The corona virus COVID-19

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The decision was made in Australia 12 months ago that they didn't want to risk the virus running around in the community like they did in some other countries and that they'd much rather shut down all 'hazardous' activities until they knew it was no longer around. We didn't have recurrent events like they did in Europe and the United States - with the notable exception of Victoria.

Strange because the UK pursued a really harsh lockdown policy and yet they've had this recent one over Xmas - are environmental (weather) factors a factor? There's a lot about this thing that we still don't know.

As I've also said in the past, we can't predict how the virus would have behaved in the open community here in Australia because it wasn't allowed to run rampant - all in the ether.
don_dunstan
You haven't had recurrent outbreaks because the virus was removed from the greater population through a series of heavy restrictions in April and May. Since then access into the country has been heavily restricted and requires everyone to go through a 2 week quarantine.

You are not currently living in the real world of freedom of travel you are living in an OPEN JAIL Don, HELLO!

The UK has freedom of travel, yes their higher density population didn't help. Ireland had similar issues. Colder weather keeps people together in doors. Doesn't help.

We saw how fast the bug spread during March /April in Australia, hardly the coldest time of year.

Prediction is not precise but its certainly ball park, there is only one expected outcome if the walls a let now, +20,000 dead by Xmas Don.

Sponsored advertisement

  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
So he was wrong about the pandemic coming back in the UK - so what? Does it make his assertion that a vaccine that hasn't been tested extensively on human subjects isn't safe wrong?
No.  The fact the vaccines have been extensively tested in human subjects in properly conducted double blind trials means he's wrong.

He's also wrong about "you don't vaccinate people not at risk of a disease".  Males as well as females now get the HPV vaccine in Australia, that protects against HPV infection, that in turn protects against cervical cancer, something very few men get.

Mass vaccination is done to protect an entire population, not just specific individuals in that population.
So the entire population of Australia is at risk of COVID despite the fact that there's eighteen (count 'em) active cases of COVID19 in the whole of the nation?

Yeah that's a good reason to give everyone a vaccine isn't it - not approved for use with children I should remind you. Meanwhile there's a growing body of evidence that the existing (but not patented) drugs of HCL and Ivermectin are effective at treating and preventing COVID19 - Biznews;

Professor Eli Schwarz is an Israeli tropical disease expert, who says he has new proof that a drug used to fight parasites in third world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract the coronavirus. Professor Schwartz, founder of the Centre for Travel Medicine and Tropical disease, has completed a clinical trial of the FDA-approved ivermectin:

"The bottom line is that actually it’s really acting well. It’s shortened the viral shedding period. Therefore, if we are going to adopt it, people can be isolated for a shorter time. And therefore, we think that it really can help to break the transmission chain."
Yes, eighteen cases active cases in the whole nation, no I didn’t count them, but I will accept that number from you based on what I think is likely to be about right, I would agree to any number under thirty, maybe above that too. Does that equate to a risk for the entire population of Australia? Yes, yes it does. In case you’ve missed it, the whole saga of COVID-19 and all of the deaths around the planet most likely began with ONE, count it … ready? … ONE … infection.

Not approved for use in children? Which children are even being offered the vaccine? I have not been a child in many, many years, and I currently cannot be offered, let alone given, the vaccine because I don’t fit the currently allotted age cohorts.

Efficacy, and more importantly, safety, and further hence, approval for use, will likely be established in groups of children well before we get to the point of having vaccine available for use in younger age groups anyway.
I'll put the question to you again: There are eighteen active cases in Australia - so I'll ask you again, what actual risk do the 24 million others have of catching COVID19?

Instead of a knee jerk response (which is your first instinct) I'll ask you think about your answer this time and see if you can come up with the actual truth.
don_dunstan
What risk did the 300 million ish Seppos face when their first number of cases approached 18 infections? Half a million of their dead wish they did what Australia did.

What risk did the 66 million ish Poms face when their first number of cases approached 18 infections? 100 odd thousand of their dead wish they did what Australia did.

Hell, even Victoria wishes they did what the rest of Australia did…

You’ll continue to think that COVID and its deaths or lifelong ill effects when survived are insignificant until you’re one of the dead or damaged, or know someone dead or damaged from it.

