Coronavirus - Australia
-
@kiwiwomble said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@kiwiwomble said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@gibbon-rib said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@gibbon-rib said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@gibbon-rib said in Coronavirus - Australia:
But anyone who thinks restrictions on people who chose not to get vaxxed are like discrimination
/ apartheid / Nazi Germany is away with the fairiesWhat word would you use to describe treating people differently?
Discrimination doesn't mean treating people differently, it means treating them unfairly.
Letting people into a stadium who've bought a ticket, but refusing access to people who haven't bought a ticket, is treating them differently, but it's not discrimination.
That's a very poor example to be kind. Refusing to sell a person a ticket on a number of grounds is discrimination. As would refusal to someone with hepatitis C, HIV infection or any medical condition. Refusing entry on those grounds is discrimination etc.
As it stands, I challenge anyone to provide evidence that a virus which won't be eradicated through vaccination which overwhelmingly reduces severity among the at risk, is justifiable to remove access to public life.
It wasn't meant to be an analogy for current restrictions, iit's just an example picked just to highlight the fact that treating people differently is not the same as discrimination.
But you're absolutely right that it could be discriminatory if it was done for some reason like the ones you've suggested - unfairly restricting access without any good reason.
I'm sure I've said it all before so I won't bore people with the same posts other than to say I have grave reservations that a virus which has a negligible impact on the majority of society is used to remove the ability of people to participate in public life.
as a theoretic argument thats fair enough, on a practical side (in vic and NSW at least) it looks like we're heading for over 90% vax so its a minority of people it will be effecting
Well as long as it's a minority, fuck 'em eh? For unvaccinated substitute another word.
i mean, you brought in the idea of only doing things that affect the majority of the population
No. What I said was the virus only has a negligible effect on the majority. For the rest there's a vaccine and health care treatment in public hospitals.
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
I'm sure I've said it all before so I won't bore people with the same posts other than to say I have grave reservations that a virus which has a negligible impact on the majority of society is used to remove the ability of people to participate in public life.
these rules will have very little effect on the majority of the population
Once more: Well as long as it's a minority, fuck 'em eh? For unvaccinated substitute another word.
-
@antipodean no, not what im saying, as usual we have failed to understand what the other is saying, please dont put words in my mouth
were you not trying to point out with the post above that we should not have had so strict restrictions because only a small % of the population are seriously at risk from COVID?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean no, not what im saying, as usual we have failed to understand what the other is saying, please dont put words in my mouth
were you not trying to point out with the post above that we should not have had so strict restrictions because only a small % of the population are seriously at risk from COVID?
I thought I was quite clearly talking about restricting the ability of the unvaccinated from participating in public life going forward.
-
@antipodean yes, but based on a virus that is only a serious risk to a minority of people
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@nta said in Coronavirus - Australia:
People are refused service or access for medical reasons all the time. Insurance. Dress codes. Drunkenness.
You can still participate in public life without insurance. Where in Australia are people reused medical access on the basis of dress code?
The only stipulation is you're applying the rules of entry equally to everyone.
Quite clearly if you aren't vaccinated they aren't.
In surgery ๐
-
@nta said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@nta The reason i believe that is wrong, is because transmission is not significantly reduced by vaccines, so
All medical evidence says otherwise.
You might have to rethink that statement mate. Or not, up to you.๐
Even the CDC won't make such claims
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html
"What We Know
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing COVID-19, including severe illness and death.
COVID-19 vaccines are effective against severe disease and death from variants of the virus that causes COVID-19 currently circulating in the United States, including the Delta variant.
Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant. When these infections occur among vaccinated people, they tend to be mild.
If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with the Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others.
People with weakened immune systems, including people who take immunosuppressive medications, may not be protected even if fully vaccinated."If we're going to exclude nurses, (last year's heroes), police officers, and firemen from society for not wanting a vaccine that they (nurses) encounter everyday, then I think we'd all like the spreadibility thing robustly settled.
Yes, pedantic, but important pedantic๐
-
@nta alot of the medical evidence say it was very effective against the first two variants but has become far less effective against Delta. There is whole lot of conflicting evidence that has all been peer reviewed. And then there is the british medical journal critizing pfizers testing standards that alot of the models are based off.
There is one there, no effect on transmission in the house hold.
Then 2 of population data of vaccine rates vs transmission. it doesnt seem to stack up with population data.
Maybe with closer to 100% vaccination rates (ie including children) we could achieve an r value low enough tocull transmission. But i think vaccinating all children with the current vaccines is imoral, and subsidizing the old with the young.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean yes, but based on a virus that is only a serious risk to a minority of people
Vaccination isn't a guarantee people won't catch or transmit the virus to at risk people.
At risk people can (largely) get vaccinated.
The vaccination reduces the severity.
If they can't get vaccinated they should take measures to reduce their risk.That is, to me, an infinitely better solution than compelling people not at risk to undertake a medical procedure.
-
Can't believe ACT still has mask regulations outdoors, that's nuts
Here in Sydney people are over it, you see heaps of masks down around chins, never worn in lists or entrances etc. My coffee shop in the CBD doesn't ask us to wear one when we go in for takeaway or dine in
And it cracks me up that I'm still supposed to wear one in a Coles but I'm sweet to go to the pub
-
@siam said in Coronavirus - Australia:
You might have to rethink that statement mate. Or not, up to you.๐
You first
Muddyriver said:
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - Australia:
transmission is not significantly reduced by vaccines
I disagreed, based on the medical evidence stating that transmission is reduced in vaccinated persons. From this link at RACGP quoting a British study:
In April, Public Health England reported the results of a large study of COVID-19 transmission involving more than 365,000 households with a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated members.
