General COVID-19 Vaccine Discussion

[dajop]

Interesting I've been reading a few comments in the Echochamber to the effect "The vaccine as it only stops you getting hospitalised, and doesn't stop transmission, so therefore it's no good and I'm not taking it" .

There's still a lot of work to do.

 

[Port Power]

The normal flu vaccine doesn’t stop transmission either, does it? But we are still inoculated so that we don’t catch the ‘flu, or are less unwell if we do. (Been there!). So I’m taking it.

 

[dajop]

The normal flu vaccine doesn’t stop transmission either, does it? But we are still inoculated so that we don’t catch the ‘flu, or are less unwell if we do. (Been there!). So I’m taking it.

Rubbish argument I'm afraid. Logic doesn't work, got to appeal to base level emotions instead

In case of any doubt, preaching to the converted I'm afraid. No arguments from me. That doesn't mean that logic such as this carries the day, the flu vaccines have the advantage of being invented before the echochamber.

 

[Lynda2475]

I think you are confusing things.

The current vaccines will significantly reduce chance of serious illness but have not yet all been proven to significantly reduce transmission.

It's not a question of not getting vaccinated because it may not reduce transmission (I've not seen that stated here anywhere).,

The issue is that because transmission is still.possible we can't relax international borders until vaccination rates are really high to give herd immunity.

If the vaccines definitely stopped trasmissions, then we could let vaccinated people travel internationally freely.now.

But right now being vaccinated doesn't make it safe for us to let you enter Australia without quarantine because you may be a carrier and infect someone here who isn't vaccinated.

I think its reasonable for people to want to see proof of reduced transmission so we can open up faster.

Also reasonable that people want to ensure they get the best vaccine.

 

[OATEK]

I think you are confusing things.

The current vaccines will significantly reduce chance of serious illness but have not yet all been proven to significantly reduce transmission.

It's not a question of not getting vaccinated because it may not reduce transmission (I've not seen that stated here anywhere).,

The issue is that because transmission is still.possible we can't relax international borders until vaccination rates are really high to give herd immunity.

If the vaccines definitely stopped trasmissions, then we could let vaccinated people travel internationally freely.now.

But right now being vaccinated doesn't make it safe for us to let you enter Australia without quarantine because you may be a carrier and infect someone here who isn't vaccinated.

I think its reasonable for people to want to see proof of reduced transmission so we can open up faster.

Also reasonable that people want to ensure they get the best vaccine.

I am sort of with you, but herd immunity for this virus may not be achieved any time soon. If we are relying on it to prevent transmission, could be a long wait.

I am still of the view that we need to ensure the vulnerable are vaccinated to the extent possible. Then I expect we will see some gradual opening up to see how transmission occurs, what hospitalisation rates follow. Once the CHO is satisfied that infection rates are manageable he might recommend wider opening of travel. This is why end of 2021 is earliest I see overseas travel beginning to open.

 

[dajop]

I think you are confusing things.

The current vaccines will significantly reduce chance of serious illness but have not yet all been proven to significantly reduce transmission.

It's not a question of not getting vaccinated because it may not reduce transmission (I've not seen that stated here anywhere).,

I'm not confusing anything, but a lot of the public are. Which is a problem, hence my comment about logic not winning the day, science and logic only have a part to play in winning over people.

Also, I'm not talking about on AFF, I'm talking about in the broader community. Whilst I haven't read anything of the sort on AFF, I've read it in the echochamber (aka facebook) this morning , I heard someone on ABC NIghtlife last night state it, and have read it in comments sections of online media .. people are stating they don't want to take the vaccine if there is no proof of it preventing transmission (completely misunderstanding that many vaccines don't prevent transmission per se, but aim to stop people getting sick).

Also people aren't quite so motivated by international travel as the subset of the community that frequents AFF, so things like allowing Australia to "open up faster" are not quite the motivator, in fact as we've seen, as gauged by popular support, many people are quite happy to live in their "gated communities" (if we call states with closed borders "gated communities"), even with economic suffering. There is the mind and their is the heart, they don't always agree.