Do you routinely exceed speed limits by decent margins? I would hope not, and I would hope that’s because you acknowledge the dangers and deaths and lifetime personal damage caused by accidents resulting. In Victoria where COVID got away in a meaningful manner, COVID deaths were near four times higher than road deaths. It seems odd that sensible people who might generally regard speeding/driving as dangerous have such little regard for things more dangerous.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

... it's just revenue raising.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

The decision was made in Australia 12 months ago that they didn't want to risk the virus running around in the community like they did in some other countries and that they'd much rather shut down all 'hazardous' activities until they knew it was no longer around. We didn't have recurrent events like they did in Europe and the United States - with the notable exception of Victoria.

Strange because the UK pursued a really harsh lockdown policy and yet they've had this recent one over Xmas - are environmental (weather) factors a factor? There's a lot about this thing that we still don't know.

As I've also said in the past, we can't predict how the virus would have behaved in the open community here in Australia because it wasn't allowed to run rampant - all in the ether.
don_dunstan

Sorry Don, but the UK didn't pursue a "really harsh" lockdown policy, the UK was totally half arsed and never got serious about border closures. Their lockdown was just about stopping the hospitals from overflowing...ours was an elimination strategy even though the government initially denied it.

Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.

I really didn't like the lockdowns, especially the second wave lockdown and it was a tough time for me. There have been lasting health and economic effects on people that I know, but I think the response was the lesser of two evils: no one I know died from COVID.

An old one but a good one:



https://youtu.be/VJrm8V5KmPs
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
The decision was made in Australia 12 months ago that they didn't want to risk the virus running around in the community like they did in some other countries and that they'd much rather shut down all 'hazardous' activities until they knew it was no longer around. We didn't have recurrent events like they did in Europe and the United States - with the notable exception of Victoria.

Strange because the UK pursued a really harsh lockdown policy and yet they've had this recent one over Xmas - are environmental (weather) factors a factor? There's a lot about this thing that we still don't know.

As I've also said in the past, we can't predict how the virus would have behaved in the open community here in Australia because it wasn't allowed to run rampant - all in the ether.

Sorry Don, but the UK didn't pursue a "really harsh" lockdown policy, the UK was totally half arsed and never got serious about border closures. Their lockdown was just about stopping the hospitals from overflowing...ours was an elimination strategy even though the government initially denied it.

Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.

I really didn't like the lockdowns, especially the second wave lockdown and it was a tough time for me. There have been lasting health and economic effects on people that I know, but I think the response was the lesser of two evils: no one I know died from COVID.

An old one but a good one:



https://youtu.be/VJrm8V5KmPs
Mr. Lane
A most instructional video, I hope that puts an end to the lone dopey voice coming from South Australia that COVID-19 is "just the flu"!
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.
Mr. Lane
Actually, we can do better than that.

We know through observation that the wild spread rate of COVID is about 1/2 a person per day per infected person. ie with no external prevention measures like isolation, or 'social distancing' each infected person is expected to pass the infection onto 7 others in their assumed 14 day infectious period. We know that the mortality rate is somewhere around 2% (though 900 ish deaths in Australia from about 30k infections makes it more like 3%).

I'll spare everyone solving the differential equations, they're too hard to type anyway, but taking Australia's population at 26 million and introducing Don's 18 cases, from a no immunity standpoint, and taking no precautions, that is living how we usually do, even through the communicable flu season, we arrive at more than 10k infections and more than 59 (59.5) expected deaths in 24 days.

32 days, ie near enough to one month we would pass 100k infections with 607 expected deaths, about 36 hours after that we'd arrive at approximately 900 deaths - something our measures managed to keep below until around now, that is more than a year on.

A MILLION infections would come and go on day 40, with 6097.7 expected deaths, 2 MILLION infections within 60 hours of that, with expected deaths now at 14k+, the 3 MILLION infections by day 44, basically four days to go from 1 million infections to 3 million.

10 million infections on day 50, with a respectable MCG crowd of 85795.9 expected deaths.

HALF of Australia's population would be infected on day 53, with 153632.8 deaths (that's more than the population of Darwin).

Day 54 would be the peak number of infections, unsurprising given there would be less than half the population for it to infect, but deaths would of course continue to climb, reaching 500k on day 89 - not even three months to half a million deaths.

Numbers and equations being what they are we can extrapolate too far, and get back to less than one person infected after 218 days, but by that point 97.97% of the population (26 million recall) will have been infected, great news, so long as you're not one of the more than HALF A MILLION to have died...

