WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[Tiger5150]

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

Not having a crack…..but why? Why actual restrictions/legislation/control? Why not when vaccination numbers are high enough, life goes on and the unvaccinated take their chances?

Because people who aren't vaccinated aren't only putting themselves at risk.

100% agree but isn’t that their risk? If you and I are vaccinated, why should we care. If they put themselves at risk?

The immune-compromised don't get to make that choice.

And pre COVID when 500-1200 people die a year of influenza, what did we do then? Were they lockdowns? Vaccine passports?

You aren't getting the issue. The issue is can the health care system handle the number of deaths.

One of us isnt getting the issue.

How many? Once we get to >70% vaxxed, what number of deaths do we accept as a society? 2000?1000? 500? Zero?

Seriously, how many?


If you look at in economic terms the unvaccinated are free riding off the vaccinated. Same as smokers. The thing is the health care system can handle the smokers.

I was in emergency at hospital two weeks ago. I dont smoke. I filled out a form and the question was asked if I did, I dont. I would have be treated the same either way. In economic terms. I was not asked what vaccinations I had.

So vaccine passports are the vaccinated stating the unvaccinated can pay their way in relation to health care.


Smoking kills 19,000 a year, alcohol responsible for 6000 a year (different data, see below), but you draw the line at Covid vaccination? In economic terms? Im the one not getting the point?

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/articles/news-2018/alcohol-causes-nearly-6000-australian-deaths-in-on/
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/smoking/latest-release

I suppose the question is do you understand the issue ? The question isn't do you morally agree with it.

Yes I think I understand the issue pretty well.

Get everyone vaccinated and get on with life. If you are not prepared to do that then I dont know hwo we got this far. Serious question. Why not? On what basis?

The only situation I could see where decisions were made not to treat unvaccinated patients would be in a situation where a hospital was overwhelmed, was triaging patients and it had been established that vaccinated patients had better chances of survival, but once you get to that there would be a number of reason you wouldn't receive treatment.

Yeah of course, and to extend my example, Im sure an alcoholic or smoker are not getting a liver or lung transplant without changing their ways. My example and point in this last post is obviously extreme, but it is in response to Earls point that the unvaccinated would either not have access to the health care system or have to "pay their share". Its ridiculous in Australia, particularly (as has been my point all along) once we get to maximum (probably around 70% IMO) vax rates.

No one has answered my question though. Once we get say 70% vax rates, what level of COVID deaths are we willing to live with p.a. before we return to a normal life that allows civil liberties and a free, globally competitive economy? 2000?, 1000. 100, zero?

 

[cochise]

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

Not having a crack…..but why? Why actual restrictions/legislation/control? Why not when vaccination numbers are high enough, life goes on and the unvaccinated take their chances?

Because people who aren't vaccinated aren't only putting themselves at risk.

100% agree but isn’t that their risk? If you and I are vaccinated, why should we care. If they put themselves at risk?

The immune-compromised don't get to make that choice.

And pre COVID when 500-1200 people die a year of influenza, what did we do then? Were they lockdowns? Vaccine passports?

You aren't getting the issue. The issue is can the health care system handle the number of deaths.

One of us isnt getting the issue.

How many? Once we get to >70% vaxxed, what number of deaths do we accept as a society? 2000?1000? 500? Zero?

Seriously, how many?


If you look at in economic terms the unvaccinated are free riding off the vaccinated. Same as smokers. The thing is the health care system can handle the smokers.

I was in emergency at hospital two weeks ago. I dont smoke. I filled out a form and the question was asked if I did, I dont. I would have be treated the same either way. In economic terms. I was not asked what vaccinations I had.

So vaccine passports are the vaccinated stating the unvaccinated can pay their way in relation to health care.


Smoking kills 19,000 a year, alcohol responsible for 6000 a year (different data, see below), but you draw the line at Covid vaccination? In economic terms? Im the one not getting the point?

https://www.cancerwa.asn.au/articles/news-2018/alcohol-causes-nearly-6000-australian-deaths-in-on/
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/smoking/latest-release

I suppose the question is do you understand the issue ? The question isn't do you morally agree with it.

Yes I think I understand the issue pretty well.

Get everyone vaccinated and get on with life. If you are not prepared to do that then I dont know hwo we got this far. Serious question. Why not? On what basis?

The only situation I could see where decisions were made not to treat unvaccinated patients would be in a situation where a hospital was overwhelmed, was triaging patients and it had been established that vaccinated patients had better chances of survival, but once you get to that there would be a number of reason you wouldn't receive treatment.

Yeah of course, and to extend my example, Im sure an alcoholic or smoker are not getting a liver or lung transplant without changing their ways. My example and point in this last post is obviously extreme, but it is in response to Earls point that the unvaccinated would either not have access to the health care system or have to "pay their share". Its ridiculous in Australia, particularly (as has been my point all along) once we get to maximum (probably around 70% IMO) vax rates.

No one has answered my question though. Once we get say 70% vax rates, what level of COVID deaths are we willing to live with p.a. before we return to a normal life that allows civil liberties and a free, globally competitive economy? 2000?, 1000. 100, zero?

Mate, honestly I don't know the answer to that and am extremely glad it is not my decision to make.

 

[earl]

Get everyone vaccinated and get on with life. If you are not prepared to do that then I dont know hwo we got this far. Serious question. Why not? On what basis?

I'll try again. You though consistently don't understand what I'm posting and respond to something different to what I posted. I'm not going to try again.

Do you understand the concept of supply and demand ? You don't have to answer but you have to get this concept.

Here is the thing supply is fixed. The problem is we don't know what the demand will be. The demand will be by far the unvaccinated. If the virus spreads quickly the unvaccinated will get sick and the demand for health care may get way too high for the available supply to handle.

What then happens is the unvaccinated cannot be taken care of but it's worse than that. There is a regular supply of people like yourself coming into the health care system. The unvaccinated will mean those people cannot be taken care of as well.

It's not a moral issue. It's a demand and supply issue.

It's not as simple as get vaccinated and do what you want. I think it should be. The reason that I'm articulating is happening all over the world now. It's an issue overseas and it may be an issue here as well.

I don't believe the government will have a number of deaths in mind. I think society and the government will accept whatever number of deaths occur. I don't think a number will be considered. I mentioned the UK had over 100 daily deaths and it was a success story. It wasn't a success story when the hospitals were under too much pressure.

 

[earl]

This is where the UK is now, with death rates comparable to normal influenza rates.

And no one cares.

Honestly I think you are asking the wrong question though. I think the question is what can the health care system take. It's not a good time to be a doctor or a nurse.

 

[earl]

No one has answered my question though. Once we get say 70% vax rates, what level of COVID deaths are we willing to live with p.a. before we return to a normal life that allows civil liberties and a free, globally competitive economy? 2000?, 1000. 100, zero?

I don't believe anyone can answer your question. I also think it's the wrong question.

 

[Pascoes_barber]

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

It's been suggested that to attend mass gathering events such as Sport ,Concerts ,Restaurants etc proof of vaccination will be required.Would you get vaccinated to watch Wests Tigers

Not everyone has had the same opportunity as others to access vaccines. Until the entire population is vaccinated and able to chose the vaccine of their choice, this is a non starter.

Once vaccination is open to everyone then I expect these sort of restrictions will come in.

Not having a crack…..but why? Why actual restrictions/legislation/control? Why not when vaccination numbers are high enough, life goes on and the unvaccinated take their chances?

Because people who aren't vaccinated aren't only putting themselves at risk.

100% agree but isn’t that their risk? If you and I are vaccinated, why should we care. If they put themselves at risk?

The immune-compromised don't get to make that choice.

And pre COVID when 500-1200 people die a year of influenza, what did we do then? Were they lockdowns? Vaccine passports?

Aside from being respiratory illnesses the two aren’t comparable.

For the millionth time, I am NOT *equating* Influenza and COVID as an illness. If we didnt have lockdowns and other measures the deaths from COVID would be orders of magnitude higher, no question.

The two illnesses ARE comparable on other basis though. Both repsiratory viruses. Influenza kills 500-1200 people every year pre covid (I make that distinction because the Covid measure also inhibit Influenza).

