So is the COVID-19 drama over, or will this go on for some time?

I could sum up my thoughts as:

1. The whole thing's a damn nuisance, no doubt about that.

2. I'm in a low risk category so far as I can determine so self-interest says let's get things back to normal.

3. Morally however, well I'm not willing to sacrifice human life if it's being done unnecessarily. Propping up poor business or government economic decisions are not even slightly close to being an adequate justification. An actual justification would be the lack of a medically viable alternative or firm evidence that the death toll will in fact be minimal due to mitigations which will actually be implemented.

4. There are some good outcomes amidst the chaos and it's important that those aren't lost in a return to normal. Excessive trade to the point of undermining living standards and the environment, flying people huge distances so they can pick fruit, hot desking, having office workers all present in a physical office building 9 to 5 five days a week and not holding stock of critical products are examples of ideas that are either well past their use-by date or were never much good in the first place. There's an upside to the pandemic with it having brought some of that madness to an abrupt halt - now let's make sure it doesn't return.

5. If the facts change then my opinion will change. If someone can demonstrate a path that works then by all means let's adopt it. It's possible that some countries might be in the process of that but it needs time to be proven - a change of seasons and verification as to what, if any, ongoing health impacts have occurred.

I'm using the basic logic that conducting an irreversible experiment on anything real is always extremely high risk and something that is done only when there really is no choice. That applies whether we're talking about the entire population or something like a real skyscraper or the real power grid. You don't implement changes based on unproven theories in a real building full of people or the real national grid and it's not wise to do them to the entire population either. Rather, you do the calculations and work it out then you try it somewhere where failure won't matter too much - an empty building that's going to be demolished soon anyway, a small town's power supply, etc. If that all works, then you start scaling it up. If it doesn't work and something bad happens, well you don't want to find that out by ending up with a 100 storey building full of people coming down and ending up as a pile of rubble, the entire country blacked out or finding out that you just wiped 20 years of everyone's lifespan. Etc.

One thing that hopefully will come from this is a better understanding of risk. All of a sudden there should be a much better understanding that those very unlikely but extremely high impact things actually are worth being concerned about. A 1% chance that business as usual is wrecked, the situation we've got with the pandemic basically, actually is a lot more important than the 50% chance of a minor blip which sees a small decline or whatever. That point is commonly missed in discussion about catastrophic risk with the low probability used as an argument to dismiss the concern. In truth, well an unexploded bomb is far more concerning than a dripping tap no matter how unlikely that bomb is to go off.

All that said, well I do acknowledge that my comments are based on incomplete information and there's the problem. So are everyone else's unless there's an actual expert on the virus here with first hand knowledge. For the rest of us relying on what we're being told, well the problem is knowing what might be missing from that story either good or bad.

It will be interesting to see if governments from now on still keep thinking that immigration and free trade are the only ways to stimulate economic growth, or encompass bold new policies like a sovereign wealth fund funded by resources and investment in technically advanced industries that provide employment for our university graduates instead of requiring them to go overseas to get a job.

There is no sign of that sort of thinking yet, just more of the same old stuff and slogans like "grow the economy" without any plans for doing that apart from cutting as much expenditure as possible to pay off the debt.

Some random people.

These are completely made up and not based on any actual person I know but suppose that we have 1000 of each of the following, and that all are infected with COVID-19 in a "let it rip" strategy.

20 years old, male, average fitness for age. Drinks frequently, never smoked, plays indoor cricket.

30 years old, female, slim build, average fitness. Occasionally drinks wine, is a smoker, does yoga.

40 years old, female, slightly overweight but walks for an hour each day so isn't too unfit. Occasionally drinks, used to smoke but gave up 7 years ago.

50 years old, male, slightly underweight, sedentary occupation and does very little exercise. Doesn't drink, has never smoked.

60 years old, female, overweight, retired, occasional drinker, has never smoked, no regular exercise.