Taking the number of imported cases up to the 72 (I think I read from someone else), with the same assumptions, we pass 1 MILLION infections and 6k deaths expected in 35 days.

EDIT: The other key assumption I didn't outline for those wanting to play along at home was that I assumed no cases of repeat infections, ie you get it once and you survive with immunity or die.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The decision was made in Australia 12 months ago that they didn't want to risk the virus running around in the community like they did in some other countries and that they'd much rather shut down all 'hazardous' activities until they knew it was no longer around. We didn't have recurrent events like they did in Europe and the United States - with the notable exception of Victoria.

Strange because the UK pursued a really harsh lockdown policy and yet they've had this recent one over Xmas - are environmental (weather) factors a factor? There's a lot about this thing that we still don't know.

As I've also said in the past, we can't predict how the virus would have behaved in the open community here in Australia because it wasn't allowed to run rampant - all in the ether.

Sorry Don, but the UK didn't pursue a "really harsh" lockdown policy, the UK was totally half arsed and never got serious about border closures. Their lockdown was just about stopping the hospitals from overflowing...ours was an elimination strategy even though the government initially denied it.

Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.

I really didn't like the lockdowns, especially the second wave lockdown and it was a tough time for me. There have been lasting health and economic effects on people that I know, but I think the response was the lesser of two evils: no one I know died from COVID.

An old one but a good one:



https://youtu.be/VJrm8V5KmPs
A most instructional video, I hope that puts an end to the lone dopey voice coming from South Australia that COVID-19 is "just the flu"!
lsrailfan
I know you mean Don, but I am from South Australia too, I was going to leave this go, but since your comment I am feeling in a corrective mood...

Nope, totally different viruses, influenza is what brings the seasonal common cold, COVID-19 is from SARS 2 Viruses, but do keep on trying Razz
lsrailfan
No, no it doesn't, the common cold is generally a rhinovirus, sometimes a coronavirus of one form or other, sometimes it can be a influenza virus, but usually influenza virus brings ... influenza.

As you say Covid-19 is a coronavirus, but it is closer to a cold virus than you realise, influenza is the odd one out of the three.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
The decision was made in Australia 12 months ago that they didn't want to risk the virus running around in the community like they did in some other countries and that they'd much rather shut down all 'hazardous' activities until they knew it was no longer around. We didn't have recurrent events like they did in Europe and the United States - with the notable exception of Victoria.

Strange because the UK pursued a really harsh lockdown policy and yet they've had this recent one over Xmas - are environmental (weather) factors a factor? There's a lot about this thing that we still don't know.

As I've also said in the past, we can't predict how the virus would have behaved in the open community here in Australia because it wasn't allowed to run rampant - all in the ether.

Sorry Don, but the UK didn't pursue a "really harsh" lockdown policy, the UK was totally half arsed and never got serious about border closures. Their lockdown was just about stopping the hospitals from overflowing...ours was an elimination strategy even though the government initially denied it.

Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.

I really didn't like the lockdowns, especially the second wave lockdown and it was a tough time for me. There have been lasting health and economic effects on people that I know, but I think the response was the lesser of two evils: no one I know died from COVID.

An old one but a good one:



https://youtu.be/VJrm8V5KmPs
A most instructional video, I hope that puts an end to the lone dopey voice coming from South Australia that COVID-19 is "just the flu"!
I know you mean Don, but I am from South Australia too, I was going to leave this go, but since your comment I am feeling in a corrective mood... ,

Nope, totally different viruses, influenza is what brings the seasonal common cold, COVID-19 is from SARS 2 Viruses, but do keep on trying Razz
No, no it doesn't, the common cold is generally a rhinovirus, sometimes a coronavirus of one form or other, sometimes it can be a influenza virus, but usually influenza virus brings ... influenza.

As you say Covid-19 is a coronavirus, but it is closer to a cold virus than you realise, influenza is the odd one out of the three.
Aaron
I stand corrected, I did mean Don, no offence intended.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Of course we will never know 100% how the virus would have behaved in Australia if it was left to run, but we did have a glimpse...several...last year when the virus got into just a couple of aged care facilities and wreaked havoc.
...

I'll spare everyone solving the differential equations, they're too hard to type anyway,
Aaron

Bugger, I like differential equations.  (SIR Model from Wikipedia)  

R'(t)=mI(t)  ??  Not *that* hard to write, but I better leave it to someone else to solve.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The SIR model is the simpler version of what I used, but it was the starting point. They’re only first order differential equations, I would just rather type out more info on the data out than waste a bunch of time typing equations that 95% of the audience aren’t going to understand anyway.

