Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Thanks HFF. They're running around today trying to find out where they can get a test in time, just in case. They will also try the airline (NZ). New Zealand for example is only requiring the test from 15 Jan. Asking for it in the next couple of days, coupled with halved entry caps could be a bit unfair

A whole heap is unfair. But such is life during this time.

I’m guessing your friend is coming from US or thereabouts via NZ.

Good luck to your friend and hope they are allowed on their flight.

 

[jb747]

Murphy says a 'significant portion' of the population will be vaccinated by 2nd quarter 2021 (helped by Astrazenca coming online resulting in mas vaccinations at scale)

Define "significant portion".

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Define "significant portion".

Why???

 

[RAM]

Surveys within Australia & overseas show large proportions ( > 25%) stating they will not get the vaccine at all, as well as an equally large proportion saying they'll wait some months to see if any adverse side effects appear.

The NewsCorp survey had around:

38% = Yes, I'll get the vaccine
33% = I'll wait a few months
29% = No, I will not get the vaccine

from memory when I saw it early last week.

In Europe it seems to be between 35-55% saying they won't get the vaccine.

In the US the early reports have health staff approx 40% refusing the vaccine.

Now that Biden has stated he will ignore the advice from Pfizer (Pfizer - do not delay the 2nd dose) & will aim for 2nd dose of Pfizer at 6 weeks or more so that more people get the first dose - makes things even more uncertain.

Perhaps what is worse are the falsified reports of the side effects from the vaccines using edited versions of CDC reports - One that I was sent nearly got by me - it was that well doctored. But I figured if the numbers were as bad as it showed then I would have heard about it from multiple contacts.

So I accessed the CDC 'voluntary' reporting of adverse vaccine reactions site (covers every vaccine there is) & ran the Covid vaccine report which showed the avg adverse reaction (per person reported) caused 3 different adverse issues (including 7 admitted to ICU) but nothing like the 'fake' report which had causing blindness, paralysis, herpes etc etc.

The CDC adverse reactions database is worth a look at for those who like details.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) About

wonder.cdc.gov

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Yes how many actually get vaccinated in Australia will be interesting.

Childhood immunisation rates are well over ninety %.

But with the voluntary Flu shots the rates are much lower. Now many have to pay for Flu shots, but for others it is free. Though cost is not expensive.

Covid 19 shots will presumably be free and so that will help. However there is probably still a solid core of people who will not want to get vaccinated.

 

[oznflfan]

The government, best case mid Sept 2021, maybe worst case Mar 2022, could install a traffic light system based on Smartraveller website, on condition traveller has not been in different country within previous 14 days. This will of course put a temp end to world trips and backpackers flitting and flutting wherever they like. All outgoing citizens and all income travellers (citizens and visitors) MUST be vaccinated by acceptable vaccine and have proof.

Could be something like:

Green countries - say Vietnam/Singapore/Taiwan - test at airport on arrival, negative good to go.

Yellow countries - say Indonesia -test at airport, seven days at home quarantine (hotel if not possible - booed prior to arrival), test at day 7, negative good to go.

Orange - say USA/UK - as current, hotel quarantine 14 days.

Red - non-COVID category - leave this to wartorn countries like C A R/Afghanistan/etc.

 

[jase05]

The government, best case mid Sept 2021, maybe worst case Mar 2022, could install a traffic light system based on Smartraveller website, on condition traveller has not been in different country within previous 14 days. This will of course put a temp end to world trips and backpackers flitting and flutting wherever they like. All outgoing citizens and all income travellers (citizens and visitors) MUST be vaccinated by acceptable vaccine and have proof.

Could be something like:

Green countries - say Vietnam/Singapore/Taiwan - test at airport on arrival, negative good to go.

Yellow countries - say Indonesia -test at airport, seven days at home quarantine (hotel if not possible - booed prior to arrival), test at day 7, negative good to go.

Orange - say USA/UK - as current, hotel quarantine 14 days.

Red - non-COVID category - leave this to wartorn countries like C A R/Afghanistan/etc.

Sounds good in principle but I reckon the 14 day quarantine is here to stay at least for this year anyway

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes how many actually get vaccinated in Australia will be interesting.

Childhood immunisation rates are well over ninety %.

But with the voluntary Flu shots the rates are much lower. Now many have to pay for Flu shots, but for others it is free. Though cost is not expensive.

