Please refer Post #6312

The biggest embarrassment is Scotty from Marketing.

He controls the import and distribution of vaccines (yeah Mick: I know about local production too).

A State Premier declaring a 'national' emergency. If only we had a national government to make those kinds of decisions and implement an appropriate national response.

Scotty acts on the advice of the medical experts, until it becomes politically damaging.

Scotty uses a sentence with "sorry" in it about what "we" regret, so that it can be spun into an apology.

At least he's not blabbing as much as he used to. Scared of becoming white noise...

Spot on Captain. If ever WA get invaded by the PLA (and if it does happen, that is where they will go), they can cry “national emergency” all they want.

Imagine the enthusiasm from the Government to send some RAAF F-35s over from the east coast.

Shame on you McGowan.

The Winton Centre at the University of Cambridge produced a handy infographic for doing a comparative risk assessment for the AstraZeneca vaccine. It shows the comparative risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing a serious illness versus the risk of developing a serious thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) reaction from the AstraZeneca vaccine. As expected the risks correlate inversely by age group.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d4e89f5d43.png
Source: Communicating the potential benefits and harms of the Astra-Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge


The COVID-19 risk on this graphic is based on a case prevalence of 2 active cases per 10,000 population. Nationally, we are running at about 0.67 cases per 10,000 or one third that rate; NSW is running at about that rate of 2 active cases per 10,000 population; Greater Sydney is presently around one third higher than the base rate at 3 cases per 10,000. It is a relatively simple case of adjusting the potential benefit of getting the vaccine by multiplying the base benefit illustrated by one half of your local case rate.

Greend Dot -

Either our security is really deteriorating or we are talking up our fears of the Chinese Communist Party in national debate.

Whichever, COVID has delivered a template for Australia's defeat. The CCP will not only pry these divisions in a grey zone coercion but possibly in direct military confrontation, rewarding compliant state governments, who bark at national response to security threats, with less CCP intimidation and threats of attacks.

West Australian parochialism is a good example of where the CCP could apply such a template. Not at where we would deploy military resources but where the CCP could look to divide the nation. WA would be rewarded post-confrontation ( resource rich and oligarch like politics ) and the conduct of conflict swayed to reward cowering states. East Coast states could bear the brunt of naval embargoes and not only direct attacks on military bases with long range conventional weaponry, but also civilian population centres to drive home the compliance message to a divided nation.

Genuine question, Mick: What is the definition of "low exposure risk" for the purposes of that 'infographic'? Is it just '2 per 10,000'? I'm not sure what that means.

Based on the statistical notes to the guide the risk is based on the likelihood of contracting coronavirus over a 16 week period when it is circulating in the community at a prevalence rate of 2 active cases per 10,000 people.

They then take the likelihood that you will end up in ICU after contracting it and present avoidance as the benefit, where avoidance is calculated using a vaccine efficacy of 80 percent. UK hospitalisation, ICU admission and death data supports that 80 percent efficacy assumption.

It looks to be a general base rate that doesn't address individual mitigation strategies. Clearly, if you were adopting high levels of mitigation that would impact the "potential benefits".

It may not be perfect but it is the best comparative risk representation that I have seen for AstraZeneca. For the average punter it is certainly better than flailing around amidst a flurry of percentages and the like.

One of the most important things, that unfortunately you don't pick up from just the one graphic, is the the comparative risk is not static, it depends on the prevalence of coronavirus in the community. As you can see on this graphic for "medium" exposure risk - that is, 6 active cases per 10,000 - the potential benefits increase because the possibility of contracting coronavirus increases. The risk of an adverse reaction causing serious illness is fixed however.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ed5a0e0d3e.png

Marketing AstraZeneca vaccination to under-60s will kill about a dozen of them; based on UK Government statistics at https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting. That’s about the same risk as flying in the 1960s. Scotty just needs a glib slogan to convince them it’s worthwhile for the economy and for the rest of us.

163 new cases in NSW

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/cov...KNUTMCGLZDEGM/

Hazzard now wants Dan’s Pfizer.