Off you go, go solving them then and let me know if you concur - science is cool like that.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The SIR model is the simpler version of what I used, but it was the starting point. They’re only first order differential equations, I would just rather type out more info on the data out than waste a bunch of time typing equations that 95% of the audience aren’t going to understand anyway.

Off you go, go solving them then and let me know if you concur - science is cool like that.
Aaron

The fundamental problem with all these deterministic epidemic models is they need condense the entire biological properties of a complex pathogen AND the sum total of all human behaviour into a single number: R.

I've been tinkering with my own home brew model that has a complex value for R, and function for I(t) in the form e-ikt, thus predicting the various "waves", as well as an imaginary component to model the behaviour of anti-vaccers.

So far all I've got:

Reff = R0(S - sI)/P  

Where "s" is the collective shipping yourself constant: the number of cases at which people think it's worth making an effort to do something about R.

/S(t)
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I am not sure how many will get it, but that’s given my office a good chuckle!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There is plenty of evidence to show that the greater the obesity of the patient the more at risk they are to suffering more seriously or dying from CV-19.

So based on this

Sweden's Adult Obesity rate ~50%

Australia's Adult Obesity rate ~ 67%
  Carnot Minister for Railways

I'll say no more....
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
"Gold Standard!"
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
A thing that worries me is if  90% or so get the vaccine, that still leaves a couple of million people (anti vaxers or for whatever reason)spread all across the country that are susceptible to the the full wack  of the virus. So until everyone is jabbed, how can the restrictions be eased? We've had something like 30 or40 thousand cases so far, or what ever the figure is, and suppressed it, but with a couple of million in the firing line we are still in trouble.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
A thing that worries me is if  90% or so get the vaccine, that still leaves a couple of million people (anti vaxers or for whatever reason)spread all across the country that are susceptible to the the full wack  of the virus. So until everyone is jabbed, how can the restrictions be eased? We've had something like 30 or40 thousand cases so far, or what ever the figure is, and suppressed it, but with a couple of million in the firing line we are still in trouble.
wobert
Same as normal vaccinations.

+95% of the population is protected, some are not protected by choice and others because of risk due to known underlying medical issues.

The hospitalization rates of the non-vaxed will be low in total number and hence life will continue for the rest of us close to the old normal. Meanwhile there will be the odd person die who was not vaxed and over time these will not appear in the headlines, rather being replaced by the usual crap we used to "enjoy".

Between now and completion of those who want to be vax'ed, life can return to normal over time as the govt is vaxing based on the 80:20 rule. ie jab 20% of the population that cause 80% of the issues.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
If 90% of the population get a Covid vaccination we will be in a really strong position, herd immunity will result from only about 85% of the population being vaccinated.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Fair enough, lets hope your right.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Let’s hope for a 90% vaccination level!

The 85% vaccinated figure is on pretty solid ground for accuracy.

Most international data is pointing to about a 3.5 infection spread per infection in the open community (this number is generally denoted Ro, so Ro=3.5). That seems low for Australia, but most of our data is skewed due to the Victorian disaster.

So to calculate the required proportion of protected people in the community to eliminate virus spread we use the formula:
P=1-1/Ro so from our Ro above that’s a pretty trivial calculation and yields about 0.714 - that does assume 100% vaccine efficacy, so we adjust for that.

If our vaccine efficacy is Ve then our formula for the required proportion for herd immunity becomes: P=[1-1/Ro]/Ve and we have Ve about 0.85 so that now yields P=0.840

If we achieve a P of 0.90 we are going to be just fine.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Let’s hope for a 90% vaccination level!

The 85% vaccinated figure is on pretty solid ground for accuracy.

Most international data is pointing to about a 3.5 infection spread per infection in the open community (this number is generally denoted Ro, so Ro=3.5). That seems low for Australia, but most of our data is skewed due to the Victorian disaster.

So to calculate the required proportion of protected people in the community to eliminate virus spread we use the formula:
P=1-1/Ro so from our Ro above that’s a pretty trivial calculation and yields about 0.714 - that does assume 100% vaccine efficacy, so we adjust for that.