70 years old, male, very much fitter than average due to daily running, occasional drinker, smoked in the past but gave up in 1980 and hasn't touched them since.

Now can someone tell me, based on factual data, what the risks are if these people all get the virus?

What's the actual chance of death?

What's the actual chance of ongoing health impacts other than death and what are those impacts?

Only when that can be answered in a factual manner can informed decisions be made.

Smurf1976 said:

Some random people.

These are completely made up and not based on any actual person I know but suppose that we have 1000 of each of the following, and that all are infected with COVID-19 in a "let it rip" strategy.

20 years old, male, average fitness for age. Drinks frequently, never smoked, plays indoor cricket.

30 years old, female, slim build, average fitness. Occasionally drinks wine, is a smoker, does yoga.

40 years old, female, slightly overweight but walks for an hour each day so isn't too unfit. Occasionally drinks, used to smoke but gave up 7 years ago.

50 years old, male, slightly underweight, sedentary occupation and does very little exercise. Doesn't drink, has never smoked.

60 years old, female, overweight, retired, occasional drinker, has never smoked, no regular exercise.

70 years old, male, very much fitter than average due to daily running, occasional drinker, smoked in the past but gave up in 1980 and hasn't touched them since.

Now can someone tell me, based on factual data, what the risks are if these people all get the virus?

What's the actual chance of death?

What's the actual chance of ongoing health impacts other than death and what are those impacts?

Only when that can be answered in a factual manner can informed decisions be made.

Click to expand...

I think the most relevant thing is that until very recently the global assumption was that the virus was going to go through and get everyone, and our goal was to flatten the curve so that we didn't all get it at once and overwhelm to healthcare system. As it turns out, the ICU beds are sitting largely empty, we have plenty of spare capacity. The assumption was that they would constantly be overwhelmed.

Everyone seems to have a very short memory.

The virus turned out to be far less severe than all the models assumed. The curve is never going to play out. The planned endgame will never come. The curve is more flat than makes any sense to flatten further, and it's extremely expensive and destructive to flatten it.

Since the healthcare system is not overwhelmed, we are not changing the risk to any of the people above, we are simply destroying ourselves to kick the can down the road and let them get it later.

Once you realise that flatten the curve no longer makes sense, you realise they haven't replaced it with anything, and we're stuck in 'remain paranoid forever with nothing to end the situation'.

Obviously there is some risk to everyone, whether it's a 95 year old man with a 25% chance of death from the virus if he doesn't die from something else first, or a 12 year old kid with a one in a squillion chance of death. What no one seems to care about is the damage, suffering and death we are causing.

So many words for death now. dead planet. not good. dead times. nice genes. is it wrong to wish ill towards others? But I'm making the goofd fdoowwaaa on thre stockjmarket so I don't care about other people its like we area lll post war trippy children now, no moral responsibility for others how gREAT thou art.

There will be a militia in Australia and then smelly bottom hairdo.

The government's coronavirus taskforce said 679 people had died in the last 24 hours, the highest figure confirmed in a single day since the pandemic began.

United States and territories: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Smurf1976 said:

Some random people.

These are completely made up and not based on any actual person I know but suppose that we have 1000 of each of the following, and that all are infected with COVID-19 in a "let it rip" strategy.

20 years old, male, average fitness for age. Drinks frequently, never smoked, plays indoor cricket.

30 years old, female, slim build, average fitness. Occasionally drinks wine, is a smoker, does yoga.

40 years old, female, slightly overweight but walks for an hour each day so isn't too unfit. Occasionally drinks, used to smoke but gave up 7 years ago.

50 years old, male, slightly underweight, sedentary occupation and does very little exercise. Doesn't drink, has never smoked.

60 years old, female, overweight, retired, occasional drinker, has never smoked, no regular exercise.

70 years old, male, very much fitter than average due to daily running, occasional drinker, smoked in the past but gave up in 1980 and hasn't touched them since.

Now can someone tell me, based on factual data, what the risks are if these people all get the virus?

