The Reality of Living in Australia and Covid

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

What I find incredibly frustrating in Australia is the prioritising of children aged 12 and over for Pfizer vaccination.

After all the fuss with blood clots following AZ vaccination, there is still a lot of hesitancy amongst senior Australians, yet this group currently only has access to the AZ vaccine. It has been announced that anyone over 60 waiting for Pfizer to become available to them, will be put at the end of the queue after all the 12 year olds when this finally occurs.

The following data is a few days old, but out of the 1006 COVID-19 deaths in Australia since this pandemic began 973, ie 97% were aged over 60.

Merely 0.3% were aged under 30 (3 of the 1006) and just one was aged under 20.

Yet Pfizer is currently being pushed on the very young and withheld from the old.

Absolutely stupid policy decisions are being made by state premiers .

SWL

Agreed there are plenty of stupid decisions being made - no doubt at all.

However deaths due to the current Delta breakout have been pushing up the percentage of 'younger' deaths. Sorry, I don't the actual numbers or a link ATM.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Agreed there are plenty of stupid decisions being made - no doubt at all.

However deaths due to the current Delta breakout have been pushing up the percentage of 'younger' deaths. Sorry, I don't the actual numbers or a link ATM.

I have a link:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...and-statistics

Below is the latest data that is updated daily.

Despite the media hype, the young are not dying like flies.

Todays figure is still 3 deaths aged under 30 since the pandemic commenced (and only 9 under 40). I suspect all of them had co-morbidities. They are responsible for most of the cases, but this is not the group at risk of dying.

SWL

Note: No females under 30 have died in Australia since this pandemic commenced (and only 2 under 40). They are not exactly pushing up the % of younger deaths. This is out of around 1032 deaths (I didn’t add up the columns in this particular table, but that is close enough).

Edited to add: the total below is actually 1031 deaths

[Dockhead]

You guys have broken 50 daily cases per million:





Cases have doubled since 20 August, so you're in exponential growth, but that's a moderate rate. From experiencing, doubling rates over two weeks are not really alarming.



Deaths have increased sharply:





But 0.23 per million is a micro death rate, not indicative of stress on hospitals. I hope care homes and so forth are being intensely prioritized now. You've got some time still but not much.

[RaymondR]

When the Australian states decided to form a federation and become the nation of Australia under the constitution the federal government was given power over only foreign affairs and trade and the individual states had full authority over their own revenue raising and service delivery matters.

It all run along fine with the federal government raising their revenue through import duties and to enable the feds to pay for WW1 (a foreign affairs matter) an income tax was instituted by the federal government.

Then along comes WW2, a much more expensive war due to the industrialization of warfare. So the federal government inveigled the states into surrendering their taxing powers to the feds and various mechanisms were put in place to apportion funding back to the states. However the states retained the power to charge for the delivery of services which is why you pay your taxes to the tax department (feds) but your car registration to the state governments (states) Every now and then they have an argument about what is a tax and it generally ends up in the High Court if Australia. Hence duties on tobacco and booze, whilst levied by the states is actually collected by the commonwealth (feds) tax department.

It's these arrangements which allow recalcitrants like Dangerous Dan, Anastacia and the cowboy in the west to claim, "It's all Scomo's fault because whilst we, the states have full authority over the public health systems and for running the public hospitals he didn't give us enough money to do so." Some of you might have more than a three minute attention span and recall the incident where the federal government demanded the NT government explain that whilst the feds had already given the NT government $140 million to build aboriginal housing the NT government had not yet purchased one single nail. The NT governments reply was "Administration is expensive." and whilst our aboriginal citizens in the NT were still living under the shade of a tree the state government bureaucrats were living high on the hog in grand air conditioned comfort. Such is the politics in Australia in federal/state relations. Whilst the feds have to pick up the tab the states deliver (or don't) the services in the ground. Consequently if the cowboy in the west declares "We need more administrators for our health service delivery." and goes out and hires a social secretary to look after the lunch arrangements of every extant secretary he is able to do so and the line of folks waiting for surgery (or ICU care) can just get a little longer.

Now you might ask why the doctors cannot be conscripted by the feds the way the Brits did it to set up their National Health Service. The answer to that is that there is a provision in the federal constitution under which the nation was formed against civil conscription and consequently they could not legally do so.

