Australian Reports of the Virus Spread

[lovetravellingoz]

Whats is needed are the social measures.

Social measures are vital. But an an effective vaccine (and no vaccine is 100% effective) is vital too whether it be the flu or CV19.

If there has been one clear point driven home by CV19 it is how effective social (or rather physical ) measures actually are. This was realised at the time of the Spanish Flu but in cosey times gets forgotten.

It is chalk and cheese in contries that have adopted or not adopted them early enough, and also how effective the handbrake is in regions when they were adopted late in the piece.


For a time I used to assist in running often large Scout Camps. When they were well run you had no issues. When not then gastro etc abounded. I was fortunate to have tow surgeons as Group Leaders and so we always ran our camps with strict controls in place and never had a problem. One key was handwashing.


Time to kill off handshakes for ever. (Trumpy was right about that one!!!)

And in workplaces those with the flu, or colds, need to be sent home rather than being praised for soldiering on (remember that commercial?).

 

[p--and--t]

Presumably most of the 81% drop is social distancing and washing hands related?

Would be interesting to see a study to determine that but not sure how it could be accurately determined.

Indeed hygiene and distancing would have a major impact its very hard to get infected if you never leave the house. Also one would think traffic accidents, public disorder and a myriad of other things would have dropped markedly. Anecdotally a country city in QLD has had virtually no stolen cars since the lock down where previously it was a major issue.

But we know not everyone is socially isolating and improving hygiene. Millions still going to work every day and not socially isolating. I am surrounded by construction sites where I observe on a daily basis zero change in previous behaviour.

 

[Quickstatus]

And additionally IMO I believe that large indoors congregations of people are bad - especially when people can come and go. Very difficult to socially isolate. Cruise Ships are the perfect scenario.
Singapore - 2nd outbreak is among migrant worker population living in ultra high density housing.
I believe outdoors are less of a problem that its made out to be.


Australia - any similarities?. Yes there are a lot of apartments where one bedroom can often sleep 6-8 people.

I reckon in winter we should start wearing a mask. To reduce the number oft imes we subconsciously touch our face

 

[RooFlyer]

So, if you die at home and/or weren't tested then you're not counted.

But equally, I don't think that there is a distinction made between people who die 'of' COVID19 and those who perish 'with' the virus, anywhere. Unfortunately the most susceptible are those with co- morbidities.

I also saw Geoffrey Robertson has vented ferociously about WHO's incompetence.

I'd like to see that!

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I note in that report the following comment

" Revaccination later in the same year is not routinely recommended, but may benefit some individuals due to personal circumstances, such as travel or pregnancy"

I'm just wondering, and maybe those in the know could comment. Is this comment due to a budgetary, lack of efficacy, risk or other reason.

I had my flu injection early march, was considering asking for another late June. Sensible/unwise?

Well I am not in the know but, advice seems to be to not generally do it unless one is in the middle of a flu pandemic which we are not.

How Helpful is a Booster for the Flu Shot? | Passport Health

Children often have to return to the hospital to get booster shots for some of the most common vaccines.

www.passporthealthusa.com

One could also speculate that

1/ the combination of more people being vaccinated with improved handwashing, social distancing, people not working when sick with flu like symptoms etc should mean that it will be much harder to be infected with the flu later in the year. In addition while your flu vaccination will not be in its most effective 3/4 month period it will still be offering some protection.

2/ to avoid the flu just keep up your new social distancing and handwashing. As the flu vaccine is only about 70% effective anyway this ma well be more effective than the flu shot.


PS I had my flu shot on 31 March. Booked in early as I was meant to be overseas in April.

 

[RooFlyer]

Well I am not in the know but, advice seems to be to not generally do it unless one is in the middle of a flu pandemic which we are not.

Thanks for posting that, it was interesting, but it read to me like they were talking more about getting a 'double dose', one about a month after the first, rather than the second 3-4 months down the track when the effectiveness of the first had waned. What do you think?

I also had an early flu shot!

 

[Quickstatus]

There are subsets of people who benefit from a booster, because the first does not confer much of an immune response. Children and immune suppresed are the 2 main groups.

It is unclear whether its necessary for the most people in circumstances where the vaccine is effective but shortlived. Nothing stopping the individual from getting a 2nd shot later in the year. But as most FluVax are at best 50-60% effective (because the infecting strain is not one of the ones in the FluVax), a 2nd one may not really make much of a difference. In any case the shortlived one - nfluenzaB is not as virulent as InfluenzaA.

And of the Influenza A the H3N2 subtype is always especially bad.
The Bird flu (avian influenza) of 2008 was actually a strain of Influenza A H5N1
Spanish flu was a strain of Influenza A H1N1

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Thanks for posting that, it was interesting, but it read to me like they were talking more about getting a 'double dose', one about a month after the first, rather than the second 3-4 months down the track when the effectiveness of the first had waned. What do you think?

