Hopefully a working vaccine can be approved and mass produced before then.
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/health-safety/…
Good luck to Bain Capital, the Queensland Gov. and Qantas.
Maybe time to add to shorts on FLT & QAN?
No International Travel till Late 2021
mrvaluepack on 07/10/2020 - 16:57
Last edited 07/10/2020 - 16:58
Last edited 07/10/2020 - 16:58
Comments
@mrvaluepack: Yeah I got the memory of a duck these days. :) My point still stands though. It's so close to 0% that it hardly matters, at least not when compared to what the guvnuts are doing to us on that basis.
at least not when compared to what the guvnuts are doing to us on that basis
I'm afraid you're not any better.
@EightImmortals: Would you take a flight on an airline that has a crash 1 in every 200 take offs?
That sounds like a pretty dangerous airline, and one I would avoid.
@EightImmortals: 0.5% case fatality rate is the same as 1 in 200.
For what it is worth, the CDC numbers you linked assume a great deal of people get the illness but never get a confirmed diagnosis. We don't have good figures at all on whether these numbers are true for COVID-19, which is why they modelled 5 different scenarios. All of their scenarios assume many more people will have the disease than will ever be diagnosed (and will get better).
I think this may be more superficially reasonable in the USA, but in Australia, where we are much more likely to identify a sick person, our fatality rate is much the same, so I suspect their IFR numbers in those models are extremely optimistic. For example, if those numbers were true, it would mean something like a million Australians must have had COVID to get the death rate we have - it seems inconceivable this is true considering the amount of testing we have done.
In Australia, about 1 in 30 people who are confirmed with the disease die, and in the USA, it is about 1 in 35. Many more older people than younger die, but that is a bit of a red herring, as there doesn't seem to be any effective way to stop old people catching it if younger people are infected.
But these are harrowing death numbers, so need to be avoided.
@mrvaluepack: Actually what are you talking about?
From the CDC link: 0-19 years old 0.00003% 20-49 years old 0.0002 50-69 years old 0.005
@EightImmortals: You added the % symbol.
Those are numbers are factors not percentages.
You need to multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage.
@EightImmortals: I strongly urger people to look up the death rates per infection per country.
Clowns here are cherry-picking percentages which reflect a lower death rate in the US than the current death tally against the entire population of the US.
Seriously, just read the info for yourselves instead of spreading around the nonsense posted here.
@[Deactivated]: You mean this infection fatality rate?
TL;DR WHO (accidently) admits covid 19 is no more dangerous than the the flu.
@EightImmortals: Thanks for posting. This is the exact type of misinformation I am talking about, where selective statistics are being used to distort the situation. Your link (from off-guardian.org, I suggest people google about that "news" website) doesn't even make an effort. I anticipate you won't accept this countering but for those reading who may be inclined to take your word for it …
COVID v Influenza…
1.1 million deaths from COVID this year, despite the unprecedented preventative measures taking place globally (northern hemisphere yet to enter winter too).
Influenza kills between 290k and 646k worldwide annually, with no preventative measures taking place globally.
The Australian death rate from COVID 19 is 3%. 904 deaths from 25,041 reported cases.
The Australian death rate from Influenza (last national calculation available is 2018) was 0.2%. 125 death from 58,847 lab reported casesNone of this is subjective, this is all objectively true. Again I urge anyone to verify this for themselves before just repeating what I or anyone else is saying.
And on a personal note, does anyone remember the corpses being piled up from COVID in Italy earlier this year? Do you recall this happening in any western country due to a flu outbreak in recent times? Do you recall Nursing Homes being decimated from the Flu as they have been from COVID in many areas where it got in?
For the sake of common deceny please refrain from spreading misinformation about COVID just to appear to be the big man online. This blatantly untrue information could result in lives being lost.
@[Deactivated]: So how about some links to 'your' faked numbers?
And all what corpses? Do you mean more rubbery figures from the usual suspects or do you have any evidence that the global death rate is any higher this year than in any other year? Stop spreading fake news.
Week Number of Deaths 2019 Number of Deaths 2020
1 58,291 59,087
2 58,351 59,151
3 58,194 57,616
4 57,837 57,000
5 58,128 56,426
6 58,492 56,962
7 57,917 55,981
8 57,858 55,494
9 57,920 54,834
10 58,490 54,157
11 57,872 52,198
12 57,087 51,602
13 56,672 52,285
14 56,595 49,292
15 55,477 47,574
TOTAL 865,181 819,659We are told that 37,308 people have died this year from COVID-19 through April 18, yet actually 45,522 fewer people have died this year than last year during the same period of time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109281/covid-19-daily-d…
"904 deaths from 25,041 reported cases."
Now…..how many of those 904 deaths were not at end of life? Not many from what I can tell. And 25041 "reported cases" but given we know the tests are not accurate in the least (as admitted by the TGA and others) then those numbers mean NOTHING and simply being fabricated as a tool to induce fear in the gullible. This is the biggest scam the world has seen in a long long time and if you don't believe me the USE YOUR OWN EYES then tell me how many sick people you know? I don't know any and either do any of the MANY people I have asked. Why are literally thousands of doctors and scientists being censored by the social media and MSM for speaking the truth? I suggest if anyone is still believing this BS to turn off the TV go outside (if you are allowed to) and get some sun and fresh air and then try to convince me there is a 'pandemic' sweeping the globe. It's not there folks, it's one giant con.
@EightImmortals: Yawn.
You accept the stats I have provided are true. You can spin this nonsense and post links from conspiracy theory websites all you want. Your claims that COVID is merely as dangerous as the Flu is blatantly untrue. The simple statistics in the public domain highlight that it is complete and utter nonsense.
Frankly you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this garbage here. I can only speculate as to what would drive you to it.
As for my own eyes, I know people who have been sick and have died from this. We're quite sheltered from the realities of COVID because of the proactive measures which have taken place in Australia. You're a disgrace.
@[Deactivated]: Har-har, as I thought, all hot air and no facts.
And why should I favour your conspiracy websites? (Not that you've posted any information to back up your rant), with the amount of censorship going on then the alt news site and the only place to get anywhere near the truth. You sound like an apologist for the government and the actions which have literally cased and are causing way more harm than any alleged virus.
@EightImmortals: This is tin-foil hat garbage.
I genuinely hope, for your sake, that you are a child.
I’ll leave you to argue with yourself. Anyone with half a brain can see you for what you are.
this is nothing but absolute totalitarian control
This doesn't add up. It would be totalitarian control if someone literally threw you in prison for not vaccinating. That's not the case at all. You are free to not vaccinate yourself.
No vax, no fly
You do not have an inherent right to fly. You do not have the right to force any airline to carry you, nor do you have any right for another country to issue you a visa or allow you into their country.
Either countries are allowed to control their borders, i.e. they can choose who they wish to allow in or not, or it's a free-for-all where people can go anywhere they want. Border controls are already implemented for all sorts of arbitrary reasons. In fact, you can be refused entry to most (perhaps all?) countries for no reason at all.
Basically the long and short of it is that you have an inconsistent position and you're being purposefully dumb if you can't see that. You have the freedom to not vaccinate yourself. Airlines have the freedom to kick you off the plane. Other countries have the freedom to not issue you a visa. Where exactly are your rights being curtailed? Please do explain.
There are other ways that just chucking people in jail to assert totalitarianism. Look at what Victorians are suffering under if they simply don't wear a mask? What will happen if they refuse a dodgy vaccine?
What will happen if they refuse a dodgy vaccine?
Some countries won’t allow them in.
Funny how this whole debate reminds me of those Americans spitting chips because countries like Australia won’t allow them to bring their guns for a holiday. They think that’s totalitarianism…
Funny how this whole debate reminds me of those Americans spitting chips because countries like Australia won’t allow them to bring their guns for a holiday. They think that’s totalitarianism…
Agreed - some people don't seem to understand that freedom goes both ways. Don't the people of other countries have the freedom to not allow in individuals who they deem to be a risk to their health (i.e. national security)?
I would have thought the pro-freedom argument would be to argue for the right of self determination for a country and the right for it to set its own rules. Except whoops, apparently border controls for us are freedom, but border controls for others impinge on our freedom. Can't reason with some people.
You do not have an inherent right to fly.
According to Section 117 of the Australian constitution, the Federal government does not have the right to prohibit you from leaving the country nor do states have the right to enforce hard border closures.
If you want to speak of rights, learn where yours begin.
@Gnostikos: We are not talking about your right to leave a country, we are talking about entering a foreign country, which you obviously do not have the right to do. Stop being silly.
@p1 ama: Your wording is silly. You're implying airlines are governments that have the legal basis to discriminate against travelers the same way governments do. They don't.
It's a matter entirely between Australian citizens and the states they wish to enter; the Australian government shouldn't enter into the conversation, however that is exactly the way the matter is being framed by our government.
Right now, you need an exemption from the Department of Home Affairs to leave the country and the exemption criteria is incredibly narrow, with around only 1 in 5 exemption applications being approved.
Most of the EU (who suffered far higher case numbers and fatalities) is already allowing travel between their member states; I have relatives in Europe that already went on their summer holidays to several different countries within the EU and were only slightly inconvenienced by having to submit to testing on their return home and self-quarantining for 2 weeks.
The chasm between Australia's perception of COVID and the actual impact of COVID on this country is the actual problem. We're at 897 deaths, 800 of those Victoria, 580 of those 800 being in aged care, with the majority coming from just 10 aged care facilities and we're expecting all of Australia to live like Warsaw ghetto residents in WW2 for the next few years to ward off what doesn't even rate as statistical noise in the average annual deaths of elderly people?
