Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?I don't think that's completely right. Totally agree re amount of resources thrown, but time is something you can't always solve for with money.
But the bigger point, is that with anything new there is always an element of risk. The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
And I have zero inclination to take any chances with my kids when they're just not at risk
We've never waited for medium or long term data for vaccines for serious diseases, it's never happened in the medical history of vaccination. That standard is an impossible standard that no other vaccine has ever been made to meet. It has also not backfired in the past 100 years.
The Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine (and the AstraZeneca and others) went through all the normal clinical trials in full, they were just run concurrently rather than consecutively. It also went through all normal regulatory approvals but they were prioritised at all stages and the regulators were reviewing data in real time (more or less) rather than waiting for an application and reports months after the final trial.
Yes it's a miracle, but the miracle is that the world put aside their differences for 5 minutes and pooled resources and collaboration to tackle the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, not the development of one of the more effective vaccines going for anything we vaccinate against.
Normally we complain about how slow and "methodical" government processes are - we should celebrate this effort.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
My point was that there has never, ever been a vaccine rolled out this quickly on this scale.
There’s also never been as much resource thrown at a vaccine afaik.
So would less people, work hours and expertise used but a longer time taken make things better? I think not.
The implication that the vaccines were a rush job simply because they threw everything at them is a big red herring. As long as they went through the same testing regimes and approval processes what does it matter if companies worked around the clock?I don't think that's completely right. Totally agree re amount of resources thrown, but time is something you can't always solve for with money.
But the bigger point, is that with anything new there is always an element of risk. The longer you observe something, the more data you collect and the better informed you become.
And I have zero inclination to take any chances with my kids when they're just not at risk
We've never waited for medium or long term data for vaccines for serious diseases, it's never happened in the medical history of vaccination. That standard is an impossible standard that no other vaccine has ever been made to meet. It has also not backfired in the past 100 years.
The Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine (and the AstraZeneca and others) went through all the normal clinical trials in full, they were just run concurrently rather than consecutively. It also went through all normal regulatory approvals but they were prioritised at all stages and the regulators were reviewing data in real time (more or less) rather than waiting for an application and reports months after the final trial.
Yes it's a miracle, but the miracle is that the world put aside their differences for 5 minutes and pooled resources and collaboration to tackle the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, not the development of one of the more effective vaccines going for anything we vaccinate against.
Normally we complain about how slow and "methodical" government processes are - we should celebrate this effort.
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
As for this being the most dangerous pandemic since 1918, well, not for my (luckily healthy) 8yr old it isn't. So the miracle speed of development doesn't mean I should feel obligated to give it to him or any of my kids. It doesn't mean that because I have the luxury of time with them, that I shouldn't be allowed to use that time to just wait and see. Why would I choose anything different?
And to be quite honest, my own reasons for taking the vax myself were 50% doing my bit for society, 49% wanting to be allowed to travel again, and 1% for protecting myself.
Maybe that's me being naive?
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
@Godder has been very reasonable and patient in his personal efforts to explain some aspects of the government's vaccination plan, and to respond to some of the queries in this thread. I don't think he's unreasonably pushing anything.
-
@tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
I really don't understand why you're continuing to push this. You're now making out like I'm not appreciative of the incredible effort that researchers, manufacturers, and regulators put in over the last 24 months. It was truly amazing, we can all acknowledge that, surely.
@Godder has been very reasonable and patient in his personal efforts to explain some aspects of the government's vaccination plan, and to respond to some of the queries in this thread. I don't think he's unreasonably pushing anything.
Pretty sure I nominated the man for reasonableness or some other Fernie! Though the argument got twisted here to imply I don't appreciate or understand what has been achieved on the vaccine front, which isn't accurate.
But the "push" I referred to is the continued argument against what I feel is a pretty sensible position to take - my kids aren't very vulnerable, and anyone who is vulnerable has had the chance to get vaxxed. So why would I rush to vax my kids? 🤷♂️
I hold nothing against those who do vax their kids. Their choice!
-
@voodoo Apologies if I have missed something, but I didn't perceive Godder pushing hard against parents being concerned about expanding vaccination to younger children?
