Covid Mk ll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradC

So in areas where things are actually under control, why would you potentially compromise your outcomes in order to speed things up?

---

Do you really think ATAGI would bring things forward if it were potentially compromise outcomes and health of the populations - definitely not. (might happen at the political level but not the health level) For sure the efficacy is not quite as high but there is little in it and not a safety concern.

Try not to over dramatise these minor issue as the whole pandemic is evolving and decisions made weeks ago may need tweaking in light of new information.

I don’t see a conundrum

Slow controlled and gradual slide into the sewer when the jab rate is high enough is what is being aimed for in most states

Much rather that than whats occurred in nsw

The vast majority of businesses have adapted to the new normal up here and much of the states tourism is chugging along okay

Sure there are those that cannot adapt but they are in the minority

Hopefully we can hang in there till the time is right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Do you really think ATAGI would bring things forward if it were potentially compromise outcomes and health of the populations - definitely not.

---

No, I don't. What I do believe is they'd compromise on a reduced efficacy vs "death by COVID" in areas where R > 1. The clinical trials said 12 weeks, less than that is a compromise. In places where there is no community transmission, why compromise?

The original spacing for pfizer was 6 weeks, now reduced to 3 to "hurry things along".

I'm not over-dramatizing, I'm going on the original clinical trials and the published information. The fact that things are evolving "in light of new information" doesn't change the efficacy trial data, it just means "speed things up so we can try and stop people dying because a couple of weeks is probably almost as good as 12".

I re-quote : "In non-outbreak settings, the preferred interval between doses of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca remains at 12 weeks."

I heard on the radio the NZ Warriors are setting up a training base at Redcliffe north of Brisbane for the 2022 NRL season, so they might as assume there won't be a travel bubble with NZ next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I heard on the radio the NZ Warriors are setting up a training base at Redcliffe north of Brisbane for the 2022 NRL season, so they might as assume there won't be a travel bubble with NZ next year.

---

After what was downloaded in the last bubble I think not.

They are rewriting our opening plan to account for Delta and have learned from the bubble bursting the way it did...

Edit: 13 cases in NZ today.

Nothing odd about that, you're trying to see something that doesn't exist. Moving the base to Australia, home of the series, is simple, common sense. The travel bubble can be suspended at any time, if there is an outbreak either side of the Tasman. You're trying to sensationize an innocent precaution.

Victoria is also in need and should have received 82% of the NSW allocation on a population basis, but only got 63% and now their outbreak is exploding in Melbourne's north and Victoria is desperate for more Pfizer to stop it becoming as big a mess as in Sydney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

You need to keep up - yes the general policy is distribution in line with population but when the new shipments came in and because of the high infection rate in NSW, allocations (as explained by the SA Premier) of the extra vaccines were distributed where needed most but all States got some but in different proportions - these have to be transferred back from NSW through reduced allocations from Sep on.

Surely while the core allocations remained unchanged, it was necessary to allocate higher proportions of the Polish and Singaporean vaccines to jurisdiction in most need.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradC

No, I don't. What I do believe is they'd compromise on a reduced efficacy vs "death by COVID" in areas where R > 1.

---

In the ACT R < 1 and we have gone to the reduced double dose interval so it can be done elsewhere - if authorities were so inclined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Victoria is also in need and should have received 82% of the NSW allocation on a population basis, but only got 63% and now their outbreak is exploding in Melbourne's north and Victoria is desperate for more Pfizer to stop it becoming as big a mess as in Sydney.

---

Why is Sydney a mess - the actions there while not perfect have kept infections far, far lower than the original modelling showed - now has settled at around 1500 a day rather than the predicted thousands and thousands per day - while it has been hard to reduce infections they have been able to check its expected growth. Not a perfect outcome but far better than what was modelled.

NT has now opened up Pfizer to everyone so maybe they should send some of their excess Pfizer to Vic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS;[URL="tel:3108419"

3108419[/URL]]You need to keep up - yes the general policy is distribution in line with population but when the new shipments came in and because of the high infection rate in NSW, allocations (as explained by the SA Premier) of the extra vaccines were distributed where needed most but all States got some but in different proportions - these have to be transferred back from NSW through reduced allocations from Sep on.

Surely while the core allocations remained unchanged, it was necessary to allocate higher proportions of the Polish and Singaporean vaccines to jurisdiction in most need.

---

All jurisdictions in Australia are equally in need of vaccination supply. Anything other than equal distribution is political