Coronavirus Outbreak

[Tim Sheens]

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-09-2021/what-is-life-like-now-for-countries-with-the-highest-covid-vaccination-rates/

 

[Geo]

Once we hit 80% or what ever I would simply ask Scotty from Marketing or Glydys from NSW Corp. ..this..

What is the acceptable number of deaths ?

 

[cochise]

Once we hit 80% or what ever I would simply ask Scotty from Marketing or Glydys from NSW Corp. ..this..

What is the acceptable number of deaths ?

I don't think there is an acceptable number of deaths, but there are going to be deaths.

 

[Nelson]

What does returning to normal life mean?

@papacito said,
Really good question.
Perhaps life won't ever go back to exactly how it was.
My layman prediction is that we're in for two to three years of some kind of restrictions and mask wearing.
I reckon masks will be a new normal.
I also think we'll be better prepared for the next pandemic too.

Thanks @papacito, but some lunatic somehow got offended by the question and took away my 1 upvote??

For as long as you continue to put a giant target on yourself by talking about up votes and down votes you will no doubt continue to get down votes for the sheer comedic value of it.

I think you may have **unintentionaly** just encouraged the lunatics to do more of the same.?

It's the internet, no encouragement is needed.

 

[Tiger5150]

In relation to fear of using AZ, he advised ***results from UK confirm*** -

A***Z is the better vaccine of the two in reducing hospitalisations*** and the immunity from it lasts longer.

Im somewhat hesitant to say this guy is lying but results of studies commissioned by Public Health England and published by the UK Govt show that both are effective at preventing hospitalisations but Pfizer the better vaccine at both preventing infection and preventing hospitalisation.

I understand that people want to remove AZ hesitancy, but misinformation shouldnt be the way to do it (unless there are other credible studies the guy is referencing?).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

This is a leading epidemiologist who is not from NSW. His advice was quite clear.

Sure and Im not an epidemiologist and dont claim any greater knowledge, just making the point that his clear advice seems to contradict the advice of the UK Govt and Public Health England and he referemced the UK. Would love to know what his advice was based on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

Why don''t you just accept his advice as the expert in his field.

To answer your question directly, I have no idea who he is and it directly contradicts the advice of the UK Govt and Public Health England. Much has been made of the expert advice of Dr Robert Malone the "inventor of mRNA delivery technology" but I wont be taking his advice because I have looked at the actual data and made my own risk analysis and decided it is the right decision for me to get vaccinated. I could find you a youtube video of a doctor recommending against vaccinations in minutes. There has been so much wrong and conflicting information provided that because some Doctor on Channel 9 said something Im not going to take that as gospel, particularly when he claims its UK studies but it clearly goes against published advice of the UK Govt.

Ok Ive answered your question, here is a question for you to answer.

Why don''t you just accept the advice of the top UK health body and Govt as clearly spelled out in the link below..

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

I am not the one questioning the advice of an esteemed Australian specialist prepared to share his opinion on television.

Mate Im not disrespecting him, I have no idea who he is, dont know his name or how "esteemed" he is.

I find it interesting that you attempt to dismiss him as "some doctor".

Exactly who and what he is. I dont even know his name. Why is that interesting?

I'll treat him with the respect that his position deserves.

I have no reason to treat him with anything other than respect. I am however wondering why his "studies from the UK" directly contradict the studies published by the UK Govt and Public Health England.

Dont you wonder why? Isnt it natural to wonder why this would be the case?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

Maybe it's because we are battling the Delta Variant too.

Im not understanding you.

The UK Govt published study is based on the Delta Variant. It shows both very effective against hospitalisation but Pfizer is more effective than AZ (not by much), but the Doctor on TV cited "UK Studies" saying the opposite?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

Maybe he was stating that it is more effective at preventing hospitalisations than getting infected in the first place as a stand alone product, as I have never seen AZ being shown as effective as Pfizer in either statistic, let alone better?

You might be right and again I'd love to see the studies that show this.

It could actually make a lot of sense if what he means is that the AZ is better at keeping you out of hospital ***after*** you have caught it than Pfizer and I think you could actually extrapolate that from the data I posted. Let me explain.

The link below from New England Journal of Medicine shows Pfizer is 20% more effective at preventing you from ***contracting*** Delta than AZ. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

The link below from the UK Govt and Public Health England shows that Pfizer is 4% better at preventing hospitalisation than AZ. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

BUT.....the formula for calculating the Vaccine effectiveness (VE) of preventing Hospitalisation is VE = 1-(OR x HR)

OR is the risk of catching Delta as per the first study.

So what this means is that if the difference between the vaccines contracts to around 4% instead of 20%(OR) this means that the risk of going to hospital after you catch it (HR) must be in the advantage of AZ. THIS actually makes sense.

So in summary what the data from Public Health England does show is that at preventing you from catching Delta, Pfizer is *significantly* better than AZ. At preventing you from being hospitalised from Delta, Pfizer is *slightly* better than AZ. At preventing you from being hositalised after you catch Delta, *AZ* must be better.



Given the relative numbers of both the UK/our vaccines and the duration of their strains prevalence, there is probably no better data available anywhere, though I expect that we are at/approaching a point where we have a sizable set to analyse.

