Covid-19 Mandatory vaccines

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
102,921
82,105
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infec...d-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf

In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated people it was 561 per 100,000, a more than 10-fold difference.
The rates of COVID-19 ICU admissions or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people, a greater than 16-fold difference.
 
Last edited:

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,733
40,656
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
As I said in my OP there could be a case for the mandate if it was a temporary measure designed to encourage vaccine uptake. But we are now at 87% fully vaxxed. We should be in the National Cabinet Final post-vaccination phase

Australia will seek to treat COVID-19 like any other infectious disease, with the goal to minimize cases without ongoing restrictions or lockdowns.​
I would suggest that making your job a little bit easier doesn't weigh up too well against thousands of people losing their ability to earn a living - many of them health professionals.
Thats only adults that percentage. Virus is running amok in kids. Plus it looks like the vaccine efficiencies fall dramatically by 6 motnhs which means the real effective vax rate is much lower. This is why virus is spreading like wildfire in europe. No kids vaccinated and the vaccines are wearing down. Boosters will need to be mandated. Hopefully only one booster. But if that doesnt work then it may need to be every year or even every 6 months.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
20,282
14,833
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I will cry. The pandemic aint going away without vaccine mandates. Look at whats happening in europe right now.

we need 100 percent vaccine mandates for those who aint ill. Its the only way to keep covid managable each winter and go back to our lives.
You could be correct; perhaps something to use more in late autumn when numbers increase and relax from late spring? I see Portugal also now looking at bringing back some restrictions (I had hoped it would not be needed with their high vaccination rate and I think ongoing masks on public transport and vaccination passport)
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
This does not seem logical at all. It seems like an extraordinary claim. Any other jurisdictions able to replicate this?
Yes, the UK. In most age groups over 30 the vaccine effectiveness is now negative. Of course this is rather inconvenient data, so there is a ready list of reasons to explain it.

Week 37.

1637219220812.png


Week 41.

1637219365346.png


Week 45.

1637219444442.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Also the effectiveness of the vaccine is rapidly declining in nearly every age group. There's only the under 18s that have any decent protection from infection and that population has minimal risk from the virus.

1637219868815.png
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
So… what is their ready list of reasons to explain it? Non-vaxed, already had Covid?
It's one of them. It can't go anywhere near explaining all of it. It's clear the vaccine effectiveness declines significantly over a number of weeks so it doesn't provide any protection from infection and appears to make those vaccinated more susceptible.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
44,733
40,656
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
It depends on the gender, age group and how long since you had the vaccine. This is from a study in Sweden that showed vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) against infection waned progressively from 92% at day 15-30 to 47% at day 121-180, from day 211 no effectiveness could be detected, and after that the efficacy went negative ie you are more likely to get infected if you had been vaccinated.


View attachment 1282433

Its a non peer review study for starters and notice how its a giant confidence interval? The conclusion from that chart is that it may not be effective from 200 days not that it has negative effectivess. There is zero means by which that would happen. notice how in the paper the authors arent advocating that their data suggests negative effectiveness?

and if this study is correct and vaccines wear off after 6 months do you know what the outcome of this should be for public health policy? Boosters need to be mandated every 6 months.
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
102,921
82,105
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
It's one of them. It can't go anywhere near explaining all of it. It's clear the vaccine effectiveness declines significantly over a number of weeks so it doesn't provide any protection from infection and appears to make those vaccinated more susceptible.
Or, the unvaccinated who died never get to be included in later stats?
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
I doubt the Federal government wants to overrule the states on mandatory vaccines but there's a few Senators putting pressure on and Morrison is making some noises in that direction.

Mr Morrison said on Thursday the government’s position was that vaccines should only be mandatory in “very specific circumstances”.​
“Vaccines only are mandatory in cases where you’ve got health workers that are working with vulnerable people. That’s what our medical advice has always been.”​

 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Or, the unvaccinated who died never get to be included in later stats?
No.

Week 45.

Cases per 100,000 for fully vaxxed 40-49 age group was 2,111. Cases per 100,000 for unvaxxed was 933. You are more than twice as likely to be infected if you are vaxxed than if you are not.

