition. Although advanced age does become a clinical risk for COVID on it's own.

Symptomatic disease is pretty much defined as just getting infected with maybe some mild symptoms and is a seperate classification from hospitalisation and death, which are obviously the more serious cases.

The study clarifies it in the Conclusion summary I posted earlier, this is the full summary:

" Overall, the results indicate that there is waning of VE against symptomatic disease with both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines from approximately 10 weeks after the second dose. This is most evident in older adults.

There is some indication of waning against hospitalisation from 15 weeks after the second dose, in particular among recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine, though this waning appears to be predominantly in clinical risk groups. This is a broad group of clinical conditions including those who are immunosuppressed, where faster waning may be predicted. Nevertheless, protection against hospitalisation remains high throughout the follow-up period and even within clinical risk groups, VE against hospitalisation at 15-20 weeks is 75-90% with the AstraZeneca vaccine and over 90% with the Pfizer vaccine. Finally, those aged 80 years and older who received the Pfizer vaccine within a 3-week interval between doses showed a greater degree of waning compared to the broader 65+ age group who had a 20+ week interval between doses though further analysis is needed to understand this difference."

Basically it says that in healthy people the vaccines maintain thier effectiveness against hospitalisation and death, but do wane somewhat in those with known co-morbidities. They do however rapidly lose the small ability they had to prevent you catching it.

The upshot is that vaccines are great at stopping severe disease. They are crap at preventing infection or spread. Boosters do little for anyone except those at high risk, they serve little benefit in stopping spread.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Flying Dutchman said..
What does 'clinical risk group status' refer to?

It just means they seperate the groups between those that are considered a high risk from covid (ie those with known co-morbidities) and those of normal healthy disposition. Although advanced age does become a clinical risk for COVID on it's own.

Symptomatic disease is pretty much defined as just getting infected with maybe some mild symptoms and is a seperate classification from hospitalisation and death, which are obviously the more serious cases.

The study clarifies it in the Conclusion summary I posted earlier, this is the full summary:

" Overall, the results indicate that there is waning of VE against symptomatic disease with both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines from approximately 10 weeks after the second dose. This is most evident in older adults.

There is some indication of waning against hospitalisation from 15 weeks after the second dose, in particular among recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine, though this waning appears to be predominantly in clinical risk groups. This is a broad group of clinical conditions including those who are immunosuppressed, where faster waning may be predicted. Nevertheless, protection against hospitalisation remains high throughout the follow-up period and even within clinical risk groups, VE against hospitalisation at 15-20 weeks is 75-90% with the AstraZeneca vaccine and over 90% with the Pfizer vaccine. Finally, those aged 80 years and older who received the Pfizer vaccine within a 3-week interval between doses showed a greater degree of waning compared to the broader 65+ age group who had a 20+ week interval between doses though further analysis is needed to understand this difference."

Basically it says that in healthy people the vaccines maintain thier effectiveness against hospitalisation and death, but do wane somewhat in those with known co-morbidities. They do however rapidly lose the small ability they had to prevent you catching it.

The upshot is that vaccines are great at stopping severe disease. They are crap at preventing infection or spread. Boosters do little for anyone except those at high risk, they serve little benefit in stopping spread.

Cheers thanks for the explanation Paradox.

"The upshot is that vaccines are great at stopping severe disease. They are crap at preventing infection or spread. Boosters do little for anyone except those at high risk, they serve little benefit in stopping spread."

So with this in mind would you advise anyone who's healthy and not of a senior age to not get a booster?

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
"Unvaccinated are 35 times more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated - their choice"
Fair enough.

So, let's imagine NSW if there were no vaccines yesterday. 34 vaccinated in ICU yesterday x 35 times more chance of being in ICU for unvaccinated.

35 x 34 = 1,190 in ICU.... scary! The figures don't lie. Do hospitals even have that capacity? I'd say they would be treating people in the car parks.

Vaccines are not perfect and the new strains of COVID will cause some headaches, but the alternative of relying on Jappies, quackery by suggesting over the counter, common "censored" medicines administered by "vilified" doctors would be a disaster.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Flying Dutchman said..
"Unvaccinated are 35 times more likely to end up in ICU than vaccinated - their choice"
Fair enough.

So, let's imagine NSW if no one was vaccinated yesterday. 34 vaccinated in ICU yesterday x 35 times more chance of being in ICU for unvaccinated.

35 x 34 = 1,190 in ICU.... scary! The figures don't lie.

Vaccines are not perfect, but the alternative of relying on Jappies, over the counter, common censored medicines administered by vilified doctors would be worse.

I'm not suggesting you don't vaccinate anyone. As I've said multiple times during this thread, protect the vulnerable. Any one under 65 in good health the risks are low.

I bet of the 54 people in ICU, 80-100% of them had some underlying health issues.

I'll say it once more so there's no misunderstanding;

If you have underlying health conditions and/or are over 65 & are worried then you might want to consider getting jabbed.

