5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Utterly ridiculous, not much is going to change in the next 24 hours - seriously these people are utter morons.

I seriously doubt they are morons.

I mean, if I was putting money on it, I’d likely put a lot of money on the epidemiologists, infectious disease experts etc vs Internet forums and the general public (of which I am a member).

 

13 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

I seriously doubt they are morons.

I mean, if I was putting money on it, I’d likely put a lot of money on the epidemiologists, infectious disease experts etc vs Internet forums and the general public (of which I am a member).

 

Yeah, nah, they’re morons. 
If they were acting on the advice of epidemiologists and infectious diseases experts, then why are Covid restrictions, lockdowns etc. so vastly different from state to state? Are the epidemiologists giving conflicting advice? I very much doubt it. The point of difference is how that advice is interpreted, and then used in decision-making. 

1 hour ago, Big Col said:

I don't know if it's been said before, but I fail to see the point of crowd limit percentage at games when they just crowd everyone into one part of the ground and keep entire other sections of the ground closed.

If games are at limited to 50% capacity then open the entire ground so that the crowd is spread out. Given you have to pre-book a seat, couldn't you just leave one space between every booking party as a minimum - so that no-one is sitting next to a stranger? Perhaps when you book each seat it also removes from play the equivalent number of seats that are near you?

Under the Covid Plan,  to have 20% spread across the whole MCG would mena that all 100,000 seats would ne cleaning after the event. Just on eissue to consider re: Logistics.  

Melbourne might be this year’s hub city. ? Who’d a thunk?! 

No one has died from covid this year in Australia.

2 hours ago, Superunknown said:

I seriously doubt they are morons.

I mean, if I was putting money on it, I’d likely put a lot of money on the epidemiologists, infectious disease experts etc vs Internet forums and the general public (of which I am a member).

 

Oh I am sure they are far better versed in the science. But this isn't science, its politics.

10 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Forget footy in Sydney, Bondi cluster +10 overnight.

I hope everyone remembers who is responsible for the vaccine rollout come election time (which I hope is in Oct).

As Albo said: Start jabbing and stop stabbing.

Think you'll find the slow vaccine roll-out is due to a shortage issue world-wide. That's not really the federal government's fault.

On the issue of the Victorian state government's handling of covid, and their interesting (some would say ridiculous) restrictions/rules, I wouldn't even want to guess what your view is. I'm guessing you 'stand with Dan' lol

 

8 hours ago, Northern Summer said:

Think you'll find the slow vaccine roll-out is due to a shortage issue world-wide. That's not really the federal government's fault.

On the issue of the Victorian state government's handling of covid, and their interesting (some would say ridiculous) restrictions/rules, I wouldn't even want to guess what your view is. I'm guessing you 'stand with Dan' lol

 

Apparently the Fed Govt was offered in July last year priority access to whatever volume of Pfizer and Moderna they wanted. Thanks no thanks was the answer. Apparently partly as they wanted manufacturing capability here and there is a connection between the Libs and a high ranking employee at AstraZeneca. I find Ronni Salt on Twitter a good starting point .

The US has ample excess.

Look at RACF rollout.

So, my mind will be firmly turned to this come election time.

I don’t have a strong view on the Victorian government management as I don’t live in Victoria - my family who do (I’m an ex Victorian) do and most of them very much support him, thinking the beat up is mostly Murdoch driven, and one who is in the MFB who does not - he also blames DHHS for being poorly prepared particularly around the social housing lockdown in North Mel).

I think some of this is very complicated and wouldn’t like to be a the position some premiers have been. I think the state premiers have done well in the main.

there are some exceptions - Ruby Princess.

For the RACF deaths in Vic I would tend to blame the system that hires casual workers who need to work across facilities to make ends meet and who aren’t adequately trained and prepared. Who manages the bulk of aged care and accreditation and is responsible for the for profit aspect and thus focus on wages. 
 

In my view the key issues have been RACF, vaccine procurement and rollout, and quarantine. I’ll let others make their own minds up- that’s just my view, and I know where the responsibility for these lie

Edited June 22, 20213 yr by Superunknown

10 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

Apparently the Fed Govt was offered in July last year priority access to whatever volume of Pfizer and Moderna they wanted. Thanks no thanks was the answer. Apparently partly as they wanted manufacturing capability here and there is a connection between the Libs and a high ranking employee at AstraZeneca. I find Ronni Salt on Twitter a good starting point .

The US has ample excess.

Look at RACF rollout.

So, my mind will be firmly turned to this come election time.

 

Thank you ? 

8 hours ago, Northern Summer said:

Think you'll find the slow vaccine roll-out is due to a shortage issue world-wide. That's not really the federal government's fault.