All of this underlines the challenge faced in vaccinating a population, with complicated messaging, incomplete data and a perception that COVID doesn't too much of a health problem to anyone under 40 so why bother vaccinating, so "as long as the oldies have their shots" we'll be alright

 

[Lynda2475]

Removal/Reduction of government covid subsidies and businesses introducing no jab no fly/stay/play rules will help to motivate some more.people to get vaccinated.

Because it's early days and we aren't in a position to vaccinate everyone yet, the government has yet to employ all the tools it can to encourage greater uptake.

Post October, they could introduce a Medicare type levy for anyone who refuses vaccination (except where GP recommends against it), withhold welfare payments or oother tax rebates etc. As long as everyone who wants a vaccination has had opportunity to get one.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

I'm not confusing anything, but a lot of the public are. Which is a problem, hence my comment about logic not winning the day, science and logic only have a part to play in winning over people.

Also, I'm not talking about on AFF, I'm talking about in the broader community. Whilst I haven't read anything of the sort on AFF, I've read it in the echochamber (aka facebook) this morning , I heard someone on ABC NIghtlife last night state it, and have read it in comments sections of online media .. people are stating they don't want to take the vaccine if there is no proof of it preventing transmission (completely misunderstanding that many vaccines don't prevent transmission per se, but aim to stop people getting sick).

Also people aren't quite so motivated by international travel as the subset of the community that frequents AFF, so things like allowing Australia to "open up faster" are not quite the motivator, in fact as we've seen, as gauged by popular support, many people are quite happy to live in their "gated communities" (if we call states with closed borders "gated communities"), even with economic suffering. There is the mind and their is the heart, they don't always agree.

All of this underlines the challenge faced in vaccinating a population, with complicated messaging, incomplete data and a perception that COVID doesn't too much of a health problem to anyone under 40 so why bother vaccinating, so "as long as the oldies have their shots" we'll be alright

Just like the flu jab??? How many take the flu jab??? What demographic??? Is everyone else allowed to fly unvaccinated from the flu??? Maybe the populace is just waiting for the next alignment when numbers don’t matter.

 

[Lynda2475]

2019 was a record for flu jab uptake in Australia. Many work places already have no jab no work policy for flu (unless doctor has said you can't get it for health reasons I.e you are having chemo).

 

[Pushka]

Removal/Reduction of government covid subsidies and businesses introducing no jab no fly/stay/play rules will help to motivate some more.people to get vaccinated.

Because it's early days and we aren't in a position to vaccinate everyone yet, the government has yet to employ all the tools it can to encourage greater uptake.

Post October, they could introduce a Medicare type levy for anyone who refuses vaccination (except where GP recommends against it), withhold welfare payments or oother tax rebates etc. As long as everyone who wants a vaccination has had opportunity to get one.

It's interesting hearing the arguments against getting the vaccination. But - There does need to be an incentive to get non vulnerable people to get vaccinated and travel is one of those - if we still can't travel and states continue to road block then really, what is the point? And Governments seem very reluctant to pass any of that information. I don't fear Covid, I fear the blocks and getting caught interstate somewhere.

 

[Lynda2475]

I can definitely see being vaccinated being an eligibility requirement for travel insurance going forward.

Most policies already have a clause which won't cover you if you don't get government recommended jabs before travel.

I also reckon post October, when there are community cases proof of vaccination may be required to get state border pass exemption to travel.

 

[Lynda2475]

Disappointing to see Albanese and Greens leader queue jumping for vaccinarion today - neither is an essential worker nor in regular contact with anyone likely to be covid positive. Sends a poor message.

 

[drron]

But it has already been shown in the real world - OK the UK - that transmission and hospitalisation are reduced by both the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines.Basically no significant difference between them though the figures slightly better fror the Oxford vaccine.I have previously linked to the UK report and @Must...Fly! has linked to the Scottish report.

But just a couple of articles which demonstrates the media bias against the Oxford vaccine.Here is a report re the UK study.It gives impressive figures for reducing transmission by the Pfizer vaccine but doesn't mention they were just as impressive with the Oxford vaccine - slightly better in fact.

