Dr Zaius wrote: ↑September 20, 2021, 10:10 am
Melbourne's trajectory looking much better the last few days. Projected peak is down to 1000 daily cases.
I think today's mass protest of un masked un vaxxed construction workers will change things up a bit
Construction is one of the highest areas of transmission
Also the appalling protest on the weekend will also increase numbers
Will it increase the recorded number of cases? Only if they get sick enough to need emergency medical treatment. I'm guessing most of them will chose not to get tested
cat wrote:My current prediction is NSW will hit the 70% double vax around October 6th with the 80% around October 18th with 90% hit by the 1st week in Nov.
Some inner city and far north coast areas will struggle to hit 60% and it will be interesting to see how they handle not being able to open/ do things.
At this rate qld and WA will be left behind, not reaching 70% till Feb next year
Your prediction? Don’t you mean the government forecast?
And WA has been forecast to hit 70% by mid November not Feb next year.
cat wrote:My current prediction is NSW will hit the 70% double vax around October 6th with the 80% around October 18th with 90% hit by the 1st week in Nov.
Some inner city and far north coast areas will struggle to hit 60% and it will be interesting to see how they handle not being able to open/ do things.
At this rate qld and WA will be left behind, not reaching 70% till Feb next year
Your prediction? Don’t you mean the government forecast?
And WA has been forecast to hit 70% by mid November not Feb next year.
Nope, my prediction
Government is being cautious and saying Oct 16 for 70%
Yeah I think the prediction for QLD and WA are very ambitious.
Currently they aren't moving more then .5% on average per day with 1st doses .
You cant get to 70% 2nd dose until you get 70% 1st dose
WA and QLD have so much Pfizer about to go off they are giving it to anyone mo matter the age which is actually against the federal policy
Question wrote: ↑September 20, 2021, 3:40 pm
If thats true about it going off, they should be court marshalled and publicly flogged.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Someone I work with , her daughter is a dentist working within a Queensland hospital and was told bring your whole family in , we have vaccine and have to use it before its past its time.
Once its shipped from the storage place in Sydney it has to be used.
Thats one of the big problems with Pfizer it doesn't store well
NSW has increased their 2nd dose % by 1.1%
2nd dose has slowed a bit to .6% which is still pretty good considering we are now tackling the Vax hesitant
We are well on track for 80% double dose mid to late October
Its been brilliant advertising and incentives by the nsw government to get us this far
Freedom here we come!
Qld went up 1% after their big vax push to 60.3% 1st dose. At that rate you have another 10 days till you get to 70% 1st dose and add another 4 weeks min after that till you get to 70% 2nd dose and thats only if they maintain 1% increase per day
WA is even worse at .5% increase on 1st dose
It will be next year till they make 80% double dose
cat wrote:
All vaccines are safe, Australia does not allow the administration of any drug that is not safe!
We waited for proper approval in Australia by our own experts as we were in a better place then Uk and USA who rushed ahead their approval given the situation they are in.
Define “safe”. It wasn’t safe for those that died. Can people not comprehend something unless it’s in absolutes? X is always good/Y is always bad. It’s a risk/benefit trade-off and yelling “it’s safe” might make you feel better, but doesn’t make it so.
cat wrote:
If you talk to people about why they aren't vaccinated the most common one you will hear is cultural NOT because the vaccine isnt safe
If you think there aren’t a lot of people who are/were hesitant due to the side effects of AZ then I think we can add this one to your list of things cat has been wrong on.
greeneyed wrote:Try telling that to the families of the people who've died taking AZ due to blood clotting.
0.00001240740%
134 cases out of 10.8 million doses, only 8 of these have died.
Seems pretty safe to me.
There's a 1% chance of complication from bypass surgery, my step dad was in that 1%
Do I go around telling people bypass surgery is unsafe? No.. it saves lives, just like AZ does
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Well said TW!
Sorry for your loss TW.
However the example is a false equivalence, and we’ve been through this multiple times cat.
The equivalent case is would they still do bypass surgery at a 1% risk if there was an equivalent surgery that had a risk of 0.5%? And the answer is - possibly, there may be factors like cost/accessibility/urgency that factor into the decision. But all things being equal otherwise, bypass surgery would cease.
cat wrote:
All vaccines are safe, Australia does not allow the administration of any drug that is not safe!
