Australian Response

Frank Bullitt

mandrake04 wrote: »

15% first dose, 2.6% second.

That is a stunningly low number!

Peregrinus

ShineOn7 wrote: »

Why is such a Granny State country so low in Vaccination numbers?

I'd have thought they'd be up there with the UK and Israel for inoculations

The federal government has stuffed up both the procurement and the distribution of vaccines, and is now trying to alleviate the possible political consequences with messaging like "it's not a race" and "there's no rush", which of course undermines efforts to persuade people that they need to get vaccinated.

Also, the UK and Israel had reached very high levels of vaccination before issues like the blood-clotting emerged. (Indeed, if I understand correctly, countries like the UK, the US and Israel have served as a kind of beta-test; it's in the huge numbers who have been vaccinated there that these rare but statistically significant issues emerge.) The result is that Australians considering vaccination have things to get concerned about that British and Israeli people did not.

Plus, as already pointed out, Australians don't have the same negative and positive incentives to vaccinate that people do in other countries — even if you don't vaccinate, the immediate risk of infection is very low, because there isn't a lot of coronavirus around. And, conversely, if you do vaccinate, that's not a passport to escaping restrictions on your family, social, economic etc life because there are very few of those in place to begin with.

So there's a combination of factors which means that the rollout of vaccination in Australia is going slowly. But probably the biggest factor is government ineptitude.

Pauliedragon

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

That is a stunningly low number!

I speak to people there regularly and the general consensus seems to be we're not really affected by Covid (bar Victoria) so let's see how the rest of the world get on with the vaccine then we'll see if we want to take it. A nurse a few weeks ago vaccinated one person in an 8 hr shift cause no one else bothered to turn up. Shut the borders and we'll be grand a lot of them feel.

Frank Bullitt

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I speak to people there regularly and the general consensus seems to be we're not really affected by Covid (bar Victoria) so let's see how the rest of the world get on with the vaccine then we'll see if we want to take it. A nurse a few weeks ago vaccinated one person in an 8 hr shift cause no one else bothered to turn up. Shut the borders and we'll be grand a lot of them feel.

I guess they have that luxury when they are an island, quite a ways away from another continent. Surely though, their tourism industry will suffer as a result?

MadYaker

It’s all fine until there’s a fcuk up with the quarantine and the Indian variant gets a foothold in a few communities. If they can’t keep a lid on it they could be in and out of lockdowns for the rest of the year.

Pauliedragon

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

I guess they have that luxury when they are an island, quite a ways away from another continent. Surely though, their tourism industry will suffer as a result?

less than 4% of their income comes from tourism. They have natural resources that the rest of us can only dream about. Iron ore, uranium, coal, gas, the list goes on. Lack of tourism doesn't bother them they can holiday within the country as they have sun, winter sports, mountains etc. A lot of Aussies couldn't care less if tourists never set foot in the country again. They need to sort out the standoff with China though cause that could get messy. Worlwide covid is just a blip on the radar for them.

Chivito550

Pauliedragon wrote: »

coal, gas

Riding the greenhouse gases gravy train.

Bushfires? What bushfires?!

PhilipsR

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I speak to people there regularly and the general consensus seems to be we're not really affected by Covid (bar Victoria) so let's see how the rest of the world get on with the vaccine then we'll see if we want to take it. A nurse a few weeks ago vaccinated one person in an 8 hr shift cause no one else bothered to turn up. Shut the borders and we'll be grand a lot of them feel.

That's not what happened.

The reason they are so far behind is two fold mainly:

1. Due to there being such a low level of Covid, the vaccines were not allowed go through an emergency use exemption, rather going through the full approval process meaning the vaccines were not authorised for use for months after the rest of the Western World had sped up vaccinations.

2. The government backed the wrong horse with Astra Zeneca. It was to be produced locally and they reckoned that 1m doses per week would be produced. However, now it is only recommended to the people over 50 so it has caused the government to scramble to attain more Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.


The main issue Australia has is the fact that there has been such little Covid. There is such a lack of urgency by both the government and the public to get jabs in arms. After the Federal and State governments playing 2020 so so well, 2021 has been a bit of a mess. The rest of the world will be getting back to normality in the later part of this year whilst Australia still plan on having borders shut until Jul 2022 at a minimum.

There's a Federal election to be held within the next 12 months and I think this will end up costing them their power as it was tight enough last time around as it is.