I've been taking a break from a lot of internet stuff, so may have missed thread nuances.
-
@tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo Apologies if I have missed something, but I didn't perceive Godder pushing hard against parents being concerned about expanding vaccination to younger children?
I've been taking a break from a lot of internet stuff, so may have missed thread nuances.
Shit, I don't anymore, you've known me for long enough to know how easily confused I get
-
This is the CDC's page on Covid vaccination for children and teens: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/children-teens.html
I agree that the benefits of vaccination for most children and young adults (even into their early 20s) is probably marginal, but that link has some hopefully useful information, and to paraphrase one of the points, even a child who shakes it off with no long term effects might still have a miserable few days off school that could have been avoided.
I am just trying to point out that collective public health benefits by mass immunization is a good and common reason alongside direct benefits for approving vaccines, and for people to get them, and that the process used to trial and approve the vaccines at every stage has followed standard protocols even if it doesn't seem like it. "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" are words to live by, it just so happens in this case to not apply when looking past the surface.
The other thing is that some of the questions being asked here are used by some antivaxxers to deflect from the fact that they are anti-vax. I know that's generally not the case or the intention here at TSF as people are being cautious, especially for their children, not anti-science, but the questions do have legitimate answers, even if Tamaki and his crew can't quite believe it.
Speaking of public health, the herd immunity calculation is 1-1/R0. For delta, if R0=6, then that would make herd immunity 5/6=83.33%. Currently only 85% of the whole population are eligible, so 83.33% is basically impossible. If 5-11s are approved, that would be enough that 90% double dose would then be 88% of the population which might be enough. Delta has a lot of good reasons why that might be too low (we don't know R0 for certain yet, people can get it twice and after being vaccinated, it can spread to and from animals), but watching the bigger regions go well past 90% first dose, maybe there's still hope that we can get close with vaccination plus a few public health measures.
-
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Not sure if the DT in NZ is any good. If anything, this one quote sums up the malaise of modern day science.
“Science was being treated as a monolithic body of knowledge. In fact scientific disciplines contain competing ideas, paradigms, and theories.”
Concensus has never been, and will never be, a word that should be associated with science.
-
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@stodders said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Not sure if the DT in NZ is any good. If anything, this one quote sums up the malaise of modern day science.
“Science was being treated as a monolithic body of knowledge. In fact scientific disciplines contain competing ideas, paradigms, and theories.”
Concensus has never been, and will never be, a word that should be associated with science.
For the record, I've had my 2 jabs. Doesn't mean I like the propaganda and behavioural nudging that is masquerading as "following the science".
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is the CDC's page on Covid vaccination for children and teens: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/children-teens.html
I agree that the benefits of vaccination for most children and young adults (even into their early 20s) is probably marginal, but that link has some hopefully useful information, and to paraphrase one of the points, even a child who shakes it off with no long term effects might still have a miserable few days off school that could have been avoided.
I am just trying to point out that collective public health benefits by mass immunization is a good and common reason alongside direct benefits for approving vaccines, and for people to get them, and that the process used to trial and approve the vaccines at every stage has followed standard protocols even if it doesn't seem like it. "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" are words to live by, it just so happens in this case to not apply when looking past the surface.
The other thing is that some of the questions being asked here are used by some antivaxxers to deflect from the fact that they are anti-vax. I know that's generally not the case or the intention here at TSF as people are being cautious, especially for their children, not anti-science, but the questions do have legitimate answers, even if Tamaki and his crew can't quite believe it.
Speaking of public health, the herd immunity calculation is 1-1/R0. For delta, if R0=6, then that would make herd immunity 5/6=83.33%. Currently only 85% of the whole population are eligible, so 83.33% is basically impossible. If 5-11s are approved, that would be enough that 90% double dose would then be 88% of the population which might be enough. Delta has a lot of good reasons why that might be too low (we don't know R0 for certain yet, people can get it twice and after being vaccinated, it can spread to and from animals), but watching the bigger regions go well past 90% first dose, maybe there's still hope that we can get close with vaccination plus a few public health measures.
Gibraltar is 100% vaccinated. Numbers are rising.
Portugal is 100% vaccinated. Numbers are rising.