The deaths in that age group was 40 unvaxxed vs 38 vaxxed. Not really a factor.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,265
11,760
AFL Club
Carlton
I doubt the Federal government wants to overrule the states on mandatory vaccines but there's a few Senators putting pressure on and Morrison is making some noises in that direction.

Mr Morrison said on Thursday the government’s position was that vaccines should only be mandatory in “very specific circumstances”.​
“Vaccines only are mandatory in cases where you’ve got health workers that are working with vulnerable people. That’s what our medical advice has always been.”​

Under what mechanism are you thinking Cth might overrule States on this? I don’t think it can; at least not directly.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
No.

Week 45.

Cases per 100,000 for fully vaxxed 40-49 age group was 2,111. Cases per 100,000 for unvaxxed was 933. You are more than twice as likely to be infected if you are vaxxed than if you are not.

The deaths in that age group was 40 unvaxxed vs 38 vaxxed. Not really a factor.
These are vaccines that were emergency authorised on the basis of 95% efficacy. So if it were still the case, the figures should be more like cases per 100,000 unvaxxed 933, cases per 100,000 fully vaxxed 50.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Under what mechanism are you thinking Cth might overrule States on this? I don’t think it can; at least not directly.
Victoria's vaccine mandate rules already don't apply to Commonwealth employees such as judges, lawyers, security guards and Federal police officers.

I believe the Feds could pass a law prohibiting medical discrimination and under section 109 of the constitution it would override state law.
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,265
11,760
AFL Club
Carlton
Victoria's vaccine mandate rules already don't apply to Commonwealth employees such as judges, lawyers, security guards and Federal police officers.

I believe the Feds could pass a law prohibiting medical discrimination and under section 109 of the constitution it would override state law.
Ah yes, ok, you mean insofar as it interfere’s with Fed responsibilities; you might be right. On the whole however insofar as it applies to non cth employees, I don’t think cth can stop States unless it legitimately indirectly interferes with an area of cth responsibility.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,903
14,406
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
I cannot see any point at which one human who has been vaccinated is MORE susceptible to Covid than an identical person who has never had Covid or been vaccinated.

It defies all logic.
Just because you don't like it and don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

There's another factor. Immunity by recovery from Covid seems to be strong and long lasting. Whereas the immunity from the vaccine wanes substantially over a few months until it has zero effectiveness then tends heavily negative.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
47,961
41,858
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
Just because you don't like it and don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

There's another factor. Immunity by recovery from Covid seems to be strong and long lasting. Whereas the immunity from the vaccine wanes substantially over a few months until it has zero effectiveness then tends heavily negative.
That would suggest you are better off to have the vaccine , then contract Covid.
 

yodellinhank

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 22, 2008
13,540
14,855
Geelong
AFL Club
Essendon
I cannot see any point at which one human who has been vaccinated is MORE susceptible to Covid than an identical person who has never had Covid or been vaccinated.

It defies all logic.
Not all logic. The figures aren't based on identical humans. Vaccinated could expose themselves (and now be allowed to expose themselves) to higher risk. And the early vaccinated would have been those who were at most risk of exposure (I'm especially thinking vocationally).

Longer time since vaccination plus higher exposure to a virus that is more prevalent in the community, the stats could show that those are the people getting infected. Lies and statistics.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
20,282
14,833
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No.

Week 45.

Cases per 100,000 for fully vaxxed 40-49 age group was 2,111. Cases per 100,000 for unvaxxed was 933. You are more than twice as likely to be infected if you are vaxxed than if you are not.

The deaths in that age group was 40 unvaxxed vs 38 vaxxed. Not really a factor.
is that a single cherry picked week?

edit - yep very cherry picked presentation of statistics. From the same source

hospitalisation rate/ 100000 vaccinated = 8.8 vs 33.3 for 100000 unvaccinated
death rate/ 100000 vaccinated = 0.6 vs 2.3 at 28 days, and 0.8 vs 3.1 at 60 days for that same age group.
 
Last edited:

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
20,282
14,833
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Just because you don't like it and don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

There's another factor. Immunity by recovery from Covid seems to be strong and long lasting. Whereas the immunity from the vaccine wanes substantially over a few months until it has zero effectiveness then tends heavily negative.
there doesn't appear to be evidence for this claim (unfortunately)

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad