breaking covid rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bohdan

As the restrictions get lifted more people will get Covid and need to be hospitalised. In the majority they will be the unvaxed.

It doesn't matter as to why they did not get vaccinated they just need to understand that if they get sick and start to die they should not expect to move up the hospital admittance list ahead of other equally sick people who did the right thing and got vaxed.

---

That's a VERY slippery slope to start on.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I am a person with health risks from the unvaccinated and I too held similar opinions, but on further consideration I changed my mind.

Consider the obese person who ends up taking up an ICU bed for a heart operation, should they have taken more care of their eating habits?
Or the smoker who a has a stroke.
What about the alcoholic with or without mental health issues ....
Or the woodworker who for years didn't use PPE
Or the baby that wasn't vaxed.
Or the speeding driver.
ETC

It's too bloody hard to untangle most of these things as we never can know the full backstory in sufficient detail and it will take a room full of medicos and lawyers to reach any sort of half sensible decision. When the time comes doctors may need to make hard choices but my understanding is they choose based on likelihood of recovery and not the patients medical background.

The people that believe others should NOT be given equal medical treatment when presenting to a hospital are IMHO starting to exhibit behaviour a bit like some vax deniers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

It's too bloody hard to untangle most of these things as we never can know the full backstory in sufficient detail and it will take a room full of medicos and lawyers to reach any sort of half sensible decision. When the time comes doctors may need to make hard choices but my understanding is they choose based on likelihood of recovery and not the patients medical background.

---

Bob

The essence of "triage" I think. Triage does not come into effect while ever there are sufficient beds and sufficient doctors.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

That's a VERY slippery slope to start on.

Consider the obese person who ends up taking up an ICU bed for a heart operation, should they have taken more care of their eating habits?
Or the smoker who a has a stroke.
What about the alcoholic with or without mental health issues ....
Or the woodworker who for years didn't use PPE
Or the baby that wasn't vaxed.
Or the speeding driver.
ETC

---

Exactly as I said a few posts ago, who makes the call as to whether "self inflicted" conditions get treated when "no fault" conditions are already queueing up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

..... and it will take a room full of medicos and lawyers to reach any sort of half sensible decision.

---

Leaving it to the two groups of people who stand to make financial benefit from the situation is a sure-fire recipe for a time consuming process ending with bad decision!

Quote:

---

... It's too bloody hard to untangle most of these things as we never can know the full backstory in sufficient detail and it will take a room full of medicos and lawyers to reach any sort of half sensible decision. When the time comes doctors may need to make hard choices but my understanding is they choose based on likelihood of recovery and not the patients medical background. ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Bob

The essence of "triage" I think. Triage does not come into effect while ever there are sufficient beds and sufficient doctors.

Regards
Paul

---

Well put, Bob and Paul. But I think they do take a person's medical background into account insofar as it affects their future recovery. For example, if two patients are vying for a single "treatment spot", both have an equal chance of recovery, but one then has a life expectancy of one year and the other twenty years, then the latter may get preference. It is a very difficult moral and ethical choice. But failure to make that choice quickly may mean both die - an even worse option.

Triaging still occurs even when there is full staffing. For example, suppose you have a fully staffed hospital ward in a routine situation and there is a Code Blue Alarm - patients heart has stopped and they need resuscitation - time is of the essence. All nurses and doctors respond immediately and begin resuscitation; if more staff there than needed they prioritise amongst themselves who returns to the ward - This is essentially a series of triaging decisions. The cardiac arrest gets top priority because it is so time sensitive, then other patients are prioritised in the order that nurses return to them.

Perhaps a note on their medicare record?

"I have wilfully declined Vaccination and decline hospital treatment for when/if I get COVID"..... Tick the box, press the thumb-print....

THAT would focus the mind....

I was PM'd by someone who thinks my opinions need research.

SO! To Science!

I thought to find (from the nature of the query) and will update here...

-- What is the % of people who are:

-- Unimmunised and Catch COVID: Get sick, get sick enough for hospital, get sick enough for ICU, die
-- Immunised and catch COVID: " " " "

-- Of Unvaccinated people, how many people do they subsequently infect (the R)
-- and of Vaccinated " " " " "


I don't know what is on the mind of Mystery PM'er. Might be innocent and genuine query. I shall take it as this, for the PM wasn't rude.

I will do my very best to find these interesting numbers and post an update!



BUT --> the number of times I've been challenged by the wilfully ignorant, belligerent opponents, or even outright denialists is simply Far Too High.