Covid 19 shots will presumably be free and so that will help. However there is probably still a solid core of people who will not want to get vaccinated.

Importantly, I think if you choose not to get vaccinated you lose your right to demand an elimination strategy.

The government must limit its responsibility to keeping us safe. The vaccine - if it performs as stated - will be that limit I think.

Post automatically merged: Jan 9, 2021

Good luck to your friend and hope they are allowed on their flight.

They found a place for a test... and a $400 surcharge to get the test processed and returned in 2 hours!

 

[clifford]

However there is probably still a solid core of people who will not want to get vaccinated.

Does that really matter?

Those that need/want to be Covid-free will take the vaccine, and the others will take their chances.

What's wrong with that?

 

[jb747]

Why???

Because it's a politicians number. It could be anything. 5%? 95%? The statement means nothing unless it's somehow defined.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Does that really matter?

Those that need/want to be Covid-free will take the vaccine, and the others will take their chances.

It does if the vaccine, or some vaccines, do help to limit transmission and you want to achieve herd immunity.

Also depending on case numbers it may also matter with respect provision of health services. Do we tie up an ICU ward for Covid patients, or for use it for other types of patients? In 2020 a lot of patients have had their care delayed. Is it fair and reasonable to maintain this delay if many just choose to take their chances?

You may choose to take the risk, but if you do get very ill then you are also expecting healthcare workers and others to take their chances to care for you at their expense. So it is not just the individual who is gambling with their health. Remember too that the vaccine/s may not work for everyone and it may not for the healthcare worker taking care of you. So you may get Covid, recover, but they may catch it from you and die or have impaired health.

 

[drron]

Surveys within Australia & overseas show large proportions ( > 25%) stating they will not get the vaccine at all, as well as an equally large proportion saying they'll wait some months to see if any adverse side effects appear.

The NewsCorp survey had around:

38% = Yes, I'll get the vaccine
33% = I'll wait a few months
29% = No, I will not get the vaccine

from memory when I saw it early last week.

In Europe it seems to be between 35-55% saying they won't get the vaccine.

In the US the early reports have health staff approx 40% refusing the vaccine.

Now that Biden has stated he will ignore the advice from Pfizer (Pfizer - do not delay the 2nd dose) & will aim for 2nd dose of Pfizer at 6 weeks or more so that more people get the first dose - makes things even more uncertain.

Perhaps what is worse are the falsified reports of the side effects from the vaccines using edited versions of CDC reports - One that I was sent nearly got by me - it was that well doctored. But I figured if the numbers were as bad as it showed then I would have heard about it from multiple contacts.

So I accessed the CDC 'voluntary' reporting of adverse vaccine reactions site (covers every vaccine there is) & ran the Covid vaccine report which showed the avg adverse reaction (per person reported) caused 3 different adverse issues (including 7 admitted to ICU) but nothing like the 'fake' report which had causing blindness, paralysis, herpes etc etc.

The CDC adverse reactions database is worth a look at for those who like details.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) About

wonder.cdc.gov

Two problems RAM.
First survey results are often misleading.And as time goes on the numbers saying they will be vaccinated keeps going up.I have posted such survey results before.

Second there are quite a few problems using data bases of self reported side effects of drugs or vaccines.The reports are not of proven side effects and can often be expected symptoms of the disease when reports are about drugs.For example search the reported side effects of antibiotics-virtually all of them will report Respiratory infection except basically that is what they were given for.

When trials are done with people reporting the side effects of a drug they are given when some get the active drug and others are placebo many of the reported side effects occur with the same frequency in the active and placebo groups.Indeed in some instances the side effects in the placebo group are more frequent than the active group.

And as an aside I have had several instances of people reciting to me the whole list of side effects as listed on the patient leaflets supplied with the drugs.Some have included effects such as decreased libido and increased sexual desire occurring at the same time.

 

[RAM]

Two problems RAM.
First survey results are often misleading.And as time goes on the numbers saying they will be vaccinated keeps going up.I have posted such survey results before.

Second there are quite a few problems using data bases of self reported side effects of drugs or vaccines.The reports are not of proven side effects and can often be expected symptoms of the disease when reports are about drugs.For example search the reported side effects of antibiotics-virtually all of them will report Respiratory infection except basically that is what they were given for.

