Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I can only assume the 'medical evidence' they relied on was tainted with political considerations. After all, the medical advice in the other states was notably different to the NSW 'advice'; one would assume the medical advice should have similar across the occasions.

Hi Wottie
You have nailed a couple of core issues that don’t seem to be widely recognised .

1. Medical advice has undoubtedly been tainted by political considerations. Politicians are also cherry picking the advice they take.

2. Medical advice is not uniform. It rarely is, not just regarding pandemic issues. Even experts in their field can disagree wildly regarding optimal strategies and treatment protocols.

In addition, politicians’ parrot cries of “we are acting on the best medical advice” are often unsubstantiated. For example, when construction was stopped in Sydney recently and this was the reason given, Kerry Chant admitted she has not advised this.

SWL

[GordMay]

Genes linked to severe Covid-19 risk identified

Some people recover from COVID-19 quite easily, while others suffer terrible consequences, or even die. This, of course, is related to the overall condition of your body, but there are other factors at play as well.
For example, scientists from the University of Edinburgh, with international partners, have discovered 13 DNA sequences that are associated with people developing the most severe form of Covid-19.

More about ➥ https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2021/genes...isk-identified

Unedited Pre-print:
“Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19" ~ COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03767-x

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The Aussie roadmap out of Covid restrictions includes (potentially) a Vacclotto - we are a betting nation after all.

From the Grattan Institue research report issued today - "The Federal Government should establish Vaxlotto, a national $10 million-a-week lottery – everyone who has had one jab is in, and everyone with two jabs doubles their chances."

Their modelling says "that once 80 per cent of the population is vaccinated – and 95 per cent of the most vulnerable, including the over-70s – Australia can safety begin to ‘live with COVID’.

At 80 per cent, COVID would be in the community but severe cases would be rare."

Plenty more in the report https://grattan.edu.au/report/race-to-80/

Thanks for the link. That was a very interesting read. The full 54 page report is here:
https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/up...tan-Report.pdf

I think anyone basing the decision of whether or not to get vaccinated on the chance of a lottery win is an idiot, to put it bluntly .

The 80% fully vaccinated target is highly optimistic, in my view. No other countries with a population of 25+ million have achieved even a single dose with such a high % so far. Chile, Canada, the UK and Spain have come the closest with respectively 72, 71, 70, 67 % of the population receiving one dose and that is after possibly experiencing the trauma of family and friends dying from COVID-19, or certainly observing this occurring to others, a high incentive to accept a jab.

I haven’t looked up the other countries, but numbers receiving the first dose have dropped dramatically in the UK, despite 30% of the population still being unvaccinated, and despite the severity of the outbreak here, and the high death rate and the threat of vaccine passports shortly being required for entry to venues.

The above report states:
“Australians shouldn’t and won’t accept high death tolls or indefinite restrictions.”

After a policy of zero community transmission, I have speculated they won’t accept even moderate death tolls. With very few people Australia having achieved immunity through infection, rates of cases and deaths will be higher than other countries with high vaccination rates where the virus has spread extensively. I think even if an 80% vaccination rate can be achieved (doubtful unless such severe coercion is employed, that vaccination could almost be considered mandatory) politicians will find it unacceptable to be blamed for the death rate once the country opens up.

I think is likely restrictions will be in place for years to try and quell this.

SWL

PS Sorry this is off topic.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

..........
I think anyone basing the decision of whether or not to get vaccinated on the chance of a lottery win is an idiot, to put it bluntly .
...............

On this basis, I reckon that makes it a dam good policy then; we have no shortage of idiots...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Regarding hospitalisations and deaths, it is not simply the % of people unvaccinated, but the % of vulnerable unvaccinated that will drive the figures.



I don’t have any links to attach, but the impression I have had is that, as expected, healthy young unvaccinated people are still less likely to be severely ill following infection than fully vaccinated vulnerable people.



SWL

There is no data supporting your assumption.