We live in a SCEINTIFIC society. Ignorance is certainly part of life, but to simply oppose science as if its an opinion is mindboggling. HOW can these people operate like this?

Its like denying the sun, or gravity, or the Space Station... its impossible, for one has EYES... but yet they do.


I will point, for my own sense of hubris to this fabulous resource.... the Herman Cain Award... a "Nominees have made public declaration of their anti-mask, anti-vax, or Covid-hoax views, followed by admission to hospital for Covid. The Award is granted upon the nominee's release from their Earthly shackles."

All good questions, WP. Probably the best sources of information are the NSW and Victorian Health covid websites - simply because they have had the most cases recently. Advantage of large numbers, timeliness, current state of knowledge, etc.

I did some quick calculations about 3 weeks ago; from memory, the stats then were:

• Just over 3% of hospitalisations were double vaccinated,
• About 2% in intensive care were double vaccinated, and
• Less than 1% on ventilators were double vaccinated.

In virtually all cases of double vaccinated hospitalisations involve people aged over 60 with pre-existing major medical issues, frequently multiple issues - diabetes, cancers, lung, heart, kidneys, etc. They could just cope with pre-existing ailments, but covid was a straw too much.

It will be really interesting to see how you run the numbers, independently cross-checking me.

EDIT: I couldn't get any numbers but allegedly a small percentage of hospitalisations involve cases with moderate rather than severe infections. They are hospitalised because:

• No care available at home (eg live alone), or
• Only way to quarantine siblings, rest of family, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

This is a really serious issue challenging employers, large and small, at the moment. Two similar but different issues; consider:

• employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
• employer allows unvaccinated customers normal accccess to premises.

Employee develops covid, which turns to long covid, which becomes life changing, claims she was infected by an unvaccinated fellow worker. Can the employee sue the boss for negligence for unecessarily exposing them to covid? [It could involve long term support, plus massive legal fees]

I do not know the answer to this question. But I do know that there is an army of lawyers looking for the opportunity to find out.

---

Greame,
please remember that Covid is not an irradicable disease like Smallpox. Smallpox is the only disease I know of where the legality of universal compulsory vaccination has been legally tested and upheld.

I'm not sure what the Australian public believe or have been told -- public statements by politicians and public health professionals fall under the heading of "how do I speak the minimum of truth while still scaring the bejesus out of everyone so that they will voluntarily go and get the jab".

A double or even triple Covid jab does not prevent a person catching the disease.
The jabs do not prevent an asymptomatic vaccinated person passing the condition onto another vaccinated person. The jabs only reduce the probability of the second person becoming seriously ill -- developing long Covid if you will. Unlike the smallpox jab, Covid jabs are at best only about 95% effective.

So in addition to your two scenarios
employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
employer allows unvaccinated customers normal access to premises.

There are additional issues

• although an employer requires all employees to be vaccinated, an asymptomatic vaccinated employee passes the disease onto a fellow vaccinated employee, who goes on to develop long Covid -- who is liable?
  Does the employer have a responsibility to pay the employee till they are fully recovered from long Covid.
• although an employer requires all employees to be vaccinated, a vaccinated employee with "mild cold like" symptoms attends the workplace and passes the disease onto another vaccinated person -- worker, visitor or customer -- who goes on to develop long Covid. What is the employer's responsibility? Is the employer responsible (i.e. pays the cost of administering a rapid Covid test) for every worker, visitor or customer entering the workplace?

as you suggest the lawyers will make a killing.




BTW
for the record, I'm fully vaccinated against Covid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

I think we need to be a little kinder and aim for understanding of the anti-vax community. Because I don't have the data on anti-vaxers specifically, I'll go a little broader and consider those with vaccine hesitancy. I'm not advocating agreement, but a respectful attempt at understanding. Much like vegetarians, electric car owners, hermits and those with a religious faith, it would be both inaccurate and unfair to assume they all have the same motivation for the decisions they make. When we make no attempt to understand their position, there is every chance that our repeated dogma is meaningless to them, so we just shout louder and call them names. I'll come back to this later.

Firstly, vaccine hesitancy as of today is sitting at 12% (Vaccine Hesitancy Report Card (2021), Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research.). So to start off, that's a small proportion of the population.