Even countries like Albania and Cambodia have higher vaccination rates than Australia. The doses are there.

the government bet the house early on AZ  and were let down when 30 million doses were held back in Europe early in the year

We have been playing catch up since then

God only knows what is happening at the Aust manufacturer CSL

Back to the AFL part of this topic. It was nice to see that MFC was excluded from the definition of a “smaller” club in the article in the Age this am that noted that the recent shutdown has cost the AFL $15mln.

with the position of both the AFL and AFLW programmes on field,  the bloodless president transition earlier this year, the Re-signing of sponsors in tough times, financial position where we don’t need AFL support, and hopefully a solution to the training facility in the wings (although Casey seems to be working well now too) these are heady times for long suffering Demons supporters. A lot of kudos needs to go to the Board and senior management. 
now for a period of sustained success to become a power again. 

Something that's gone under the radar is the announcement that GWS v Hawthorn is being moved from Giants Stadium to the MCG.

It's one thing to move the venue, but it's another to move it to the opponent's home ground, where the two sides don't meet again (so there isn't a return game to flip).

This gives Hawthorn an extra home game (they'll be deemed the "away" side but it's their home ground) and gives GWS an additional away game. I'm guessing the issue is Marvel was already in use that Sunday so there was nowhere else to host it, but I wonder whether the game could have been played in Geelong or Ballarat, or anywhere else, to ensure the ground was neutral, rather than Hawthorn's home ground. Although I suppose if given the choice GWS might prefer to have it at the MCG for experience.

22 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I wonder whether the game could have been played in Geelong or Ballarat, or anywhere else, to ensure the ground was neutral, rather than Hawthorn's home ground. Although I suppose if given the choice GWS might prefer to have it at the MCG for experience.

Really good call that. 

There's no reason why that game could not have been played down in Geelong which is an under utilised stadium IMO and one that has improved significantly as an AFL venue over the last few years.

Having said that GWS would back themselves in to beat a struggling Hawthorn at the MCG and they won't mind playing back to back games at the G.

 

1 hour ago, Kent said:

the government bet the house early on AZ  and were let down when 30 million doses were held back in Europe early in the year

We have been playing catch up since then

God only knows what is happening at the Aust manufacturer CSL

If I recall correctly , CSL is doing 1 million doses a month and has been for some months. Supply no longer an issue.

2 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Apparently the Fed Govt was offered in July last year priority access to whatever volume of Pfizer and Moderna they wanted. Thanks no thanks was the answer. Apparently partly as they wanted manufacturing capability here and there is a connection between the Libs and a high ranking employee at AstraZeneca. I find Ronni Salt on Twitter a good starting point .

 

the problem with this argument is that in july 2020 there was no vaccines. there was only a few proto vaccines in early trials. no vaccines approved and no guarantee there would be tested and approved vaccines in any time frame whatsoever. there were even leading medical people saying publicly it could take many years. there were no certainties, just hopes and wishes.

to now say that the government could have bet the house on pfizer and pre-ordered 40M doses enough for the whole country is disingenuous. pfizer and az weren't the only trial vaccines being developed/test but were probably just 2 of the more promising but you'd still need a crystal ball at that time to differentiate..

there we advantages/disadvantages in both (e.g. cost, refrigeration, local manufacture, availability time frame etc). The government decided on a two pronged approach. If at that time they had bet the house on just either one they would have been widely criticised.

when vaccines started to become available australia had problems with supply for a number of reasons, among them that australia was in less desperate needs compared to most other countries

i don't remember much criticism of the government in july 2020, in fact quite the opposite, so for some to now turn around and criticise that decision smacks of politicking and blame shifting. 

 

14 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Yeah, nah, they’re morons. 
If they were acting on the advice of epidemiologists and infectious diseases experts, then why are Covid restrictions, lockdowns etc. so vastly different from state to state? Are the epidemiologists giving conflicting advice? I very much doubt it. The point of difference is how that advice is interpreted, and then used in decision-making. 

There could be scientific/medical reasons for the different approaches. After all, there are differences between the States and Territories such as climate, population density and community movement (ie, how much people move within and across their town or city), all of which are known factors in Covid management.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the problem with this argument is that in july 2020 there was no vaccines. there was only a few proto vaccines in early trials. no vaccines approved and no guarantee there would be tested and approved vaccines in any time frame whatsoever. there were even leading medical people saying publicly it could take many years. there were no certainties, just hopes and wishes.

to now say that the government could have bet the house on pfizer and pre-ordered 40M doses enough for the whole country is disingenuous. pfizer and az weren't the only trial vaccines being developed/test but were probably just 2 of the more promising but you'd still need a crystal ball at that time to differentiate..

there we advantages/disadvantages in both (e.g. cost, refrigeration, local manufacture, availability time frame etc). The government decided on a two pronged approach. If at that time they had bet the house on just either one they would have been widely criticised.

when vaccines started to become available australia had problems with supply for a number of reasons, among them that australia was in less desperate needs compared to most other countries

i don't remember much criticism of the government in july 2020, in fact quite the opposite, so for some to now turn around and criticise that decision smacks of politicking and blame shifting. 

