Covid Mk ll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tote

Probably because of the cautious and risk averse nature of the medical industry and that the consistent line that prior to Delta children weren’t impacted by Covid.
Common vaccines that are administered to children target childhood diseases, hopefully the necessary research and approvals will start to be done soon

Regards
Tote

---

I can't agree. I do not think the medical industry is responsible, I think it is basically the fault of the poor state of science education in this country over many years, and the scientific illiteracy of the vast majority of both state and federal politicians, backed by the "short termism" of their financial advisers, staffed by MBAs, together with the lack of leadership shown by politicians of all ilks who are not prepared, even in a crisis, to put their sworn duty ahead of their perceived re-election prospects.

It isn't about children, - even if you exclude them is there any reason why we should not aim for a vaccination rate that is comparable to what we have achieved for childhood illnesses? And since we have effectively made these mandatory for children and also made various vaccinations mandatory for some circumstances, including for entry into Australia from some locations (and have done so for over a hundred years), why on earth is it not extended to the current crisis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Of all your attempts to downplay the seriousness of COVID-19, this one is the clearest demonstration that either, you simply don't understand the situation and will post anything that you think supports your beliefs or that you are deliberately spreading misinformation.

It is ludicrous to think that it is valid to compare the number of deaths from the flu in 2017 with the number of deaths from COVID-19. In 2017 there were no lockdowns, no contact tracing, no masks, no social distancing, no border closures, and no public health messages about limiting the spread of the virus.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that the reason our deaths from COVID are relatively low is because we implemented prevention measures? If you want a more valid comparison then compare the 2017 flu deaths with places that imposed restrictions closer to what was in place in 2017.

One example would be Florida; similar population to Australia and almost 42,000 deaths.

Another would be South Dakota; 2,325 deaths per million compared with 38 per million in Australia.

If we were handling COVID the same way we handled the flu in 2017, there are good reasons to think that Australia could have had somewhere between 42,000 and 58,000 deaths.

Don't you think it is time you stopped spreading misinformation? It is clear you either don't understand or that you are deliberately spreading lies.

---

The only people who are of the opinion (because that is all it is) that Covid 19 is about as serious as the Flu are people who refuse to accept the fact (because that is what it is) that Covid is far worse. What troubles me deeply is the small but (thanks to social media) growing number of people who believe our top medicos, scientists etc have all got it wrong. Words fail me. For that to occur it means such people are being hoodwinked...by what a whole world order run but pizza ordering US Democrats and vax makers? Come on let's get real people. Cheers

Anti-intellectualism is not the domain of the US anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov on January 21, 1980 in Newsweek

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I can't agree. I do not think the medical industry is responsible, I think it is basically the fault of the poor state of science education in this country over many years, and the scientific illiteracy of the vast majority of both state and federal politicians, backed by the "short termism" of their financial advisers, staffed by MBAs, together with the lack of leadership shown by politicians of all ilks who are not prepared, even in a crisis, to put their sworn duty ahead of their perceived re-election prospects.

It isn't about children, - even if you exclude them is there any reason why we should not aim for a vaccination rate that is comparable to what we have achieved for childhood illnesses? And since we have effectively made these mandatory for children and also made various vaccinations mandatory for some circumstances, including for entry into Australia from some locations (and have done so for over a hundred years), why on earth is it not extended to the current crisis?

---

Well said. Suddenly the narrative has shifted from get the numbers down, then manage the virus with vaccinations and safe practice, to open up at all costs, no matter what the hospitalisations or deaths. And gambling with children's lives ? Unthinkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Well said. Suddenly the narrative has shifted from get the numbers down, then manage the virus with vaccinations and safe practice, to open up at all costs, no matter what the hospitalisations or deaths. And gambling with children's lives ? Unthinkable.

---

I don't think it has been sudden. I have noticed it in the Aust media for a few weeks now, subtly inserting itself into the dialog. It is even starting to appear from our leaders over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by windsock

I don't think it has been sudden. I have noticed it in the Aust media for a few weeks now, subtly inserting itself into the dialog. It is even starting to appear from our leaders over here.

---

Upon reflection you are right. Could it be that Boris has set the agenda?

Has anyone read an explanation anywhere of why the NSW Govt has again refused to consider the Qld proposal to move the border checkpoint to the Tweed bridge, so Tweed residents would be inside the checkpoint and not have to go through it every day?
It seems logical to me, and it would certainly make life easier for Tweed residents north of the river who work in Qld.
I haven't read any statement of why it hasn't been accepted by NSW. Just curious.

Hi,
Another example of arbitary lines on a map losing relevance with time.
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Has anyone read an explanation anywhere of why the NSW Govt has again refused to consider the Qld proposal to move the border checkpoint to the Tweed bridge, so Tweed residents would be inside the checkpoint and not have to go through it every day?
It seems logical to me, and it would certainly make life easier for Tweed residents north of the river who work in Qld.
I haven't read any statement of why it hasn't been accepted by NSW. Just curious.

---

Because it would benefit Qld and disadvantage NSW I would imagine, All of the services in Tweed Heads would be unavailable to the NSW residents in the area at the whim of the Qld Government. The same approach could be asked of Qld why they do not allow a "border bubble" as the ACT and Victoria have done. Again, a lack of control from Qld on who enters their state being the answer there (not that I'm saying that is necessarily bad).
As an example of the potential complications moving the border south would put Tweed heads hospital in a zone that Qld would demand be isolated in the event of an outbreak. A NSW resident in Kingscliff needs to access the facilities and would not be able to under the current Qld restrictions. Not to mention the legality of Qld attempting to enforce a closed border on NSW soil. Another example using the Hospital would be that NSW funds the staff at the hospital and those staff would be being paid for by a state that cannot access the services they provide. A very big can of worms.
Barilaro did dismiss the idea as being too legally complex to implement.

Regards,
Tote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I can't agree. I do not think the medical industry is responsible, I think it is basically the fault of the poor state of science education in this country over many years, and the scientific illiteracy of the vast majority of both state and federal politicians, backed by the "short termism" of their financial advisers, staffed by MBAs, together with the lack of leadership shown by politicians of all ilks who are not prepared, even in a crisis, to put their sworn duty ahead of their perceived re-election prospects.

It isn't about children, - even if you exclude them is there any reason why we should not aim for a vaccination rate that is comparable to what we have achieved for childhood illnesses? And since we have effectively made these mandatory for children and also made various vaccinations mandatory for some circumstances, including for entry into Australia from some locations (and have done so for over a hundred years), why on earth is it not extended to the current crisis?

---

I thought we were aiming for a vaccine rate that is as close to 100% as possible, the NSW premier has certainly stated that on a number of occasions. The 70% and 80% numbers are simply the targets that the government has set to allow restrictions to lift. There is no approved vaccine available for children under 12 and the FDA has only approved 12-15 year olds for the Pfizer vaccine as an emergency measure. This is a very different situation to the childhood vaccines such as Rubella, Diphtheria etc that are given to kids under 4.
Australia is not beholden to the FDA and there is nothing to stop us from vaccinating younger people with Pfizer but it's pretty unlikely.
I think we will find that Covid vaccination will become "effectively mandatory" for everyone over the age of 15 within the next 12 months or so but vaccine supply is still an issue that is being battled and I suggest that there is a balancing act going on between vaccine supply, vaccination logistics and getting people through the door. Registration for vaccination for 16 - 40 year olds on the 30th of August.

Regards,
Tote