Thread: breaking covid rules

Originally Posted by Warb

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

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

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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detail about the effectiveness of the Astra Zeneca vaccine -- as it's approval for "emergency use" in Canada has been "withdrawn ?"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.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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) 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.

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

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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

I agree with wp, evidence based info.

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.


One thing I really enjoy about Dr John Campbells videos is that he takes great care not to produce opinion, but rock-solid evidence-based science and facts.

Vaccines are the right approach.

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.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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
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.

Originally Posted by ian

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?



Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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.


One thing I really enjoy about Dr John Campbells videos is that he takes great care not to produce opinion, but rock-solid evidence-based science and facts.

Vaccines are the right approach.

Perhaps they doubt these vaccines due to the fact no long term studies have been done especially as some of the ingredients have never been used before.For years they pushed the story of, we have a breakthrough etc but you have to wait for the long term studies. Add to that Pollies pushing their own barrows for a multitude on reasons.

Originally Posted by ian

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) 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......

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

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 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

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...)