In the hypothetical that no one got vaccinated, you'd have 0 vaccine injuries like Harrow's sister & my mates.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

So with this in mind would you advise anyone who's healthy and not of a senior age to not get a booster?

Yeah, I will be very clear about the fact I am not advising anyone to do or not do anything. I am happy merely to clarify my understanding of the facts and current science on risk profiles.

If it helps, I have encouraged my 80yo father to get boosters as often as they will let him, but don't live in fear of anything, just keep enjoying life and tell anyone who asks for his personal heath details to go get nicked. He is very healthy.

I am 51 and happily double vaxxed, I was first in line. I have no intention of getting a booster any time soon. I am interested in the long term waning effect of Astra though and will keep an eye on it. I will think about a booster in 12 months.

On the other hand my 16yo son has one dose of Moderna and at this time has no intention of getting another unless he is forced. The risk profile for the second shot doesn't add up for him.

EDIT: I also have a 14yo son permanantly in a wheechair with reduced lung function. He is double vaxed and will get regular boosters.

I also am anti mandates and if asked for my vaccine status generally refuse to give it and will happily walk away from whatever service/shop I am refused for doing so.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Flying Dutchman said..

So with this in mind would you advise anyone who's healthy and not of a senior age to not get a booster?

Yeah, I will be very clear about the fact I am not advising anyone to do or not do anything. I am happy merely to clarify my understanding of the facts and current science on risk profiles.

If it helps, I have encouraged my 80yo father to get boosters as often as they will let him, but don't live in fear of anything, just keep enjoying life and tell anyone who asks for his personal heath details to go get nicked. He is very healthy.

I am 51 and happily double vaxxed, I was first in line. I have no intention of getting a booster any time soon. I am interested in the long term waning effect of Astra though and will keep an eye on it. I will think about a booster in 12 months.

On the other hand my 16yo son has one dose of Moderna and at this time has no intention of getting another unless he is forced. The risk profile for the second shot doesn't add up for him.

Nice work mate, good you & your son are so well informed.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
I'm not suggesting you don't vaccinate anyone. As I've said multiple times during this thread, protect the vulnerable. Any one under 65 in good health the risks are low.

I bet of the 54 people in ICU, 80-100% of them had some underlying health issues.

I'll say it once more so there's no misunderstanding;

If you have underlying health conditions and/or are over 65 & are worried then you might want to consider getting jabbed.

In the hypothetical that no one got vaccinated, you'd have 0 vaccine injuries like Harrow's sister & my mates.

Sure, but how does any government communicate that? There is so much confusion and panic now with only a few guidelines! Imagine communicating that... bugger all would be doing the right thing, and jumping down rabbit holes like yourself. You don't want to get vaxxed.. Don't, your choice!!

It's a balancing act on a virus we are still struggling with. Anti vaxxers are the problem, disseminating false information they regurgitate from Facebook, using unsubstantiated claims and cherry picking what muttonheads and activists say to further their own personal agenda.

If you don't get that, you have been sold a lemon and have far bigger issues than this virus.

Look at stats. 35 times more likely to be in ICU if you are unvaccinated..

Far easier for govt to tell everyone to get vaccinated. The vaccines are very low risk and it's all about not overwhelming hospitals. That's been a constant message.

This is a war that came out of China.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Flying Dutchman said..
I'm not suggesting you don't vaccinate anyone. As I've said multiple times during this thread, protect the vulnerable. Any one under 65 in good health the risks are low.

I bet of the 54 people in ICU, 80-100% of them had some underlying health issues.

I'll say it once more so there's no misunderstanding;

If you have underlying health conditions and/or are over 65 & are worried then you might want to consider getting jabbed.

In the hypothetical that no one got vaccinated, you'd have 0 vaccine injuries like Harrow's sister & my mates.

Sure, but how does any government communicate that? There is so much confusion and panic now with only a few guidelines! Imagine communicating that... bugger all would be doing the right thing, and jumping down rabbit holes like yourself. You don't want to get vaxxed.. Don't, your choice!!

It's a balancing act on a virus we are still struggling with. Anti vaxxers are the problem, disseminating false information they regurgitate from Facebook, using unsubstantiated claims and cherry picking what muttonheads and activists say to further their own personal agenda.

If you don't get that, you have been sold a lemon and have far bigger issues than this virus.

Look at stats. 35 times more likely to be in ICU if you are unvaccinated..

Far easier for govt to tell everyone to get vaccinated. The vaccines are very low risk and it's all about not overwhelming hospitals. That's been a constant message.

This is a war that came out of China.

what a mixed bag of thoughts.
No! we here in WA don't have a choice so you can let go of that chestnut.
It is indeed easier for the government to force everyone and that will as you say result in net fewer deaths but now there's scarring on my heart tissue so an obese man needn't follow health advice to stop eating hungry jacks; medical consent existed for more than one reason.

And the anti vaxxer label has lost its value.
You're either pro science or pro government, the science the government is relying on claims that lockdowns and vaccines and other mitigation measures do almost no harm, it simply isn't true.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
Sure, but how does any government communicate that?

