Thread: breaking covid rules

As a double vaccinated person (2nd jab was received in early July) -- who is currently Covid stranded in Canada -- let me try to answer Warb's question from a Canadian perspective

Originally Posted by Warb

that leads me to wonder where we draw the lines between intent to cause harm, failure to take reasonable care to prevent harm, and a pure accident?

I'm fully vaccinated, but I know I can still catch Covid-19.

I'm fully vaccinated, but I know I can still pass the Covid-19 virus on to a vaccinated person. The risk of transmission is low, but it is nowhere even near close to zero. I don't really care if I pass the virus onto an unvaccinated person -- that is mostly their look out for not being vaccinated. But I will continue to practice "social distancing" and, for the time being at least, I'll continue wearing a mask whilst in enclosed public spaces. Mostly to partially protect those who can't get (what will be for most in NSW) the 3rd jab.

But how can I tell that what I think is just "the sniffles" or a "mild dose of the common flu" is actually a non-severe case of Covid-19? Answer, I have absolutely no way of knowing unless I take a Covid test.
But as a double vaccinated person why should I subject myself to a bodily invasion that has a 30%(?) probability of returning a false negative?
And if I get tested before my viral load is high enough, I understand that a "false negative" result has a probability approaching 1.
But in NSW at least, a false negative is the same as a true negative and means "I can't have the virus, so life can continue as before".

I could also undergo a rapid antigen test. Again, because I'm double vaccinated, I would expect a rapid antigen test to return a "positive" aka I have been exposed to the virus. So what will a rapid antigen test really tell me? Nothing.


The alternative is to assume that I am always potentially infectious. Well, this is what I am doing. Kisses and hugs even among close friends are now rarities.
Unlike the annual flu shot(?), double vaccination against Covid-19 does not confer immunity. And especially under the current NSW "out break control" protocol's shortened interval between doses -- double vaccination only provides 55%(?) protection against a severe Covid-19 outcome. Not the 95%(?) against a severe outcome should your second jab follow the 1st at 10 to 12 weeks.


So what will we -- as a society do -- long term?

As I mentioned in a previous post, we have to accept that Covid-19 is now endemic. Initially Covid-19 may have an outcome that is as bad as, or possibly worse, than influenza. But so far, given the 3 fold increase in the world's population since 1920, Covid-19 seems a less serious illness compared to the "Spanish Flu" pandemic in 1918-1921.

Originally Posted by Lappa

It already is.

I know that. I still don't like it.

Originally Posted by ian

I could also undergo a rapid antigen test. Again, because I'm double vaccinated, I would expect a rapid antigen test to return a "positive" aka I have been exposed to the virus. So what will a rapid antigen test really tell me? Nothing.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we have to accept that Covid-19 is now endemic. Initially Covid-19 may have an outcome that is as bad as, or possibly worse, than influenza. But so far, given the 3 fold increase in the world's population since 1920, Covid-19 seems a less serious illness compared to the "Spanish Flu" pandemic in 1918-1921.

I agree that we need to learn to live with covid, because it IS now endemic. As I have said, perhaps we also need to change our ideas about how long people will live, and how we view "co-morbidities", especially those that are based on lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, obesity etc.).

I'm not so sure about the statement that a RAT will give a positive result in a double vaccinated person. I have a box of RAT's on my desk (stop laughing!), and so far nobody has given a positive result regardless of vaccination status. We have tested single and double Pfizer, and single and double AZ. We've yet to test Moderna, they don't arrive for a couple of weeks.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Absolutely correct, Doug, and yesterday the ABC highlighted this with a report of over 500 new cases daily in spite of 80% vaccination rates, but it is not the whole story. People who have not been vaccinated are five times more likely to get covid and to get a much more severe infection.

Singapore has a very high rate of testing for covid averaging over 60,000 tests per day - the "average" Singaporean has been tested 3.4 times - and they are detecting many cases where the person has zero symptons and did not suspect that they might have covid, and are then required to quarantine at home. Singaporeans are quite responsible at following rules - its the Singapore Way.