What's the actual chance of death?

What's the actual chance of ongoing health impacts other than death and what are those impacts?

Only when that can be answered in a factual manner can informed decisions be made.

Click to expand...

Then of course we have to throw in the small but potentially devastating chance of dying of blood clots when vaccinated , and here seems to be no risk factors from that apart from relative youth.

So we have potentially lots of people under 30 scared to get vaccinated but wandering around in the community potentially spreading the disease.

And do vaccines have potentially long term effects that we don't know about yet ?

Its a tough situation for doctors and pollies too.

SirRumpole said:

Then of course we have to throw in the small but potentially devastating chance of dying of blood clots when vaccinated , and here seems to be no risk factors from that apart from relative youth.

So we have potentially lots of people under 30 scared to get vaccinated but wandering around in the community potentially spreading the disease.

And do vaccines have potentially long term effects that we don't know about yet ?

Its a tough situation for doctors and pollies too.

Click to expand...

I am under 40, but decided to take the AstraZeneca vaccine anyway.

I decided the ultimate benefits to myself, my family, and community out weigh the tiny chance of complications.

But I did the math, and the rate of blood clotting issues, was lower than the rate of parachute failures based on the stats when I used to jump out of planes in the army, and I was never concerned about stepping out the door of the plane, so why worry about the vax.

So I took the Astra to free up a Pfizer for some nervous nelly out there that is to worried to take the Astra, I am sick of lock downs, and I want the borders open, I am sick of this virus.

I believe that we should roll out all the Astra Zeneca we can produce to anyone that wants to take it, import as much of the other stuff as we can to.

And then draw a line in the sand and say that from 1st of January 2022, the borders open again with no more lock downs and no quarantine, and we just deal with the consequences if you haven’t been vaccinated.

I think then we will see a lot more people getting vaccinated, because at the moment a lot of people are avoiding the vax because they feel safe.

SirRumpole said:

Then of course we have to throw in the small but potentially devastating chance of dying of blood clots when vaccinated , and here seems to be no risk factors from that apart from relative youth.

So we have potentially lots of people under 30 scared to get vaccinated but wandering around in the community potentially spreading the disease.

And do vaccines have potentially long term effects that we don't know about yet ?

Its a tough situation for doctors and pollies too.

Click to expand...

Anyone with just half a brain would look at figures availables in countries where covid has already spread
Below 50 and without serious preexisting illness.aka not under cancer treatment,etc..do not get vaccinated pure stats: risk reward
Above 70, probably worth giving vaccine a go statistically and definitively if above 80
In between..hard to say, especially with mRNA which has some scary possible consequences as raised by scientists much more aware than me, and no, that does not mean conspiracy.look at the dengue fever first mRNA experience results...proudly french made. :-(
At 54 and relatively healthy,it is a hard call, especially as vaccines will be mandatory and AZ with the least long term unknown effect risk will disappear/not offered,so ready to take a short term risk now. AZ clots vs more serious long term issues with mRNA is my personal view.
Some non mRNA vaccines will be available but not sure here.
As per thread name, this is not over..from virus or "vaccines" consequences
Please also note that by preventing the spread like wild fire, lockdowns and low natural spread/immunity, the world is destroying the natural cycle of viruses: becoming more infectious/more benign, and creating more mutations opportunities (variants) which could really lead to a very dangerous one. As is, it remains benign in term of mortality..raw mathematics.. obviously,you do not want to be in the 0.1%
But imagine if you had a 20 or 30% mortality rate regardless of age.
What a **** up is my summary..we send probes on Mars, yet no one able to use what i would call scientific common sense in our leaders.
Nope, story is not over

Is Covid or its effects over? It all comes down to a choice between Jesus or Xi Peng.

Pray, as we are advised by our PM here, or have an authoritarian leader who vaccinates, as in China.

Oh, and nobody has asked the virus.

gg

We all "want" to believe COVID is "almost" over.