We waited for proper approval in Australia by our own experts as we were in a better place then Uk and USA who rushed ahead their approval given the situation they are in.
Define “safe”. It wasn’t safe for those that died. Can people not comprehend something unless it’s in absolutes? X is always good/Y is always bad. It’s a risk/benefit trade-off and yelling “it’s safe” might make you feel better, but doesn’t make it so.
cat wrote:
If you talk to people about why they aren't vaccinated the most common one you will hear is cultural NOT because the vaccine isnt safe
If you think there aren’t a lot of people who are/were hesitant due to the side effects of AZ then I think we can add this one to your list of things cat has been wrong on.
The billions of people worldwide who have had AZ will tell you its safe and the millions of people who have died unvaxxed or been seriously ill because they were not vaxxed wished they had had AZ
We get it you dont want AZ and listened to the panic merchants
I'm happy to say its safe and i personally know people who are so thankful they got AZ as they were completely symptom free when they contracted covid
Can you honestly blame people for being a bit hesitant about AZ when you look at the history of it in Australia?
Not only did our doofus PM call an off the cuff late night press conference to scare the crap out of everyone about it (after he barged his way to jump the queue and get Pfizer) but in June we were told by the government it was going to be phased out.
The document reveals AstraZeneca will likely be phased out of the rollout later in the year with supplies subject to state and territory requests from October.
Now it seems there were more **** up because there is no way projected doses in included going to the facebook marketplace of world governments to see who could hook us up with vaccines.
It's horrible optics for the vaccine.
I was lucky enough to get 2nd dose of pfizer on Friday, although it seems I didn't get a batch that makes you magnetic which is a disappointment.
cat wrote:
All vaccines are safe, Australia does not allow the administration of any drug that is not safe!
We waited for proper approval in Australia by our own experts as we were in a better place then Uk and USA who rushed ahead their approval given the situation they are in.
Define “safe”. It wasn’t safe for those that died. Can people not comprehend something unless it’s in absolutes? X is always good/Y is always bad. It’s a risk/benefit trade-off and yelling “it’s safe” might make you feel better, but doesn’t make it so.
cat wrote:
If you talk to people about why they aren't vaccinated the most common one you will hear is cultural NOT because the vaccine isnt safe
If you think there aren’t a lot of people who are/were hesitant due to the side effects of AZ then I think we can add this one to your list of things cat has been wrong on.
The billions of people worldwide who have had AZ will tell you its safe and the millions of people who have died unvaxxed or been seriously ill because they were not vaxxed wished they had had AZ
We get it you dont want AZ and listened to the panic merchants
I'm happy to say its safe and i personally know people who are so thankful they got AZ as they were completely symptom free when they contracted covid
Curious, do you eat peanuts? Are they safe?
You didn’t answer my question - I’ll make it clearer - how do you define safe?
Most importantly you don’t know the first thing about me. You continue to make blind assumptions about people that are wrong time and again, yet you keep going.
Try to respond to what people say instead of leaping to conclusions about people. You’re not good at it.
I define safe as a vaccine that has been deemed safe by atagi and other worldwide organisations, has been given to billions of people with a chance of getting bloodclots less then .05%
If you read the risks with most medications we all take you will find the risks of serious side effects or even death are higher
I took an extremely strong anti inflammation drug 3 times a day for 2 years, its the same drug many people still take today. The risk of having a serious life threatening bleed from that drug was a lot higher then getting a blood clot from AZ
So my definition of safe is a drug that has an extremely low risk of serious side effect that has an extremely high chance of stopping you getting seriously ill or dying from covid 19
No drug , food, activity etc that we do every day comes with no risk but we still consider it safe.
So i consider AZ safe, you dont, we get that now move on!
cat wrote:
a drug that has an extremely low risk of serious side effect that has an extremely high chance of stopping you getting seriously ill or dying from covid 19
Getting there. It has an extremely low risk. That risk is weighed against the risk of you have of illness/death from covid, and the risks of available alternative medicines/treatments providing the same or similar benefits. On that basis - taking AZ has made sense for many, many people.
Thinking in terms of safe/unsafe in my view isn’t particularly useful. You want to be thinking in terms of “safer”.
