Australian Vaccine Rollout

Remove this Banner Ad

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
‘For me ‘living with covid’ requirement #1 is governments shelving the ‘rule by decree’ and submitting policy to proper process.

after all have we not now established the state of emergency is over? I’m not holding my breath though
 

Christopher Buttersnip

Beware of the Drop Bears
Oct 28, 2020
4,020
10,243
AFL Club
Melbourne
What's Dr Miller's proposed alternative?
You'd have to ask him. But my guess is it is both that he is concerned the repeated use of the term 'Covid normal ' is becoming accepted lingo without there being any real explanation as to what that means. I've asked the proponents here to tell me how many deaths and how much illness and hospitalisation is acceptable in their 'Covid normal' world. Or to put in words of Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet: "We know that hospitalisations are going up. We know there will be an epidemic of Long Covid. And we know that we're creating the risks for new variants. That is not in doubt"... so.... "explain clearly to the public, what level of mortality and disability is acceptable"?

The proponents either run for cover and don't respond or come up with drivel like it's "straw man"

Plus, Doc Miller sees no good reason why the approach that largely overcame the likes of Sars, and further back. the likes of Polio, Smallpox et al can't be the go-to response here.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

You'd have to ask him. But my guess is it is both that he is concerned the repeated use of the term 'Covid normal ' is becoming accepted lingo without there being any real explanation as to what that means. I've asked the proponents here to tell me how many deaths and how much illness and hospitalisation is acceptable in their 'Covid normal' world. Or to put in words of Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet: "We know that hospitalisations are going up. We know there will be an epidemic of Long Covid. And we know that we're creating the risks for new variants. That is not in doubt"... so.... "explain clearly to the public, what level of mortality and disability is acceptable"?

The proponents either run for cover and don't respond or come up with drivel like it's "straw man"

Plus, Doc Miller sees no good reason why the approach that largely overcame the likes of Sars, and further back. the likes of Polio, Smallpox et al can't be the go-to response here.



Covid normal is a highly vaccinated population that enables the requirements of a functioning economy while adapting to new public health orders.

What's the alternative, staying locked in our houses until there's some sort of literal cure?
 

swingdog

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 3, 2007
9,434
12,375
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Covid normal is a highly vaccinated population that enables the requirements of a functioning economy while adapting to new public health orders.

What's the alternative, staying locked in our houses until there's some sort of literal cure?

No, but an honest conversation about how many deaths we're prepared to accept would be a start. That can then inform policy.
 
No, but an honest conversation about how many deaths we're prepared to accept would be a start. That can then inform policy.

I think you're being facetious if you think the Premier/PM is going to come out and say X number of deaths are acceptable.
 

Christopher Buttersnip

Beware of the Drop Bears
Oct 28, 2020
4,020
10,243
AFL Club
Melbourne
Covid normal is a highly vaccinated population that enables the requirements of a functioning economy while adapting to new public health orders.

What's the alternative, staying locked in our houses until there's some sort of literal cure?
What you've done is precisely what I've accused other Covid normal peeps of - avoid the central question, just indulge in whataboutism. Helps dodge the central issue as put by me and, more importantly, Doc Horton, I guess. And avoids how we beat Sars etc to boot.
 
What you've done is precisely what I've accused other Covid normal peeps of - avoid the central question, just indulge in whataboutism. Helps dodge the central issue as put by me and, more importantly, Doc Horton, I guess. And avoids how we beat Sars etc to boot.

No, you're incorrect. I defined covid normal above. So now tell me, what do you want? Like I said, if it's for a state premier or the PM to say, "5 deaths a day is fine by me", you're just being silly.
 
There should be a broader conversation abut how many deaths we are prepared to accept, as a society.

What does that actually mean? I get 5 of my mates, you get 5 of yours and we have a roundtable?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No, the usual way society debates these things. In the media, surveys, debates in Parliament and so on. Think of any contentious issue (e.g. assisted dying).

Death rates of vaccinated/unvaccinated have been spoken about nonstop. I'm sure it's even been discussed in this thread.
 
Aug 2, 2012
34,820
56,387
AFL Club
Geelong
Death rates of vaccinated/unvaccinated have been spoken about nonstop. I'm sure it's even been discussed in this thread.
People who want to let it rip have repeatedly been asked in this and associated threads how many deaths they are prepared to accept.

Not a single one has had the guts to give a figure, to put up or shut up.

Not one.
 
People who want to let it rip have repeatedly been asked in this and associated threads how many deaths they are prepared to accept.

Not a single one has had the guts to give a figure, to put up or shut up.

Not one.

I imagine they mean the death rate of vaccinated people applied to the Australian population. Even if you don't agree with them, the whole "give me a figure" thing is so silly. You sound like the "yes or no" girl from that one Limmy sketch.
 
