I will back @The_Ant up here, he was in (I think) the send vaccines OS because they need them more camp (like a lot of us last summer) but not anti-vax.
2 Likes
Reckon the Scomo spent too much time with Boris a few weeks ago and is itching to get to the phase of the pandemic where he can claim credit for âopening up / savingâ the economy. Problem is theyâve been enjoying taking credit for keeping the virus at bay. Need to find a suitable scapegoat for when people die while getting from A to B once the virus is endemic in Australia.
1 Like
You were on the âitâs not a raceâ band wagon for a bit. Which didnât seem unreasonable with HQ staff being vaccinated. But I donât recall any discouragement.
Morrison mentioned something about ships crew today, but I couldnât see anything specific in the NatCab statement. Perhaps Halton will fix it for Mark.
1 Like
The AMA has been rubbish during the pandemic - Yet they are still defended by some.
1 Like
Post for Big Allan - Diplomats and quarantine.
Throughout the world diplomats can quarantine in their home residence - At the moment the Hong Kong quarantine system for returnees is between 7 to 21 days, depending on whether you have been vaccinated and which country you visited - And in this time you are tested six times with the last test on day 19.
Saudi Arabian Diplomat and family return to HK and isolate at home - Test on arrival negative - Test on day 3 finds the two children are positive - Family who should have been isolating visited half of Hong Kong in two days - A number of exposure sites while officials speak through pursed lips. I daresay diplomats in all countries would have done the same.
1 Like
They should have given her a Section 8 her long ago.
2 Likes
Things changed quickly!
How does the maths on this work? If an unvaccinated person who catches covid is a 10% probability of hospitalisation, does this mean that a Pfizer 2 dose vaccinated person would be a 0.4% or 4 in 1000 probability of hospitalisation?
Sheâs what ScumMo and co would call âA Good Womanâ is Gladys, ⌠does everything sheâs told.
There are people here better qualified than me to answer that question, but to me it sounds bang on.
Most that Iâve seen have reported the figure as risk/effectiveness compared to an unvaccinated person (so your first example) rather than absolute risk/effectiveness (your second example).
eg 200 people with COVID / 100 unvaccinated / 100 vaccinated.
If the vaccine was 50% effective at preventing serious illness you would expect half as many sick people in the vaccine group vs the unvaccinated group. 50% could be extremely significant or insignificant (in the non-statistical sense of the word) depending on what the other number is ie reducing the number of sick from 2/100 to 1/100 is less significant than reducing the number from 50/100 to 25/100.
Definitely an important distinction to make though, and not one I would presume when being given any numbers!
Also very important to clarify what the measure of effectiveness is as well (ie transmission, serious illness or death).
1 Like
Wrong threadâŚ
What a blast that wasâŚ
2 Likes
Red zone not enough anymore.
4 Likes
16 Likes
Crocs released in the Murray.
2 Likes
let me at it
Probably not appropriate but this made me giggle
2 Likes