Evidence shows that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the virus. Having 80/90+ % vaccinated won't necessarily bring herd immunity. Look at Israel!
The benefits to 5-11 year olds of getting the vaccine don't yet outweigh the (albeit small) risks. That's why bodies like the JCVI haven't approved it for under 12s. More data and research is needed. It is right that we make sure it is safe for under 12s.
-
@godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
This is the CDC's page on Covid vaccination for children and teens: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/children-teens.html
I agree that the benefits of vaccination for most children and young adults (even into their early 20s) is probably marginal, but that link has some hopefully useful information, and to paraphrase one of the points, even a child who shakes it off with no long term effects might still have a miserable few days off school that could have been avoided.
I am just trying to point out that collective public health benefits by mass immunization is a good and common reason alongside direct benefits for approving vaccines, and for people to get them, and that the process used to trial and approve the vaccines at every stage has followed standard protocols even if it doesn't seem like it. "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is" are words to live by, it just so happens in this case to not apply when looking past the surface.
The other thing is that some of the questions being asked here are used by some antivaxxers to deflect from the fact that they are anti-vax. I know that's generally not the case or the intention here at TSF as people are being cautious, especially for their children, not anti-science, but the questions do have legitimate answers, even if Tamaki and his crew can't quite believe it.
Speaking of public health, the herd immunity calculation is 1-1/R0. For delta, if R0=6, then that would make herd immunity 5/6=83.33%. Currently only 85% of the whole population are eligible, so 83.33% is basically impossible. If 5-11s are approved, that would be enough that 90% double dose would then be 88% of the population which might be enough. Delta has a lot of good reasons why that might be too low (we don't know R0 for certain yet, people can get it twice and after being vaccinated, it can spread to and from animals), but watching the bigger regions go well past 90% first dose, maybe there's still hope that we can get close with vaccination plus a few public health measures.
Your 4th paragraph doesn't help IMO. If there are questions, they need answering. When it comes to health concerns, there should be no such thing as a dumb question. If people raise concerns, the retort can't be "you must be anti-vaxx". If the science is clear, then the answer should be easy to provide.
This approach to using "anti-vaxx" is no different to people who questioned the benefits of staying in the EU (but not necessarily being pro-Brexit) being tarred as "gammons". It is a tactic to shame and nudge people into doing something without questioning it.
Sure, there are people out there who are anti-vaxx. Not a lot will sway them. Those that are cautious and are just critically thinking before making a decision are not one and the same.
-
@tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Anyone gotten a booster earlier than the six month interval? I would be due one in January, but may have to travel before then, and may be away for 12 months minimum.
my 6 months would be the very end of December
I am going to Tassie at exactly that time. Was going to try and get it before Christmas, but now just sitting and seeing re: the new variant
-
@rapido This is what they say about themselves
‘The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.’
The above is a famous quote from George Orwell’s novel 1984. It has become rather fashionable nowadays to quote Orwell, a reflection of the fear many people hold that the totalitarian world portrayed in his famous work is slowly becoming a reality.dailytelegraph.co.nz was launched in October 2021. It as an independent news web site, containing syndicated news from around the world, local opinion and stories, sports, crytocurrency news and more.
We aim to provide an alternative source of news for New Zealanders, especially in regards to world events and current important issues affecting our country.
We aim to provide a voice for those who have been silenced and feel powerless.
We aim to disseminate information that is in the public’s interest, especially that which is routinely suppressed by the government and legacy mainstream media.
We do not ‘create narratives.’ We simply provide you with information from credible and verified news sources, so you can make informed decisions.Our international news is syndicated from RT News, Sputnik News and teleSUR. The first two agencies were founded in Russia and have large followings in the West because they provide more balanced reporting on important international issues than legacy western mainstream media does. teleSUR is an award-winning international news agency founded in Caracas, Venezuela, and offers readers and viewers an alternative viewpoint on all international matters
-
What could go wrong with a bit of leadership from Russia on this.
France 24
Focus - Covid-19 in Russia: A health disaster driven by lack in trust in authorities
.
Russia is one of the countries with the lowest vaccination rates and highest Covid-19 death rates in the world. With just over 30 percent of...
.
10 hours ago