Aug 2, 2012
34,820
56,387
AFL Club
Geelong
I imagine they mean the death rate of vaccinated people applied to the Australian population. Even if you don't agree with them, the whole "give me a figure" thing is so silly. You sound like the "yes or no" girl from that one Limmy sketch.
Funny, that's one of their standard ways of dodging the perfectly legitimate question.
 
I think you're being facetious if you think the Premier/PM is going to come out and say X number of deaths are acceptable.
Yeah, there is no way a premier or PM is going to take a 180 and say that a certain number of deaths are acceptable after behaving like every single life needs to be protected from covid, shutting down entire economies to prevent the spread.

They have made good political points off making people feel safe and the opposition everywhere will be lined up ready to accuse them of putting money ahead of lives, killing grandma etc if they knowingly let covid in knowing that it will cost lives.

It's all political gamesmanship though. Everyone knows that the global economy ramping up and the movement of people is going to lead to the spread of the virus which means eventually it will get into an elderly patient facility where the people who die from the flu or shortly after a fall due to lack of mobility will be taken by covid-19 even with every vaccine booster.

Even our vaccine rollout plan has been political. First it wasn't good enough, then we couldn't deliver AZ which we went all in on making here, now it's right on track to put us in the top group of nations on the planet with a massive head start elsewhere but all along the plan has been to get the nation's expectations on opening up there so that if premiers don't want to do it, in order to protect their people, they have to admit they didn't manage their health systems well enough. So they will all open up and the federal government will throw them a big chunk of money and call an election.

The states will throw their hands up and say "Sorry Albo"
 
Funny, that's one of their standard ways of dodging the perfectly legitimate question.

Lol would you rather they make up a number instead of adhering to what the science is showing us?
 
Lol would you rather they make up a number instead of adhering to what the science is showing us?
Any number you answer is going to be used to label you a monster.

Australia averages 626 lab confirmed flu deaths per year 2016 to 2019. The lab confirmed cases in 2019 to death percentage was 0.227%.

The covid-19 case fatality rate in Australia is currently 1.02%, the global figure including the period of time prior to vaccines and treatment protocols is 2.03%.

Let's assume Australia's CFR is the reliable one. That's 4.5x the flu of 2019 - so a figure of around 4000 should be expected if transmission vectors and vulnerability are similar between the suffers of each virus.

Given that both covid and the flu were way, way down on their expected kill counts in Australia over 2020 and 2021 we should expect those years of deaths that would have gone by unnoticed by most in 2019 to be caught up in a rush over 2022 and 2023.

We should be expecting approximately 12,000 deaths in the first 12 months attributed to covid-19.

 
Any number you answer is going to be used to label you a monster.

Australia averages 626 lab confirmed flu deaths per year 2016 to 2019. The lab confirmed cases in 2019 to death percentage was 0.227%.

The covid-19 case fatality rate in Australia is currently 1.02%, the global figure including the period of time prior to vaccines and treatment protocols is 2.03%.

Let's assume Australia's CFR is the reliable one. That's 4.5x the flu of 2019 - so a figure of around 4000 should be expected if transmission vectors and vulnerability are similar between the suffers of each virus.

Given that both covid and the flu were way, way down on their expected kill counts in Australia over 2020 and 2021 we should expect those years of deaths that would have gone by unnoticed by most in 2019 to be caught up in a rush over 2022 and 2023.

We should be expecting approximately 12,000 deaths in the first 12 months attributed to covid-19.


I'm not even a "let it rip" guy, I've been accused as being a Dictator Dan sycophant left right and centre on here lol

I just reckon it's absurdly immature and, quite frankly, dumb to say, "give me a number". It's even more bizarre that this Fred bloke shits his dacks if you actually point to the science.
 
Last edited:
I'm not even a "let it rip" guy, I've been accused as being a Dictator Dan sycophant left right and centre on here lol

I just reckon it's absurdly immature and, quite frankly, dumb to say, "give me a number".

It's because it turns it into an emotive discussion. Everyone can think of far less than the 12,000 number I used - they don't know that many, literally everyone they know dying - it's horrible to think of.

It's the same argument used against people who question speed camera locations and motivations, particularly when they are used more on high traffic areas than on known black spot areas. The goal is zero deaths right? You're a monster if you think there is a number of deaths that is acceptable.
... Then they quote road toll figures that include suicides as though any road condition was going to prevent that.

The challenge of how many lives are acceptable to lose is a simple one to end the discussion but it's also a clinical reality of human existence.

We need everyone getting down the gym and hitting the running track, free physio for all, I'll put up a couch to 5k thread and people can go at their pace.

Our biggest risk of covid is that so many of us are dreadfully out of shape.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back