Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[serfty]

80,000 from memory but can't find source now.

Geez not a good first week then.

And the reported wastage is 200/26000....

I believe that 80K figure was hopeful - certainly not unusual for the first week of such a rollout to be lower - but the 'week' isn't up yet if we discount the 20 'show' vaccinations last Sunday. Let's see what is happening by end of March.

The government's target for phase 1a is 1.4M by end of April, so ~150K per week.

Australia Covid vaccine tracker: how is the rollout progressing and when will you get the jab?

How does Australia’s vaccine rollout compare with other countries and when will you be eligible to get vaccinated?

www.theguardian.com

 

[N860CR]

It found that without effective treatments, border closures were the most effective method. That would probably carry some weight when considering the Cth approach. What other options are there?

What’s an effective treatment though? Does it have to be medical intervention? The best treatment so far has been to have a lie down for a few days, and it does work in something like 98% of cases (and that doesn’t account for the over counting of deaths and undercounting of cases).

Australians have, largely anyway, just bought the campaign of fear (remember Andrew’s giving his daily reports of how many 100 year olds died the previous day) and this very much clouds opinion.

I still maintain that, had we not obsessed over border closures and spent money in the health system, Australia would be in a more reasonable position.

 

[stryker]

I still maintain that, had we not obsessed over border closures and spent money in the health system, Australia would be in a more reasonable position.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it would be more reasonable with more deaths? I guess older people don't really matter to you. Of course, they're dispensable.

 

[hb13]

From our experience in the UK and I believe in the US, the first weeks are always tough and then a very quick ramp up happens. This is why Australia should not have delayed. Let's hope this delay is just a blip.

 

[hb13]

I agree it is 8 months away, but for me at least that seems reasonably close given the timelines. The PM can't commit to a specific date. Nor can he really say at this stage that everyone can travel once we're vaccinated, because we don't know about new strains. I think it will become clearer over the next few months as we see data from Australia and overseas. That seems reasonable, to me. The PM has been muck more flexible in his approach than Professor Murphy who wants to see a vaccine stop transmission.



There are those coming home to visit, and also non-residents coming in and out. This is part of the broader issue on exemptions, and whether it really is intended for non-residents to travel freely to conduct business or leisure. The current requirement to maintain PR is 2 years in Australia out of 5. If someone is really PR, should they actually be 'non-resident' as well?

Again, no one said to commit to a specific date. Absolutely no one. You keep saying date, but no one is saying that. We want to see a plan and strategy. No one is saying he needs to say once we are all vaccinated, travel will be completely free - he needs to put out a PLAN.

You said we need to see data from Australia and overseas. What data from Australia are you possibly hoping to get?

How has the PM been more flexible. Can you show us an example of his flexibility apart from the fluff he has put out?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again, no one said to commit to a specific date. Absolutely no one. You keep saying date, but no one is saying that. We want to see a plan and strategy. No one is saying he needs to say once we are all vaccinated, travel will be completely free - he needs to put out a PLAN.

You said we need to see data from Australia and overseas. What data from Australia are you possibly hoping to get?

How has the PM been more flexible. Can you show us an example of his flexibility apart from the fluff he has put out?

What do you want his plan to say? At the moment his plan is that once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions. Couple that with the lawful basis on which restrictions need to be made - the Biosecurity Act.

Aside from exact dates, what more should be in the plan?

Professor Murphy has taken a fairly hardline approach to the management of the virus, saying he wants to stop transmission. And then introduced another potential roadblock by saying under 16s won't be vaccinated, so we'll never be able to stop transmission. The PM has been a bit more pragmatic in his outlook.

 

[OZDUCK]

What do you want his plan to say? At the moment his plan is that once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions. Couple that with the lawful basis on which restrictions need to be made - the Biosecurity Act.

Aside from exact dates, what more should be in the plan?

Professor Murphy has taken a fairly hardline approach to the management of the virus, saying he wants to stop transmission. And then introduced another potential roadblock by saying under 16s won't be vaccinated, so we'll never be able to stop transmission. The PM has been a bit more pragmatic in his outlook.

My, admittedly feeble, understanding is that the matter of vaccinations for under-16's will be reviewed once Pfizer and Astra-Zeneca have actually completed trials to ensure that it is safe to vaccinate them with the vaccines developed so far. Neither of those vaccines have currently been certified for use in under- 16's in Australia due to a lack of evidence regarding their effectiveness and safety in vaccinating that section of the population.

