Superunknown

For what little my opinion is worth: Procurement - picking AZ due to the political connection between Morrison and one of the execs at AZ. Rejecting Pfizer and Moderna's offers last year (July) of priority access to whatever volume we needed and waiting till Oct to order Pfizer. Novavax still not ready. Should have signed as many deals as possible to mitigate risk. Rollout - should have handed over to the states. The C'th is not in the business of logistics, they're funders. Look how organised NSWH is. The feds still cannot get RACF, quarantine/transport workers, vaccinated. Total shambles. "I don't hold the needle mate". Messaging has been an absolute case study in how not to do public health messaging. A useful way to categorise people is: understandably hesitant (note; poor messaging/constant changing), the normal wait-and-see, those who simply can't get Pfizer (there are a lot), those who are ineligible (under 40s for Pfizer). Deaths/hospitalisations will be reported once a substantial proportion are vaccinated. At present, with low vax rates, cases are more useful as a pointer to risk.

Agree on broader point, it is a telling vignette, but you're right, doesn't take into account confounding variables, health factors, heterogeneity etc. On compulsory - not sure my opinion is all that important but since you asked - I think you can make a good case for compulsory vaccination in certain settings, particularly where there are alternative placement options for those who don't want to. ie in health you can take people off frontline/their substantive role and put them in admin. Same for airlines. RACF is a bit harder with limited back office roles (I think?) and I think I heard the relevant union is about to test that case. Another issue is Morrison's diktat/edict that all RACF must be vaccinated by Sept - as Shergold on RN Breakfast said this morning - that's ok but where is the Pfizer supply (as most of the workers in RACF are under 60). Good example of another Morrison announceable running ahead of the practicalities. The complicating factor here is a lack of a no fault compensation scheme for those who are compelled/or wish to have AZ. I can understand the reticence and such a scheme might provide some more comfort to those. There are other levers to pull for rates - I like Qantas' FF points/reward announcement for those vaccinated. I think you could consider only letting those who were vaccinated attend certain events (eg Bluesfest, bigger weddings) or venues (bars etc) have some more freedoms in restrictions (ie I need to get to Ray Drummond at Burleigh for new clubs ;D )....

England, UK, Spain, Italy etc?

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

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.

MFC: Russell Howcroft - adman and ex channel 10 GM (have a listen to the recent hamish and andy bit on hamish trying to become friends with Russell)

Age footy podcast contemplated this in latest one.....

Delta has an R0 between 5 and 6. Without a very substantial proportion being vaccinated, the risk without lockdowns/controls/restrictions falls on very large numbers and hospitalisations. AFAICT, the calculus has not changed since last year as we don't have a large proportion vaccinated. Looking at it the other way, if you let this thing run (ref: Sweden) and lots of people die/end up in hospital (affecting provision of other services) which probably leads to stricter/long term lockdowns, what would you prefer. Not defending decisions, just laying down some probable rationale... PS: there is already an acknowledgement that once most of us are vaccinated and borders open the focus will change to hospitalisations and not new cases/case numbers.

Depends how things track on the GC - no new cases in Vic. For selfish reasons I'd love it at Metricon (I'm an hour away in NNSW and haven't been to a game for a lonnng time) but for team first, at the G also good.

Be mindful of the heart inflammation risks from Pfizer in younger males: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

I see a couple of % boosters good risk management. According to Matter of Stats, the top 2 and 4 composition will be decided by %. If we lose a few, it could mean the difference between 3 and 2 (and home grounds all the way) and 5 and 4 and the double chance.

If you don't have a medical reason for not being vaccinated, then you can be moved from front line/customer facing roles. It happens in health all the time, and is happening now. (Obviously your options as a limo driver are probably narrower than a nurse who can be shifted to admin duties) "I don't hold the needle, mate". Of the 1/3 who have had at least one shot, of those, only half again have two (source: RN Breakfast Raina McIntyre from the Kirby Institute, this AM).

Also true, but that relies on people actively checking this. The bloke runs a busy dry cleaners, so absent any reason to think otherwise (symptoms, a phone call), it probably wasn't top of mind. That's not an excuse, but a reason.

Because you don't know you're a contact until you're advised, which doesn't occur until the contact tracing is done. If QR coded, this is as I understand NSW's system, is largely automated, but for a party etc, it's manually done. The better question for the flight attendant case, is why are all flight crew not mandated to have had a vaccine (along with the transport people).

Because you can return 3 negative tests then a positive one. "There is no risk" - that is a very big statement for a highly transmissable disease, higher R0, and tranmission possible via fleeting transmission of an aerosolized virus.

We were due to drive the Sunshine Coast from NNSW on Wed morning for family hols, and just cancelled. Erring on low risk approach would be prudent.

Do you have any reports/data to the effect the contact tracers didn't know he existed? Contact tracing relies on what people tell them.

Nandaly Bombers vs Ouyen Demons oi up Dees good pies at Ouyen footy ground

Cripps 6 years in hopes of winning a flag. Gird the loins young Man. Twill be an especially disappointing 6 years

Really ambivalent about Geelong getting the prime time slots Just keep winning and it’ll come

I’ve linked to other sources last page which covers AZ efficacy against strains

Snip, good precis! Like I said, the Essendon w/l odds are quite long, and the line is most attractive, with a hedge of +30 or +40 for the MFC.

That's true, 1.30 is never too early to have a play at BWS (or Dan's!) I hope the players make it to the ground and not BWS! ;D

Bolding mine - that's not what the German regulator said, and this is from early January, a very long time ago. See below, bolding mine. When I went hunting for updated advice based on more data, I could not find anything (I don't speak German, though, so it might be around), but did find this, which goes against what NSWH and TGA are stating. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-astrazenec-idUSKBN2BO6KZ I think you could look at what the TGA advisory committee is saying re: efficacy across age strata. It is effective, less so against mutations, particularly against Delta, especially c.f. Pfizer, which has a higher efficacy. LInk re above Here's an AstraZeneca link re: Delta efficacy, it is high particularly for protection against hospitalization.

Allow me to help you with that. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/01/scomos-dodgy-vaccine-binned-for-aged-in-germany/