All borders to reopen.
I did check it out, very interesting. Perhaps you should check this out: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/202...lence-of-evil/
Personally I don't believe or disbelieve either stats, I simply don't know. All I do know is that I don't feel particularly threatened by "the virus". I don't know why that is either, its just the way it is.
Personally I don't believe or disbelieve either stats, I simply don't know. All I do know is that I don't feel particularly threatened by "the virus". I don't know why that is either, its just the way it is.
When Vic was in it's hour of need 4 of our girls volunteered to help, Because procedure and PPE was seriously flawed, something they realised the moment they went on duty, all 4 came home infected, 12 months on, none of them can say they are restored to perfect precovid health, Breathlessness for no apparent reason, bruising that comes and goes in the legs, arms and hands, for apparently no reason. loss of sensation, numbness.
Will they volunteer again, hell no, if a more severe strain emerges that is likely to overwhelm the health system, we are bugging out. These girls are professionals not scared easily, so that's a big deal coming from them.
When Vic was in it's hour of need 4 of our girls volunteered to help, Because procedure and PPE was seriously flawed, something they realised the moment they went on duty, all 4 came home infected, 12 months on, none of them can say they are restored to perfect precovid health, Breathlessness for no apparent reason, bruising that comes and goes in the legs, arms and hands, for apparently no reason. loss of sensation, numbness.
One thing to note; I have mates in the US and UK, not once have I heard the same debate from there as it is here. They all went and got whatever vaccine was being offered and showed the vaccine slip like a badge of honor afterwards. None of them make light of the death rate or that its just "like the flu". As said above I think Australians again being in the lucky country have no real idea what its like if it gets loose, out of sight, make stuff up.
short flights long nights
I just got home from visiting my mother. On the way back home, I was delayed by a “convoy” of anti vax protest cars blocking a 3 lane, 70 Kph highway by driving at 20 kph in all lanes. Their cars were covered in anti vax slogans.. including my favourite ..5G kills.
With these morons around, we have no hope.
With these morons around, we have no hope.
DOCTOR DRE:
You may be interested to know that I have read most of your posts and clicked through most of your links. I reiterate, I don't know. Clearly you do. You give the impression you know everything about this Covid thing. I am a simple pilot on a pilots forum and I now bow out of this discussion. I am not interested in a "battle of the links" either and will post no more on this thread .But before I leave, I will correct my 99.9% comment:
If you are fit and well with no underlying medical conditions I tend to believe you have a 99.9% chance of survival of this thing. (Perhaps I do believe something :-)
Also Doc: Nowhere, have I stated I am an anti vaxer, nowhere. This is just another "I know" viewpoint of yours and it is simply not true. Enjoy your superiority.
You may be interested to know that I have read most of your posts and clicked through most of your links. I reiterate, I don't know. Clearly you do. You give the impression you know everything about this Covid thing. I am a simple pilot on a pilots forum and I now bow out of this discussion. I am not interested in a "battle of the links" either and will post no more on this thread .But before I leave, I will correct my 99.9% comment:
If you are fit and well with no underlying medical conditions I tend to believe you have a 99.9% chance of survival of this thing. (Perhaps I do believe something :-)
Also Doc: Nowhere, have I stated I am an anti vaxer, nowhere. This is just another "I know" viewpoint of yours and it is simply not true. Enjoy your superiority.
I just got home from visiting my mother. On the way back home, I was delayed by a “convoy” of anti vax protest cars blocking a 3 lane, 70 Kph highway by driving at 20 kph in all lanes. Their cars were covered in anti vax slogans.. including my favourite ..5G kills.
With these morons around, we have no hope.
With these morons around, we have no hope.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, they likely did not. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccines had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here.
Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses.
Yes, and 'if only' the fox hadn't stopped to scratch itself it would have caught the rabbit. If only.
Wrong measure of efficacy! Stage III trial vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection is the wrong measure for comparing vaccines largely because the prevailing conditions in which the trials are conducted vary. The vaccine efficacies that count from a public health perspective are efficacy against hospitalisation, efficacy against ICU admissions and efficacy against deaths. On those measures, AstraZeneca and Pfizer were, and still are, line ball.
At the time, both AstraZeneca and Pfizer were line ball on key efficacy measures. The latter was by then known to be eight times the cost of the former. Additionally, at that time Pfizer was failing to hit its production and delivery targets such that the EU was embargoing AstraZeneca to make up the shortfalls. You tell me which one you'd be opting for at that time.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccines had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here.
Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses.
From January this year, when it still wasn't a race:Quote:
From January this year, when it still wasn't a race:The Pfizer vaccine is better (on current data) than AZ.
Clinical trials for both vaccines have shown they’re broadly safe. In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID. The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
At the time, both AstraZeneca and Pfizer were line ball on key efficacy measures. The latter was by then known to be eight times the cost of the former. Additionally, at that time Pfizer was failing to hit its production and delivery targets such that the EU was embargoing AstraZeneca to make up the shortfalls. You tell me which one you'd be opting for at that time.
Last edited by MickG0105; 25th Jul 2021 at 00:39. Reason: Spelling
No, they likely did not. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here.
Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses.
Yes, and 'if only' the fox hadn't stopped to scratch itself it would have caught the rabbit. If only.
Wrong measure of efficacy! Stage III trial vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection is the wrong measure for comparing vaccines largely because the prevailing conditions in which the trials are conducted vary. The vaccine efficacies that count from a public health perspective are efficacy against hospitalisation, efficacy against ICU admissions and efficacy against deaths. On those measures, AstraZeneca and Pfizer were, and still are, line ball.
At the time, both AstraZeneca and Pfizer were line ball on key efficacy measures. The latter was by then known to be eight times the cost of the former. Additionally, at that time Pfizer was failing to hit its production and delivery targets such that the EU was embargoing AstraZeneca to make up the shortfalls. You tell me which one you'd be opting for at that time.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here.
Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses.
Yes, and 'if only' the fox hadn't stopped to scratch itself it would have caught the rabbit. If only.
Wrong measure of efficacy! Stage III trial vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection is the wrong measure for comparing vaccines largely because the prevailing conditions in which the trials are conducted vary. The vaccine efficacies that count from a public health perspective are efficacy against hospitalisation, efficacy against ICU admissions and efficacy against deaths. On those measures, AstraZeneca and Pfizer were, and still are, line ball.
At the time, both AstraZeneca and Pfizer were line ball on key efficacy measures. The latter was by then known to be eight times the cost of the former. Additionally, at that time Pfizer was failing to hit its production and delivery targets such that the EU was embargoing AstraZeneca to make up the shortfalls. You tell me which one you'd be opting for at that time.
Seems to me that your comments just smack 'slightly' of apologetics for what has effectively been on several criteria one of the worst governments we've had in Canberra - Robodebt, millions spent locking up 2 adults and 2 children, couldn't run a census competently when every other government has managed it ok for the preceding 114 years, my favourite was in the Abbott era he set up a committee to see how the Commonwealth could save money and it was abandoned after spending $M's more than budgeted, NBN a complete waste of money, spent more on copper to replace copper when fibre was a fraction of the cost, you couldn't write this stuff and have it accepted as not exaggerated for an episode of Yes Prime Minister.... why should the vaccine roll out be any different... and that's before we get into the absolute stacking of the AAT and mean legislation to attack charities that don't say nice things about the government as well as millions spent to try and discredit political oponent and sports and carpark rorts....
Unless Chairman Dan, of sign me up for CCP Belt and Road Initiative fame, makes it to the Federal Treasury benches the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. It simply is not going to happen under a Coalition government given the current and foreseeable relationship with China.
Seems to me that your comments just smack 'slightly' of apologetics for what has effectively been on several criteria one of the worst governments we've had in Canberra - Robodebt, millions spent locking up 2 adults and 2 children, couldn't run a census competently when every other government has managed it ok for the preceding 114 years, my favourite was in the Abbott era he set up a committee to see how the Commonwealth could save money and it was abandoned after spending $M's more than budgeted, NBN a complete waste of money, spent more on copper to replace copper when fibre was a fraction of the cost, you couldn't write this stuff and have it accepted as not exaggerated for an episode of Yes Prime Minister.... why should the vaccine roll out be any different... and that's before we get into the absolute stacking of the AAT and mean legislation to attack charities that don't say nice things about the government as well as millions spent to try and discredit political oponent and sports and carpark rorts....
short flights long nights
Just watching the vision of the protests in Sydney. Mostly no masks.. some moron punching a Police Horse.
Just like the Gold Standard Girl told us.. we do it different in NSW.