With the bypass surgery example. If I did things every day that had a 1% chance of death, most likely I’m dead before the year is out. But if I need bypass surgery I’m going to have it, because not having it gives me an even worse chance of survival. That doesn’t make it “safe”. It makes it the sensible risk to take. With the vaccine the risks are smaller, that makes it safer. But what level of risk you call “safe” is fairly arbitrary.
Finally apology accepted for being a jerk and baselessly assuming stuff about me… was big of you to apologise again.
My threshold is generally a lot of the things I do/enjoy hold a higher element of risk, I mountain bike, I ski, I drive, I've played contact sport. All of these have some risk attached to them, but they're safe, either by the rules of the sport or by protection (helmets, armour, etc), does it mean I'm immune from getting hurt, absolutely not.
Same with AZ, if I didn't get given Pfizer cause of my immune disorders, would I have considered az? Yes. Would I have accepted there's a risk? Yes. Would I deem it safe? Absolutely. Why? I have faith in the medical science that if something did go wrong, I'd be able to get it solved similar to if I had an accident would I be able to heal? Yes
Would I die? Possibly but very unlikely
I get some people have higher tolerance of risk than others, but to say something is unsafe after an independent regulator tasked with ensuring the safety of it has signed off on it has said it's safe, repeatedly, I won't cop. It's undermining confidence in a system specifically put in place for that purpose
cat wrote:
a drug that has an extremely low risk of serious side effect that has an extremely high chance of stopping you getting seriously ill or dying from covid 19
Getting there. It has an extremely low risk. That risk is weighed against the risk of you have of illness/death from covid, and the risks of available alternative medicines/treatments providing the same or similar benefits. On that basis - taking AZ has made sense for many, many people.
Thinking in terms of safe/unsafe in my view isn’t particularly useful. You want to be thinking in terms of “safer”.
With the bypass surgery example. If I did things every day that had a 1% chance of death, most likely I’m dead before the year is out. But if I need bypass surgery I’m going to have it, because not having it gives me an even worse chance of survival. That doesn’t make it “safe”. It makes it the sensible risk to take. With the vaccine the risks are smaller, that makes it safer. But what level of risk you call “safe” is fairly arbitrary.
Finally apology accepted for being a jerk and baselessly assuming stuff about me… was big of you to apologise again.
Based on your theory no drug is safe every drug/vaccine has risks all of which include death. That includes the drugs you buy in the supermarket
ATAGI and all other world organisations have declared AZ safe for people over the age of 18.
Even Barr has been telling people at his press conference if they can't get an earlier appointment for Pfizer AZ is available and you should take it.
My uncle has a recent history of blood clots, cancer and id diabetic. He took AZ as he is over 70 with no problems at all. If he caught covid he would have serious problems so he is happy to be vaccinated and to take the vaccine on offer.
Under your definition of "safe" what drugs are?
I dont care if you take AZ or not but its untrue to say its not safe
-TW- wrote: ↑September 20, 2021, 9:30 pm
My threshold is generally a lot of the things I do/enjoy hold a higher element of risk, I mountain bike, I ski, I drive, I've played contact sport. All of these have some risk attached to them, but they're safe, either by the rules of the sport or by protection (helmets, armour, etc), does it mean I'm immune from getting hurt, absolutely not.
Same with AZ, if I didn't get given Pfizer cause of my immune disorders, would I have considered az? Yes. Would I have accepted there's a risk? Yes. Would I deem it safe? Absolutely. Why? I have faith in the medical science that if something did go wrong, I'd be able to get it solved similar to if I had an accident would I be able to heal? Yes
Would I die? Possibly but very unlikely
I get some people have higher tolerance of risk than others, but to say something is unsafe after an independent regulator tasked with ensuring the safety of it has signed off on it has said it's safe, repeatedly, I won't cop. It's undermining confidence in a system specifically put in place for that purpose
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Exactly and no one who has a legitimate medical reason who is over 60 is being denied Pfizer
Its only those over 60 who do not have a legitimate reason not to take AZ who are being told get behind the 12yr olds AND I support that
Honestly, why is this topic of discussion going round in circles?
It is plain to see that taking an AZ shot is safer than the risks posed by catching covid. It is equally plain to see that there are less risks with taking Pfizer instead of AZ.
Now I appreciate this concept is quite **** difficult for some to grasp, so let's look at it another way. If we all walked into a chemist, went to the counter. The pharmacist plonks three syringes on the counter.