First vaccine dose cuts transmission and hospitalisation: UK studies - The Online Citizen Asia

The Online Citizen Asia First vaccine dose cuts transmission and hospitalisation: UK studies Health

www.theonlinecitizen.com

And the Oxford vaccine and the SA variant.How many other news items mentioned that in the Phase 1/2 trial there were no severe cases,deaths or hospitalisations in the vaccinated group.The headline was still about failure though.

Oxford/AstraZeneca jab fails to prevent coronavirus from South African strain: Study

Among coronavirus variants currently most concerning for scientists and public health experts are the so-called British, South African and Brazilian variants, which appear to spread more swiftly than others

www.wionews.com

But the oxford researchers instead of trumpeting the no hospitalisations or death told the truth.

"However, we have not been able to properly ascertain its effect against severe disease and hospitalisation given that subjects were predominantly young healthy adults," the AstraZeneca spokesman said.

You may wonder why I keep harping on about the media.50 years in practice has shown me the media trumpet drug company spin. It is often not just misleading but deliberately so.
My first example was when Ventolin first came onto the market.There was already an inhaler called Alupent which was just as effective.However the makers of Ventolin kept up a barrage of advertising showing that based on their studies Ventolin was twice as effective with half the rate of side effects.And they won.
Only problem was that they did 2 studies.One comparing 2 puffs of Ventolin v 1 of Alupent and one comparing 2 puffs of Alupent with 1 of Ventolin.Surprise,surprise.The study with 2 puffs of Ventolin showed it to be better in increasing lung function.The study with 2 puffs of Alupent showed it increased heart rate more (a side effect) much more.Now in very small letters both studies were linked at the bottom of the ads.So in my mind deliberately misleading.
The real problem I had was the medical profession fell for it and Alupent disappeared.What was extra disappointing was that the manufacture of Alupent was Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals which got onto my list of the most ethical pharmaceutical companies in those days.However I have had very little to do with drug companies in the last 15 years and things may have changed.

 

[Lynda2475]

Hospitalisation reduction easy to measure (as a % of diagnosed cases), but given lockdown it is not so clear cut if cases reducing soley because of vaccine vs restricted movement, mask mandate etc.

I really do hope we have hard proof of transmission reduction, so we can travel ovrseas.

Would like to see transmission data from somewhere which isnt in lockdown, is it still a free for all in Sweden?

 

[drron]

Hospitalisation reduction easy to measure (as a % of diagnosed cases), but given lockdown it is not so clear cut if cases reducing soley because of vaccine vs restricted movement, mask mandate etc.

I really do hope we have hard proof of transmission reduction, so we can travel ovrseas.

Would like to see transmission data from somewhere which isnt in lockdown, is it still a free for all in Sweden?

There is little hard evidence for lockdowns apart from external borders,masks,contact tracing and effective enforcement of quarantine.Those that have been more successful in controlling Covid locked down earlier and more effectively.
So Norway and Denmark only allowed their own citizens back.Sweden allowed all the EU and UK to visit.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I think you are confusing things.

The current vaccines will significantly reduce chance of serious illness but have not yet all been proven to significantly reduce transmission.

It's not a question of not getting vaccinated because it may not reduce transmission (I've not seen that stated here anywhere).,

The issue is that because transmission is still.possible we can't relax international borders until vaccination rates are really high to give herd immunity.

If the vaccines definitely stopped trasmissions, then we could let vaccinated people travel internationally freely.now.

But right now being vaccinated doesn't make it safe for us to let you enter Australia without quarantine because you may be a carrier and infect someone here who isn't vaccinated.

I think its reasonable for people to want to see proof of reduced transmission so we can open up faster.

Also reasonable that people want to ensure they get the best vaccine.

Re the bold text - I agree partly, but not to the same extent.

The reason we are being so cautious is to stop transmission/infection in the elderly and vulnerable, where the death rate is so high.

Once the vulnerable populations have been vaccinated, the transmission issue probably won't be such a big one. We won't really need herd immunity, we just need to make sue that those most at risk are protected.