In fact based on the delta variant which seems to be generating more severe reactions in younger cohorts ( ie under 35) the case for vaccinating them has grown stronger as witnessed by delta variant countries focussing on vaccinating younger and younger groups.

Whatever way you dice it there are no reasons not to vaccinate and no materially valid reason to decide not to be vaccinated ( unless medically unable to )

The people avoiding vaccination are basing their decisions on fake news, fear mongering and “ perceived “ fears. There’s nothing to suggest that vaccines are less effective then no vaccine or that there are any reasonable grounds for widespread concern over safety.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Wottie
You have nailed a couple of core issues that don’t seem to be widely recognised .

1. Medical advice has undoubtedly been tainted by political considerations. Politicians are also cherry picking the advice they take.

2. Medical advice is not uniform. It rarely is, not just regarding pandemic issues. Even experts in their field can disagree wildly regarding optimal strategies and treatment protocols.

In addition, politicians’ parrot cries of “we are acting on the best medical advice” are often unsubstantiated. For example, when construction was stopped in Sydney recently and this was the reason given, Kerry Chant admitted she has not advised this.

SWL

This is a quite usual situation -- inherent to the translation of science into policy.


When politicians say "I am only following the science", or call some policy or another "science driven" -- they are always lying to some extent or another -- there's not even any such thing as purely science-driven policy. So naturally they cherry pick the science which fits with their understanding of the world and with policies which they consider possible or desirable. This happens even in the best case of a politician with great intellectual honesty trying sincerely to choose that science which is objectively right.


In Denmark there was a scandal last year when the PM closed schools against the advice of the health chief, and covered up that fact. In the Nordic countries there is a principle of administrative independence, which is supposed to free the professionals from interference from politics. It doesn't work that way! It means that the bureaucrats have to figure out the politics themselves. But everyone participates in this charade -- the politicians pretend that they are not meddling and that only science is considered, the bureaucrats pretend they are above politics, and the public buys it. And I'm not saying anything against this approach -- so long as there is a scrupulous demurring from obvious politics, I think better policy can actually be produced like this. Witness the Nordic pandemic responses, which I think may be the best in the world.


But if the politicians cynically lie about it and just use "science" as a wrapper for whatever politics they are after, the results can be awful, and degrade trust in science to boot.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a quite usual situation -- inherent to the translation of science into policy.
When politicians people say "I am only following the science", or call some policy or another "science driven" -- they are always lying to some extent or another -- there's not even any such thing as purely science-driven policy. So naturally they cherry pick the science which fits with their understanding of the world and with policies which they consider possible or desirable. This happens even in the best case of a politician person with great intellectual honesty trying sincerely to choose that science which is objectively right...

I agree, as amended.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I agree, as amended.

Sure. I don't disagree.


But I also said that politicians -- read "people" if you like -- are not necessarily being devious or manipulative when they refer to science. Referring to science might be an honest statement of a worthy goal, which might be pursued with intellectual honesty, even if the policy proposed or defended can't possibly, for all the reasons SWL pointed out, reflect science as a whole.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

There is no data supporting your assumption.

In fact based on the delta variant which seems to be generating more severe reactions in younger cohorts ( ie under 35) the case for vaccinating them has grown stronger as witnessed by delta variant countries focussing on vaccinating younger and younger groups.

No data?

There is plenty of data from the UK where the Delta variant is responsible for close to 100% of cases.

The attached image shows states and clearly shows that “In older age groups, COVID-19 positivity rates were lowest, but hospital admission rates and deaths were highest.”
Data covers a week in mid July 2021.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...issions-by-age

I don’t know how many of those aged under 24 who were hospitalised were unhealthy, but I would guess it is not a negligible number.

The vaccinated percentage of the under 24s is very low, so it is not vaccination that is responsible for these figures. The UK has not approved the use of Pfizer for those under 16 yet (unless they are at high risk, I think).

