Webber

More than the next few years N_D I suspect. Like the flu, it’s not going away.

Current evidence (worldwide) of clots with AZ vax is 4-6 clots per million doses. That would be < 150 clots if the entire Aust. pop vaccinated with AZ. Readily available info.

Yep to all. I think the problem with ‘push from community’ is that it currently gets overwhelmed by media imperatives - controversy and fear. Too loud and too convincing for too many. As a nation, I think living standards have made us complacent and introspective, dare I say selfish. Community ain’t what it was, or could be. As for the current fed government, being conservatives they are by definition committed to do as little as possible, then see if they can get away with it. Exactly what their inertia is born of. I was pleasantly amazed when they jumped to financial provision last year, but of course we’re now seeing that much of it was profit for the big boys, thus staying true to the glories of trickle-down theory. All comes down to leadership, which they aren’t providing. Just as well they’re experts at blame-shifting.

True all that. Side-effects have sadly been given much more weight than they deserve by the media. They exist, but have negligible incidence, and less significance now that people know what to look for.

To clarify, those forty-somethings weren’t in any ‘eligible’ category (age excepted).

The full screed from health.gov right now - The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) recommends that the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer (Comirnaty) is preferred in adults aged under 50 years. In people 50 years and over, ATAGI continue to advise that the benefit of vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID vaccine outweighs the risks associated with vaccination. This recommendation is based on: the increasing risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in older adults (and hence a higher benefit from vaccination), and a potentially increased risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following AstraZeneca vaccine in those under 50 years. There appears to be a small risk of TTS in people 50 years and over, but this risk appears to be lower than in younger people. Cases overseas have been reported at all ages. People who are considering vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should be aware of this potential complication as part of providing informed consent. The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 50 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. Using words like ‘preferred’ and ‘recommends’ means they can’t legally refuse you. However, and this is part of my frustration, some vax centres will say you’re not eligible, or actively discourage you. I know people who have been refused this way, and a couple of forty-somethings who got AZ vax at Exhibish building last week. Like deliberate OOB, a shambles.

The fact you’re NOT in a risk cat. means you can, as long as you understand potential complications - clotting. What I don’t know is what that informed consent looks like.

You do now - informed consent.

This from health.gov.au - The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 50 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits.

Yes they will give you the AZ if you ask.

As a health professional, I’m getting very f*****g angry about both the federal government’s half-arsed rollout, not to mention their incompetence at negating false information in the media, and some people’s utter selfishness and lack of community responsibility in ‘delaying’ their own vax for selfish or ignorant reasons. There is only ONE way to reduce the broader societal impact of this virus. ONE. Herd immunity through vaccination. If you can, GET VACCINATED!!!! It’s your civic duty, if nothing else. The Exhibition Building mass vax centre is populated by vaccinators doing sweet F A too much of the day.

As we are with Clarry. No Oliver, no Dees I suspect, as evidenced against Crows.

Pretty compelling......almost like there’s a problem that deserves a solution.

They did look at it, without saying so, a few years ago when the media started getting antsy about the West Coast home ground imbalance. Since then West Coast’s Perth free kick disparity has evened up hugely. This proves they can attend to the problem. As we know, outside of West Coast games, it’s slipped horribly this year. I suspect it’s an umpire personality issue. Like players, umpires need to be picked for their ability to handle, if not be immune to FUHCI (Frank Unconscious Home Crowd Influence). If they can be coached into that immunity, which I’m sure many can, more’s the better.

So correct MR, yet so hard to eradicate....

We should all celebrate the fact that the AFL have admitted the mistake. It’s a first step. Now that there’s been 3 games in 10 rounds where results have been altered by circumstances reflecting the same issue - let’s call it ‘unconscious home crowd influence’ (UHCI for short, add an ‘F’ on the front, and ‘FUHCI’ seems appropriate), they need to admit that it’s an endemic problem to be urgently addressed. In the same breath, they should admit that umpiring standards and clarity of laws haven’t evolved with the game as a whole, and in fact are currently a blight on the game, then humbly admit to their TOTAL responsibility for the fact. In particular, they can highlight and admit to there being NO consistency around adjudications of tackling, possession (or not) and disposal (or not), but that there are patently many more areas of concern. Thusly, they announce that they’ve put together a task force of ex and current players and umpires and astute commentators/analysts of the game (Demonland included) who are either impartial or represent their clubs in equal proportion to seek fast and sustainable improvement. Without delay however, and before any other change, umpires will now be full-time professionals, including boundary umpires, who will be given the same adjudication status as field umpires. And we go from there....