The current outbreak in Victoria may end up being a massive blessing in disguise as it has thrown the slow vaccine rollout into the limelight. With the rest of the world opening up, Australia needs to get its act in gear in order to not be left behind, especially with such a large immigrant population!

PhilipsR

MadYaker wrote: »

It’s all fine until there’s a fcuk up with the quarantine and the Indian variant gets a foothold in a few communities. If they can’t keep a lid on it they could be in and out of lockdowns for the rest of the year.

Better than being in lockdown for 5 months already in 2021 though?!

Gael23

There’s a perception in Australia that because there’s little to no virus in the country people don’t need to get vaccinated

Noo

Gael23 wrote: »

There’s a perception in Australia that because there’s little to no virus in the country people don’t need to get vaccinated

Not true at all, they know the border can't stay shut indefinitely and they need to be vaccinated along with the rest of the world. The governments vaccine roll out is the problem, you cant exactly just go to your gp and ask for it.

Edit: Just to add, like a lot of people, im planning on getting vaccinated, however with the crappy rollout im way down the list and likely months away before i get my first shot. But because theres little to no covid, im not exactly stressing out about it...which i think is the more common outlook rather than them thinking they dont need it.

Chivito550

PhilipsR wrote: »

Better than being in lockdown for 5 months already in 2021 though?!

Melbourne had their own 4-5 month lockdown too.

josip

Chivito550 wrote: »

Melbourne had their own 4-5 month lockdown too.

112 days and that was a proper lockdown, night-time curfew, a one-hour limit on outdoor exercise, etc.
Not a laissez faire one like our one just gone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54686812

MadYaker

PhilipsR wrote: »

Better than being in lockdown for 5 months already in 2021 though?!

Eh no? They’ve had long lockdowns in Australia as well and now they’re effectively cut off from the rest of the world and are going to have to endure more lockdowns.

PhilipsR

MadYaker wrote: »

Eh no? They’ve had long lockdowns in Australia as well and now they’re effectively cut off from the rest of the world and are going to have to endure more lockdowns.

They had one long lockdown in Victoria last year. Other than that no one has been locked down for longer than a week as far as I recall in 2021.

What would your suggestion had been for the last 5 months so? seems a bit mental to suggest that Covid should have been allowed run free with the borders open? Then they would have had to lockdown anyway to avoid overwhelming their health services.

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0603/1225891-australia-vaccine/

Brónagh Ní Chuillin, who lives in Melbourne, told RTÉ News that she is prone to blood clots and is one of those worried about getting that vaccine.

"The government are after changing the goal posts where they are saying that they are not going to open the borders to 2022, I personally don't see why I should take the risk in taking the AstraZeneca vaccine," she added.

Why have the Australian authorities 'changed the goalposts'?

Noo

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0603/1225891-australia-vaccine/



Why have the Australian authorities 'changed the goalposts'?

They havent, they didnt have a set date for border reopening, they were seeing how it would pan out and only then did they give an indicative one. As for the AstraZeneca vaccine, like the medical advice everywhere else in the world, if shes has a medical reason not to be given it or shes under 40, she wont be given it.

Wolf359f

Noo wrote: »

They havent, they didnt have a set date for border reopening, they were seeing how it would pan out and only then did they give an indicative one. As for the AstraZeneca vaccine, like the medical advice everywhere else in the world, if shes has a medical reason not to be given it or shes under 40, she wont be given it.

I though Australia recommends mRNA for under 50's? With under 50's getting the

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 50 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits.

Unless they get a massive outbreak or someone under 50 is working in a quarantine hotel, the risks will never outweigh the benefit.

Noo

Wolf359f wrote: »

I though Australia recommends mRNA for under 50's? With under 50's getting the
Unless they get a massive outbreak or someone under 50 is working in a quarantine hotel, the risks will never outweigh the benefit.

You really need the context of the whole section. They are not making anyone under 50 get it. They are saying its avaliable for under 50s if they choose, but they want them to make an informed decision and understand the risks...

"There appears to be a small risk of TTS in people 50 years and over, but this risk appears to be lower than in younger people. Cases overseas have been reported at all ages.

People who are considering vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should be aware of this potential complication as part of providing informed consent.

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 50 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits."

Wolf359f

Noo wrote: »

You really need the context of the whole section. They are not making anyone under 50 get it. They are saying its avaliable for under 50s if they choose, but they want them to make an informed decision and understand the risks...

"There appears to be a small risk of TTS in people 50 years and over, but this risk appears to be lower than in younger people. Cases overseas have been reported at all ages.