The only "inconsistent position" here, is that.
You're implying airlines are governments that have the legal basis to discriminate against travelers the same way governments do. They don't.
They actually do. They are a private business and can choose who they wish to allow to fly. People have been thrown off planes for various reasons including inappropriate jokes, to the plane being full, to them needing to carry important people, to disorderly conduct…etc.
Anyway, this is silly and beyond the scope of the original discussion. I actually agree with you that the Australian government should not be barring people from leaving and that its only business is to protect entry, so I'm not exactly sure what you're jumping up and down about.
People have been thrown off planes for various reasons including inappropriate jokes, to the plane being full, to them needing to carry important people, to disorderly conduct…etc.
Throwing someone off a plane for being physically violent is not remotely equivalent to not allowing a traveler to fly because they refuse to submit to forcible medical intervention and a violation of their bodily autonomy.
You seem fond of speaking about rights, so familiarise yourself with the rulings of the Nuremberg trials post-WW2 and the concept of "informed consent" which was enshrined in the rulings of the military tribunals and the subsequently-created ICC, which Australia is party to, along with the UN's UDHR which we've also ratified and which explicitly outlines freedom of movement, thought and freedom from discrimination on the basis of political/moral reasons.
Espousing the idea that someone has to undergo a medical procedure or they lose certain fundamental human rights like freedom of movement, is the height of totalitarian overreach.
I actually agree with you that the Australian government should not be barring people from leaving and that its only business is to protect entry
It is barring people from leaving Australia right now and has been since February this year.
Australia citizens and PRs cannot leave Australia currently unless the Federal government signs off on their wish.
How long that'll be in place for is utterly arbitrary. It's exactly what people behind the Iron Curtain were subject to.What good is a right without an easily accessible and widely-available means with which to exercise it?
"Oh you're free to leave… if you can" is basically some cultish doublespeak to give the illusion of choice.
so I'm not exactly sure what you're jumping up and down about.
The fact that you're dangerously ignorant?
Your absolutist position that anyone who dares question the official narrative of an issue of national significance must then be deprived of certain rights and treated like a second-class citizen is the basis for every reprehensibly tyrannical form of government that's existed in the past 100 years.
The tyranny is well underway here and thanks to the unquestioning obedience of apathetic zombies such as yourself, will only mushroom to astronomical proportions because of the sadly misguided belief that "muh lucky country" could never turn into a dystopian sh*thole.
Throwing someone off a plane for being physically violent is not remotely equivalent to not allowing a traveler to fly because they refuse to submit to forcible medical intervention and a violation of their bodily autonomy.
Sigh, we've gone through this. You're just being dense. You have the right to not take the vaccine, an airline has the right to refuse you service. Isn't this the definition of freedom, you're free to do what you want, they're free to do whatever they want? End of story.
If you are saying that airlines should be forced to take a particular passenger which they deem to be a health risk to their other passengers, then that is quite literally the antithesis of freedom. What about the rights of the airline staff and crew? What about the rights of the other passengers to not be exposed?
I'm not advocating for anyone being forced to take a vaccine, so quit jumping up and down already. The issue I have with "muh freedom" people is that it's always freedom for them, not others. You do not have the right to force anybody to sell you something, offer you any service. It is not illegal to choose not to vaccinate, nor would I support it to be any sort of legal requirement.
The tyranny is well underway here and thanks to the unquestioning obedience of apathetic zombies such as yourself, will only mushroom to astronomical proportions because of the sadly misguided belief that "muh lucky country" could never turn into a dystopian sh*thole.
Oh man, I can't even. You are one strange guy my friend.
If you are saying that airlines should be forced to take a particular passenger which they deem to be a health risk to their other passengers
Taking a passenger without a disease isn't the same as taking someone who isn't vaccinated.
then that is quite literally the antithesis of freedom.
Just because someone is pro-freedom, it doesn't mean they think everything should be completely unrestricted.. You'd probably think they disagree with every single law.
What about the rights of the airline staff and crew? What about the rights of the other passengers to not be exposed?
Exposed to what? If the person actually has covid, I wouldn't be against not allowing them to board the plane.
Sigh, we've gone through this.
You're the one who brought up rights genius, stop throwing your weight around on subjects you have no clue about if this is all so tiring and difficult for you.
I'm not advocating for anyone being forced to take a vaccine, so quit jumping up and down already.
That's precisely the ultimate objective here and no amount of plugging your ears and going "la la la lucky country" will make that stark reality go away.
Scott Morrison's exact words were, and I quote: "It will be as mandatory as you could possibly make it", which he then retracted after realising he gave the real agenda away.