I took it more that at it had to be at least four weeks after the first dose

Though yes they were advising that for only those with special reasons to do so should seek a booster.

What do you think?

I also had an early flu shot!

What do I think?

• Well my plan at present will be to not seek a booster unless there is a high level of flu about. So I will keep an eye on the flu graph.
• I am fit, healthy and do not have a compromised immune system.
• Also sadly I now have no overseas travel plans this year
• My suspicion at present is that flu cases this season will actually be very low
• And as I will still be washing my hands more frequently that I have had in the past, plus I will still be social distancing somewhat even if CV 19 is eradicated in Australia my odds of catching the flu should be greatly reduced. I would also suspect that many in the community will be acting like me, further reducing my risk.

 

[Quickstatus]

Ive got my own supply of N95 masks.
I wear it especially in Woolies.

 

[p--and--t]

I note in that report the following comment

" Revaccination later in the same year is not routinely recommended, but may benefit some individuals due to personal circumstances, such as travel or pregnancy"

I'm just wondering, and maybe those in the know could comment. Is this comment due to a budgetary, lack of efficacy, risk or other reason.

I had my flu injection early march, was considering asking for another late June. Sensible/unwise?

So I digest from the responses, hope this is not too simplistic summary:

• There are no identified ill effects from having a second shot (except for maybe enhanced arm soreness for a couple days if given after 1 month)
• The benefits (of a second shot in the same year) for a significant amount for the population are not sufficient to recommend (unless travelling to a flu season somewhere and/or damaged/immature immune system) i.e. efficacy reasons as opposed to budgetary or risk reasons.

 

[N860CR]

The aim has not been to get the number of deaths to zero. The aim has been to ensure the health system is not swamped.

I agree, that was the plan initially told to us, but it's not been maintained. The hospital system is certainly not swamped. As I've said a few times, It's operating so undercapacity that wards are closed and nurses have been stood down. Perhaps that was part of the plan (ie: to get things ready for a rush), but that hasn't happened and we've moved beyond that point now, so what's next?

We're now at the point where politicians and media are so obsessed with numbers that we are no longer sure what we're aiming for.

The point I was making was that in order to follow their "flatten the curve" model and keep hospitals from being swamped, we need an acceptable daily hospitalisation rate. The current hospitalisation rate is virtually 0 and it seems the aim for the daily infection rate is about the same.

If we're going to play a numbers game at daily press conferences, then governments need to be specifying exactly what number an acceptable daily rate actually is. If we're aiming for 0, then we've moved onto eradication, which wasn't the plan last I checked.

 

[N860CR]

Flu is bad - what are we going to do differently moving forward about Flu, or are we going to accept that current recurrent mortality of maybe 1500-3000 is OK

Realistically, it probably is ok. Yes it's sad, but we can't stop people dying and people will die from a virus - we cannot stop them all. I just find it odd that we feel those numbers for the flu are just a-ok and don't even rate a mention, but we can't accept this from coronavirus? Have we ever before had "breaking news" articles on the national broadcaster about a 95 year old dying in a nursing home?

 

[Pushka]

I agree, that was the plan initially told to us, but it's not been maintained. The hospital system is certainly not swamped. As I've said a few times, It's operating so undercapacity that wards are closed and nurses have been stood down. Perhaps that was part of the plan (ie: to get things ready for a rush), but that hasn't happened and we've moved beyond that point now, so what's next?

We're now at the point where politicians and media are so obsessed with numbers that we are no longer sure what we're aiming for.

The point I was making was that in order to follow their "flatten the curve" model and keep hospitals from being swamped, we need an acceptable daily hospitalisation rate. The current hospitalisation rate is virtually 0 and it seems the aim for the daily infection rate is about the same.

If we're going to play a numbers game at daily press conferences, then governments need to be specifying exactly what number an acceptable daily rate actually is. If we're aiming for 0, then we've moved onto eradication, which wasn't the plan last I checked.

I think the issue is that Australia has been too successful. In reality, we needed a drip feed of people into the hospital and so this can be managed, rather than a cessation. Because as you say, what happens next!

 

[N860CR]

I think the issue is that Australia has been too successful. In reality, we needed a drip feed of people into the hospital and so this can be managed, rather than a cessation. Because as you say, what happens next!

Totally agree. We have to start doing it though. This numbers game had conditioned the public into thinking "zero is going to happen", just have a read of some newspaper facebook comments.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I think the issue is that Australia has been too successful. In reality, we needed a drip feed of people into the hospital and so this can be managed, rather than a cessation. Because as you say, what happens next!