People who are considering vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should be aware of this potential complication as part of providing informed consent.

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 50 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits."

That's not quite what you said previously

Noo wrote: »

They havent, they didnt have a set date for border reopening, they were seeing how it would pan out and only then did they give an indicative one. As for the AstraZeneca vaccine, like the medical advice everywhere else in the world, if shes has a medical reason not to be given it or shes under 40, she wont be given it.

Noo

Wolf359f wrote: »

That's not quite what you said previously

What are you talking about? its exactly what i said previously. If shes under 40 she wont be given it (being under 40 also makes her under 50) i dont know how old she is. If you are under 50 you can still have if you want but must consent to knowing the risks. I think between herself and her doctor theyll probably figure out that it best she goes with one of the others, but that doesnt make for a dramatic story.

Wolf359f

Noo wrote: »

What are you talking about? its exactly what i said previously. If shes under 40 she wont be given it (being under 40 also makes her under 50) i dont know how old she is. If you are under 50 you can still have if you want but must consent to knowing the risks. I think between herself and her doctor theyll probably figure out that it best she goes with one of the others, but that doesnt make for a dramatic story.

Most countries when they say under X age won't be given AZ, it means under X age won't be given AZ.
Your initial post indicated a 40 year age limit in Australia, I pointed out that the age restriction is 50. I'm just not sure why you chose under 40 as her age is all.

Chivito550

Pure lunacy.

https://twitter.com/9NewsMelb/status/1401458241490481152?s=19

ceadaoin.

Another lovely story from Australia. They've lost their minds to hysteria. Not sure how this is in anyway justifiable.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/victorian-couple-separated-from-premature-baby-despite-being-fully-vaccinated-against-covid19/c71c2a3c-7f52-49f2-8033-c6c5a91db05e

A Melbourne couple are separated from their newborn baby despite returning multiple negative coronavirus tests and being fully vaccinated.
Sarah and Moe Haider arrived in Brisbane from Doha on May 26 and have not had the chance to hold their new son, Ilyas.
Ms Haider needed an emergency C-section and was taken from hotel quarantine to hospital to give birth.

She had a baby boy, born 10 weeks early, who is in a neonatal intensive care unit.
The parents have not been allowed near their son due to Queensland's COVID-19 regulations.
"Neither of us has held him," Mr Haider said on 3AW today.

"We're lost for words at this point.
"We haven't held him ... I still don't understand why."

Last week, Queensland Health Minister Yvette D'Ath said the regulations keeping the Haiders apart were neccessary.
"We know that the majority of positive cases around the country have come from people who have travelled from overseas," she sai.d
"We can't afford to take risks."

The can't "take the risk" of 2 fully vaccinated people, who don't have covid, holding their child. Wtf? Disgraceful behaviour

Peregrinus

Right now in Australia we have live Covid cases which were contracted by transmission from people who had tested negative while in quarantine.

I've had a child in neonatal ICU. My heart breaks for the Haiders. But the notion that people who are in quarantine because of suspected contact with a dangerous infectious disease should not be allowed into a neonatal intensive care unit in which their child is not the only vulnerable patient is not exactly a novel one, and it's not some hysterical response to Covid.

FutureTeashock

The Aussies have massively rejected the vaccine. They can smell a rat and I commend them for that.

Ireland is the polar opposite, surprise surprise.:rolleyes:

Mehapoy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right now in Australia we have live Covid cases which were contracted by transmission from people who had tested negative while in quarantine.

I've had a child in neonatal ICU. My heart breaks for the Haiders. But the notion that people who are in quarantine because of suspected contact with a dangerous infectious disease should not be allowed into a neonatal intensive care unit in which their child is not the only vulnerable patient is not exactly a novel one, and it's not some hysterical response to Covid.

What would other countries do in this situation? I can't think parents in the UK or Ireland with no covid are being kept away from newborns, surely there would have been an outcry. Surely to God there are ways to let a mother see her vulnerable new born, hysteria is right and absolutely no room for flexibility in the bureaucracy that has grown around this. There was another case in Victoria where a new born couldn't go to his father's funeral because it would push the people limit above 10. Seems to be a uniquely Australin thing, they are absolute rule followers.

Peregrinus

Mehapoy wrote: »

What would other countries do in this situation? I can't think parents in the UK or Ireland with no covid are being kept away from newborns, surely there would have been an outcry. Surely to God there are ways to let a mother see her vulnerable new born, hysteria is right and absolutely no room for flexibility in the bureaucracy that has grown around this. There was another case in Victoria where a new born couldn't go to his father's funeral because it would push the people limit above 10. Seems to be a uniquely Australin thing, they are absolute rule followers.