The path to that objective will be an incremental approach starting with carrot and stick measures like withholding Centrelink benefits and making vaccination a requirement of entry to restaurants, cinemas and other hospitality sector businesses along with denying overseas travel, which has already been openly discussed as a foregone conclusion, and then progressing to excluding vaccine objectors from participating in society at large by denying them the right to find a job, the right to housing and the right to travel freely (to the point of leaving their homes) without submitting to vaccination.
Actual "COVID camps" or quarantine detention facilities where those who refuse vaccination and/or COVID testing could be held indefinitely are something numerous Western governments have floated including states in the US, Canada and New Zealand.
Again, if you're paying attention, no one is saying this will be an overnight change but the goals have been crystal clear from the beginning.
You can be as naive and cognitively dissonant as you like if that softens the blow of realising you live in a country that doesn't rate a mention on the barometer for true personal freedom, but the fact still stands.
It is not illegal to choose not to vaccinate, nor would I support it to be any sort of legal requirement.
That's the aim here Sherlock. You're a bit slow on the uptake and despite your assertions you don't support legally-mandated vaccines, you certainly do support the "out of sight, out of mind", complete marginalisation policy for anyone who doesn't give in to federal ultimatums on forcible medical intervention, which is a level of discrimination that again, the world collectively agreed was wrong after WW2.
an airline has the right to refuse you service. Isn't this the definition of freedom, you're free to do what you want, they're free to do whatever they want? End of story.
Businesses already cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, racial/ethnic identity, gender and any other number of inalienable factors that are protected by various constitutional provisions.
An airline is not in a position to deem anyone a health risk, again that's going to be the responsibility of some level of government to have the final say on the matter and the government would be contradicting its own high-faluting principles, UN accords/treaties and constitutional provisions by doing so.
Australia's an island nation; you can't exactly get up and walk to the nearest neighbouring sovereign state and if we as a country are going to invest wholesale into this neo-liberalist idea of a globalised, interconnected world that is the basis for our entire economy and thus livelihood as a country, then you can't have it both ways and deny people the right to participate in this globalised world because doing so is effectively condemning them to non-existence.
Travel is no longer a luxury nor only for tourism. It's a fundamental way of life now for millions of people, including many Australians. Families would be permanently separated, marriages ruined, businesses destroyed, entire categories of jobs made redundant and lives irrevocably changed by banning overseas flights in this manner.
Denying ease of overseas travel is akin to denying the freedom of expression, speech, religious observance and other existential principles.
You're absurdly reductionist, black-and-white thinking is hallmark of a typical coddled Australian who has no concept of what it means to lose such rights nor to have to struggle mightily to earn them.
The issue I have with "muh freedom" people is that it's always freedom for them, not others.
I love how you reduce the entire point of human existence to some kind of fad or political trend.
Freedom is the only thing that matters and it matters more than the collective good, the lives of the elderly, whatever the rest of the world is doing and whatever emotive, strawman arguments you can come up with.
You are one strange guy my friend.
Because I have conviction in certain existential principles I know… to the average Australian that's as alien as goose-stepping wholeheartedly into a dictatorship; kind of like what the collective masses are doing right now.
@Gnostikos: I'm just going to conclude that you like to point out obvious points and make it sound like you came up with some genius point. Okay, I'll let you have your moment in the sun.
I'll just say this, you're not as edgy as you think you are. Most of what you're saying is popular opinion and common sense. I haven't met anyone who supports "COVID camps" or stopping people from leaving their homes if they aren't vaccinated or any other insane things you're bringing up. You're saying things which 99%+ of the population already agrees with. That doesn't make you unique or edgy.
Freedom is the only thing that matters and it matters more than the collective good, the lives of the elderly, whatever the rest of the world is doing and whatever emotive, strawman arguments you can come up with.
Sure, why don't you go live in a jungle somewhere and hunt for your own food. See how great "freedom" is when you end up getting eaten by a tiger for breakfast.
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe in the so-called "collective good", but you need society to define certain rules such that the most freedom can be maintained.
As an example, should you have the freedom to kill someone? Or should someone have the freedom to live? Should you have the freedom to blast loud music late at night, or should someone have the freedom to peace and quiet? Should you have the freedom to go around with a dangerous and/or infectious disease, or should someone have the right to be protected from disease?
On each of these issues, there is a role for government to play to draw up where the freedom of one person ends and the freedom of another person begins. If you are thinking of it in terms of "freedom" vs. "no freedom", then you are just reducing a very complex issue to a binary state.
@Gnostikos: Your reading comprehension is very poor if you construed p1 ama's comment that way. Their point was that airlines have the right to refuse service (like almost any business), if a passenger doesn't comply with their safety rules.
Haha
They had better not attempt to force the vaccine for international travel.