This is reflected in [Singapore's] statistics for yesterday

• 774 people in hospital (less than 2 days new infections),
• 54 cases requiring oxygen,
• 8 cases in ICU,
• 5.4% unvaccinated got covid compared to 1% of vaccinated,
• 81% fully vaccinated and 84% had first dose,
• 607 new cases yesterday,
• 98.2% of cases were asyymptomatic or had mild symptons.

(Source: Singapore Ministry of Health, MOH | News Highlights)

So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days.

81% of Singapore's total population are fully vaccinated, and an additional 3% have had their 1st dose. But 11.4% of Singapore's population is aged under 12 and can't yet be jabbed. (I don't know the "rules" for jabs in Singapore, but if it's a minimum of 14 -- until a few days ago it was 16 in Australia -- the percent who are unvaccinated because they can't be rises to 13.8%).
So if only 1% of the vaccinated are catching the virus, that implies only 34 or so people who were fully vaccinated caught the virus in the past two days. But there were around 1200 new cases across the two days. Which in turn implies almost all of the new "positives" -- 98.2% of which were asymptomatic -- are in the unvaccinated kids.


So apart from trying to get the kids vaccinated -- which for the moment is not an option -- what can one really do?

Originally Posted by Warb

I agree that we need to learn to live with covid, because it IS now endemic. As I have said, perhaps we also need to change our ideas about how long people will live, and how we view "co-morbidities", especially those that are based on lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, obesity etc.).

On the assumption that fully vaccinating those with "co-morbidities" against Covid-19 will provide a "reasonable" level of protection -- much like an annual flu shots does now -- perhaps the issue of "co-morbidity" risk (regardless of lifestyle choice) largely goes away?

Originally Posted by AndyJ

I don't need my vaccination status in a database

Originally Posted by Lappa

It already is.

Originally Posted by AndyJ

I know that. I still don't like it.

I believe the real issue is who has access to the "vaccination status database"?

I trust Health, sort of -- but I certainly don't trust the Police nor any other authority including Immigration which is part of Home Affairs.

If you have been following the news lately you will have seen that Western Australia had to specifically legislate to prevent their police accessing the Health database. I haven't seen a similar legislative action in Victoria, NSW, or Queensland.
As for the Commonwealth -- let's say I am not holding my breath. The Commonwealth is the very definition of unaccountable overreach.

To enter some countries you must have been vaccinated against eg. Yellow fever and have evidence of such.

Originally Posted by ian

So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days.

81% of Singapore's total population are fully vaccinated, and an additional 3% have had their 1st dose. But 11.4% of Singapore's population is aged under 12 and can't yet be jabbed. (I don't know the "rules" for jabs in Singapore, but if it's a minimum of 14 -- until a few days ago it was 16 in Australia -- the percent who are unvaccinated because they can't be rises to 13.8%).
So if only 1% of the vaccinated are catching the virus, that implies only 34 or so people who were fully vaccinated caught the virus in the past two days. But there were around 1200 new cases across the two days. Which in turn implies almost all of the new "positives" -- 98.2% of which were asymptomatic -- are in the unvaccinated kids.


So apart from trying to get the kids vaccinated -- which for the moment is not an option -- what can one really do?

Not sure of how you got 34 people who were vaccinated and caught the virus, but your conclusion of those in hospital, a large proportion are kids issomewhat uncertain from these numbers because hospitalization rate would be lower in comparison to those who got sick. 81% of total population actually means 91% of the eligible population over 12 - which is a much higher target than our of 64% (of 80% over 16). In Australia, a lot of kids end up in hospital even though they are really that sick (but sick enough) because parents are too sick to look after them. We will continue to encounter this problem if the vaccination rate is at 64%.

Originally Posted by Ian

So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days. ...