Federal Health Minister: Greg Hunt (With Prof. Murphy standing alongside him)- "And phase 3, if clinical trials were to provide global information on the efficacy and safety in children, then it would proceed to children."

Doorstop interview about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout on 18 February 2021

Read the transcript of the press conference with Minister Hunt and Professor Brendan Murphy, in Canberra on 18 February about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Australia.

www.health.gov.au

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Just on the under 16's.. As per the last post, they are conditionally included in the Rollout Phases. The last phase.

Who can get vaccinated

Everyone in Australia aged 5 years and over is eligible for a free COVID-19 vaccination. Find out more.

www.health.gov.au

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My, admittedly feeble, understanding is that the matter of vaccinations for under-16's will be reviewed once Pfizer and Astra-Zeneca have actually completed trials to ensure that it is safe to vaccinate them with the vaccines developed so far. Neither of those vaccines have currently been certified for use in under- 16's in Australia due to a lack of evidence regarding their effectiveness and safety in vaccinating that section of the population.

Federal Health Minister: Greg Hunt (With Prof. Murphy standing alongside him)- "And phase 3, if clinical trials were to provide global information on the efficacy and safety in children, then it would proceed to children."

Doorstop interview about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout on 18 February 2021

Read the transcript of the press conference with Minister Hunt and Professor Brendan Murphy, in Canberra on 18 February about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Australia.

www.health.gov.au

Agree. And the presser is dated 18 February. On 5 February (or thereabouts) Professor Murphy was saying we may not be able to reach herd immunity without vaccinating the under 16s. and the vaccine hasn't been approved for that age group yet.

An optimal health outcome might be herd immunity, but that's not necessarily the same as an optimal outcome for society as a whole, factoring in economic and wellbeing issues.

 

[hb13]

What do you want his plan to say? At the moment his plan is that once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions.

Where has the government said that? Because my understanding is there has been no such thing said.

Couple that with the lawful basis on which restrictions need to be made - the Biosecurity Act.

The government has shown the Biosecurity Act doesn't mean much to them. Plus, who is going to punish them if they don't adhere to the Biosecurity Act?

 

[Must...Fly!]

ScoMo said it at the vaccination roll out announcement. Along the lines of changing metrics - from cases to hospitalisations or ICU patients, etc. Cases will be irrelevant if no one needs a hospital bed.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Where has the government said that? Because my understanding is there has been no such thing said.



The government has shown the Biosecurity Act doesn't mean much to them. Plus, who is going to punish them if they don't adhere to the Biosecurity Act?

In respect of part (a) - that seems to be the current narrative. There are comments here: ‘Very possible’ COVID-19 vaccine may reopen Australia’s international borders: PM Scott Morrison, also reported here (although behind a paywall, the first para gives the idea): Scott Morrison leaves open chance of international travel before 2022

In respect of part (b) I'd probably disagree. The basis for the current restrictions are made under the Biosecurity Act and are limited in time. At the moment, the reasons for the restrictions are valid. They likely won't be once the vaccine program has been completed. It would be a matter for the courts to decide. And someone to bring a case.

 

[hb13]

In respect of part (a) - that seems to be the current narrative. There are comments here: ‘Very possible’ COVID-19 vaccine may reopen Australia’s international borders: PM Scott Morrison, also reported here (although behind a paywall, the first para gives the idea): Scott Morrison leaves open chance of international travel before 2022

Again I would ask what else is there apart from narrative? As everyone can see, the narrative is just fluff. It's a just something to make some people feel good. Let me remind you, you have said "once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions". Where has anyone in government actually said this? The comments "very possible" mean absolutely nothing. We know that already - or else, as I have mentioned why vaccinate anyone? I don't know what your circumstance is, but many people need to plan their life and business 6 - 12 months if possible. Some solid direction, even if qualified by some caveats if things don't work is urgently needed. How is that not clear?

In respect of part (b) I'd probably disagree. The basis for the current restrictions are made under the Biosecurity Act and are limited in time. At the moment, the reasons for the restrictions are valid. They likely won't be once the vaccine program has been completed. It would be a matter for the courts to decide. And someone to bring a case.