If our vaccine efficacy is Ve then our formula for the required proportion for herd immunity becomes: P=[1-1/Ro]/Ve and we have Ve about 0.85 so that now yields P=0.840

If we achieve a P of 0.90 we are going to be just fine.
Aaron

Points of order.  

  • Most studies I've seen on this say R0 = 2.5 not 3.5 (except variants).
  • Only 80% of the Aus population are eligible for vaccination: no kids or pregnant women.  (Pz is approved for over 15s, but not Az, so all under 18s are excluded from the Aussie rollout)

So HI should be achieved at (1-1/2.5)=60%, which is an uptake of 75% ... IF the vaccine is 100% protective against infection.

Pz haven't published their data on protection against infection, but have submitted it to the FDA and presumably the TGA, not that that is any of their concern.  Pz has a published (yet to confirm) efficacy against symptoms of 95%, and 80-90% against all infection.  Az has a published efficacy of 62% in it's phase 3 trials, but ~70-80% in a subset of cases where the product was *not* used as directed.  

If we go with 100% Pz, with a Ve of 80%,

(1-1/2.5)/(0.8 * 0.85) = 88%, means we can achieve herd immunity with a 92% uptake.  If 16-17yos are included in the rollout it becomes more practical, say 3% of the population means (1-1/2.5)/(0.83 * 0.85) = 85% uptake.

Move on to AZ ... using the generous Ve of 62%
(1-1/2.5)/(0.8 * 0.62) = 120% uptake required.

The very best case for AZ with a Ve of 75% you get:
(1-1/2.5)/(0.8 * 0.75) = 100% uptake

A more realistic Ve for AZ of 50%
(1-1/2.5)/(0.8 *.5) = 150%

Australia has ordered 10mil Pz doses, enough for 20% of the population.  60% get AZ.  20% get nothing.  Assuming a 100% uptake and (generous efficacy against disease vs infection) Ve of 0.62 and 0.95 we get:

20%x0.95 + 60%*.62 = 56% - not enough to achieve herd immunity.

Using the (likely) Ve for all infections we get:
20%x0.85 + 60%*.50 = 47% - not enough to achieve herd immunity - in fact it would need a 130% uptake.

Using a very best case Ve by cherry picking results from the AZ trials of 75% we
get

20%x.95+60%*.75 = 64% so HI is achievable, but with a 94% uptake. (Again, using fair weather best case assumptions).

Call me a cynic, but it's as if someone asked the question "what is the absolute minimum amount of Pz Vaccine we can get away with?"
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Kids will be vaccinated towards the end of 2021. According to a number of different media sources trials on younger is being done ready for later this year, but also kids do not get anywhere as sick or for as long with CV.

Herd immunity is all well and good, but its the 80:20 rule, get 20% of the population jabbed up who cause 80% of the health issues and deaths and life starts to return to normal. Get 60 - 70% of population jabbed who cause 99% of the health issues is even better. Will CV-19 be eliminated from the community, globally, no I very much doubt it. Despite decades of Measles and other vaccinations programs we have yet to eliminate due to a number or reasons including the dumb ar$ed anti-vaxers being major reason in developed countries.  

Where does this lead likes of Australia? Most likely outcome is mandated vaccination for incoming travelers as the whole hotel Quarantine thing is not a permanent solution and will need to be stopped before the years out.  Australian's wanting to travel may also require vaccination if mandated by the govt here or the country they are flying too or even the airlines, but I dare say travel without will be difficult.

Once the hospital and death rates are way down and sustained, no one will care about those unfortunate people, treated same as flu today and life will return to a modified new normal.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
Where does this lead likes of Australia? Most likely outcome is mandated vaccination for incoming travelers as the whole hotel Quarantine thing is not a permanent solution and will need to be stopped before the years out.  Australian's wanting to travel may also require vaccination if mandated by the govt here or the country they are flying too or even the airlines, but I dare say travel without will be difficult.

Once the hospital and death rates are way down and sustained, no one will care about those unfortunate people, treated same as flu today and life will return to a modified new normal.
RTT_Rules
I tend to agree (Shock! Horror!).

Compulsory vaccination for overseas travellers either to or fro is a good thing in my opinion. Not only does it make sense, but it can also be used as a weapon against anti-vaxxers complaining about their loss of freedom. What could define freedom more saliently than to be able to travel internationally? Problem is, such people probably never even get out of their own village, and won't care.