I will just leave this here.

Genuine thanks, Mick. This answered my question and the supplementary question in one go: It seems to me that the "medium exposure risk" is like expressing the probabilities of being attacked by a shark. But for an individual who doesn't go into the water, the probabilities are zero.

If I'm currently at zero risk of contracting C-19, getting the vaccine exposes me to a risk to which I don't need to be exposed. In this wide brown land, it is possible to be at zero risk of contracting C-19 for protracted periods.

(Of course, western Sydney isn't a 10,000 square km farm with one family living in the homestead, stocked up with food and fuel. The main problem in these Sydney suburbs is cultural. Many of the residents do not trust or do not care what 'the authorities' say.)

I have just watched the SA Premier saying exactly the same. It's just that McGowan said it first.

VIC, SA and WA have all said it. QLD wan not allowed to participate in the national cabinet, but going to guess the official answer would have been no. Just a reminder gladys said no about sending vaccines to VIC earlier this year.

Thanks for the graphs, MickG0105.

The potential benefits are every 16 weeks, so multiply that by 3.25 per year?

The question becomes what will the rate in the community be once we stop locking down (assuming that day will come, and acknowledging that Sydney is currently at the lower rate with restrictions).

Evidently, you will get COVID eventually. And many more Australians will die from it.

What worries me is people like yourself who may demand the continued shutting of borders and other damaging economic actions.

So can you sing from the rooftops, I'm not going to get vaccinated, but please open up the borders for others' sakes?

You evidently haven't been able to review what I've said previously in this thread, Gnadenberg, or I haven't expressed myself clearly enough.

I don't know whether I support the lockdowns and border closures, because I don't know how much they cost. What I do know is that they cost an enormous amount, and Australia is merely delaying the inevitable. I think the NSW Treasurer committed a political heresy the other day, by effectively acknowledging the fact that the ever-increasing enormous costs may not be worth the lives saved. (It is a fact that we weigh up costs against lives every day. That's why, for example, there continue to be suicide deaths in prisons. We as a society have decided we're not going spend any more money to make all prisons suicide proof.)

I didn't say I wasn't going to get vaccinated. I will get vaccinated when the personal risk mitigating steps I'm taking against contracting C-19 are not sufficient, thus justifying my taking the risk of the vaccine. I hope by that stage that every essential worker and person in aged care has been vaccinated.

I didn't say I wasn't going to get vaccinated. I will get vaccinated when the personal risk mitigating steps I'm taking against contracting C-19 are not sufficient, thus justifying my taking the risk of the vaccine. I hope by that stage that every essential worker and person in aged care has been vaccinated.

Seems to be a common idea amongst Australians now , I’ll get vaccinated when I feel my health is sufficiently threatened in my opinion ?
We are at war with delta , the economy is taking hit after hit , the country is closed for business and states at each other’s throats . The only answer we have at the moment long term is to get the bulk of Australia vaccinated and open it up .

Australia is defiantly the lucky country but not sure if it’s better to be lucky or smart at the moment .

No more excuses .

Letting wife or girlfriend ( or both ) take the birth control pill monthly that has higher chance of getting a blood clot than the A-Z vaccination and saying I’m not getting vaccinated as risks are too high while country is on its knees ?

Gosh, another one arising from my evident inability to make my point clearly enough.

So I'm sitting here in my homestead in the middle of my 10,000 square km property. Fridge and freezers full of good food, great beer and even better wine. Girlfriend by my side. Reliable and fast NBN. Dam full of water. Shed full of fuel for my generator, 4WD and aircraft.

Walk me through why it's sensible for me to travel into town where the risk of me contracting C-19 changes from zero to not-zero, so as to take a risk - irrespective of its probabilities - of death through blood clots.

Who exactly am I helping by taking the risk of the vaccination now? Who exactly, Torukmacto?