I think that you are trying to read in a level of precision that does not exist in the stats, Ian. Apart from the day specific figures that I quoted, the figures were summations or averages over the previous 28 days. An average of 98.2% of cases detected in the previous 28 days were asymtomatic or only had very mild symptons. Reciprocally, on average 1.8% had more severe symptons. This does not mean that precisely 1.8% had severe symptons every day.

You are quite right when you say most were in hospital prior to the two day sample. The figures also include the poor souls with "long covid" who have been in hospital for months, a few for more that a year.

If you haven't already done so, I think you would enjoy ferreting around in the MOH website - a lot of seemingly well collated and well researched material.

Been 10 days since my 2nd shot of pfizer
Only slight headache
And it was short lived
Soooo glad now fully vaccinated
Really feel for all the folk in lockdown though
Has made me more appreciative of my own freedoms
I take nothing for granted anymore
Every day is special...life is good
Log Dog

Originally Posted by Lappa

To enter some countries you must have been vaccinated against eg. Yellow fever and have evidence of such.

Yes, I do now this.

But the critical differences are:
1. Yellow Fever like Dengue Fever, Malaria, and a host of other diseases are mosquito borne. If you are not bitten by a virus carrying mossie you won't get Yellow Fever or any other vector borne disease.
Covid-19, like SARS, MERS and influenza, is a respiratory disease. Meaning there is no transmission vector involved. People pass the virus on to others (and catch it themselves) by the simple act of breathing, or contacting a "breath frosted" surface. (Dare I mention other more viscous forms of "breath", like "runny snot" and "dribbly spittle"?)

2. Vaccination against Yellow Fever is at least 95% effective after 10 days. As far as I can tell, in the Yellow Fever case, "95% effective" means you are 100% protected from reacting to the Yellow Fever virus.
The Covid-19 vaccination is at best 95% effective against severe symptoms of the disease -- if I'm understanding this correctly, 5% of fully vaccinated people will become so sick that they require hospitalisation. A critical difference to a Yellow Fever vaccination where vaccination confers 100% protection.

3. Once fully vaccinated against Covid-19, a person can still pass the virus on to another person, and they can still become infected themselves. Other critical differences to the protection afforded by vaccination against Yellow Fever.

3. WHO say that a single Yellow Fever "shot" is good for a lifetime. However, I note that some countries won't accept a Yellow Fever "passport" more than 10 years old.
Vaccination against Covid-19 is currently still being rolled out. "Big Pharma" suggests that annual booster shots will be required. WHO would prefer if consideration of the advisability of an annual Covid "booster shot" were postponed till most of the world's population is vaccinated.
I'm not sure what will happen in Australia, where under the current "Covid outbreak control protocol" in NSW, the 2nd vaccine shot is being administered 6 to 7 weeks inside the recommended 12 week wait between shots, so the 2nd shot only confers about 55% protection against a severe Covid outcome. Ref: see Warb's comment on a previous page of this thread.


So I don't really see your equivalence between a "Yellow Fever" passport (to enter countries where Yellow Fever is endemic) and a Covid "passport" that could apply to all people moving more than 10 km from their home.
At best a Covid vaccination status passport might be stop-gap measure while we rebalance our expectations around disease's prevalence.
But given the current pace of the vaccine rollout in NSW, by the time a suitable "passport" style document was agreed to and implemented would it still be needed? After all no one (apart from a few health workers) is asked to prove they have had an influenza shot in the past 6 months.


My own view is that Covid is now endemic within the world's population.
Most of Europe, the US and Canada appear to have reached this same conclusion. Australia and New Zealand are more swimming against, rather than with, the tide.

No country will succeed in eliminating the virus. At best a country will be able to protect the majority of its population using vaccines. At worst, no vaccination equals little protection of the population.

Studies from Los Angeles County show that over 50% of the county's 12+M population have been exposed to the disease. That's 1.5M more people exposed to a Covid-19 infection in that one county than have been reported to date (4.5M) for all of California. Across the entire US that equates to 125 MILLION undiagnosed cases of Covid-19.