"Hello Australia this is the Prime Minister.

Covid has been with us for nearly 2 years. You don't need to be alarmed anymore. The vast majority of you will be fine.

If you would like to greatly reduce your chances of complications with Covid or any virus we recommend;

1. Light exercise most days
2. KFC or Maccas no more than once a month
3. Piss the alcohol off and drink some smoothies
4. Limit donut intake from 7 a day to 1 a week
5. Lose some blubber to a healthy BMI
6. Get 10-15min of sun a day to make sure you get Vitamin D
7. Take a range of Covid helpful supplements like Zinc, Quercetin, Vitamin C
8. Get a good nights sleep. Avoid flicking through tinder while you're in bed at 2am

Next go to your Dr & let them evaluate if you have any underlying health conditions. If you do, you're risks go up so your Dr will give you advice on how to overcome your condition if it is reversible. If nothing can be done, we recommend the vaccine.

Are you over 65? If you feel weak, your risks go up so we recommend the vaccine if you're worried.

Just a word of warning. We have noticed about 1 in 500 have an adverse vaccine reaction. Some
of them are serious. There is a risk involved in taking this vaccine so please stay up to date with information on this topic on our website or app. It seems to be less of a problem with people over 50.

If you're under 65 & healthy you're unlikely to need the vaccines so get on with work & pay the government taxes so we can build some more care facilities for the vulnerable.

We've decided to buy only 45 F-22 Raptors not 50 so we've saved 5 Billion. We've used the money to build bikes paths everywhere so you can ride to the shops getting your lazy asses out of the car for short trips.

We've decided to tax the crap out of junk food & the money we collect has gone into subsidising healthy food.

And finally one last thing, when you catch Covid, spray 1% iodine solution up your nose a few times a day, stay home, we'll send you a Covid pack full of treatment goodies, avoid grandma, watch the cricket and in 2 weeks when you have gained healthy natural immunity, carry on.

Cheers,
I'm off to Hawaii."

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Far easier for govt to tell everyone to get vaccinated.

I don't disagree, however that is not what is happening. Governments in Australia are forcing people to be vaccinated, not encouraging them. That is a big difference and breeds massive discontent.

Take for instance the booster program. As shown here the data only shows it is beneficial for a small part of the "at risk" population. Mandating it for everyone and saying otherwise is plain wrong and people know it. At some stage you have to tell people the truth or you are just no longer believed.

Overall the myopic outcome might be that less people die, but the cost is now people do not trust the gov and have been fed so many lies they no longer trust the supposed experts. People are turning to other sources because the sources they should trust are no longer trustworthy. Tell the truth and people will listen to you.

Mask mandates are the same. The benefits in studies are statistically insignificant. Governments initially knew this and said no need, then mandated them to err on the side of caution despite no new evidence saying they work. Now they are simply a symbol of compliance or a go to for gov "action" to keep people safe, with no reasonable data to say they make any difference in a community transmission basis.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
I don't disagree, however that is not what is happening. Governments in Australia are forcing people to be vaccinated, not encouraging them. That is a big difference and breeds massive discontent.

Take for instance the booster program. As shown here the data only shows it is beneficial for a small part of the "at risk" population. Mandating it for everyone and saying otherwise is plain wrong and people know it. At some stage you have to tell people the truth or you are just no longer believed.

Overall the myopic outcome might be that less people die, but the cost is now people do not trust the gov and have been fed so many lies they no longer trust the supposed experts. People are turning to other sources because the sources they should trust are no longer trustworthy. Tell the truth and people will listen to you.

Mask mandates are the same. The benefits in studies are statistically insignificant. Governments initially knew this and said no need, then mandated them to err on the side of caution despite no new evidence saying they work. Now they are simply a symbol of compliance or a go to for gov "action" to keep people safe, with no reasonable data to say they make any difference in a community transmission basis.

Don't disagree either, no doubt there is overreach, by government and all sorts of lobby groups. In some countries it's far worse than others.

I don't think it's a particularly easy time for anyone in government right now, people would always see problems. So much easier to see where they have farked up with benefit of hindsight.

Everyone wants someone to blame for the things we can't control.

I blame China.

Is there a country that you know of that has handled this well and why?

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
And the anti vaxxer label has lost its value.
You're either pro science or pro government, the science the government is relying on claims that lockdowns and vaccines and other mitigation measures do almost no harm, it simply isn't true.

The discussion was about vaccines.

Masks, social distancing, lockdowns is something else. They've been devastating. Many people have been made homeless due to these measures, through no choice of their own.

Up until now which Australian state do you believe has handled the pandemic the best and why?

I'd have to say least worst, "best" just doesn't fit any states in this hemisphere.
Locking the border to an entire state is much less restrictive than blocking the road to buy the kids some new shoes so for that reason the bed-wetter in chief of the west wins the gong, Australia as a whole would have suffered less to just close international borders. One can only hope his luck will be followed by prosecution for violations of the Geneva convention.
Today I asked if the trial doc will advocate for my exemption from the mandate, let that sink in.