Sooner or later it will no longer be sexy for the media to fawn over the daily figures and it will no longer be necessary for state governments to provide daily press conferences. Thankfully, that should also mean that there will be an end to moronic questions from some media hacks, who seem to act on behalf of the less intelligent portion of the great unwashed and file their reports on Channel 7. Laughing
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Where does this lead likes of Australia? Most likely outcome is mandated vaccination for incoming travelers as the whole hotel Quarantine thing is not a permanent solution and will need to be stopped before the years out.  Australian's wanting to travel may also require vaccination if mandated by the govt here or the country they are flying too or even the airlines, but I dare say travel without will be difficult.
RTT_Rules

There are certainly plenty of people in Australia who want that outcome: scrap hotel quarantine and treat COVID like the common cold.  They seem to be concentrated among members of the Federal and NSW governments, as well as work for news Corporation: "Don's Party" so to speak.

I doubt you appreciate is just how normal life is in Australia at the moment.  We simply don't have COVID, our GDP is almost back at pre-COVID levels, and for the most part life is back to normal.  The biggest impediment has been internal rather than external borders (limiting domestic tourism), and that could largely be addressed by shifting HQ out of our cities (plus pulling NSW into line with all the other states plus NZ).

Quite frankly, I'm struggling to see the purpose of our mass vaccination program.  If it's to end the pandemic, well it's already over.  We know how to reduce, find and eliminate outbreaks.  Hotel quarantine works.  Lockdowns in response to outbreaks work.  The only purpose of it is to re-open unrestricted international travel, but the vaccines we're using won't (or on available evidence shouldn't) allow that anyway.

I'm 50/50 as to weather we'll have open borders by the end of the year.  Either Newscorp and the feds will push it through once enough people are vaccinated with the placebo.  It *might* be the vaccines do work well enough to allow it (but trial data says otherwise).  But I think the mostly likely outcome is the first state to abandon hotel quarantine (presumably NSW) will find it's borders instantly closed to every other state.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

There are certainly plenty of people in Australia who want that outcome: scrap hotel quarantine and treat COVID like the common cold.  They seem to be concentrated among members of the Federal and NSW governments, as well as work for news Corporation: "Don's Party" so to speak.

I doubt you appreciate is just how normal life is in Australia at the moment.  We simply don't have COVID, our GDP is almost back at pre-COVID levels, and for the most part life is back to normal.  The biggest impediment has been internal rather than external borders (limiting domestic tourism), and that could largely be addressed by shifting HQ out of our cities (plus pulling NSW into line with all the other states plus NZ).

Quite frankly, I'm struggling to see the purpose of our mass vaccination program.  If it's to end the pandemic, well it's already over.  We know how to reduce, find and eliminate outbreaks.  Hotel quarantine works.  Lockdowns in response to outbreaks work.  The only purpose of it is to re-open unrestricted international travel, but the vaccines we're using won't (or on available evidence shouldn't) allow that anyway.

I'm 50/50 as to weather we'll have open borders by the end of the year.  Either Newscorp and the feds will push it through once enough people are vaccinated with the placebo.  It *might* be the vaccines do work well enough to allow it (but trial data says otherwise).  But I think the mostly likely outcome is the first state to abandon hotel quarantine (presumably NSW) will find it's borders instantly closed to every other state.
djf01
Thanks for that, yes I'm aware Australia is on the pathway to normal but still a far way off, just need to look at the PT figures to see that something is not right and work from home doesn't fill the gaps.

NSW is basically bankrolling most of the country, including doing most of the heavy lifting allowing citizens to return to their country so I wouldn't be pointing the finger that way, try further south, the gold standard state.

The country is still bleeding money at billions per month that needs to be plugged and opening up the economy for freedom of travel both interstate and international will be the key point to achieving this goal. There is also the small issue of nearly $500B of debt that now needs to be repaid, this ontop of another $500B of preexisting debt. Some states in particular (Qld comes to mind) are already in hoc to their necks and need to increase trade and revenues.

I'm stunned how anyone could think that a mass vaccination program for CV-19 is not required. The current border restrictions are simply not sustainable and to think otherwise is surely a case of Stockholm syndrome. Yes the Quarantine works and is doing its job, but as soon as the alt is available they Quarantine needs to end.  

The evidence of the vaccines from Israel, UK and at early stages UAE are demonstrating results, not sure what fiction you are reading that states otherwise.

Once the willing portion of the population is vaxed, the requirement for international travelers will be implemented and the doors will open.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: