Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by Tombie

In mining. Yep... and Scaffolding.

Good reply. Looks like Covid may effect the sense of humour.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Actually would have been good if the reaction was as quick here in Melbourne when we were at the same point many many months ago.

6 days would be much preferable to almost 4 months of lockdown followed by a long wait for all the state borders to re-open again.

I really do hope the SA approach works and becomes a model for how to manage the situation quickly.

Melbourne was proof that you can't isolate specific suburbs, you have to do the whole thing. The intention of locking down Wyndham was to try to avoid a wholesale lockdown and it turned out that it couldn't be done.

Most of the restrictions they've imposed are from the Melbourne playbook but in some cases actually a bit stricter - no exercise permitted.

Originally Posted by 4bee

By the time the NRL got their cut there wouldn't have been much in it for you bob.

Naah, I'm a softie, I would have given the blue ones away out of pity.

Lockdown for 6 days for a testing and tracing blitz. Way to go, I reckon.


South Australia to 'pause for six days' with COVID lockdown

New Pfizer Results: Coronavirus Vaccine Is Safe and 95% Effective - The New York Times

i find it funny that we dont know everything about the virus, as you posted earlier, but the vaccine is completely safe.
how can it be safe if we dont know everything about it...

Originally Posted by Eevo

i find it funny that we dont know everything about the virus, as you posted earlier, but the vaccine is completely safe.
how can it be safe if we dont know everything about it...

I don't think even the makers have claimed the vaccine is completely safe. The actual data has yet to be assessed by the independent that has been nominated to do so, let alone peer reviewed and published. And nobody has ever claimed that any vaccine or treatment of any kind is completely safe. The requirement for any treatment or vaccine to be approved should be (and generally is) to show that there is a high probability of the treatment or vaccine to be much less dangerous than the condition or disease, taking into account the probability of infection (in this case of an infectious disease) and the probability of outcome of this infection compared with the side effects, their seriousness and probability of the vaccine.

The big unknown that both manufacturers and regulators worry about is rare but very serious side effects that only affect particular categories of patient. For example, I think it was the vaccine for either SARS or MERS that was withdrawn after several small children suffered very severe side effects when, after being successfully vaccinated, they were infected by the disease.

Originally Posted by Eevo

i find it funny that we dont know everything about the virus, as you posted earlier, but the vaccine is completely safe.
how can it be safe if we dont know everything about it...

No vaccine or drug is completely safe, you know this mate

Every drug and vaccine has contraindications, some people will react in some way, but doesn't the fact we don't know everything about the virus indicate a decent vaccine is even more important to have so that people don't have to suffer the unknown effects of the virus?