CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

High Vaccination rates are no panacea to success, Israel and England are already in booster shot mode and Scomo is going to have to explain to the public that 60 deaths a week will be normal if you go by the Doherty
modelling.. The South African variant is worse than Delta from what I have read and will require the vaccines being tweaked.
Gladys might open up NSW but there is no way, Dan, WA, Qld will do same IMHO..

[member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member] Agreed.

The booster shots are more about controlling exploding health cost by minimising acute symptoms requiring hospitalisation, a thousand vaccine shots are so much cheaper than even one individual person spending an afternoon in a hospital bed.

The deaths being recorded now in Israel and the UK are now largely in the unvaccinated population, I saw some figures last week that suggests current UK COVID-19 deaths are now 98% unvaccinated and 2% breakthrough vaccinated. But this is just a reality of math when the bulk of the population become vaccinated and restrictions are removed for everybody.

After lockdown, the effect of Sars-CoV-2 is minimised in the vaccinated, and at the same time the effect of Sars-CoV-2 is amplified in the unvaccinated because the virus has become ubiquitous in free people everywhere.

[shawny]

Isn't the problem that it is being spread by people who either refuse to adhere to restrictions and social distancing, or for whatever reason cannot adhere to those restrictions?

So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.

[LP]

So I'm curious LP as you seem to be very knowledgeable on this topic based on the about of posts. Are you happy with how this is being handled by those we have to adhere to?

If you were leading this state what's the plan?

I'm not particularly knowledgably of the epidemiology I just accept what the scientific consensus coming from real scientists, and largely ignore the radical spin applied to points cherry-picked from reports and data by critics like Sky News or Facebook Experts.

The first really hard step that hasn't even happened yet is making vaccination compulsory for anybody eligible to get it, but it is political and mental health poison so it will only ever happen as a last ditch solution.

God help us if we get a variant that looks deadly to children, anarchy will pursue because the governments will without hesitation make vaccination compulsory and the self-entitled denialists will become radical extremists in their refusal.

[LP]

So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.

It's a position of ignorance, because like the politician, and the scientist, nobody including you or me knows what is next step in the evolution of Sars-CoV-2.

That "handful" you refer to is a huge assumption, you assume it's not one of yours, you assume it's old people, you assume there are no other significant long term health costs, which ultimately cost every one physically or economically!

I've heard estimates that the long term economic cost, that the big dollars of ongoing COVID-19, could be as high as 6x the total cost of the epidemic in the short term!

[Mav]

Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.

[LP]

Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.

I understand this position but I'm not sure I'd agree, it sends a society down a specific path that is not based on social equity, to me the ultimate path of this direction becomes health care for the wealthy.

Why do I think that?

Because access to something like acute health care will depend on a status, and the cost of achieving that status will rise as a defacto form of regulation, just purely based on market forces. There will always be some better level of care available to the wealthy, and that will mean they end up at the front of the queue as the best candidate for such procedures.

[Mav]

AFAIK, variations on this already occur. Whether someone is willing to give us smoking affects eligibility for transplants and the like (I stand to be corrected on this).

[kruddler]

So what hope do we have LP? 

You are never ever ever going to get full and total adhering of every rule by every single person in the community. And if it only take a hand full of people out of 6mil to cause it to fail it means the plan is not feasible and it has 0% of success.

Hence why I said we better stop listening to the carrot danglers in power and admit we are living like this for a very very very long time as we have no credible plan to work to.

I've been saying since our very first lockdown, the biggest problem our government has is that it trusts the people to do the right thing.

Now they've done their best to try and achieve this, but you will never get it. Thats why they 'dangle the carrot' because its a way of keeping more people in line in the hope of eliminating this.

If the government says, 2 months of lockdown, people lose their $h!t and don't follow the rules from day 1.
If the government says 2 weeks, and then.....2 weeks and then....2 weeks...etc. People are more able to cope "its only just 2 weeks"

However, we are getting to the 'boy who cried wolf' side of things and its no longer working.

A new strategy needs to be put in place....somehow....to try and curb this before its too late.

[LP]

AFAIK, variations on this already occur. Whether someone is willing to give us smoking affects eligibility for transplants and the like (I stand to be corrected on this).

Yes this is true.

But I'd argue that is not a variation on the same concept, smoking is relatively free and ubiquitous being equally available to both poor and wealthy.

The fear I have is that the ultimate selection of candidates for health care would be favoured or influenced by some highly expensive treatment that was beyond the reach of the average person.

[shawny]

Given there'll be pressure on hospitals to cope with Covid-related admissions, I would fully support ethical rules regarding access being amended so the unvaccinated are at the end of the queue.  By unvaccinated, I mean those who were eligible for vaccination (excluding those who had a legitimate medical reason for their failure to vaccinate). Doctors and nurses have gnashed their teeth over anti-vaxxers in the US receiving double-lung transplants when Covid catches up with them. If you have to choose who gets beds and who is sent home, their vaccination status should be a prime criterion.

Right so if thats your thinking im guessing you would also be fine with if you are over the ideal weight range and now need heart bi-pass surgery you will happily go to back and let all those young, fit people patients ahead of you? 

What if you smoked 20 years ago and now need lung cancer treatment your fine to go to the back behind all those who never smoked.

If you drink and require treatment to your liver or a related organ you go behind all those who never touched the bottle.

What about melanoma - if you sunbaked or went in a solarium you go to the back over a young person with fair skin that has never seen the sun? 

And if you're a diabetic and overweight....  sorry mate back of the line as there is young fit people who care for their body well ahead of your sorry self. 

I could go on and on.

Majority of us will fit into one of these categories and easy to make these rules about a topic that suits you but are you also happy to apply similar thinking across all health matters even when you will be at the back of the queue? 

Be honest now.....