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Whatever way you dice it there are no reasons not to vaccinate and no materially valid reason to decide not to be vaccinated ( unless medically unable to )

Zero long term data using very new technology that is light years from how other vaccines and drugs work is reason enough in my book not to vaccinate those at very low risk of severe illness. The Delta variant may be affecting younger age groups more than the Alpha variant did, but it is still an extremely low percentage.

We are discussing mass vaccination worldwide here. Why would you expose youngsters at low risk of severe illness to even the smallest chance of long terms problems with a vaccine that has no long track record at all, and when nothing has ever been used that could serve to give even a vague indication of long term risks.

SWL

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

No data?

There is plenty of data from the UK where the Delta variant is responsible for close to 100% of cases.

The attached image shows states and clearly shows that “In older age groups, COVID-19 positivity rates were lowest, but hospital admission rates and deaths were highest.”
Data covers a week in mid July 2021.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...issions-by-age

I don’t know how many of those aged under 24 who were hospitalised were unhealthy, but I would guess it is not a negligible number.

The vaccinated percentage of the under 24s is very low, so it is not vaccination that is responsible for these figures. The UK has not approved the use of Pfizer for those under 16 yet (unless they are at high risk, I think).




Zero long term data using very new technology that is light years from how other vaccines and drugs work is reason enough in my book not to vaccinate those at very low risk of severe illness. The Delta variant may be affecting younger age groups more than the Alpha variant did, but it is still an extremely low percentage.

We are discussing mass vaccination worldwide here. Why would you expose youngsters at low risk of severe illness to even the smallest chance of long terms problems with a vaccine that has no long track record at all, and when nothing has ever been used that could serve to give even a vague indication of long term risks.

SWL

The UK is a 'Third Country' so GBN (an EU warrior) does not trust anything that comes outa there..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The UK is a 'Third Country' so GBN (an EU warrior) does not trust anything that comes outa there..

I forgot .

Well, he needs to come up with EU data that supports his claim then, otherwise there is no substance to his latest comments.

SWL

[AKA-None]

So if I don’t take the vaccine because it doesn’t help me but I mutate or transmit the virus then does that change anything?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a quite usual situation -- inherent to the translation of science into policy.


When politicians say "I am only following the science", or call some policy or another "science driven" -- they are always lying to some extent or another -- there's not even any such thing as purely science-driven policy. So naturally they cherry pick the science which fits with their understanding of the world and with policies which they consider possible or desirable. This happens even in the best case of a politician with great intellectual honesty trying sincerely to choose that science which is objectively right.


In Denmark there was a scandal last year when the PM closed schools against the advice of the health chief, and covered up that fact. In the Nordic countries there is a principle of administrative independence, which is supposed to free the professionals from interference from politics. It doesn't work that way! It means that the bureaucrats have to figure out the politics themselves. But everyone participates in this charade -- the politicians pretend that they are not meddling and that only science is considered, the bureaucrats pretend they are above politics, and the public buys it. And I'm not saying anything against this approach -- so long as there is a scrupulous demurring from obvious politics, I think better policy can actually be produced like this. Witness the Nordic pandemic responses, which I think may be the best in the world.


But if the politicians cynically lie about it and just use "science" as a wrapper for whatever politics they are after, the results can be awful, and degrade trust in science to boot.

Allow me to paraphrase this:

If their lips are moving, they are lying; we are all in the poo, only the depth is varying.

To which I agree and the best we can hope is a very low level of poo.

[Dockhead]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/h...fee6102b823658


Very bad news. Delta variant even more contagious that previously thought, and is transmitted by vaccinated people who get breakthrough, asymptomatic infections.



So Tegnell was right, it turns out. Everyone will eventually get it unless they manage to get vaccinated first.



Australia is stuffed if they don't supercharge vaccination. Delta is more contagious than chicken pox (!). No way to contain that.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

........


Australia is stuffed if they don't supercharge vaccination. Delta is more contagious than chicken pox (!). No way to contain that.

Correction, NSW is stuffed - along with the LNP.