 

I’m apolitical - I vote on issues

You make good points and I agree with much of it.

as someone who manages risk though, and if I had the choice, I’d have spread my risk by ordering multiple types. Yes we picked 3 - still no Novavax, Pfizer constrained supply, no such issue for Moderna in the US - hindsight a wonderful thing. 

None of what you said though invalidate my other points I don’t think. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Superunknown said:

If I recall correctly , CSL is doing 1 million doses a month and has been for some months. Supply no longer an issue.

But they're only producing AZ, which nobody seems to want. (Mind you I do - I had my first dose - had the best nights sleep I've had in years)

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the problem with this argument is that in july 2020 there was no vaccines. there was only a few proto vaccines in early trials. no vaccines approved and no guarantee there would be tested and approved vaccines in any time frame whatsoever. there were even leading medical people saying publicly it could take many years. there were no certainties, just hopes and wishes.

to now say that the government could have bet the house on pfizer and pre-ordered 40M doses enough for the whole country is disingenuous. pfizer and az weren't the only trial vaccines being developed/test but were probably just 2 of the more promising but you'd still need a crystal ball at that time to differentiate..

there we advantages/disadvantages in both (e.g. cost, refrigeration, local manufacture, availability time frame etc). The government decided on a two pronged approach. If at that time they had bet the house on just either one they would have been widely criticised.

when vaccines started to become available australia had problems with supply for a number of reasons, among them that australia was in less desperate needs compared to most other countries

i don't remember much criticism of the government in july 2020, in fact quite the opposite, so for some to now turn around and criticise that decision smacks of politicking and blame shifting. 

 

There was no criticism at the time because it was not told to the Australian public. The decision not to order the Pfizer vaccine on 10 July 2020 was not known until 15 April 2021 when it was revealed by the ABC's Dr Norman Swan.

The decision not to order the Pfizer vaccine (40m x $19 = $760m) will go down as one of the greatest government blunders ever.

Many are talking about the very low risk of death from Astra Zeneca. There are also the serious side effects to consider that hospitalise but don't kill. Please hurry up with mRNA's we need to be protected with the best vaccine's available.

18 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

There was no criticism at the time because it was not told to the Australian public. The decision not to order the Pfizer vaccine on 10 July 2020 was not known until 15 April 2021 when it was revealed by the ABC's Dr Norman Swan.

The decision not to order the Pfizer vaccine (40m x $19 = $760m) will go down as one of the greatest government blunders ever.

we did order 10m doses of pfizer in mid 2020, then 10m more in dec 2020, then 20m more recently

we also in 2020 prior to any vaccines being certified made arrangements for novovax and uoq/csl's vaccine (later cancelled). So before any vaccines were approved we had in fact a fourfold arrangement

hindsight is a wonderful thing

it is also disappointing that astrazeneca has unfairly been demonised as it still represents an acceptable solution and risk

Quote

Friday, December 11, 2020

Morrison said that Australia had backed four vaccines that showed promise but "at no stage ... believed that all four of those vaccines would likely get through that process."

"So that's why we spread our risk. That's why we backed important projects. And that's why we pre-prepared to ensure that we could deal with any issues along the way," he said

 

1 hour ago, Jara said:

But they're only producing AZ, which nobody seems to want.

Many people are shunning AZ coz of the blood clotting thing. I personally think the media went too far in sensationalising this issue, thus scaring many ppl. As has been widely stated, one is five times more likely to develop a blood clot when taking the contraceptive pill, for example. 

So this week its 50% at venues but up to 25,000 only.

Next week we return to 85% capacity.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE WHAT SENSE DOES THIS MAKE? What makes it safer next week? 

10 minutes ago, Jaded said:

So this week its 50% at venues but up to 25,000 only.

Next week we return to 85% capacity.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE WHAT SENSE DOES THIS MAKE? What makes it safer next week? 

There is absolutely no sense in this at all.  There is not meant to be. It is all about government control. We are living in a state of health fascism.

Having said all that this new delta variety seems to spread much more easily than the older versions so get ready for another state wide lockdown. Hope I am wrong.