Thread: breaking covid rules

Originally Posted by Warb

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 ) 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

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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.....

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Warb

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

Originally Posted by Warb

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

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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".

Originally Posted by Warb

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

Same here. Covid free zone.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Warb

... 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.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

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...

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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?!

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
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
'No covid up here' they say....
I am holding my breath
Log Dog

Until people start to die they will not comply.