That's your opinion. My opinion differs. I think the government can justify anything they want to and get away with it. I'm fairly certain the Biosecurity Act is the last thing on any of their minds and probably don't care one ounce if they have to battle it in court. After all, it's the taxpayers' money. And this government is now posturing to do what they can to win the next election.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again I would ask what else is there apart from narrative? As everyone can see, the narrative is just fluff. It's a just something to make some people feel good. Let me remind you, you have said "once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions". Where has anyone in government actually said this? The comments "very possible" mean absolutely nothing. We know that already - or else, as I have mentioned why vaccinate anyone? I don't know what your circumstance is, but many people need to plan their life and business 6 - 12 months if possible. Some solid direction, even if qualified by some caveats if things don't work is urgently needed. How is that not clear?

So as of the end of February, what do you want the concrete plan to say? If we change 'very possible' to 'absolutely', but then append caveats, haven't we got the same outcome?

 

[N860CR]

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that it would be more reasonable with more deaths? I guess older people don't really matter to you. Of course, they're dispensable.

I’m not sure what your background in aged care is, but being married to and coming from a long line of health care professionals who specialize in geriatrics, I can categorically say that elderly people die every day from a range of highly preventable and often downright unacceptable causes, however nobody has ever really cared before. Your statement is offensive, to say the least.

Had we dedicated the huge resources “protecting borders” to protecting the vulnerable, we would have been able to fix our aged care system 10 times over. But in 12-18 months time, things will go back to how they were a year ago - and will that matter to you? I suspect not.

 

[jakeseven7]

Again I would ask what else is there apart from narrative? As everyone can see, the narrative is just fluff. It's a just something to make some people feel good. Let me remind you, you have said "once we are vaccinated, and if the vaccine works as initial data suggests, then the risk profile changes and we'll start to see the easing of restrictions". Where has anyone in government actually said this? The comments "very possible" mean absolutely nothing. We know that already - or else, as I have mentioned why vaccinate anyone? I don't know what your circumstance is, but many people need to plan their life and business 6 - 12 months if possible. Some solid direction, even if qualified by some caveats if things don't work is urgently needed. How is that not clear?



That's your opinion. My opinion differs. I think the government can justify anything they want to and get away with it. I'm fairly certain the Biosecurity Act is the last thing on any of their minds and probably don't care one ounce if they have to battle it in court. After all, it's the taxpayers' money. And this government is now posturing to do what they can to win the next election.

Don’t bother feeding.... there is no plan, you aren’t going to get what you want... it is all just spin, and some people are clearly buying it! Again nothing of significance is going to happen until the election is in the bag. After that you will see a little more action I suspect

 

[hb13]

Don’t bother feeding.... there is no plan, you aren’t going to get what you want... it is all just spin, and some people are clearly buying it! Again nothing of significance is going to happen until the election is in the bag. After that you will see a little more action I suspect

True, I am wasting my time. Just frustrating how some think there is a plan and we have a way out of this

 

[MEL_Traveller]

True, I am wasting my time. Just frustrating how some think there is a plan and we have a way out of this

To be fair, I think there’s an opportunity to take the initiative... put what’s out there together and make some reasonable/sensible plans. For example towards the end of 2021, using airlines, fares, award seats and hotel rooms that are fully refundable, or don’t require payment until close to the date.

The alternative is to wait until an exact date is announced and we potentially get what happened in the UK... a 337% increase in travel bookings, fares increasing, award seats gone.

Appreciate that’s more applicable to leisure bookings. Business probably wants something more concrete.

 

[mviy]

Again nothing of significance is going to happen until the election is in the bag. After that you will see a little more action I suspect

I agree. The election will be timed so if they want to they can promise they will try to do something without having to guarantee they will do it (some cop out that if the health advice changes the plan will have to change) with the implementation date after the election so if things go pear shaped they won't have to face the voters for three years and they will hope by then that people have forgotten all about it.

 

[jakeseven7]

I agree. The election will be timed so if they want to they can promise they will try to do something without having to guarantee they will do it (some cop out that if the health advice changes the plan will have to change) with the implementation date after the election so if things go pear shaped they won't have to face the voters for three years and they will hope by then that people have forgotten all about it.

Finally someone who understands