It found immunisation with either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine reduced the chance of onward virus transmission by 40โ60%. This means that if someone became infected after being vaccinated, they were only around half as likely to pass their infection on to others compared to infected people who were not vaccinated.
Significant, no?
The article goes on to an Israeli study about why infection is reduced. It is an interesting read.
The CDC are perfectly correct when they say: "If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with the Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others."
Well of course. No vaccine is 100% effective, and there will always be breakthrough infections for whatever reason.
-
A very personal opinion, but I genuinely don't care if the unvaxxed are more likely to spread this or not. I chose to get vaxxed to protect myself if I got it, and more so, to "earn my freedoms back" (๐คข).
But I'm genuinely not worried about catching it, and I have zero issue with hanging with unvaxxed people (and am actively doing so in their homes).
Time to get back to life and treat people with different views the same again.
-
@nta well you have near fully 100% fully eligible vaccination rate in that irish town, with the highest spread in the country, so obviously the 40-60% is not significant enough to alter real world results.
as i said there is a whole heap of studies saying a whole lot of things. In that case look at whats actually happening.
There is a study right there saying no there has been no effect on global transmisson and specualtes even higher in the higher vaxed communities.
-
My hope is that soon we will get back to normal where we donโt consider someone infectious just because. When we were not gripped with fear we went to the Dr. because something was wrong. I think the asymptomatic transfer assumption has gone too far. How long before you give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt instead of โIโm feeling great but you might have Covidโ? Under normal circumstances a physician would prescribe you meds for delusion if you said you were asymptomatic but might have a disease.
Well I think I have shot my wad on Covid. In the states there appears to be a point of equilibrium where those who are worried are wearing masks and staying away from people and others are living their lives. Iโm happy with this but winter is coming.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
quick, and genuine question, because i don't know the answer
why is there still a focus on QR check-in when the vax rates are really high? Will they still be attempting to trace every case? will positive cases still be isolated?
Guy in my team just got the message that he's a close contact from a venue 4 days ago. Has to get tested then isolate for 7 days from expose date then no high-risk spots for a further 7 days after that.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
quick, and genuine question, because i don't know the answer
why is there still a focus on QR check-in when the vax rates are really high? Will they still be attempting to trace every case? will positive cases still be isolated?
Guy in my team just got the message that he's a close contact from a venue 4 days ago. Has to get tested then isolate for 7 days from expose date then no high-risk spots for a further 7 days after that.
What?? Why? You fluffybunnies are vaxed as fuck!!
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
quick, and genuine question, because i don't know the answer
why is there still a focus on QR check-in when the vax rates are really high? Will they still be attempting to trace every case? will positive cases still be isolated?
Guy in my team just got the message that he's a close contact from a venue 4 days ago. Has to get tested then isolate for 7 days from expose date then no high-risk spots for a further 7 days after that.
What?? Why? You fluffybunnies are vaxed as fuck!!
Yeah, crazy. As someone pointed out today, NSW as a state is> 90%, when you adjust for Byron and similar, the City of Sydney must be 95% easy
-
@muddyriver said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@nta well you have near fully 100% fully eligible vaccination rate in that irish town, with the highest spread in the country, so obviously the 40-60% is not significant enough to alter real world results.
I'm not about to discount evidence, but then I'm not about to use it as the rule of thumb based on a single population either, where ~24% of the population is ineligible for the vaccine and therefore about a quarter of people don't have any form of pharmacological protection. Is there a breakdown of cases by age?
Would be interesting to see the Irish history measured against lockdown measures, particularly for schools. Is there something environmental that causes this region of Ireland to be 3 times higher than the national average? Ireland isn't a big place, after all.
One of the Irish medicos says their national situation is partly down to timing:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/1014/1253744-covid-ireland-latest/
Professor Philip Nolan from NPHET said Delta had already seeded in this country when our vaccination roll-out got under way.
He said: "Ireland is a young country - the median age of our population is 38, compared to 47 in Italy, for example.
"So we got this huge wave of Delta among younger people who had not yet had the vaccine, whereas the incidence rate in other countries at the time was much lower.
"We are where we are now [with high incidence levels] because of where we started on our vaccination journey."Another in that article is pointing at the high rates of travel with the UK which has much higher infection rates, so there is an external factor at play that they need to consider.
Freedom of movement could be statistically significant if you're trying to analyse a regional population. Some will have more movement than others.
The NCBI article you quote where infection rates in e.g. Vietnam remain low, despite low vax rates. High population density in certain areas so you'd expect infection rates to be high ordinarily. The anecdotal evidence suggests warmer climates restrict transmission to a degree, so perhaps that is also a factor. What's the travel factor in Vietnam both internally and externally? How different is it compared to Ireland? Are their neighbouring states seeing the same results?
I see Vietnam's cases are back on the increase, having peaked in early September then dipped. Only talking thousands in a population of near 100M tho, which is quite something. Got to wonder if case reporting standards are up with other nations.
Note: The quote from the Lancet isn't quite saying "no effect on household". It states that viral load in breakthrough infections - i.e. those that do manage to get infected despite vaccination - is no different to those who are unvaccinated. It makes no mention of increase or decrease, probably because any form of study at that level is too granular to show rate of change.
The last stats I saw for the 0-18 cohort in Australia represented about 25% of cases in Australia - the 50+ bracket was just under 20% for the same period. I'll be keen to see what happens as each hemisphere hits winter.