I can’t wait to see the spread from this.
Just like the Gold Standard Girl told us.. we do it different in NSW.
I can’t wait to see the spread from this.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we not keeping up with the scientific guidance? Outdoor transmission is not a thing anymore. Outdoor masking is only recommended in very crowded situations. (I guess this march qualifies.)
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission
Are we not keeping up with the scientific guidance? Outdoor transmission is not a thing anymore. Outdoor masking is only recommended in very crowded situations. (I guess this march qualifies.)
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission
If that was the case they’d be allowing home quarantine for vaccinated travellers from low case countries (not just planning a trial).
Or they would have recognised that placing arrivals in a hotel room with windows that don’t open and recirculating air is a bad idea. Because it’s an airborne virus….
How many cases resulted from the various Victorian protests last year? Pretty sure it was none.
How many cases resulted from the various “infected persons” travelling on domestic flights? Pretty sure it was none.
The vast majority of cases are from spread between family members at home.
Even most of the initial “fleeting contacts” would probably be prevented by enforcing masks indoors ALL THE TIME, not just when there’s an outbreak.
After all, the risk today, is exactly the same as it was last year in Australia, because of the incredibly low vaccination rates. The risk of spreading the virus is still high.
That last post is the only post that remotely makes sense. Australia has f$&ked it up big time and now we will pay the price for the next 50yrs.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%.
That last post is the only post that remotely makes sense. Australia has f$&ked it up big time and now we will pay the price for the next 50yrs.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%.
Speaking of upsides, in great news for the future demographics of the U.S., a Marist/Fox poll reports that over 80% of Biden voters have been vaccinated, compared with around 50% of Trump voters.
Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises.
Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator.
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.
Rubbish and rubbish
Nonsense and bulldust
Not unusual
Try again
Already done
Rubbish and rubbish
Nonsense and bulldust
Not unusual
Try again
Already done
At 1 of the pressers the other day an answer was given to a journalist & it was along the lines of-
If you have any concerns or questions,talk to your gp,ignore the different day different conspiracy theory been given by the talkback radio segments & the front page headlines of the newspaper trying to increase sales.
I dips me lid, Mick. You are a master of the language.
Oh yes they likely did, because the TGA takes cost effectiveness into account and there's a difference between 'delivered cost' and the 'costs of delivery'. The logistical challenges - and the corresponding disparity in costs - between getting Pfizer into arms compared with getting AZ into arms was known, even if a dose cost the same ex-factory.
Say what? I just quoted from the UNSW School of Population Health:
That article went on to note the logistical disadvantages of Pfizer v AZ and said:
And therein lies the rub. The magic words "perceived" and "safety" (coincidentally, the way aviation is regulated in Australia).
Since that article was written, there have been the deaths through blood clotting after AZ jabs and the changing 'goal posts' around age groups. (Who knew that viruses discriminate on the basis of neat 10 year age groups?)
But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" and we can produce solid gold, unassailable data now, to show that the risks mitigated by getting, and the rewards of everyone getting, an AZ jab far outweigh the consequences of not. The problem is that the perception of many in the population is that Pfizer is better and safer than AZ. And, as Scotty from Marketing knows better than just about everyone else on the planet, in politics (as with aviation safety), perception is reality.
Best to get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer inbound, ASAP.
No, they likely did not [take cost of the vaccines into account]. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be.
Wrong measure of efficacy!
Clinical trials for both vaccines have shown they’re broadly safe.
In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID.
The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID.
The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
[P]eople don’t generally judge whether they’ll receive a vaccine based on its effectiveness alone. We know from talking to the community that many factors influence motivation, especially perceived risk and severity of infection, and confidence in the safety of the vaccine.
Since that article was written, there have been the deaths through blood clotting after AZ jabs and the changing 'goal posts' around age groups. (Who knew that viruses discriminate on the basis of neat 10 year age groups?)
But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" and we can produce solid gold, unassailable data now, to show that the risks mitigated by getting, and the rewards of everyone getting, an AZ jab far outweigh the consequences of not. The problem is that the perception of many in the population is that Pfizer is better and safer than AZ. And, as Scotty from Marketing knows better than just about everyone else on the planet, in politics (as with aviation safety), perception is reality.
Best to get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer inbound, ASAP.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 24th Jul 2021 at 23:21.