So when the prime minister gets up in parliament and says, "Mr Speaker, we provided training upgrades for 30,000 nurses." what he really means is we awarded Dangerous Dan the cash to enable him to retrain 30,000 nurses for ICU duties." and in reality DD decided he didn't need them so spent the dough on 10,000 admins because they have to be in a union and he will get a big pocket full of money in union dues to spend on his re-election plus 10,000 more voters who know their future employment depends on him being re-elected.

Now to sailing matters.

I'm in Cairns, the temperature is around 24-24 degrees C (84-86 deg F) every day. I'm anchored across from the marina and the wind constantly from the S-SE so it very calm and comfortable in the harbour and I can very easily dingy across to the dingy jetty, buy a paper and have a coffee whilst I catch up on the news. It will stay that way for another month or so when we'll start to get northerlies and then I'll start my twin head sail drift back south for christmas at the Great Sandy Straits or points further south. It's a tough life up here in "the deep north" but hey, someones got to do it. And I will say in my own defense that I occasionally feel a slight twinge of sympathy for those of you obliged to winter in the frigid south in your boats but can generally drag my self out of the depressing frame of mind with the thought that hey, if the silly buggers want to venture down into sub arctic climes and be subjected to lock downs, lock outs and lock ups it's their own fault that they become imprisoned there for the winter.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I have a link:

https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...and-statistics

Below is the latest data that is updated daily.

Despite the media hype, the young are not dying like flies.

Todays figure is still 3 deaths aged under 30 since the pandemic commenced (and only 9 under 40). I suspect all of them had co-morbidities. They are responsible for most of the cases, but this is not the group at risk of dying.

SWL

Note: No females under 30 have died in Australia since this pandemic commenced (and only 2 under 40). They are not exactly pushing up the % of younger deaths. This is out of around 1032 deaths (I didn’t add up the columns in this particular table, but that is close enough).

Edited to add: the total below is actually 1031 deaths

No disagreement with any of this. The earlier point I was trying to make (rather clumsily) was simply that the Delta variant has shown (so far in Oz) to be less ageist, both hospitalisation and death wise.

Perhaps case numbers are too low to make meaningful analysis however speculation is always fun so I wonder if the Delta variant does indeed affect a slightly wider age range or is it simply there are now more vaccinated oldies or have we kept Delta out of age care homes (so far).

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

No disagreement with any of this. The earlier point I was trying to make (rather clumsily) was simply that the Delta variant has shown (so far in Oz) to be less ageist, both hospitalisation and death wise.

Perhaps case numbers are too low to make meaningful analysis however speculation is always fun so I wonder if the Delta variant does indeed affect a slightly wider age range or is it simply there are now more vaccinated oldies or have we kept Delta out of age care homes (so far).

Wottie, the media is making a huge fuss of every “young” case, skewing perceptions dramatically. Compounding this, the premiers are focussing on cases when they report the explosion in the young, not severe illnesses (many of the young are asymptomatic).

I have done some number crunching for you from yesterday’s Australian government statistics:

Total COVID-19 cases detected: 57819
Under 60: 49304 = 85%
60 and over: 8515 = 15%

Total COVID-19 deaths recorded: 1031
Under 60: 36 = 3%
60 and over: 995 = 97%

Deaths per cases (both age related):
Under 60: 0.07%
60 and over: 11.7%

Why on earth are they prioritising Pfizer for the 12+ year old children who have almost never been severely ill during this pandemic when the 60+ year olds are at such high risk of death?

Source:
https://www.health.gov.au/news/healt...and-statistics

SWL

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Wottie, the media is making a huge fuss of every “young” case, skewing perceptions dramatically. Compounding this, the premiers are focussing on cases when they report the explosion in the young, not severe illnesses (many of the young are asymptomatic).
...

This has been happening here as well along with the push to vaccinate younger people. Some kids have died but when you see a photo of them, and they always seem to show a photo, the kid was overweight which is the largest risk factor for going to the ICU, needing ventilation, and death. Flip side, is the US has too many fat people and too many fat kids. The pediatric beds are filling up with sick children. But, the hospital beds are filling up with adults too.

Overweight people, including children, should be the focus for vaccinations. The second most risk factor for death was very surprising to me, it is anxiety issues.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

The worlds focus is on jabs, jabs, and more jabs. This is not and cannot go any faster than it has been. Simply loosing weight, for those who are over weight, minimizes a person's chances of going to the hospital, ICU, ventilation and death. This is something most people could at least try to do but I don't hear anyone making the suggestion.