You argue from a very unique position, Lead Balloon. For the rest of us it looks like inevitably it will be in everybody's personal interest (as well as the community interest) to get vaccinated, with the only debatable category being the very young. We can't start opening up until most of us are vaccinated and we can't all decide the personal risk is such that we should get vaccinated on the same day. What if everyone turned up at the boarding gate at -5? No-one is late?

I am not an anti vaxer.

I currently have not had a COVID vax nor do I currently plan to (Never had a flu jab either).

My simple understanding of COVID 19 is there are a group of people that are high risk of getting very sick or dying if they catch it - For this I say they need our help with border closures (state and national) until the have the chance to be vaccinated.
Same measures also until all front line workers have the option to get vaccinated.

After this point we can open fully internally (nationally)and give the option to all secondary contact workers that want it to get it, followed by general public getting it if they want it. 3 months after this fully open every border.

IF the vaccines prevented people from catching COVID and being able to transmit it to others - my opinion would be different. If we of the non "High Risk" status wish to risk getting sicker or even die from catching it - bad luck, we had the option. But we have given the chance for every one to get vaccinated if they wish, high rick or not.


If the government closes my work - as a tax payer, I expect compensation for that. Vaccine does not prevent COVID or its spread.

Members of my family (non high risk) have been vaccinated, they have their reasons.

No I'm not in a unique position in Australia, MrScooter. (And there's no such thing as "very" unique.) There are many, many Australians in the outback who are used to being in quite comfortable isolation for protracted periods.

If this is going to be done in rational way - that is, done so as to most effectively mitigate the risk as quickly as practicable - then ALL essential workers and everyone living in aged care have to be vaccinated first. And we haven't been able to manage that even that yet, over a year in. That's not my fault and criticising me won't change that. I won't start on quarantine facilities...

Australia needs 'leadership', not politicians who hide behind advice when it suits then undermine the advisers when it doesn't suit.

All along, only one out of the two essential questions the answers to which determine the rational response to C-19 have been asked and answered - at least publicly. The first question is to medical experts who have been asked how to keep C-19 under control. And they've provided, generally, the correct answers. The second question that dare not speak its name is: How much is acting on the advice going to cost? And I mean real costs.

People protesting in Sydney now, almost stopping short of a riot by the looks. Can you blame them?!
PM Morro is not helping at all. If anyone watched his train wreck speech yesterday he agreed with Dr Murphy’s comments that we may need lockdowns even with higher vaccination rates. People are confused told to get jabbed then told not to get AZ wait for Pfizer now told get AZ again it’s a total mess and some don’t believe covid is even real. There is no end game planned other than arbitrary 80% vaxed population Gladys wants then “they will look at it” that’s not good enough and ppl have a right be be pissed in my opinion. Gov at all levels are sitting on their hands still passing the baton of blame no personal accountability they have not had a cut in income lost their job or had to sell their house and the ppl have had enough

Relax! The Keystone Cops in charge can still manage to arrange for a visa for a crass, racist Pommie 'celebrity'. One of the Cops - Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews - said:So sad - for the economy - that the Keystone Cops bowed to political pressure and punted the 'celebrity' back to Pommieland. Maybe Scotty should have asked Jenny whether it was a 'good idea' for the federal government to grant the visa in the first place.

Comedian, writer and journalist Sami Shah is on to a genius idea:

For a 420 visa that "entertainers" have to get, a tick in the box from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance is required (after paying their fee, of course). It has to be proven that they will create a "net economic benefit".
Meanwhile Ed Sheeran flies in for Michael Gudinski's funeral and locals can't even visit their dying parents here or overseas.
You just have to follow the money..

But we're all equal...

You're welcome.

Now, for the cost conscious, what I think might have been a missing element in the AstraZeneca versus Pfizer vaccine discussion - the relative costs.

Pfizer at $26 a dose is eight times the cost of AstraZeneca at $3.25 a dose. mRNA vaccines are very, very expensive to produce compared to more traditional approaches such as viral vector. That eightfold difference in cost is just the factory-gate production cost. Shipping Pfizer is two to three times more expensive than AstraZeneca due to the fact that it must be shipped frozen as opposed to just refrigerated.

