Talk of Freo v Carlton being moved

Any chance the time might be moved and we can change our game to Sat night?  I would love to go to the game (got my boy's bday party on Sat arvo)

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Talk of Freo v Carlton being moved

Any chance the time might be moved and we can change our game to Sat night?  I would love to go to the game (got my boy's bday party on Sat arvo)

May be a Saturday arvo game at UTas in Launceston, so us moving to the night is possible.

 

10 hours ago, ManDee said:

Hey Bing that is a quote from the cited article. I didn't write it. I was asked for a source. Don't shoot the messenger.

They've now corrected that section of the article.

That you're quoting sources that are clearly wrong says it all. Confirmation bias on steroids.

Over the last 10 weeks we have the following from the Federal Government. 

AZ is a good vaccine.

People under 40 should not take it.

People under 50 should not take it.

People under 60 should not take it.

Yesterday it is a good vaccine everyone from 20 up should gets shots and we will indemnify any doctor who gets sued when they   recommended   it.

They wonder why take up rates are poor, it must go down as the worst public health exercise in Australian history.

15 minutes ago, old dee said:

Over the last 10 weeks we have the following from the Federal Government. 

AZ is a good vaccine.

People under 40 should not take it.

People under 50 should not take it.

People under 60 should not take it.

Yesterday it is a good vaccine everyone from 20 up should gets shots and we will indemnify any doctor who gets sued when they   recommended   it.

They wonder why take up rates are poor, it must go down as the worst public health exercise in Australian history.

well, it's as i have suspected for a long time. the health experts don't have the answers and they disagree with each often.

they are becoming experts in supposition based on a lack of real data 

a bit of a "we don't really know" answer sometimes would be preferable to constructing fairy tales 

AMA came out today and said listen to the medical advice and don’t get AZ if you’re under 60 or haven’t already had your first dose. My best friend who is a GP agreed. 
Now each to their own but I know who I rather take my medical advice from, and it’s not fat [censored] politicians under the pump for poor vaccination roll out numbers. 

 

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

They've now corrected that section of the article.

That you're quoting sources that are clearly wrong says it all. Confirmation bias on steroids.

Hang on a minute. First you bag me for quoting an article, then you say the article has since been corrected, then you bag me for quoting a source that has changed, then you have the temerity to make a statement like "Confirmation bias on steroids". Who made you the arbiter of facts? Who knows what the real truth is? I don't bag you for having an opinion that I may disagree with, so keep it up.

PS. If I  accept my confirmation bias will you accept yours?

Edited June 29, 20214 yr by ManDee
Comma moved

24 people ended up contracting the virus from that super-spreader party up in Sydney

A total of 30 people attended the party but the 6 people who didn't contract the virus were the only 6 who were vaccinated against the virus

Fairly decent sample size and the story is both frightening and enlightening with a positive outlook (in terms of the effectiveness of the vaccine)

Someone else might be able to able to determine which of the 2 vaccine's that the 6 had been administered with (?) Or was it a mix of the 2?

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

AMA came out today and said listen to the medical advice and don’t get AZ if you’re under 60 or haven’t already had your first dose. My best friend who is a GP agreed. 
Now each to their own but I know who I rather take my medical advice from, and it’s not fat [censored] politicians under the pump for poor vaccination roll out numbers. 

jaded, i'm not necessarily disagreeing, but i would not take advice from gp's on complex epidemiology issues. there is a good reason they are gp's and not specialists. i like my gp very much but he is very risk averse (like mosrt) and refers any matter that is not mundane or routine to a specialist at the drop of a hat. the average gp doesn't even do simple procedures like stitches nowadays, instead referring you to the nearest hospital er.

my nephew is a orthapaedic surgeon and he disagrees with your best friend gp, as does my long standing family gp......but there again,  neither are an epidemiologist either.

still, i guess we are all human anyway and take advice in whatever shade of grey, wherever we can get it

1 hour ago, old dee said:

Over the last 10 weeks we have the following from the Federal Government. 

AZ is a good vaccine.

People under 40 should not take it.

People under 50 should not take it.

People under 60 should not take it.