FWIW, I hope they do. It's no different than having to be vaccinated to be able to attend school or to do certain jobs. If someone wants to be an anti-science martyr, that's fine, they can have their freedom, but they can stay locked down just like how everyone had to stay locked down these past few months.
I really hope 2020 puts an end to all the anti-vax nonsense. All of the anti-vaxxers for so long have basically said that we don't need vaccines and the world would continue going round just fine. If this isn't evidence to the contrary, I don't know what is. End of discussion really.
I'm not an anti vaxxer. Quite the opposite. I'm an anti taking-things-that-are-rushed-out-by-the-lowest-bidder-with-no-idea-of-long-term-effectser.
I'm an anti taking-things-that-are-rushed-out-by-the-lowest-bidder-with-no-idea-of-long-term-effectser.
I wasn't addressing you as an individual, I'm addressing anti-vaxxers as a group. However, as I said, I respect your freedom - you can have the same freedoms that all of us have right now as "non-vaccinated" people.
@p1 ama: Anti vaxxers and people who don't want to take this covid vaccine are completely different. Not wanting to take a vaccine that has been proven safe over decades is silly. Not wanting to take something with NO idea of the long term effects is just common sense.
Not wanting to take a vaccine that has been proven safe over decades is silly.
That makes no sense. If nobody takes a vaccine that hasn't been proven safe over decades, then nobody would ever get vaccines at all. Unless you're just saying that you're scummy enough to make everyone else in society be the guinea pigs so you can leech off their herd immunity and their free "vaccine testing"?
@p1 ama: I suspect that, normally, vaccines get actual proper testing.
Another massive issue with this vaccine, is that it is for something that has very mild effects for the vast majority of people. Most of the people who die from Covid have multiple other issues. Very old age, or multiple major health problems. This information is freely available in the CDC stats. About 6% of the reported deaths in the US were from Covid only. The rest had an average of 2.5 or so co-morbidities.
I'm sure as hell not risking unknown long term effects for something I have an absolutely miniscule chance of dying from, it's just a very poor cost/benefit equation.
I suspect that, normally, vaccines get actual proper testing.
In your previous post, you said, and I quote "not wanting to take a vaccine that has been proven safe over decades is silly". So your definition of "actual proper testing" is that other people have been taking it for "decades", which by definition means 20+ years. Given that the overwhelming majority of people take new vaccines well before they've been around for 20 years, by your own definition, most people are silly.
I'm sure as hell not risking unknown long term effects for something I have an absolutely miniscule chance of dying from, it's just a very poor cost/benefit equation.
It's not at all actually. You talk about "cost/benefit", what analysis have you done to reach that conclusion?
I'm just curious because I'm an academic and I happen to be contributing analysis to a project right now that's looking at the cost/benefit analysis of economic shutdowns. Our team are currently looking into the effects of adding in a vaccine to our models and seeing what sort of vaccination rates would be required and how that distribution over time could affect the economy. If you have some great model you're using to come up with your conclusions, perhaps we could bring you onboard as a consultant.
@p1 ama: The analysis I have done is this. What are the odds of me dying of covid, exceedingly low. What are the odds of a bad side effect of a covid vaccine, unknown, but with how it's being rolled out, much more likely than me dying of covid. What rate of effectiveness will this vaccine have, talk of 70% or so.
Therefore, taking the vaccine has more risk to me than not taking it.
What are the odds of a bad side effect of a covid vaccine, unknown, but with how it's being rolled out, much more likely than me dying of covid.
Source?
But man, you've done some good quality analysis there. Maybe you should get it published in a peer-review journal. Who knows, you might get pretty far.
In all seriousness though, I think you're just seriously misguided in terms of your actual analysis. By the time that a vaccine becomes readily available, it would have already gone through significant testing, both for safety and efficacy. The actual risks of a vaccine of this sort are exceedingly low. Given your other statements on how the vaccine "modifies your DNA", I'd suggest actually learning the science before coming to an opinion.
The truth is that by the time you'll get it (whenever you choose to do), it would have already gone through extensive testing in clinical trials, emergency use authorisations for healthcare workers and other high-risk individuals. Look, I understand that you want to think you're tough and it doesn't affect you. That's fine, but at least understand that there are genuinely real victims. Not just old people, not just silly people or stupid people, but even people who are helping others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239175/
https://www.bmj.com/covid-memorialWhen you have the time, I strongly urge you to at least have a look at the second link which looks at all of the doctors who have died from COVID-19 in the UK, a country with one of the world's best healthcare systems. These are not old geriatrics. They come from all different specialties, all different race, age, gender. Some are still young - in their 40s and 50s.
I have friends who are doctors and all of them are eagerly awaiting the vaccine as even 70% protection is better than what they have now, where if there's an outbreak, they may genuinely be at risk. The truth is that COVID-19 has genuinely killed many people. Regardless of what you think about a vaccine, absolutely zero people have died from the hundreds of thousands that have participated in human trials so far.