Syringe A will give you the Pfizer jab
Syringe B will give you the AZ jab
Syringe C will give you covid
99 percent of people will take Pfizer
It is probably only that stupid 1 percent who either don't believe in vaccines or who want to win a stupid internet argument that won't take Syringe A.
Honestly if Pfizer is expiring in certain states they should move it to states that actually use it and/or to medical people who have been vaccinated for a while that could use a third shot.
The criticism should continue to flow to those said states.
cat wrote:
a drug that has an extremely low risk of serious side effect that has an extremely high chance of stopping you getting seriously ill or dying from covid 19
Getting there. It has an extremely low risk. That risk is weighed against the risk of you have of illness/death from covid, and the risks of available alternative medicines/treatments providing the same or similar benefits. On that basis - taking AZ has made sense for many, many people.
Thinking in terms of safe/unsafe in my view isn’t particularly useful. You want to be thinking in terms of “safer”.
With the bypass surgery example. If I did things every day that had a 1% chance of death, most likely I’m dead before the year is out. But if I need bypass surgery I’m going to have it, because not having it gives me an even worse chance of survival. That doesn’t make it “safe”. It makes it the sensible risk to take. With the vaccine the risks are smaller, that makes it safer. But what level of risk you call “safe” is fairly arbitrary.
Finally apology accepted for being a jerk and baselessly assuming stuff about me… was big of you to apologise again.
how is the bottom line intended to be read?
If someone wrote that to you what would you think of that person?
gergreg wrote: ↑September 21, 2021, 7:16 am
Honestly, why is this topic of discussion going round in circles?
It is plain to see that taking an AZ shot is safer than the risks posed by catching covid. It is equally plain to see that there are less risks with taking Pfizer instead of AZ.
Now I appreciate this concept is quite **** difficult for some to grasp, so let's look at it another way. If we all walked into a chemist, went to the counter. The pharmacist plonks three syringes on the counter.
Syringe A will give you the Pfizer jab
Syringe B will give you the AZ jab
Syringe C will give you covid
99 percent of people will take Pfizer
It is probably only that stupid 1 percent who either don't believe in vaccines or who want to win a stupid internet argument that won't take Syringe A.
This is it. Summed up nicely gerg. But we've made this clear before. We'll be back here again .
For those concerned about vaccination utilisation rates by State, this provides the actual data… along with proper projections of vaccination rates and when double dose thresholds will likely be achieved: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ases-today
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Smurfette wrote:Thanks GE. That’s a nice one stop shop for data.
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Queensland Health are expecting to hit 80% double vaxxed late October.
That website suggests that WA is actually slowing down!
Smurfette wrote:Thanks GE. That’s a nice one stop shop for data.
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Queensland Health are expecting to hit 80% double vaxxed late October.
That website suggests that WA is actually slowing down!
That’s interesting. Not to sound like cat, because I’m sure that’s based on their own analysis, but it does seem wildly optimistic based on the various public projections out there. I can certainly see it speeding up, but that would mean hitting 80% first dose within the next couple of weeks, which seems like it will be a stretch. Would be happy to be wrong though.
And yes, WA putting it in reverse on those Guardian graphs!
greeneyed wrote: ↑September 21, 2021, 12:20 pm
For those concerned about vaccination utilisation rates by State, this provides the actual data… along with proper projections of vaccination rates and when double dose thresholds will likely be achieved: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ases-today
If you want to track vaccination rates properly and without the journo spit the guardian and other journos give can I strongly recommend the following website
Late every afternoon they put out the new data. This is based on your medicare address so includes people who have been vaccinated elsewhere in their actual state numbers. Eg Elliott and Hudson had their first dose in QLD but will be correctly counted in the ACT numbers.
There's a wonderful graph there that shows how close each state is to the key milestones ( picture of Australia with the table next to each state)
You can look at the past days reports and compare for yourself how well states are tracking.
Qld and WA are not progressing well enough to hit 80% this year
Cat, the Guardian graphs use the government data you have referred to. There’s no spin; it’s analysis (which goes much further than counting tiny squares in the Department of Health publication).
Smurfette wrote:Thanks GE. That’s a nice one stop shop for data.
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Queensland Health are expecting to hit 80% double vaxxed late October.