I don't think borders will open into Australia until everyone who wants the jab has had it. After that, it's 'own risk'. (I appreciate there may be some exception for those who can't have the vaccine, but hopefully those cases will be few and far between.)

Post automatically merged: Feb 23, 2021

I can definitely see being vaccinated being an eligibility requirement for travel insurance going forward.

Most policies already have a clause which won't cover you if you don't get government recommended jabs before travel.

I think a vaccination may be required if you want cover for covid related matters. If you are willing to self insure for covid, you'll still be able to get a policy for all other accidents, or lost luggage. etc.

 

[Lynda2475]

I think a vaccination may be required if you want cover for covid related matters. If you are willing to self insure for covid, you'll still be able to get a policy for all other accidents, or lost luggage. etc.

You may still get a policy for non health issues, but i wouldnt put it past most insurers to deny coverage for a leg broken skiing if you happen to test postive to Covid when admitted to the hospital and werent vaccinated, they will always look for some way to make covid the cause.

Personally the main value in travel insurance is medical cover, cover for theft or delays is a bonus, but not a deal breaker for me. If i couldnt get medical cover i wouodnt bother buying travel insurance at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

You may still get a policy for non health issues, but i wouldnt put it past most insurers to deny coverage for a leg broken skiing if you happen to test postive to Covid when admitted to the hospital and werent vaccinated, they will always look for some way to make covid the cause.

Personally the main value in health insurance is medical cover, cover for theft or delays is a bonus, but not a deal breaker for me. If i couodnt get medical cover i wouodnt bother buying travel insurance at all.

Always read the relevant PDS, but in theory it shouldn't be any different to current policy around pre-existing medical conditions. If you choose not to disclose or cover a pre-existing condition, that condition alone is not covered. The rest of the policy stands. For example if you broke your leg skiing, that part would be covered, but if you also tested positive for covid, any part of the treatment related to the covid treatment would be at your own expense, should you choose to have it.

It may be very difficult to find a policy covering covid, but there might be some other options available to still allow travel... for example countries with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement under medicare, or airlines or countries offering free or specialist 'covid insurance' when you purchase their products or visit their country. (For example AXA is offering a 30-day covid insurance policy for AUD100 for entry into thailand.)

 

[dajop]

It may be very difficult to find a policy covering covid, but there might be some other options available to still allow travel... for example countries with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement under medicare, or airlines or countries offering free or specialist 'covid insurance' when you purchase their products or visit their country. (For example AXA is offering a 30-day covid insurance policy for AUD100 for entry into thailand.)

Singapore, for example, has a requirement that short term visitors have at least $30,000 SGD coverage for COVID treatment. It's around $20 a week, e.g. https://sgtravelinsured.chubbtravelinsurance.com/ So in theory (if allowed to depart Australia, perhaps those on essential business) someone could take out this insurance for a short term visit to Singapore. In practice it's a trivial expense compared to the $3000 in quarantine on return to Australia. .

ICA | Entering, Transiting and Departing

ICA is responsible for the security of Singapore's borders against the entry of undesirable persons, cargo and conveyances through our land, air and sea checkpoints.

safetravel.ica.gov.sg

I am sure if the risk can be quantified and there is a requirement, the insurance companies will be able to work out a premium.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Some posts of this thread are reaching levels of what I feel are panic.

Read the journal articles and trust in the science of trials and integrity of the process, but by all means question where things don't make sense. Pay little to no attention to what the media report. Guess what - they aren't any smarter than you or I. @drron your experience is one many share, I am sure.

One problem is trying to compare normal flu vs COVID-19. COVID we could theorise to expect a rate (with vaccination) of around 5% requiring hospital. But we don't close up shop for the flu every year, nor particularly care who is or is not vaccinated (incentive to be vaccinated (free for certain ages/offered by employers) - no disincentive not to be (in the broader community)).

If the vaccines are 100% (or very close to it) effective at preventing death or hospitalisation, then I fail to see the problem that cannot be overcome by proper government healthcare planning, to be honest. The below pyramid comes straight from the CDC.

Burden of Influenza

Learn about how CDC estimates the burden of seasonal influenza in the U.S.

www.cdc.gov