Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[hb13]

I'm torn on this. We don't want Damon and his family (or the like, Hanks, Danni Minogue etc) to be taking places of Australians in HQ, so if he's willing to pay for onsite medical supervision, 24/7 guarding, police visits etc, then sobeit. One could argue why aren't "ordinary" Australians afforded the same luxury - maybe there should be a mechanism for those who can afford to do so, but they pricetag of such arrangements are well and truly beyond most "ordinary" Australians. Figures suggest $100's of Ks. On the plus, it's bringing that money directly into the economy. More than $4k/couple for HQ would.

Still reckon they should risk assess and allow home quarantine with e-bracelets and random home calls if you come from a country (or a state) with only a very small number of cases (as in less than 1 or 2 per million people per day...).

So we want to have exemptions where the rich and famous can be exempt, so money can be brought into the economy, but we don't want stranded Australians brought home? As a country ranked in the top 10 of OECD countries for GDP per capita, I would have thought a priority is to bring Aussies back home first, especially when some are running out of visas and are in urgent need of getting back home.

And when it comes to money, a celebrity coming in every now and again and spending half a million on accommodation/security is not the answer. That's not doing anything for the economy.

Again, I'm not saying exemptions should be made - there is a manageable way to deal with this - but really, our first priority should be the welfare of Australians. We can make sure all Australians can go back home, and bring in movie stars, diplomats, sports stars etc.

But it is the Australian government that has said 'there are no exemptions'. They are the ones who have said these rules are based on "protecting the health of Australians". The have decided to make it a blanket rule. And then they keep breaking the rules.

 

[hb13]

Diplomatic exemptions are just a fact of life. If we think about the flip side, would we want Australia’s ambassador quarantined in a Chinese hotel which unsecured communications and listening devices?

Sports... interesting exemption.

The ‘rich’? I’m not sure it really is an exemption from the requirements in terms of outcomes... just an exemption from government hotel quarantine. The outcome is the same... quarantine under strict conditions. Theoretically I guess any of us could do the same, if we could afford the police, monitoring and everything else that goes with it.

If we could *trust* everyone in home quarantine now it would be a different story... but as we saw in WA, an alleged carrier was out and about driving around in an uber (just because someone says you can’t, doesn’t mean you should!)

Diplomatic, and other exemptions are a fact of life, this is true. But when you have had a government crowing that for this pandemic, which is a health crisis, no one will be exempt, allowing some people to be exempt is a bad look. Particularly when you have Australians in dire need of returning home.

 

[kpc]

Money and fame have and will always carry favour, like it or not!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Diplomatic, and other exemptions are a fact of life, this is true. But when you have had a government crowing that for this pandemic, which is a health crisis, no one will be exempt, allowing some people to be exempt is a bad look. Particularly when you have Australians in dire need of returning home.

I think there are two different issues? Celebrities coming in and home quarantining shouldn’t really impact on bringing aussies home. The celebrities aren’t taking up rooms in quarantine hotels, they’re buying services outside the system.

As for bringing aussies home... what about the exemptions for non-residents to come and go? Sometimes multiple times. And those leaving for ‘work’. Those are all taking up space from those desperate to come home the first time

The system is far from perfect, but i dunno if celebrities are the real strain? It’s caps, and who actually gets to ride within those caps out of the ‘normal’ folk.

 

[hb13]

I think there are two different issues? Celebrities coming in and home quarantining shouldn’t really impact on bringing aussies home. The celebrities aren’t taking up rooms in quarantine hotels, they’re buying services outside the system.

As for bringing aussies home... what about the exemptions for non-residents to come and go? Sometimes multiple times. And those leaving for ‘work’. Those are all taking up space from those desperate to come home the first time

The system is far from perfect, but i dunno if celebrities are the real strain? It’s caps, and who actually gets to ride within those caps out of the ‘normal’ folk.

What about the hundreds of tennis players who arrived last month for the Australian Open?

Most of these tennis players were allowed to go out into the city to Melbourne Park to train for 5 hours per day. Are you telling me the risk is still low there? Were they a strain on the system?