When ATAGI changed the advice on AstraZeneca from for over 50 to for over 60 that cost the best part of $100 million just in swap out costs.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfir.../parent/pfizer

just pay up already..Pfizer has loads of bills to take care of!

And there’s a lot more work involved in mixing the vials for Pfizer at the clinic. Various stages need to be timed and everything done in an order to get it into the needle.
Astra you pretty much just grab from the fridge and put into arm.

All this is meaningless now, we are on a trajectory that cant be stopped. Before end of August NSW, like VIC last yr will be locked out of Australia and Victorians traveling freely again which is good.

The difference from NSW now compared to VIC being the people are much much more angry, have had enough and by the looks will not listen to government dribble.

The issue the gov has now is not the virus, its how to get the peoples trust back, get them to listen because they will not stay home now. My opinion someone needs to fall,be it Sco Mo or Gladys one of the two. If the public see some accountability at the top and replace with a new face it might be enough.

That would be 50% higher would it not?

And there we have it!

Someone made a decision based on cost. But if only that someone had realised that the real costs of that decision would be vastly more than chump change like the "$100 million" to which you referred.

From January this year, when it still wasn't a race:The Pfizer vaccine is better (on current data) than AZ.

Aren't Australians worth the better vaccine?

I don't think 80% of Aussies will take the vax. I reckon more like 50% As far as I can see, 50% would be perfect for the following reasons:

The vaccine is classed as experimental in the USA and is released here in Aus under an emergency authorisation.
The vaccine was rushed to market in record time and the usual long term testing and animal trials were skipped
The manufacturers and the government plus the doctors and nurses are all indemnified from any liability regarding the administration of this vax
The vaccine itself is not without its risks and the long term effects are unknown

If 50% of Aussies take this stuff we are setting up the perfect and much needed long term trial that is needed. In 2, 5, 10 and more years we can look back and compare the halves.

Perfect clinical testing I reckon :-)

Check it out Aussie Bob… pass it on to your friends too


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....195e9efc0.jpeg

Assuming of course you can find anyone in 10 years that were neither vaccinated or Infected.

You miss the point totally Xeptu, in 10 years time there will be the vaxed, the unvaxed, those that have been infected and survived (around 99.9% of cases survive) and those that have passed away, both vaxed and unvaxed as well as those who have never had been infected or never had any symptoms.

A perfect trial will have been completed. If you think this virus is going to wipe everyone out I think you have been misled.

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.

My point was about "perfect clinical testing" It's not about dying and never has been. you need comparisons for vaccinated never infected, unvaccinated never infected, vaccinated infected.
In ten years we probably wont find a never infected person. Except perhaps lead balloon on his 11,000sq property :)

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

The survival rate of infected individuals, that is those that don't die, is between 99% and 95% of those that catch Covid. The survival rate with no long term associated conditions is about 75%-85%. The survival rate among 60+ is much lower graduating towards 60% and below 40 year old or so better than 99%, with current strains that is. The US is running at just under 2% death rate from Covid pre vaccination, the UK running at about 2.5%. Australia is around 2.8%, so to be specific your chance from dieing in Australia, should you catch Covid is currently sitting at 2.8%, or 97.2% survival rate. Which is roughly the same chance of dieing if you try to intentionally kill yourself using prescribed medication, so intentionally catching Covid gives you similar rates of death to intentional suicide attempts.

If you are referring to Astro Zeneca, only two versions manufactured in Asia are classified as such. Don't rely on simple google searches for this stuff, it is actually complicated and different manufacturers and location of manufacture of the same named vaccine have different approvals for use.

All Covid vaccines have been given general exemptions to liability.

The down side to this tactic is that when you are finally exposed to the virus it could be worse, as you havn't built up progressive immunity to its effects. Similar to the European nations introducing viruses to native populations around the world. The longer you sit out these things the worse it could be for you.

So now we have Holocaust Deniers posted here as a source?