That website suggests that WA is actually slowing down!
That’s interesting. Not to sound like cat, because I’m sure that’s based on their own analysis, but it does seem wildly optimistic based on the various public projections out there. I can certainly see it speeding up, but that would mean hitting 80% first dose within the next couple of weeks, which seems like it will be a stretch. Would be happy to be wrong though.
And yes, WA putting it in reverse on those Guardian graphs!
It is a good site and provides some information the government doesn’t present, while using official and other reputable data.
WA has pretty much now got to 100 per cent utilisation. I went looking for the data, as Andrew Barr mentioned today the ACT has pretty much been using it’s entire allocation for some time, in the context of questions about this story: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14329
And Barr had mentioned the utilisation numbers for some others. Was surprised to hear him say WA was now using its allocation fully.
Smurfette wrote: ↑September 21, 2021, 4:43 pm
Cat, the Guardian graphs use the government data you have referred to. There’s no spin; it’s analysis (which goes much further than counting tiny squares in the Department of Health publication).
I still prefer to use the info directly from the source
But thats just me, any journalist publication has spin, you can "analyse " things to prove your agenda
Smurfette wrote:Thanks GE. That’s a nice one stop shop for data.
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Queensland Health are expecting to hit 80% double vaxxed late October.
That website suggests that WA is actually slowing down!
That’s interesting. Not to sound like cat, because I’m sure that’s based on their own analysis, but it does seem wildly optimistic based on the various public projections out there. I can certainly see it speeding up, but that would mean hitting 80% first dose within the next couple of weeks, which seems like it will be a stretch. Would be happy to be wrong though.
And yes, WA putting it in reverse on those Guardian graphs!
It is a good site and provides some information the government doesn’t present, while using official and other reputable data.
WA has pretty much now got to 100 per cent utilisation. I went looking for the data, as Andrew Barr mentioned today the ACT has pretty much been using it’s entire allocation for some time, in the context of questions about this story: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14329
And Barr had mentioned the utilisation numbers for some others. Was surprised to hear him say WA was now using its allocation fully.
Smurfette wrote:Thanks GE. That’s a nice one stop shop for data.
Of course, links to much of this have been provided several times previously in this thread, and yet we still have people counting on their fingers and toes to come up with new rollout predictions. I did enjoy the novelty of that!
On those predictions, it’s useful to see those graphs showing estimated dates now vs from two weeks ago. Qld’s date has been coming in quite a bit, which accords with my regular eyeballing of the vaccine clock Schifty had shared. Same story in Tas and Vic, which is good to see.
Queensland Health are expecting to hit 80% double vaxxed late October.
That website suggests that WA is actually slowing down!
That’s interesting. Not to sound like cat, because I’m sure that’s based on their own analysis, but it does seem wildly optimistic based on the various public projections out there. I can certainly see it speeding up, but that would mean hitting 80% first dose within the next couple of weeks, which seems like it will be a stretch. Would be happy to be wrong though.
And yes, WA putting it in reverse on those Guardian graphs!
It is a good site and provides some information the government doesn’t present, while using official and other reputable data.
WA has pretty much now got to 100 per cent utilisation. I went looking for the data, as Andrew Barr mentioned today the ACT has pretty much been using it’s entire allocation for some time, in the context of questions about this story: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14329
And Barr had mentioned the utilisation numbers for some others. Was surprised to hear him say WA was now using its allocation fully.
If you want really good graphs follow Casey Briggs on Twitter.
ACT looks like hitting 90% first dose on September 30, about a week ago both ACT and NSW had October 3 projections. Population density obviously plays a big part but it also seems NSW at the anti vaxxer stage, be interesting to see what the LGA's around Sydney's rates are as it wouldn't be about a supply issue there.
It looks like ACT is still nowhere near hitting the antivax population yet as we've hit 80% first dose and then still accelerated.
The Surge Centre at AIS has clearly done the job it was set up for.
Schifty wrote: ↑September 21, 2021, 5:18 pm
The Surge Centre at AIS has clearly done the job it was set up for.
That was the concern Andrew Barr was raising today. He said that it's now the most efficient way of delivering in Canberra, but the federal government has sent about 30,000 doses to GPs and pharmacies instead of the ACT centre, which is a week's worth of vaccine for the ACT.