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2021

Money and fame have and will always carry favour, like it or not!

I actually completely agree. My issue is a government that says otherwise, and has been absolutely hypocritical in its claims that the rules 'apply to everyone'.

 

[dajop]

As for bringing aussies home... what about the exemptions for non-residents to come and go? Sometimes multiple times.

There is so much to unpack with "bringing aussies home" that relates to financial circumstances, distance from Australia, number of flights from Australia, giving up jobs or not, jobs that can be done remotely or not, family size and so on. The solutions offered by the government are simplistic, and do lend themselves to the financially well of being able to travel to Australia more than once, whilst others may face more difficulty.

 

[Pom-DownUnder]

Astrazenca showing 75% protection after only one jab, 67% coverage against transmission, 22 days after first jab drastic reduction in symptoms and being touted as 100% reduction in hospitalisation after 22 days. Obviously a moving target still but looks to be very strong news.

UK has passed 10,000,000 vaccinations

(Australia still on one of the highly touted donuts by all these state premiers)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Astrazenca showing 75% protection after only one jab, 67% coverage against transmission, 22 days after first jab drastic reduction in symptoms and being touted as 100% reduction in hospitalisation after 22 days. Obviously a moving target still but looks to be very strong news.

UK has passed 10,000,000 vaccinations

(Australia still on one of the highly touted donuts by all these state premiers)

*if* that's the case - borders open by October!

Edited to add... Q&A tonight by news.com(.au) with the PM, Health Secretary and CHO, with the CHO saying:

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Paul Kelly said he agreed, adding: “I think it would be if we have really good efficacy in a vaccine, we could start to see some recommendations about restrictions lessening progressively over the second half of this year. But beyond that, I wouldn’t want to make a prediction either.”​

 

[Must...Fly!]

Makes me want that Oxford jab even more

 

[mviy]

You'll still be up for either 10 days self isolation or hotel quarantine even that late in this year IMHO, for the UK, so factor that in too. Things are going to ease very, very slowly year as the vaccine program will take a long time due to the size of the population. I'd like to think I might get my first jab by Q4 this year but that's a very optimistic view.

I thought the Australian government were planning to have everyone done by October, though I guess things slipping further wouldn't be surprising. Would have liked to go for UK summer, but I'm sure I won't have been vaccinated by then. I'm currently hoping to head over there for Christmas (which I've never done before) or failing that hopefully in 12 months time in February 2022.

 

[OZDUCK]

There is an interesting conclusion in the results of the trials of the Astrazenca vaccine. (Note that the trial results have not yet been 'peer reviewed') It appears that the vaccine is more effective if the gap between the two doses was greater than the initially recommended 4 week gap. The maximally effective process appeared to involve a gap of at least 3 months between the shots. The vaccine was 82% effective with a longer gap compared to 55% if the gap is less than 6 weeks. It is believed that this may explain the 'half dose more effective' problem with the early trials.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is shown to drastically cut transmission of the virus.

A new study by researchers at the University of Oxford underscores the importance of mass inoculation as a path out of the pandemic.

www.nytimes.com

 

[drron]

A little more on those Oxford results with no one having a serious infection and no one admitted to hospital
They were actually confident that the second dose having an 8-12 week interval was going to be better.

Oxford Covid vaccine offers 76% protection for up to 12 weeks after first dose, study shows

Vaccine may also reduce transmission of the virus by 67 per cent, researchers say

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Pushka]

A little more on those Oxford results with no one having a serious infection and no one admitted to hospital
They were actually confident that the second dose having an 8-12 week interval was going to be better.

Oxford Covid vaccine offers 76% protection for up to 12 weeks after first dose, study shows

Vaccine may also reduce transmission of the virus by 67 per cent, researchers say

www.independent.co.uk

I guess this is why Aus is in a better position having waited a bit. Seems like the UK was (randomly) right also in just getting everyone the first jab and then roll out the second when they were happy with the spread of the first one.