When trials are done with people reporting the side effects of a drug they are given when some get the active drug and others are placebo many of the reported side effects occur with the same frequency in the active and placebo groups.Indeed in some instances the side effects in the placebo group are more frequent than the active group.

And as an aside I have had several instances of people reciting to me the whole list of side effects as listed on the patient leaflets supplied with the drugs.Some have included effects such as decreased libido and increased sexual desire occurring at the same time.

True, survey results can be misleading but they are generally better than unsubstantiated opinions.

You seem to have misread or misunderstood my post. I did not mention self-reporting - where is this coming from?

drron have a look at the CDC site for the vaccine figures and do some research into its history. You will find it stacks up well & covers every available vaccine in use in the US since it was set up in 1990.

This is not patient self-reporting but medical professional 'voluntary' reporting of side effects of vaccine delivery.

Or do you think the CDC is not valid? BTW the site is co-managed by the CDC & the FDA.

I prefer their data over what the media or politicians spin.

As an aside, patient self-reporting historically has been shown to be more accurate (honest) than reporting by the pharmaceutical companies repeatedly.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Because it's a politicians number. It could be anything. 5%? 95%? The statement means nothing unless it's somehow defined.

True but the schedule is defined by the federal department of health, and we know how quick and easy distribution of the Oxford-AZ vaccine will be in Australia, relative the Pfizer. There is no reason that number cannot be reached with significant quantities being manufactured by CSL on shore.

 

[DC3]

.... Some have included effects such as decreased libido and increased sexual desire occurring at the same time.

While seemingly a contradiction, possibly decreased libido with the partner, but increased desire while grazing in greener pastures. But you probably wouldn’t pursue that avenue.

Edit: This is not a medical opinion

 

[drron]

Though here is the report from the CDC analyzing some of the data from VAERS.And yes I have looked at the site.
So with anaphylaxis there were 175 reports though the data submitted was assessed as only 21 that met the crieria for anaphylaxis.

CDC report details allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receipt of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report details allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receiving the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in the US.From December 14 to December 23, 2020, after administration of...

dgalerts.docguide.com

And note there were 4393 adverse events reported.A total incidence of 0.2%.Most of those were not severe adverse events.

 

[clifford]

You may choose to take the risk...

Actually, I'm quite happy to take a vaccine, as long as its efficacy is proven and of a high order. I'd be wary of the Astra Zeneca vaccine, which our politicians appear to be foisting upon us, as its efficacy appears to be in question. It might be cheap and easy to produce/distribute, but is it any good? From what I've seen, the UQ vaccine (now deemed unsuitable) would have been better (who cares about false AIDS tests readings?).

Taking a vaccine with a low/uncertain efficacy is a bit like Russian roulette, and will be counterproductive in a country like Australia IMHO.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

(who cares about false AIDS tests readings?).

Apparently the blood bank, and hospitals (for surgeries etc). I guess they could have assumed a positive was false if a vaccine had been given, but that could also have risks if HIV was actually present?

 

[Pushka]

From what I've seen, the UQ vaccine (now deemed unsuitable) would have been better (who cares about false AIDS tests readings?).

I agree there is a large sub group in the population where that issue bears no relevance at all. I'd be happy with it. Having said that I think their trials were not quite as advanced as the current batch.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2021

Apparently the blood bank, and hospitals (for surgeries etc). I guess they could have assumed a positive was false if a vaccine had been given, but that could also have risks if HIV was actually present?

And if you aren't a blood donor because you have flakey health issues that isn't relevant. Be interesting to know the cross over of those not donating blood and those for whom that HIV test is of no consequence.

 

[DC3]

... I'd be wary of the Astra Zeneca vaccine, which our politicians appear to be foisting upon us, as its efficacy appears to be in question. It might be cheap and easy to produce/distribute, but is it any good?

It seems that production of 53M doses of the AstraZeneca is already underway in Australia, by CSL. The plan is for most of us to receive that one, during 2021, according to the report, below.

However, the first vax available will be 10M doses of Pfizer, probably beginning in February. So, 5M people.

Most people in Australia likely to get AstraZeneca COVID vaccine rather than Pfizer shot

While the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine will likely be the first to get approval in Australia, most of us will end up receiving the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly says.

www.abc.net.au