Later,
Dan

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by dannc

This has been happening here as well along with the push to vaccinate younger people. Some kids have died but when you see a photo of them, and they always seem to show a photo, the kid was overweight which is the largest risk factor for going to the ICU, needing ventilation, and death. Flip side, is the US has too many fat people and too many fat kids. The pediatric beds are filling up with sick children. But, the hospital beds are filling up with adults too.

Overweight people, including children, should be the focus for vaccinations. The second most risk factor for death was very surprising to me, it is anxiety issues.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

The worlds focus is on jabs, jabs, and more jabs. This is not and cannot go any faster than it has been. Simply loosing weight, for those who are over weight, minimizes a person's chances of going to the hospital, ICU, ventilation and death. This is something most people could at least try to do but I don't hear anyone making the suggestion.

Later,
Dan

The British prime minister made this suggestion last year, but the call to lose weight has not been taken up.

I have started to become cynical watching how this pandemic is being dealt with. There is no profit for pharmaceuticals for non drug related management. No profit either for treatments using old drugs that have been repurposed. The vast majority of drug related research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry so minimal funds are being allocated to this and without decent studies old drugs that may be useful are being dismissed.

It is a crying shame.

SWL

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

...
I have started to become cynical watching how this pandemic is being dealt with. There is no profit for pharmaceuticals for non drug related management. No profit either for treatments using old drugs that have been repurposed. The vast majority of drug related research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry so minimal funds are being allocated to this and without decent studies old drugs that may be useful are being dismissed.

It is a crying shame.

SWL

Agreed.

One of the big things that people could do at little cost is vitamin D. The studies have been showing that *** low *** levels of vitamin D increases one's odds of going to the hospital, ICU, and death. If one has the proper level of vitamin D, the odds of going to the hospital, ICU, or death are greatly minimized, especially the dying part.

The Irish government issued a report in April of 2020 talking about the need to increase the population's vitamin D level, not just to fight the pandemic but for general physical and mental health. Low levels of vitamin D are a world wide problem. Studies say that 80% of the Indian population is deficient in vitamin D....

The Irish report mentioned that Finland has had a national policy of vitamin D supplementation for 20 years.

Ireland and Finland have a similar population of five million people.

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/:

.......................................Ireland --- Finland
Total Cases................... : 354,236 --- 129,106
Recovered/Discharged.... : 262,338 --- 46,000
Deaths.......................... : 5,112 --- 1,030

From reading what Dockhead had said about Finland and my reading several Irish papers, it seems that Ireland's lock down measures were far more severe than in Finland and near what has been done in Australia and New Zealand.

The different results in the two countries is interesting. One of the doctors who wrote the Irish report, said that the only common factor they could find with people sick from the virus, was low levels of vitamin D.

How much does it cost to supplement with vitamin D? Or if it is summer time, go outside for 15-30 minutes, to get some sun?

I don't like to be cynical, or jump on the Drug Company Conspiracy Train, but....

Later,
Dan

[Stevenc]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

What I find incredibly frustrating in Australia is the prioritising of children aged 12 and over for Pfizer vaccination, a group that has been almost unaffected during this pandemic (at least from the virus itself).

After all the fuss with blood clots following AZ vaccination, there is still a lot of hesitancy amongst senior Australians, yet this group currently only has access to the AZ vaccine. It has been announced that anyone over 60 waiting for Pfizer to become available to them, will be put at the end of the queue after all the 12 year olds when this finally occurs.

The following data is a few days old, but out of the 1006 COVID-19 deaths in Australia since this pandemic began 973, ie 97% were aged over 60.


Merely 0.3% were aged under 30 (3 of the 1006) and just one was aged under 20.

Yet Pfizer is currently being pushed on the very young and withheld from the old.

Absolutely stupid policy decisions are being made by state premiers .

SWL

Maybe, but under 30’s are the major spreader age. Not so stupid after all.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Stevenc

Maybe, but under 30’s are the major spreader age. Not so stupid after all.

We may be able to slow down spread, but not stop it. The current thinking is that everyone will become infected eventually, vaccinated or not.

Surely preventing hospitalisations and deaths is the biggest concern? That is actually primarily why lockdowns have occurred worldwide. Infection without severe illness is pretty irrelevant. For the elderly vaccines are the key to this.

We have undergone lockdowns mainly to prevent the elderly from dying. To now allocate vaccines to the young rather than the old who are overwhelmingly at the most risk of severe illness seems like a nutty decision to me. In Australia Pfizer vaccines are currently only available to the under 60’s, the group who are overwhelmingly at low risk of severe illness and death. How does this make any sense?

