Coronavirus 4 - Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[David]

[stui magpie]

Catherine Bennett is positive about NSW chances

NSW has begun the process of opening up in earnest. Former premier Gladys Berejiklian warned the state could expect cases to “go through the roof” once it reached this stage. But NSW may well avoid a calamitous rise in infections, with quite a few things working in its favour already.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/goo ... 58ywb.html

[What'sinaname]

the number of people who die every year in Australia of all causes is only about 0.65% of the population.

I think it's spurious to compare COVID deaths with any year without a pandemic.

[David]

How come? I thought the point at hand was that saying "people die all the time anyway" gravely understates the lethal impact of this particular virus.

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think in this case "spurious" must have been used in it's lesser-known sense of "inconvenient, unhelpful and inconsistent with the argument I wanted to make".

[stui magpie]

How come? I thought the point at hand was that saying "people die all the time anyway" gravely understates the lethal impact of this particular virus.

However the virus is vastly less lethal to vaccinated people. Even 1 dose significantly reduces the risk of death. NSW has a lot higher vaccination rate than the UK did when it had it's Freedom day and they are keeping keeping restrictions, not throwing everything out. The national roadmap and the Victorian and NSW versions are all far more conservative than what the UK did.

I posted info previously about the causes of death, a significant number of people die each year of respiratory illness yet last year there was a huge reduction. If the people who would have died of respiratory illness die from Covid instead isn't that a net zero result?

[David]

Well I guess that’s the question: what if it isn’t net zero? How many excess deaths are acceptable?

[roar]

^ Further lockdown is not an option so it's not really a valid question.

[Pies4shaw]

Well I guess that’s the question: what if it isn’t net zero? How many excess deaths are acceptable?

Of course it isn't net zero. Only a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the facts could even lead to that question being framed.

Anyway, in NSW:

- 444 new locally acquired cases
- 2 new overseas acquired cases
- 446 new total cases
- 716 people in hospital
- 150 people in ICU
- 4 deaths

and in Victoria:

Reported yesterday: 1,571 new local cases and 1 case acquired overseas.
- 38,072 vaccines administered
- 79,200 test results received
- Sadly, 13 people with COVID-19 have died

If 17 other people would have died of the flu, instead, in an ordinary year, then I guess the families of the 17 people who died of COVID in NSW and Victoria yesterday should just accept that their loved ones didn't actually die of COVID - or maybe even that they didn't really die at all (statistically speaking).

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

The Victorian R(Eff) has finally dropped (very marginally) below 1. It is just possible that case numbers have (for the time being) peaked.

[stui magpie]

[Pies4shaw]

Once again, that just isn't a valid question. 5% of the people who die are going to be double-vaccinated, so appropriate restrictions (whatever those happen to be from time to time) continue to protect everybody. We should, of course, make vaccination mandatory. No one has the "right" to be a disease vector. People who don't vaccinate against COVID are the human equivalent of Louie the Fly.

Secondly - and make no mistake - the position remains that any government that gets it wrong will destroy its (and, in our federal system, everybody else's) economy in short order, so the suggestion that there is some sort of "balance" is nonsense.

There's a whole other issue that people keep ignoring - namely that we have to keep the number of infected people as low as reasonably possible so that we don't accelerate the risk of a more potent and equally contagious killer variant. But no-one here seems to want to discuss that actual reason we need to limit/stop transmission.

[David]

[stui magpie]

Once again, that just isn't a valid question. 5% of the people who die are going to be double-vaccinated, so appropriate restrictions (whatever those happen to be from time to time) continue to protect everybody.

That 5% are going to have underlying medical conditions or comorbidity. They should take action to protect themself

We should, of course, make vaccination mandatory. No one has the "right" to be a disease vector. People who don't vaccinate against COVID are the human equivalent of Louie the Fly.

Good luck with that. There is going to be a small but stubborn number who will point blank refuse. No point making something mandatory that you can't enforce.

Secondly - and make no mistake - the position remains that any government that gets it wrong will destroy its (and, in our federal system, everybody else's) economy in short order, so the suggestion that there is some sort of "balance" is nonsense.

That's your view, I completely disagree. Of course there is a balance. Yes getting it wrong will wreck the economy, but what we're doing right now isn't exactly good for it either.

There's a whole other issue that people keep ignoring - namely that we have to keep the number of infected people as low as reasonably possible so that we don't accelerate the risk of a more potent and equally contagious killer variant. But no-one here seems to want to discuss that actual reason we need to limit/stop transmission.

That's not going to happen.