In 2017, 2018, 2019, were you suggesting that we have full scale lockdowns and vaccine passports?

No, of course not. Because the level of risk was (and is) vastly different in both infectiousness and likelihood of negative outcomes.

The 500-1200 are an unfortunate yet acceptable number of casualties. People die of all sorts of things all the time.

When we have high enough rates of vaccination, the deaths will be of a comparable scale to Influenza and we will have to consider living life exactly as we did in 2017. This is where the UK is now, with death rates comparable to normal influenza rates.

Yes, that’s right. I’ve never suggested otherwise. The higher the vaccination rate the better for the ‘greater good’ IMHO.

 

[Tiger5150]

Get everyone vaccinated and get on with life. If you are not prepared to do that then I dont know hwo we got this far. Serious question. Why not? On what basis?

I'll try again. You though consistently don't understand what I'm posting and respond to something different to what I posted. I'm not going to try again.

Do you understand the concept of supply and demand ? You don't have to answer but you have to get this concept.

Here is the thing supply is fixed. The problem is we don't know what the demand will be. The demand will be by far the unvaccinated. If the virus spreads quickly the unvaccinated will get sick and the demand for health care may get way too high for the available supply to handle.

What then happens is the unvaccinated cannot be taken care of but it's worse than that. There is a regular supply of people like yourself coming into the health care system. The unvaccinated will mean those people cannot be taken care of as well.

It's not a moral issue. It's a demand and supply issue.

It's not as simple as get vaccinated and do what you want. I think it should be. The reason that I'm articulating is happening all over the world now. It's an issue overseas and it may be an issue here as well.

I don't believe the government will have a number of deaths in mind. I think society and the government will accept whatever number of deaths occur. I don't think a number will be considered. ***I mentioned the UK had over 100 daily deaths and it was a success story.*** It wasn't a success story when the hospitals were under too much pressure.

If health systems get overloaded, then yes, we could lock down again.

Yes you did mention the UK, and it is a success story. How is the UK success story any different to what I am saying?

 

[Tiger5150]

No one has answered my question though. Once we get say 70% vax rates, what level of COVID deaths are we willing to live with p.a. before we return to a normal life that allows civil liberties and a free, globally competitive economy? 2000?, 1000. 100, zero?

I don't believe anyone can answer your question. I also think it's the wrong question.

Why is it the wrong question? Is the answer zero?

Why dont we lock down and have vaccine passports for Influenza?

Seriously, the UK has death rates close to their annual influenza rates and they are getting back to normal life.

At what point do we consider it "part of life?" It is the most important question. If you dont think so, your answer would have to be zero?

 

[Pascoes_barber]

OK... I get what you're asking now @Tiger5150

I can't give an exact answer, but the answer is not zero.

They absolutely **are** asking these very questions and are doing the modelling for certain scenarios.

The Doherty Institute have released the report recently provided to National Cabinet to inform these discussions publicly.

Link to main page:
https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/doherty-institute-modelling-report-for-national-cabinet

Actual report in PDF:
http://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/content_doc/DohertyModelling_NationalPlan_including_adendmum.pdf

The numbers of interest start around page 17.

 

[Pascoes_barber]

It gets fairly heavy, but here are some of the easier to read examples.



At some point it becomes about personal responsibility and accepting the outcomes of your own decisions.

BUT at this stage not everyone has even been offered the option of getting a vaccine, so I'd expect lockdowns to continue until everyone has at least been given the opportunity (maybe early next year?)

 

[mike]

It gets fairly heavy, but here are some of the easier to read examples.



At some point it becomes about personal responsibility and accepting the outcomes of your own decisions.

BUT at this stage not everyone has even been offered the option of getting a vaccine, so I'd expect lockdowns to continue until everyone has at least been given the opportunity (maybe early next year?)

They had targets to reach 70% by October 18. They are dreaming given current vaccination rates and vaccine availability. It will be much later than that. I think your prediction of early next year is closer to the mark.

 

[voice_of_reason]

They had targets to reach 70% by October 18. They are dreaming given current vaccination rates and vaccine availability. It will be much later than that. I think your prediction of early next year is closer to the mark.

It depends a lot on if they're talking one or both doses. I don't know anything about the national rate but it seems somewhat possible for NSW to have at least a single dose, and the majority two doses, done.

NSW has roughly 8 million population. Under 18s - except the HSC kids - are ineligible for a vaccine. Statistically around 25% of the population is under 18 so this means a total of 6 million are eligible.

We also know there's a recalcitrant 10-15% of the population who won't get vaccinated - anti-vacc, illness or whatever. This leaves 5.4 million. 70% coverage leaves 3.8 million who are willing and able to be 'jabbed'.

As of today, NSW has done 4.3 million vaccinations (doesn't list a breakdown of one or two doses) and on current numbers is doing 185,000 a week. This has been steadily rising and it's reasonable to think - given the HSC program, the expanded pharmacy program and the addition of more walk in and GP clinics - that it will continue to rise. Not out of the question to get to > million a month.

A bit over 2 months to middle of October could see around 6.5 million doses given. It's not going to be too far away.

I don't think vaccine availability - except for Pfizer - is an issue.

The greatest barrier to getting to 70% will be convincing people to be vaccinated. I think the vaccine and the capacity is there, it needs a willingness from Joe Public.

 

[mike]

They had targets to reach 70% by October 18. They are dreaming given current vaccination rates and vaccine availability. It will be much later than that. I think your prediction of early next year is closer to the mark.

It depends a lot on if they're talking one or both doses. I don't know anything about the national rate but it seems somewhat possible for NSW to have at least a single dose, and the majority two doses, done.

NSW has roughly 8 million population. Under 18s - except the HSC kids - are ineligible for a vaccine. Statistically around 25% of the population is under 18 so this means a total of 6 million are eligible.

We also know there's a recalcitrant 10-15% of the population who won't get vaccinated - anti-vacc, illness or whatever. This leaves 5.4 million. 70% coverage leaves 3.8 million who are willing and able to be 'jabbed'.

As of today, NSW has done 4.3 million vaccinations (doesn't list a breakdown of one or two doses) and on current numbers is doing 185,000 a week. This has been steadily rising and it's reasonable to think - given the HSC program, the expanded pharmacy program and the addition of more walk in and GP clinics - that it will continue to rise. Not out of the question to get to million a month.

A bit over 2 months to middle of October could see around 6.5 million doses given. It's not going to be too far away.

I don't think vaccine availability - except for Pfizer - is an issue.

The greatest barrier to getting to 70% will be convincing people to be vaccinated. I think the vaccine and the capacity is there, it needs a willingness from Joe Public.

I thought the target was 70% fully vaccinated and then restrictions will be eased. South Wests Sydney tradies fully vaccinated or 1st dose plus a negative test will be allowed to leave their LGA for work is the current yet to be approved proposal. So it looks like they may be lessening the requirements. Unless the latter is the new standard I can’t see normality returning until next year.

 

[Harvey]

Interesting view on a NFL player who is "questioning" whether he should be vaccinated.

WARNING: contains language some may find offensive.

https://deadspin.com/kirk-cousins-isn-t-good-enough-to-make-everyone-deal-wi-1847435897

 

[earl]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/public-health-leaders-regret-failure-to-rebuke-anti-vaxxers-zero-covid-advocates-20210806-p58gmf.html

This is an interesting article.

>Dr Coatsworth said he regretted underestimating the influence of zero-COVID advocates in the academy, whose commentary has shaped the discourse on COVID-19 management in Australia.
>
>There’s a very strong network in Australian academia that is pro COVID-zero,” he said. “There’s some very influential policy people, particularly down in Victoria, who have that particular view.
>
>Extreme zero-COVID views look good, but they can have a fair few negative consequences that are difficult to count.

And:-

>“I think nobody really understood how really problematic information that’s been circulating on social media – unchecked and unchallenged – has been for confidence in vaccines generally, and in AstraZeneca in particular,” Dr Halton told The Sun-Herald and The Sunday Age.

 

[voice_of_reason]

I thought the target was 70% fully vaccinated and then restrictions will be eased. South Wests Sydney tradies fully vaccinated or 1st dose plus a negative test will be allowed to leave their LGA for work is the current yet to be approved proposal. So it looks like they may be lessening the requirements. Unless the latter is the new standard I can’t see normality returning until next year.