Yesterday it is a good vaccine everyone from 20 up should gets shots and we will indemnify any doctor who gets sued when they   recommended   it.

They wonder why take up rates are poor, it must go down as the worst public health exercise in Australian history.

 

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

 

Shiraz is working fine for me!

8 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

 

Shiraz is working fine for me!

I have it on good authority that Shiraz is still recommended for Melbourne supporters above 18yo

once it is of a certain vintage and available at Dans

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I have it on good authority that Shiraz is still recommended for Melbourne supporters above 18yo

once it is of a certain vintage and available at Dans

Would you believe Dub, that I've actually poured Shiraz down the sink.

 

And then ....... when in a state of penury ...... wished I hadn't!!!

41 minutes ago, Macca said:

24 people ended up contracting the virus from that super-spreader party up in Sydney

A total of 30 people attended the party but the 6 people who didn't contract the virus were the only 6 who were vaccinated against the virus

Fairly decent sample size and the story is both frightening and enlightening with a positive outlook (in terms of the effectiveness of the vaccine)

Someone else might be able to able to determine which of the 2 vaccine's that the 6 had been administered with (?) Or was it a mix of the 2?

Would be very interesting to know what vaccines they received. FWIW I’ve had my second AZ jab, zero side affects the second time for me. 

I think the media in the way they have reported things (lack of context to compared to other vaccines) has heavily influenced the government’s decision to make AZ for 60+ only.  

26 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Would you believe Dub, that I've actually poured Shiraz down the sink.

 

And then ....... when in a state of penury ...... wished I hadn't!!!

And to think I used to have respect for you BBO!  ?

at least throw it in a pasta sauce!

2 minutes ago, Pates said:

Would be very interesting to know what vaccines they received. FWIW I’ve had my second AZ jab, zero side affects the second time for me. 

I think the media in the way they have reported things (lack of context to compared to other vaccines) has heavily influenced the government’s decision to make AZ for 60+ only.  

The data from that super-spreader party should have been highlighted by all the media outlets (more so with an emphasis on the 6 people who didn't contract the virus who also coincidentally had been vaccinated)

We need a greater take-up of the vaccine but in my view,  many have been frightened off by the side effects (highlighted in the media) so are prepared to wait

And because the virus isn't out of control here in Australia as it is (or has been) in numerous other countries, I reckon many don't believe they are in any danger of contracting the virus

But that's just my opinion and there could be other reasons why we aren't getting vaccinated at a rapid rate. 

59 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

jaded, i'm not necessarily disagreeing, but i would not take advice from gp's on complex epidemiology issues. there is a good reason they are gp's and not specialists. i like my gp very much but he is very risk averse (like mosrt) and refers any matter that is not mundane or routine to a specialist at the drop of a hat. the average gp doesn't even do simple procedures like stitches nowadays, instead referring you to the nearest hospital er.

my nephew is a orthapaedic surgeon and he disagrees with your best friend gp, as does my long standing family gp......but there again,  neither are an epidemiologist either.

still, i guess we are all human anyway and take advice in whatever shade of grey, wherever we can get it

But the government literally told us to speak to our GP about getting vaccinated. So I can’t listen to the GP, I can’t listen to the AMA. Who do I listen to? Our politicians?

My friend is well under 60 and has had two doses of the AZ. She is not risk adverse at all, but she too reads the guidelines of the AMA and wonders why our government has decided to ignore the advice given by medical professionals. 

40 minutes ago, Jaded said:

But the government literally told us to speak to our GP about getting vaccinated. So I can’t listen to the GP, I can’t listen to the AMA. Who do I listen to? Our politicians?

My friend is well under 60 and has had two doses of the AZ. She is not risk adverse at all, but she too reads the guidelines of the AMA and wonders why our government has decided to ignore the advice given by medical professionals. 

speaking to your gp as the gov tells us, is to determine if one's medical history contains any contra-indications for a particular vaccine before proceeding. the gp should be the keeper of our medical history or can ask relevant questions if not.