 

[zenyattamondatta]

I guess this is why Aus is in a better position having waited a bit. Seems like the UK was (randomly) right also in just getting everyone the first jab and then roll out the second when they were happy with the spread of the first one.

Yeah, well it was either 'random' or the people making the decision had access to information that may not have been public.

 

[Pushka]

Yeah, well it was either 'random' or the people making the decision had access to information that may not have been public.

Why do you always have to be abrupt? State your opinion about the situation, provide some facts to back it up but quit with the stuff about peoples mental acuity. (The comment I was referring to has now been moderated so this sentence now makes no sense. )

Just for the record, seems a great number are scientists are just as clueless as I am.

UK Covid-19 vaccine rollout: the dosing schedule debate - Pharmaceutical Technology

UK Covid-19 vaccines: the dosing schedule of the first two approved vaccines - AZ/Oxford and Pfizer/BioNTech - has been extended to 12 weeks.

www.pharmaceutical-technology.com

"Simultaneous to the emergency approval of a second Covid-19 vaccine, UK healthcare regulator the MHRA recommended the second dose for both approved vaccines should be administered up to 12 weeks after the first. This decision has split the scientific community in the UK and the world; let’s delve into the views of both sides of the argument."

 

[zenyattamondatta]

Just for the record, seems a great number are scientists are just as clueless as I am.

That is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the people on both sides of the argument. The outcome of a rational debate between informed experts can hardly be considered 'random'. There was a sensible case for lengthening the time between shots, they didn't just stumble 'randomly' upon it. And the dosage/timing regime needs to be calibrated as carefully as possible for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine since there's a likelihood of people developing immunity to the vector itself. Blind adherence to the precise regime that was initially trialled could very well have ended up doing more harm than good.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Why do you always have to be abrupt? State your opinion about the situation, provide some facts to back it up but quit with the stuff about peoples mental acuity.

Just for the record, seems a great number are scientists are just as clueless as I am.

UK Covid-19 vaccine rollout: the dosing schedule debate - Pharmaceutical Technology

UK Covid-19 vaccines: the dosing schedule of the first two approved vaccines - AZ/Oxford and Pfizer/BioNTech - has been extended to 12 weeks.

www.pharmaceutical-technology.com

"Simultaneous to the emergency approval of a second Covid-19 vaccine, UK healthcare regulator the MHRA recommended the second dose for both approved vaccines should be administered up to 12 weeks after the first. This decision has split the scientific community in the UK and the world; let’s delve into the views of both sides of the argument."

I will try to find the article for you but the JCVI published a fairly robust analysis of the data which they used to back up their decision for the delayed 2nd dose. Whilst initially there was outcry amongst many Dr groups most if not all eventually came onboard with it including Prof Trisha Greenalgh.
I don’t think it was a clueless decision at all.

 

[Pushka]

I will try to find the article for you but the JCVI published a fairly robust analysis of the data which they used to back up their decision for the delayed 2nd dose. Whilst initially there was outcry amongst many Dr groups most if not all eventually came onboard with it including Prof Trisha Greenalgh.
I don’t think it was a clueless decision at all.

Thankyou. That’s helpful.

As far as my ‘clueless’ comment, I should have added a ‘sarcasm’ icon. I believe at the time this decision was made I commented somewhere on one of the Covid threads that I could understand the sense of that decision.

 

[Ric]

A little more on those Oxford results with no one having a serious infection and no one admitted to hospital
They were actually confident that the second dose having an 8-12 week interval was going to be better.

Oxford Covid vaccine offers 76% protection for up to 12 weeks after first dose, study shows

Vaccine may also reduce transmission of the virus by 67 per cent, researchers say

www.independent.co.uk

@drron or anyone, do you have any info on the status of the AZ vaccine for those over 65? IIRC, there was something about it losing it's efficacy for those over 65?

 

[andye]

One of the issues affecting Australia is the potential vulnerability of the indigenous population, Spread to communities could be devastating on a humanitarian basis. It could also have potential political repercussions. I'm glad to see the appreciation of this in the prioritisation of the vaccine roll-out. It may well be a factor in politicians keeping international borders closed until there is widespread coverage