These are the simple facts. Become informed and make your decisions. Don't be contrarian because that makes you feel smart.
@p1 ama: At no point whatsoever did I state that a vaccine "modifies your DNA". Stopped reading after that.
I sure hope your actual research is a lot more thorough than your reading.
Given you also argued about statistics, incorrectly (as admitted by you), with me in another thread, I have even more serious worries about the research being done on this.
At no point whatsoever did I state that a vaccine "modifies your DNA". Stopped reading after that.
I sure hope your actual research is a lot more thorough than your reading.Amazing that you'd refuse to read someone's post and immediately criticise the thoroughness of their reading ability.
Seems they confused your anti-vax sentiments for the anti-vax hysterics of another poster in this thread, but that alone doesn't invalidate the rest of their post.
And remaining defiantly ignorant doesn't validate your personal hunch about how medicine works.@crentist: Seems you also can't read. I'm not anti vax at all.
If I'm better at statistics than someone who does statistics "academically", that's a bit of a worry.
I also don't have a "personal hunch". On many occasions, years later, it has come out that certain things have caused very large problems for people. When things are rushed, they don't get checked properly, and corners are cut.
If I'm better at statistics than someone who does statistics "academically", that's a bit of a worry.
Well for someone who claims to be good at statistics, you haven't cited anything now.
I also don't have a "personal hunch". On many occasions, years later, it has come out that certain things have caused very large problems for people.
This is exactly a personal hunch.
"On many occasions" - on what occasions?
"It has come out" - how has it come out, who reported it, where was it reported?
"Certain things" - what are these certain things?
"very large problems" - what large problems?
When things are rushed, they don't get checked properly, and corners are cut.
What exactly do you mean by rushed?
What exactly are the "checks" that you think need to be done that are not being done?
What corners are being cut and how are those corners being cut?
Basically you're just throwing out word salad to defend your point of view. Your statement can be said as a response to anything.
"I don't drive cars". On many occasions, years later, it has come out that certain things have caused very large problems for people.
"I don't like dogs". On many occasions, years later, it has come out that certain things have caused very large problems for people.
"I don't use computers". On many occasions, years later, it has come out that certain things have caused very large problems for people.You've literally said nothing.
@p1 ama: Is it that hard to use google? Probably the most famous one is thalidomide. I personally think massive birth defects are a fairly large problem.
You're an "academic", use your brain. They don't even know what will be effective, let alone what any short or long term side effects will be. The $$$ are more important that worrying about silly things like that.
I will also reiterate again, as you, as well as some others, seem to have a very difficult time grasping the fact that I don't have a problem with vaccine. I don't have a problem with vaccines, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I have had all my vaccines, my kids have had all their vaccines. I will not, and they will not, be having an unknown, hastily produced vaccine, for something that has an infinitesimally small chance of causing them harm.
Is it that hard to use google?
The onus is not on me to do your research for you. You make a statement, you are the one who needs to come up with proof.
Probably the most famous one is thalidomide. I personally think massive birth defects are a fairly large problem.
Yes, that was a huge scandal. However, thalidomide is not a vaccine. That's like saying you're not going to drive a Hyundai i30 because Volkswagen had some dodgy DSGs. Don't be ridiculous.
Anyway, you've said "on many occasions", do you have any other examples? Just because you suspect something doesn't make it true.
The $$$ are more important that worrying about silly things like that.
Let me know if you want to have a chat to someone actually working on vaccines. Not this one specifically, but I'm sure he'll be able to answer any questions you might have on $$$ and on whether he thinks safety and efficacy are silly.
I will not, and they will not, be having an unknown, hastily produced vaccine, for something that has an infinitesimally small chance of causing them harm.
Okay, so can you explain to me what you consider to be "unknown" and what you consider to be "hastily produced"?
I agree with you that the disease has a small chance of causing harm. However, unfortunately, that is not the view of the broader public.
However, thalidomide is not a vaccine. That's like saying you're not going to drive a Hyundai i30 because Volkswagen had some dodgy DSGs. Don't be ridiculous.
I actually just came back to try to edit my comment to include that yes, while it is not a vaccine, it's simply an example of what can happen even after something has been declared "safe".
Anyway, you've said "on many occasions", do you have any other examples? Just because you suspect something doesn't make it true.
There are many things that were deemed safe, that turned out to cause birth defects. SSRIs are one. I'll try get a list of more tonight
Not this one specifically, but I'm sure he'll be able to answer any questions you might have on $$$ and on whether he thinks safety and efficacy are silly.
I'm sure he doesn't think safety and efficacy are silly, however when you have the pressure of the entire world trying to hurry things along, corners can be cut, and things can be missed.
Okay, so can you explain to me what you consider to be "unknown" and what you consider to be "hastily produced"?
It's completely unknown what would even be an effective vaccine. It's unknown if there are any short it long term side effects, as they don't know what it even is yet. Literally the entire thing is unknown at the moment. Hastily produced, because the first person/company to find anything that mildly resembles a vaccine, will be paid an enormous amount of money.
I agree with you that the disease has a small chance of causing harm. However, unfortunately, that is not the view of the broader public.
Then perhaps the solution, rather than rush something out and cause mass panic, is to actually educate people on the realistic risk?
In summary, the way I look at it is this:
I have something that is known, covid. I know approximately how dangerous it is. I know approximately how it is spread. I know that I am unlikely to catch it, and if I did, I am even more unlikely to get more than mild symptoms.
I have an unknown, the vaccine. I don't know if it is safe in the short term, or the long term. If I take it, there is a reasonable chance that if there are any side effects, I will get them. It is likely not particularly effective against covid anyway from how they are talking.
So I have two things. A known, with very low risk of getting very likely mild symptoms. Or an unknown, with possibly no side effects, possibly very bad ones, that I can't avoid once it's been taken.
I'm not emotional about it, I don't think the government is trying to inject me with mind control serum. It is just logic.
for something that has an infinitesimally small chance of causing them harm.
You actually think we don't need a vaccine?
According to the CDC’s data, the survival rate for COVID-19 is as follows:
0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70 & over: 94.6%And this is in the USA, the country with the most deaths.
70 & over: 94.6%
0.946 ^ 4 = 0.8
So my kids have a 1 in 5 chance of losing at least one grandparent.
@trapper: If they all got covid.
In the 2017-2018 flu season, 83.3% of deaths were those who were 65+ years old.
Older people are in general at more risk of severe illnesses. They are ones who should be more cautious even if there wasn't covid.
@trapper: Didn't say you can't take any action. Sweden's approach is good, and they have had less deaths than some countries that did lockdown.
Sweden's approach is good, and they have had less deaths than some countries that did lockdown
17x our death rate, and their economy doing worse than here. No thanks.
@trapper: Their OMXS30 is only ~3.51% down from their high in March. The ASX is still down by ~17.34%. They're doing pretty good.
@whooah1979: Their GDP has dropped more than ours. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-02/australian-recession-…
Also 17x the death rate, you didn't have any comment on that. I'll stick with our approach.
@trapper: It is unfortunate that people are dying with COVID. However, my opinion is the Swedish approach is the least disruptive to the financial markets, economy, the normal way of life and better in the long term.
https://youtu.be/PIFgFBaAzQ0?t=163Also 17x the death rate, you didn't have any comment on that.
The difference is 656.9% or 6.569x.
https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/se
5892 deaths
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/au
897 deaths
The difference is 656.9% or 6.569x
lol, no. You can't just ignore the population difference, we have ~2.5x the number of people in Australia.
Australia death rate is 35 per million, Sweden death rate is 583 per million, ~17x higher.
Would be 14,924 dead here now, and no end in sight.
@trapper: 583 p/m is good for a country with no lockdown.
I'll wait for March 2021 to see which country is on top in terms of market performance, job numbers and the mortality rate.
@whooah1979: Well it's only January and Sweden's death rate has now increased to over 1000 per million, Australia is still on 35 per million.
So almost 30x our death rate now.
@ozhunter: I actually don't even care if they have a vaccine or not, I simply won't be taking it. It will make some people feel better, if that's what helps them, so be it.
@brendanm: I was being sarcastic when I said You actually think we don't need a vaccine? as the survival rates in the country with the highest death count is extremely high, unless your 70+
I don't care for the vaccine either, but I'm not like 100% opposed to taking it.
It will make some people feel better,
That's what matters to some people. As long as they feel safe. It's funny how the ones that make them feel safe are the ones that made them afraid in the first place.
@ozhunter: I'm not 100% opposed to it either, after enough time has passed for it to be proven "safe". However by then, it will likely be pointless anyway.
I had thought you were being sarcastic, but wasn't 100% sure, so played it safe ;)
@p1 ama: What does any of that have to do with the safety of the vaccine. There is definitely a possibility of longer term detrimental effects that would not be uncovered by rushed trials. The question really is whether or not the trials have been rushed.
You can view current trials at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry
What does any of that have to do with the safety of the vaccine.
"Safety" is not binary, things are not "safe" or "unsafe", you have to study and examine the risks of the potential actions that you can take. I'm not saying that this is you, but many people I've spoken to who are weary about the COVID-19 vaccine seem to conveniently ignore the risks of catching the disease and dying.
Even if you take very conservative estimates of the death rate, it is still significantly high. The data shows that most places around the world are still seeing excess deaths (i.e. more deaths in 2020 compared to the running 5 year average), and that is with measures such as social distancing, economic lockdowns…etc.