• so the medical specialists (cho's etc) tells us if it is ok to have a particular vaciine and under what conditions (age and other medical pre-conditions).
• the GP checks and discusses the medical pre-conditions  

that's the distinction, as i see it

and of course you still have the personal freedom of choice to vaccinate or not or wait

 

Edited June 29, 20214 yr by daisycutter

Pushing the AstraZeneca recommendation back to the over-60s was based on accumulated evidence that identified the drop-off in side effect incidence was much better from age 60+ on, rather than the original estimate of 50+. There is a drop in the number of people experiencing medically significant side effects in the 50+ age group, but 60+ is half the rate of even that.

If you vaccinated, say, 3 million people aged 60+, the incidence rate would mean about 300-500 people having side effects requiring medical attention and within that 300-500 there would be a proportion that would be very serious and even fatal.

On the other hand, just a few weeks worth of a Covid-19 cluster spread without either large-scale vaccine coverage or lockdowns would kill hundreds - and then it would really get going.

If you do know an over-60 who feels like they are being given the off-cut vaccine, just make sure they know that it is being limited to over-60s because the side effects are much, much rarer in that group. Maybe also mention that if Australia was in the septic tank situation like 90% of the world is right now, we would be slapping AZ into people's arms as fast as we could go. Being so cautious about using it is a matter of great circumstantial luxury but if we slack off too much we are inviting disaster upon ourselves.

8 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Pushing the AstraZeneca recommendation back to the over-60s was based on accumulated evidence that identified the drop-off in side effect incidence was much better from age 60+ on, rather than the original estimate of 50+. There is a drop in the number of people experiencing medically significant side effects in the 50+ age group, but 60+ is half the rate of even that.

If you vaccinated, say, 3 million people aged 60+, the incidence rate would mean about 300-500 people having side effects requiring medical attention and within that 300-500 there would be a proportion that would be very serious and even fatal.

On the other hand, just a few weeks worth of a Covid-19 cluster spread without either large-scale vaccine coverage or lockdowns would kill hundreds - and then it would really get going.

If you do know an over-60 who feels like they are being given the off-cut vaccine, just make sure they know that it is being limited to over-60s because the side effects are much, much rarer in that group. Maybe also mention that if Australia was in the septic tank situation like 90% of the world is right now, we would be slapping AZ into people's arms as fast as we could go. Being so cautious about using it is a matter of great circumstantial luxury but if we slack off too much we are inviting disaster upon ourselves.

Where do you get the data that supports the bolded sentence?

13 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well, it's as i have suspected for a long time. the health experts don't have the answers and they disagree with each often.

they are becoming experts in supposition based on a lack of real data 

a bit of a "we don't really know" answer sometimes would be preferable to constructing fairy tales 

The better way to look at this is the health advice has changed based on first overseas, and then local, data with respect to adverse reactions. The initial advice obviously is informed by trials and OS data, until we get local data.

Of course, the political messaging and parsing of the health advice is an entirely separate matter.

You'll note that the health advice has not changed - Pfizer recommended for under 60s. But, if after being properly informed of the risks, an under 60 elects to receive AZ, then they can do so.

12 hours ago, Macca said:

24 people ended up contracting the virus from that super-spreader party up in Sydney

A total of 30 people attended the party but the 6 people who didn't contract the virus were the only 6 who were vaccinated against the virus

Fairly decent sample size and the story is both frightening and enlightening with a positive outlook (in terms of the effectiveness of the vaccine)

Someone else might be able to able to determine which of the 2 vaccine's that the 6 had been administered with (?) Or was it a mix of the 2?

I don't think n=30 and n=6 is a particularly compelling sample size: a biostatistician may wish to correct me there though.

56 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Where do you get the data that supports the bolded sentence?

England, UK, Spain, Italy etc?

As well as the Feds did early on through closing borders I’m afraid the vaccine roll out has been a shambles

I thought Scotty was supposed to be a marketer? The mixed messaging over the past few weeks has been really poor so no wonder people are hesitant.

Keeping life suspended in our island bubble with rolling lockdowns is just not sustainable. For me borders need to re-open and we all get back to something resembling a normal life sooner rather later. The Feds need to stock up on vaccines and tell the public its vaccine v covid. Make your choice.