The figures have always appeared a bit rubbery and to be honest, I've not been following it that closely. The press conferences have just become cases, deaths and blah, blah, blah...

The problem we have now is the same as we had 6 weeks ago:
Compliance is a farce - so many people ignoring the rules.
Hesitancy on vaccination - although this seems to be waning with the bigger outbreaks and deaths increasing
Misinformation - foolish conspiracy theories being believed

FWIW, if I was in charge it would be a total lockdown. No exercise, no retail except food, no fast food. Fines would be $5000 not $500. Anyone caught breaching the rules gets fined then goes into 14 days of hotel quarantine at their expense.

I'm genuinely concerned we'll be kept in lockdown by stupid people doing stupid things.

 

[Milky]

The Fed government wants NSW to have stricter lockdowns even if the majority is vaccinated. This really contradicts their ‘road map’.

Regardless of how many COVID cases, we cannot continue to fight nature and keep locking down our country.

Sure, hospitalisations will go up. Maybe instead of boosting funding in unnecessary areas we should build extra hospitals and provide free tuition to those aspiring to study in the medical field. Counter the pandemic in a manner that does not compromise the mental health of our citizens and without driving our economy to the ground.

We are subject to strict conditions. Yes, there is a lawful basis for it but we have been living with the virus for a significant period of time. Our health experts and ministers ought to have had sufficient time to advance our health system to the extent where it is able to cope with increasing numbers of COVID.

The virus disappeared for a while and all our politicians sat on their hands and applauded themselves instead of opening their eyes to the serious risk of a second wave. Why didn’t we acquire larger numbers of vaccines? Why didn’t we build more hospitals?

 

[mike]

The Fed government wants NSW to have stricter lockdowns even if the majority is vaccinated. This really contradicts their ‘road map’.

Regardless of how many COVID cases, we cannot continue to fight nature and keep locking down our country.

Sure, hospitalisations will go up. Maybe instead of boosting funding in unnecessary areas we should build extra hospitals and provide free tuition to those aspiring to study in the medical field. Counter the pandemic in a manner that does not compromise the mental health of our citizens and without driving our economy to the ground.

We are subject to strict conditions. Yes, there is a lawful basis for it but we have been living with the virus for a significant period of time. Our health experts and ministers ought to have had sufficient time to advance our health system to the extent where it is able to cope with increasing numbers of COVID.

The virus disappeared for a while and all our politicians sat on their hands and applauded themselves instead of opening their eyes to the serious risk of a second wave. Why didn’t we acquire larger numbers of vaccines? Why didn’t we build more hospitals?

Quarantine stations, we still don’t have them.

 

[jadtiger]

The Fed government wants NSW to have stricter lockdowns even if the majority is vaccinated. This really contradicts their ‘road map’.

Regardless of how many COVID cases, we cannot continue to fight nature and keep locking down our country.

Sure, hospitalisations will go up. Maybe instead of boosting funding in unnecessary areas we should build extra hospitals and provide free tuition to those aspiring to study in the medical field. Counter the pandemic in a manner that does not compromise the mental health of our citizens and without driving our economy to the ground.

We are subject to strict conditions. Yes, there is a lawful basis for it but we have been living with the virus for a significant period of time. Our health experts and ministers ought to have had sufficient time to advance our health system to the extent where it is able to cope with increasing numbers of COVID.

The virus disappeared for a while and all our politicians sat on their hands and applauded themselves instead of opening their eyes to the serious risk of a second wave. Why didn’t we acquire larger numbers of vaccines? Why didn’t we build more hospitals?

Quarantine stations, we still don’t have them.

Scamo still too busy covering his and his ministers collective rear ends.

 

[earl]

The virus disappeared for a while and all our politicians sat on their hands and applauded themselves instead of opening their eyes to the serious risk of a second wave.

Here is the thing. The Delta strain is twice as infections. I'm not giving out perfect information here but the general point is accurate. The Delta strain was small a month or so ago. Now it's the dominant strain all over the world.

It's not like the first strains.