I think the reality of the current international spread of Delta Covid shows we are kidding ourselves. In Australia the fact that we don't have an honest to god crash vaccination program including AstraZeneca (spot on analysis VC) is so poor it's heart breaking.

I mean this time last year we were all struggling with a new dangerous virus that we had no answer for. Our responses were only isolation and treatment. A year later we have the tools to very largely protect the whole community. And we are xucking it up.


I decided the ultimate benefits to myself, my family, and community out weigh the tiny chance of complications. VC

I'm over 60 and I'm booked in for my first AZ jab in 2 weeks.

My main problem with AZ is not clotting but the fact that one has to wait 3 months to be fully covered, whereas with Pfizer its all over in 3 weeks.

But as I have no choice AZ it is for me.

SirRumpole said:

I'm over 60 and I'm booked in for my first AZ jab in 2 weeks.

My main problem with AZ is not clotting but the fact that one has to wait 3 months to be fully covered, whereas with Pfizer its all over in 3 weeks.

But as I have no choice AZ it is for me.

Click to expand...

You will not be "fully covered" with either, and i believe you will be ok with AZ, risk benefit balance is good and far less risk of crap hitting you in a couple of years as a result of mRNA"vaccine".
It is a blessing .be positive SirRumpole ?

Quite some years ago I was trained in how to communicate correctly in an emergency situation.

Suffice to say, pretty much everything I see going on around me with COVID and vaccination fails miserably from that perspective.

The basic concepts are:

*Use simple language. Avoid technical terms or any word not in widespread mainstream usage.

*Include correct (official) names plus all known informal or other names of places.

*Persons in authority should always be referred to by official title.

*Assume zero prior knowledge of the situation unless it is extremely well known (eg the existence of COVID is well enough known to be assumed knowledge).

*Exclude all information not relevant.

*Be specific not generic.

The underlying reasoning is really quite straightforward. In an emergency situation you need to communicate in a manner that cannot be misinterpreted and which can be understood by everyone regardless of their education or knowledge.

Communication around COVID vaccination is failing miserably in that regard, to the point that it has likely deterred some who'd otherwise have been vaccinated.

Smurf1976 said:

Quite some years ago I was trained in how to communicate correctly in an emergency situation.

Suffice to say, pretty much everything I see going on around me with COVID and vaccination fails miserably from that perspective.

The basic concepts are:

*Use simple language. Avoid technical terms or any word not in widespread mainstream usage.

*Include correct (official) names plus all known informal or other names of places.

*Persons in authority should always be referred to by official title.

*Assume zero prior knowledge of the situation unless it is extremely well known (eg the existence of COVID is well enough known to be assumed knowledge).

*Exclude all information not relevant.

*Be specific not generic.

The underlying reasoning is really quite straightforward. In an emergency situation you need to communicate in a manner that cannot be misinterpreted and which can be understood by everyone regardless of their education or knowledge.

Communication around COVID vaccination is failing miserably in that regard, to the point that it has likely deterred some who'd otherwise have been vaccinated.

Click to expand...

maybe it is not such an emergency but more ego boasting and power pull by various heads (of states mostly);
I have the feeling (or hope?) that should this illness be ebola, it would not be acted in the same way:
we lock down but reopen for NRL match or AFL competition, while postponing new cases detected to the following day (as I speak,today, in qld) to be able to change narrative after the Broncos match is over..how can we trust anyone?

It's almost as if the people in charge haven't been put in charge based on their competence.


I mean, that would never happen, would it?

CoVid is on the rise again in NSW.

I'd be more concerned about China, N.Korea, US Border, Gaza than some old decrepit doll back home to E. Bentleigh from a cruise with the squirts or the cough and a positive RAT.

The world is overpopulated and Gaia or one of the gods of Moses' three mobs of the book, or some other god will decide " this is enough " and deliver something to lower the number of humans.

Inevitably there will be more viruses and deaths. Many more.

gg