SWL

[Stevenc]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

We may be able to slow down spread, but not stop it. The current thinking is that everyone will become infected eventually, vaccinated or not.

Surely preventing hospitalisations and deaths is the biggest concern? That is actually primarily why lockdowns have occurred worldwide. Infection without severe illness is pretty irrelevant. For the elderly vaccines are the key to this.

We have undergone lockdowns mainly to prevent the elderly from dying. To now allocate vaccines to the young rather than the old who are overwhelmingly at the most risk of severe illness seems like a nutty decision to me. In Australia Pfizer vaccines are currently only available to the under 60’s, the group who are overwhelmingly at low risk of severe illness and death. How does this make any sense?

SWL

We go into lockdown to prevent the under 30,S from spreading to the elderly. Doesn’t kill them as you say, but kills the elderly. Makes complete sense to me. Plenty of vaccine available to the elderly if they want it. Unfortunately, some don’t and will pay the price.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Stevenc

We go into lockdown to prevent the under 30,S from spreading to the elderly. Doesn’t kill them as you say, but kills the elderly. Makes complete sense to me. Plenty of vaccine available to the elderly if they want it. Unfortunately, some don’t and will pay the price.

If a high percentage of the elderly are vaccinated (and vaccines are currently known to be well over 90% effective in preventing severe illness and death) and everyone is expected to eventually become infected, it does not make any sense to me withholding vaccines from those overwhelmingly at highest risk of dying.

Yes, AZ is widely available, but due to the hype about blood clots (both from the media and comments made by “health advisors” such as Queensland’s Dr Young, as well as ATAGI who have not recommended AZ for those at lower risk) uptake is hesitant.

Why not cover these most vulnerable groups with any available dose of Pfizer?

The statistics are overwhelming.
In Australia 0.07 % of those infected under 60 have died.
Over 60 it is 11.7 %.

I cannot see how it is possible to justify withholding Pfizer from over 60 year olds who are at greatest risk of dying for the sake of reducing spread, which is expected to eventually occur regardless.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by dannc

Agreed.

One of the big things that people could do at little cost is vitamin D. The studies have been showing that *** low *** levels of vitamin D increases one's odds of going to the hospital, ICU, and death. If one has the proper level of vitamin D, the odds of going to the hospital, ICU, or death are greatly minimized, especially the dying part.

The Irish government issued a report in April of 2020 talking about the need to increase the population's vitamin D level, not just to fight the pandemic but for general physical and mental health. Low levels of vitamin D are a world wide problem. Studies say that 80% of the Indian population is deficient in vitamin D....

The Irish report mentioned that Finland has had a national policy of vitamin D supplementation for 20 years.

Ireland and Finland have a similar population of five million people.

From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/:

.......................................Ireland --- Finland
Total Cases................... : 354,236 --- 129,106
Recovered/Discharged.... : 262,338 --- 46,000
Deaths.......................... : 5,112 --- 1,030

From reading what Dockhead had said about Finland and my reading several Irish papers, it seems that Ireland's lock down measures were far more severe than in Finland and near what has been done in Australia and New Zealand.

The different results in the two countries is interesting. One of the doctors who wrote the Irish report, said that the only common factor they could find with people sick from the virus, was low levels of vitamin D.

How much does it cost to supplement with vitamin D? Or if it is summer time, go outside for 15-30 minutes, to get some sun?

I don't like to be cynical, or jump on the Drug Company Conspiracy Train, but....

Later,
Dan

I'm not saying it is relevant in any way, but my Finnish doctor has been forcing me to take vitamin D supplements for years.

[Seaworthy Lass]

PS The young who are at low risk of severe illness are not just given the opportunity to be vaccinated in Australia, but in NSW and Victoria they are being coerced by withdrawing the ability to visit many public venues and possibly even restricting employment once lockdowns are lifted.

There has even been the suggestion of bribing them (lotteries etc). Not sure if this is still proceeding, but it is disturbing.

These vaccines have been approved for "provisional use only" in Australia. No long term data is available. Their mode of action is so new that we don’t even have any other vaccine or drug to compare them to. Mass vaccination of the young who are at negligible risk of severe disease by vaccines using modes of action never before approved for human use is a risky path to take, particularly if the only reason is to reduce spread of an infection that will eventually occur regardless.

SWL