Vaccines are extraordinarily safe. What I suspect is happening is that people are being subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect and somehow, based on limited knowledge, are supposing that they know what is better for themselves (and more concerningly, for broader society) than trained professionals who have undertaken decades of study in these areas.
There's also this really concerning "contrarianism" that seems very popular these days, that it somehow makes you smarter and edgier to just go against conventional wisdom or what everyone says. The problem is that just saying vaccines are somehow risky doesn't make it true.
I'm not pretending to be holier than thou, I know that I know jack sh!t about vaccines because I don't have any qualifications in any field that would even be remotely relevant to understanding the complex science of how vaccines work. However, the thing is that there are plenty of people who do, including those working on vaccines right now. I'd suggest that research should be used to direct policy and answer questions, not random musings of randoms on the internet.
There is definitely a possibility of longer term detrimental effects that would not be uncovered by rushed trials. The question really is how much the trials have been rushed.
Then what do you define as "rushed trials"? Is it 1 year, is it 3 years, 5 years, 10 years? I think what you're saying here really undersells what people understand about the vaccine, its safety and its mechanisms.
@p1 ama: I'm not saying any vaccine released will be unsafe, but I certainly understand people being apprehensive about lining up. We have to trust that the TGA will require any vaccine to be adequately tested before being utilised.
@p1 ama: re: @brendanm:
The Professor Stuart Pegg Adult Burns Centre is the major referral centre for Queensland
@p1 ama: There are always people who are happy to try the vaccine first, so I would not worry about that.
I'm not an anti vaxxer. Quite the opposite. I'm an anti taking-things-that-are-rushed-out-by-the-lowest-bidder-with-no-idea-of-long-term-effectser.
IF you are someone that wants to wait and see then you should also be fine in waiting to travel for a few years.
Is your allegation that you believe scomo will allow the vaccine to be rushed and that there’s a conspiracy to rush out a vaccine?
@Vote for Pedro: Yes, I think scomo is deep inside a conspiracy regarding the vaccine. He and the other lizard people have been gathering, they want to use the vaccine to give us all a drug that makes us become addicted to TVSN.
@Vote for Pedro: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/571052?page=1#comment-9420…
I know it's very hard to look and read and comprehend, but please try. I even did the hard work of finding it for you.
I think the word you might have been looking for was efficacy.
It's almost as though people don't realize that some countries already require proof of immunisation against Yellow Fever…
I've been throughout South America and South East Asia and never asked once - I did get it on my first trip though, but dissapointed no-one asked for my yellow card of proof :(
I guess I've been lucky
Knew a guy who lived and worked around Africa. Had a story about his Yellow Fever papers not being accepted at a border, a common problem that happens to be conveniently solved if some cash is offered to the guards.
Except he wasn't in the mood to pay up this time, and insisted on fighting the validity of his papers and demanding that they explain what was wrong with them.
After some frustration that this guy simply wouldn't get the hint, the border guards suggested that they could give him the vaccine right there and brought out a syringe.He paid up.
If someone wants to be an anti-science martyr
What do you think of this? https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/videos/971258100060221
If 80%+ of the population of Australia has immunity through vaccination (or exposure) then I do not expect that vaccination will be mandatory, certainly in the long term, as community outbreaks will not occur.
Vaccinations do work, as science and history proves. If people believe the conspiracy theories that don't stand up to scrutiny on a practical or economic level then they're not for turning. I would have concerns about a vaccine being made generally available prior to completing a scientific process of evaluation of course (as is being pushed in the US and Russia) but that's just common sense.
You can wait at least a few years for herd immunity to render the virus obsolete or have a vaccine before then. Your choice.
I'm well aware, and have made my choice.
I think that's a given. No Vax, no travel.
So buses, trains and taxis are still FFA. The same with restaurants, cinemas, sports venues, concerts, etc.
You have made the mistake of actually thinking.
MS paint required ?
That's a mighty fine pair ! and you are smiling @!@@
@oscargamer: The smile signifies that the rusty nail situation is still better than getting the vaccine :D
That’s awesome, I’d hire you on the spot, if you drew that in an interview
@Donaldhump: What do you do for work that you require someone to ms paint a picture of themselves dragging their balls through rusty nails in an interview? Asking for a friend…
Adamantium balls?
How much of a loser do you have to be to actually open Paint and draw that. lol
kudos son. Now write your age next to to the photo. lol
@[Deactivated]: Sometimes I feel like putting my manager's head on a drawing of a penis and insert it into the arse of her subordinates. I guess i'd be willing to draw this too.
How come? I thought this site loved bargains / freebies and from what I've heard there's a free microchip in that vaccine :D
@EightImmortals: You were just off by a 1000. It should be 0.5% and 0.003%