Originally Posted by ian

After all no one (apart from a few health workers) is asked to prove they have had an influenza shot in the past 6 months.

I am not a health-worker.

My mother has been in aged care for five years. My father is now in there with her for the past year. My partner's mother has been in aged care in a different state for 9 months. Even before Covid and currently, we need to prove our flu vaccination status to get in to see my mother, at least in the flu season. Now we require to prove Covid vaccination status as well - that's if they are taking visitors at all.

Originally Posted by doug3030

I am not a health-worker.

My mother has been in aged care for five years. My father is now in there with her for the past year. My partner's mother has been in aged care in a different state for 9 months. Even before Covid and currently, we need to prove our flu vaccination status to get in to see my mother, at least in the flu season. Now we require to prove Covid vaccination status as well - that's if they are taking visitors at all.

This is certainly an area that I support evidence of current status and there should be multiple ways for that evidence to be provided. For regular visitors or with permission from the visitor the HEALTH institution should be able to access your RELEVANT immunisation record digitally.... if you not comfortable with this then it falls to the visitor to provide the evidence in approved form.

This though is not the same in any way with showing proof to any random person who has no legal right to know such as your local supermarket.

Phil

Originally Posted by Aussiephil

Your "freedom at all costs" hardly rings true or fair when you also want to impose the compulsory viewing of my own private health data to non authorised people.

It doesn't concern me who knows if I have been vaccinated for COVID given that I've never hidden it, but that was my choice to release that information. Giving anyone and everyone the right to know however, leaves me feeling ill at ease. I'll try and articulate why, but as it's a mixture of emotion and logic, there are contradictions I'm still trying to grapple with.

1. The danger of these measure are never to the majority, of which most of use belong in this instance. But the legal and community expectation/precedent gets set, and the next time, you or I may not be. This is exactly what Phil's Niemöller quote was talking about. It's the same reason I thought the Anti-Consorting (Bikie) laws were problematic. They solved a need at the time, but have, to my mind, set a terrible precedent.
2. Anyone who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons will become just as much of a pariah as the Anti-Vaxers. So now the bar keep knows that not only are they not vaccinated, but they also have other medical conditions. Will they need to show a medical certificate too? This could be mitigated somewhat by the vax passport simply showing a go/no-go status, with medical exceptions getting a go result, but still, I wonder how they will feel, hoping that people don't find out.
3. Who remembers the Aids paranoia in the early 80s when it was new? If something like that cropped up now, would we want a New-Aids passport too? Only now your transmissible status also confers/assumes you membership of a certain demographic. And if that demographic is considered undesirable by society? Well, it sucks to be you.

I think what irks me the most is my perception that the Federal Government is not being prepared to make a definitive decision regarding mandating vaccinations. Either it is a requirement for community wellbeing, in which case, mandate it. Or it isn't and the OAIC (privacy commissioner) should make clear that requiring this information is unlawful.

A point of interest. We are currently in this weird twilight zone where it is illegal for employers to require your vaccination status (outside of very specific exceptions), or even request it without explaining your rights, and explicitly stating that it is illegal to compel you to provide it. Yet we are heading down a path where pretty soon the bar keep can ask for it, and unfortunately, while as customers we have a choice where we shop or drink, if requiring it becomes the norm, our theoretical choice cannot be practically exercised.

The Federal Government is essentially leaving the management of community health to the masses, with every shop, pub, concert and church choosing their own vaccination strategy and allowance. We are seeing airlines and schools trying to mandate vaccines for staff, but this will need to be challenged in court as it goes against our privacy laws. Buy why is this being left to the business sector, whose motivations justifiably extend far beyond community health to define the path?

I do appreciate that there is no doubt a lot of information and decision making that we're not aware of within the Government. I just need the powers that be to set a course, and not leave something as important and personal health privacy policy to essentially be set by a de-facto crowd-sourced status-quo.