They are absolutely rule-followers. They have this romantic notion of themselves as a free-spirited bushranger nation, when in fact by comparison with us they are a biddable, regimented bunch.

But what we have here is the intersection of two perfectly sensible, and not at all novel, rules:

1. People in quarantine are there because they have been in contact with dangerous infectious diseases and they should be, well, quarantined; otherwise there's no point to quarantine.

2. Patients in intensive care units - particularly neonatal intensive care units - are highly vulnerable to infection and one of the things an ICU needs to do is to limit their exposure to infection.

Either of those rules alone would point you to the conclusion that this child's parents shouldn't see him in the ICU; both together create an unanswerable case — a conclusion you wouldn't have any difficulty reaching if you were a parent of one of the other babies in the ICU. This is not just about protecting the Haider's child.

The child is 10 weeks prem. Many other patients in the neonatal ICU will be there for a similar reason. The respiratory system is among the the most underdeveloped and compromised functions in a prem baby. Not bringing people from Covid quarantine into the neonatal ICU is an absolute no-brainer. If you're looking for an example of an unnecessary Covid restriction to object to, this is definitely not it.

ceadaoin.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are absolutely rule-followers. They have this romantic notion of themselves as a free-spirited bushranger nation, when in fact by comparison with us they are a biddable, regimented bunch.

But what we have here is the intersection of two perfectly sensible, and not at all novel, rules:

1. People in quarantine are there because they have been in contact with dangerous infectious diseases and they should be, well, quarantined; otherwise there's no point to quarantine.

2. Patients in intensive care units - particularly neonatal intensive care units - are highly vulnerable to infection and one of the things an ICU needs to do is to limit their exposure to infection.

Either of those rules alone would point you to the conclusion that this child's parents shouldn't see him in the ICU; both together create an unanswerable case — a conclusion you wouldn't have any difficulty reaching if you were a parent of one of the other babies in the ICU. This is not just about protecting the Haider's child.

The child is 10 weeks prem. Many other patients in the neonatal ICU will be there for a similar reason. The respiratory system is among the the most underdeveloped and compromised functions in a prem baby. Not bringing people from Covid quarantine into the neonatal ICU is an absolute no-brainer. If you're looking for an example of an unnecessary Covid restriction to object to, this is definitely not it.

But the hospital came up with a plan to let them in, they are happy to do so. The government said no. The same government who stated they are happy for movie stars and celebrities to break quarantine because they bring value

Does being fully vaccinated not count for anything? They don't have covid and are highly unlikely to be incubating covid due to their vaccination status. Their child absolutely will be damaged from a lack of bonding and contact in his first days. But that's ok? Disgusting.

Peregrinus

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Does being fully vaccinated not count for anything? They don't have covid and are highly unlikely to be incubating covid due to their vaccination status. Their child absolutely will be damaged from a lack of bonding and contact in his first days. But that's ok? Disgusting.

You can be fully vaccinated and still (a) contract and suffer from Covid and (b) infect others with Covid. Your chances of either of these things happening are greatly reduced, but they are not nil. And when you're living in a quarantine facility, then your chances of these things happening are much higher than they would be if you were living in the community because, hey, quarantine facilities have lots of infected and infectious people in them.

Nobody is saying that it is OK that the child will suffer from a lack of bonding and contact. If you have to make stuff up in order to oppose it, that's a pretty strong sign that you're on a hiding to nothing.

The obvious solution here would be to take the child to his parents, rather than taking the parents to the child - but only if it's safe for the child to leave the ICU for a few hours. And the fact that nobody seems to be even canvassing this solution might be a pretty strong indicator that, no, it's not safe to take the child out of ICU for a few hours. Which, if so, tells us that this is a pretty sickly child. Surrounded by lots of other pretty sickly children.

So, should pretty sickly children be brought into contact with adults who are at elevated risk of being infectious with a disease which, if the child contracts it, will likely kill him? There are arguments against this which cannot be dismissed simply by saying "Disgusting!"

It's not OK that the child is being deprived of boding and contact. But it would be even less OK if the child, and other children in the ICU, were being exposed to a risk of Covid infection. And that's the thing with a pandemic; things are not OK. You will often be in a situation where none of the options can be characterised as "OK". The fact that one option is not OK doesn't mean that the other option is.