Its actually a shame that the US and the UK basically have vaccine policies with almost no interface.

 

[Pascoes_barber]

Once there's a report issued by a Royal Commission it's hard to justify sitting around and not acting on it, unless it's something unpopular with the public like the result of the ice inquiry.

Or Indigenous Deaths in Custody. Or mistreatment/abuse of the elderly in aged care. Or mistreatment/abuse of those with disabilities in disability care. Or systemic misconduct of the finance/banking industry.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Just heard professor Marylouise McLaws endorse and then reference a study in relation to diminishing covid vaccine efficacy over time that showed, and to paraphrase "the lesser efficacious AZ is expected to require a booster shot at 6 months and Pfizer at around 8 months".

Without quoting your earlier post @Tiger5150, I see such as some affirmation even though this was in regards to duration.

 

[swag_tiger]

Now people who don't wanna get a vaccine say they want the other countries to give them a exemption when it comes to going overseas. They are saying the passports are a form of repression.

 

[Guest]

What does returning to normal life mean?

Does vaccinating 80% of the population really mean normal life can resume?

To begin to attempt to answer this question we should also ask,
Will some of our behavioural changes be known as temporary, but others will stick with us for many more years?

When it was the W.H.O announcing the beginning of this pandemic,
Can normal life resume without the W.H.O announcing the end of this pandemic, and will it be, 2023? 2024? 2025?

The Premier said today that the restrictions will ease, and we will do the the things we use to enjoy doing soon. And around the World, glimpses of a pre-pandemic world have begun to reappear. But, Will life ever return to normal?

My understading is, when looking at previous pandemics and how they have effected the changes of behaviour of the world, that until the world health experts find a way to quickly tackle the emerging variants of this virus, we will not be getting back to normal life anytime soon. and even when the pandemic is over, the lives of all people of the world will not be the same as pre-pandemic.

Really good question.

Perhaps life won't ever go back to exactly how it was.

My layman prediction is that we're in for two to three years of some kind of restrictions and mask wearing.

I reckon masks will be a new normal.

**I also think we'll be better prepared for the next pandemic too**

I don’t. We have done absolutely nothing to prepare, everything has been reactionary. What I mean is there is no infrastructure in place that is different to pre-pandemic. We’ll have the same appalling result with the next pandemic and there will be a next.

Unfortunately this is a trend with most modern governments.

 

[upthetigers]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

 

[mike]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

 

[Tiger5150]

Just heard professor Marylouise McLaws endorse and then reference a study in relation to diminishing covid vaccine efficacy over time that showed, and to paraphrase "the lesser efficacious AZ is expected to require a booster shot at 6 months and Pfizer at around 8 months".

Without quoting your earlier post @Tiger5150, I see such as some affirmation even though this was in regards to duration.

Agreed and I want to make clear, its not affirmation of my opinion, I dont have one really, it is simply affirmation of the widely publicised scientific data. I actually dont get the confusion or obfuscation around this point.

Actually I kind of do, the only real reason that I think that this gets argued regularly or vague sweeping but incorrect statements are publicised about "the vaccines are as good as each other or AZ is actually better" is simply to try to prevent AZ vaccine hesitancy and that is understandable and fair enough, but there are plenty of valid reasons for preferring AZ including better availabilty and faster access to first jab, but efficacy is not its strong point (not much between them for hospitalisation).

 

[upthetigers]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

There was fewer deaths because of Covid lockdowns.

 

[Tiger5150]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Where did you get those numbers from?

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2017~Main%20Features~Deaths%20due%20to%20influenza~5

 

[mike]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

There was fewer deaths because of Covid lockdowns.

I figured there would be but was curious on the actual number.

 

[upthetigers]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Where did you get those numbers from?

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2017~Main%20Features~Deaths%20due%20to%20influenza~5

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-11/early-outbreaks-to-blame-for-worst-flu-season-on-record/11949320

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

0

And I believe there may have been no flu cases remember reading even though millions may have been vaccinated and the flu shot was mandated even though there was no flu in the country.

 

[mike]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

0

And I believe there may have been no flu cases remember reading even though millions may have been vaccinated and the flu shot was mandated even though there was no flu in the country.

A serious answer would be nice.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

0

And I believe there may have been no flu cases remember reading even though millions may have been vaccinated and the flu shot was mandated even though there was no flu in the country.

A serious answer would be nice.

Mean to be serious
Forgive me if I'm wrong but remember reading this this time last year unless I got confused with something else.

Again my bad if wrong but pretty sure of this.

 

[swag_tiger]

Just to put things in perspective, there were 1,100 flu-related deaths in 2017 and 900 in 2019.

Out of curiosity how many were there in 2020?

0

And I believe there may have been no flu cases remember reading even though millions may have been vaccinated and the flu shot was mandated even though there was no flu in the country.

A serious answer would be nice.
Mean to be serious
Forgive me if I'm wrong but remember reading this this time last year unless I got confused with something else.

Again my bad if wrong but pretty sure of this.

Maybe it's because our focus isn't on the flu atm.