Perfectly put sue.

I haven’t discussed our performance last night, so I’m not sure who you’re talking to. I have been discussing the performance of the umpires, and that ‘control’ of their performance must be improved by the central body, the AFL, simply because the individual clubs who by volume of their support - us - are both the reason the game exists and its primary stakeholders. Of course we coulda shoulda woulda been better to have put ourselves beyond the umpires. I said precisely that in the gameday thread. Let the homecrowd influence in, and its worth 1-2 goals a quarter. Once again, this is about bad umpiring adversely our game, the one that all 18 clubs play. I want to let the players play, and make themselves better. I do NOT want bad umpiring to continue to diminish our game. These are separate issues.

I suspect that’s almost too sensible, binman.

Which is a different topic, and has literally nothing to do with the state of umpiring, which is desperately in need of change.

You can call it the “end of story” all you like NC, in that ridiculously certain manner, but the ‘certainty’ of Saturday’s result was indisputably altered by the umpiring. The idea that umpires cheat is perhaps equally ridiculous, but to say that umpires aren’t responsible for or at least complicit in their own poor performances, and that such performances alter results, is wrong.

It’s in fact still the perfect example I reckon Scoop Junior. It would be nice to imagine the umpire coaching scenario - a video tutorial, where the footage is played (no crowd noise, no game context) and the teacher asks - ‘what’s the call here?’ To which the answer is of course obvious. The teacher’s ‘sting’ is to then say that no call was made, and ask his pupils ‘why?’ Turn on the crowd noise, add the context of scores and time left in the game, and there’s only one possible answer. This is preventable I believe, if umps are specifically coached or even chosen for an ability to ‘shut out’ those factors. They are however part-timers and the AFL has expressed no will or even desire to eliminate these crowd-caused results. As binman has suggested, they’re attractive as attention-grabbers. They also keep the ‘fortress’ locals happy - basically all the non-Vic teams (excluding Suns and Giants perhaps) and Geelong.

True that. And if they’re prepared to deflect from the problem, or bury it, as the Hun are reporting (today) in saying they’ll admit to the mistake only as part of their ‘Monday review’, then there’s nothing surer than when it happens in a GF - and it will - that there’ll be a meltdown. What will be their answer to the question - ‘what have you done to eliminate this blight on our game?’ Games should not be decided by bad umpiring, yet they are, and nothing changes. The AFL need to overhaul the way this game is adjudicated. I was watching the North v Pies game a few weeks ago, Zurhaar was running toward his attacking goal from the flank, and had a shot toward the empty goal. The ball skewed horribly of the side of his boot, and went OOB in the pocket. He had a free kick paid against him. In my speechless amazement, I had a calming thought .... well, that’ll never happen again. You know, “learnings” by the umpies. Lo and behold, Charlie Spargo gets pinged for the same ‘non-offence’ on Saturday. I simply don’t get why such rank incompetence at the nuts and bolts level of umpiring goes unaddressed. Maybe it will take a robbed premiership, or a chance at it from the prelim to change things....the “calamity first” principle (change only happens when the consequences of not changing are ‘calamitous’, not just theorised as such - witness climate change). I’ve said it before, and I’m starting to bore myself, but I can’t think of a game worldwide, particularly at such an elevated professional level, that’s so sloppily adjudicated.

I shudder to think that you may be onto something binman, but of course it’s possible. It would however mean that the future of the game is in terminal trouble. As for the Spargo ‘deflection’ being used by some to justify the non-decision, spare me!

Isn’t that the point though, dee-tox? The default belief that umpiring can’t be “controlled” is next to just accepting its mediocrity. It should be better, so we can all - players, supporters, umpires - enjoy the game more. Obviously it means more when your team is on the s**t end of it, but I can equally say that my enjoyment of non-Dees games this year has been ruined by bad umpiring. Of course the team will give it no consideration because of that lack of influence, but that shouldn’t leave it unexamined by those who should be responsible for improving it. It is THE rubbish part of our game.