Well as we need it then I am glad that you are volunteering then to catch CV19 then because if you are asserting that we need a drip feed you must be willing for you and anyone you care about to get it first.

Only if really good treatments and or/or vaccines are developed would I risk catching it by say travelling.

Flatten the curve does not mean less people get CV19, as everyone who can be infected eventually would be if it is not eradicated. It means that the health system is not overwhelmed and so not as many people die or suffer really bad outcomes as the quality of care is better.

Eradicating CV19 means that our health system is completely free to improve the health outcomes for all other medical problems.

What happens next:

• We operate in a bubble till really good treatments and or/or vaccines are developed. ie all work and interstate travel resumed within Australia
• Travel to be limited to:

1. Freight (sea and air) and essential travellers,
2. Those willing to undergo at their cost quarantine on return.
3. The exception being any other "bubble" counties such as New Zealand.

 

[oz_mark]

Flatten the curve does not mean less people get CV19, as everyone who can be infected eventually would be if it is not eradicated. It means that the health system is not overwhelmed and so not as many people die or suffer really bad outcomes as the quality of care is better.

Eradicating CV19 means that our health system is completely free to improve the health outcomes for all other medical problems.

What happens next:

• We operate in a bubble till really good treatments and or/or vaccines are developed. ie all work and interstate travel resumed within Australia
• Travel to be limited to:

1. Freight (sea and air) and essential travellers,
2. Those willing to undergo at their cost quarantine on return.
3. The exception being any other "bubble" counties such as New Zealand.

I expect what will happen next is that we will slowly relax the restrictions, ready to pounce on any outbreak that happens. it will be slow, and probably tedious.

I am sure a lot of folk are thinking about just where to go from here.

 

[p--and--t]

I notice that UK has now dropped China from its world graphic representation of Covid as they state the data is meaningless.

I also saw Geoffrey Robertson has vented ferociously about WHO's incompetence.

Interesting, this article suggests the real figure in the UK is actually over 40K and heading for around 66K deaths Way way worse than their models predicted.

Glad i'm living in the lucky country.

The UK has now entered its 'worst-case scenario'

The official death toll is now rising beyond the worst figures predicted by government science advisors.

metro.co.uk

 

[Pushka]

Well as we need it then I am glad that you are volunteering then to catch CV19 then because if you are asserting that we need a drip feed you must be willing for you and anyone you care about to get it first.

Only if really good treatments and or/or vaccines are developed would I risk catching it by say travelling.

Flatten the curve does not mean less people get CV19, as everyone who can be infected eventually would be if it is not eradicated. It means that the health system is not overwhelmed and so not as many people die or suffer really bad outcomes as the quality of care is better.

Eradicating CV19 means that our health system is completely free to improve the health outcomes for all other medical problems.

What happens next:

• We operate in a bubble till really good treatments and or/or vaccines are developed. ie all work and interstate travel resumed within Australia
• Travel to be limited to:

1. Freight (sea and air) and essential travellers,
2. Those willing to undergo at their cost quarantine on return.
3. The exception being any other "bubble" counties such as New Zealand.

And I'd argue that unless we find a vaccine then not expecting to live it with is naive. Of course I don't want anyone to get it. On the other hand I know of a couple of people who have had it and recovered. And of course people may die. But I've also known of many people who've been taken before their time from a great many causes. Our response to Covid was based on not flooding our hospitals on the expectation that it would be prevalent in the community.

And by living with it I mean that mechanisms are in place to quickly jump on hot spots and isolate. If a vaccine is never developed then your suggestion would be we would never travel overseas again.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

I expect what will happen next is that we will slowly relax the restrictions, ready to pounce on any outbreak that happens. it will be slow, and probably tedious.

I am sure a lot of folk are thinking about just where to go from here.

Tassie figures not in. But only 6 local unknown transmissions today.

And yes progressive reactivation is likely.

ie In Victoria as of tomorrow, Monday, elective surgeries are recommencing.


WA and Qld relaxing some activities.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Interesting, this article suggests the real figure in the UK is actually over 40K and heading for around 66K deaths Way way worse than their models predicted.

Glad i'm living in the lucky country.

The UK has now entered its 'worst-case scenario'

The official death toll is now rising beyond the worst figures predicted by government science advisors.

metro.co.uk

Yes the UK are one of worst countries with respect to death rate. Significantly worse than the USA. And worse too than Sweden who have a not quite herd immunity strategy as they also have some control measures in place (Though interviews of local Swede's seem to suggest that many are following stricter social distancing practices than their government recommends).

However the USA too is going to exceed their most recent best case prediction of 60K deaths. Indeed as the current official 54.3K death toll does not include in-home deaths and also the early deaths (it is now known that that they had CV19 circulating earlier than they thought) they have probably already had more than 60K people die due to CV 19.