---

actually 12% is close enough to 1 in 8 -- not at all a small proportion of the population.
To my mind 1% (1 in 100) is the starting point for "small proportion".
Note that as a society flood risk is typically assessed at the 1% (1in 100) level. Extreme flood events are assessed at 0.01% (1 in 10,000) or even less. Overtopping of dams and potentially mass (>1000 people) drownings are typically assessed at the 15,000 (0.007%) level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year, (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.

Let that sink in.

What percentage of our population were actually able to understand official Government communication. This is a complex topic, and it's hard to convey nuanced information simply. So if those who struggle to read are left behind by authoritative sources, where are they left to find their information. No doubt they will continue to sift through results until they find something they understand. But now they're not getting information from trusted sources any more. The online search and content algorithms noted that they went down an anti-vaccination rabbit hole for twenty minutes, and now selects similar results for them in subsequent searches. Newspapers and their nightly TV news and current affairs shows are happy to splash inflammatory headlines which by their very nature are attention grabbing and easy to understand. Couple this with the illusionary Truth effect, and what do we expect the outcome to be? The fact that we only have 12% hesitancy is, I think, remarkable.

Now back to my first paragraph where we're shouting loudly and calling people names. Every person I know personally who hesitated before getting a vaccination was worried about the health of their kids and/or themselves. They aren't raving nutters or conspiracy theorists, just normal people who felt conflicted by the information they were exposed to. Compassion, understanding and reasoned, patient dialogue are the things that brought them around. When we start yelling at them and calling them names, I imagine it would be far easier and emotionally safer for them to disengage from public discourse, rather than risk a conversation with someone who may be able to broaden their understanding.

The next time you find yourself talking to someone with vaccine hesitancy, switch yourself to input mode only. Don't express your views, just listen, ask questions, and try to understand theirs.

---

well put

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bohdan

As the restrictions get lifted more people will get Covid and need to be hospitalised. In the majority they will be the unvaxed.

It doesn't matter as to why they did not get vaccinated they just need to understand that if they get sick and start to die they should not expect to move up the hospital admittance list ahead of other equally sick people who did the right thing and got vaxed.

There are lots of other reasons to finish up in hospital but just because you couldn't be bothered to get a shot should not be one of them.

If they have a genuine medical reason to not be vaxed then they should be exempt.

As soon as the gov start to enforce this the problem will go away, just like when Covid started to spread, vaxing took off.

Sorry if this attitude upsets a few but I get really p's'd off by the few b's that think only of themselves and ignore the risk and stress that they expose people like me who are in a medically vulnerable position.

---

That's a VERY slippery slope to start on.

snip

It's too bloody hard to untangle most of these things as we never can know the full backstory in sufficient detail and it will take a room full of medicos and lawyers to reach any sort of half sensible decision. When the time comes doctors may need to make hard choices but my understanding is they choose based on likelihood of recovery and not the patients medical background.

---

well put BobL.

It's a very slippery slope.

IMO the "right way" to deal with Covid is to increase the quantum of resources available to the Health care system. Covid is here to stay long term and we need to adjust to the new situation.
Of course this will require that everyone one of us pay more in tax -- note that the Medicare levy funds less than a sixth (perhaps as low as 5% when state expenditures are included) of Australia's total health care costs.


For those that remember the late 1980s, the initial response to Aids of "only gays catch the disease, let bastards die" was rapidly replaced by a realization that anyone (women married to gay people, blood transfusion recipients, etc) could catch Aids so those with Aids should have access to medical treatment regardless of other factors.


Personally, while I fully support the "you are not welcome in my herd" response, I also recognise that that response is not reasonable, especially when even fully vaccinated people are in ICU

Whilst I agree with the sentiments of Bohdan it is a difficult and complex path to navigate as BobL noted. You could also apply the same rules or attitude to the outcome of people’s poor lifestyle choices resulting from obesity, alcohol or smoking or their dangerous sport or pastime activities that result in requiring higher than usual medical attention, even riding a motorbike V a car could come into this category.

Antivaxxers do frustrate the hell out of me in that that largely their well-being is as a result of everyone else doing the right thing for them

I may have said this in an earlier post. One current medical concern is the possibility of new variants emerging from those who are (for whatever reason) not vaccinated and which variants might nullify or reduce the efficacy of the vaccines to protect those who are. As I understand it, variants are less likely to develop in a host with a vaccine.
Unless and until we reach a stage (as with influenza) where annual jabs are formulated based on the variant of the disease currently circulating, we need to restrict the possibility of these variants emerging.
This can only be done by achieving maximum vaccination rates.
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

As I understand it, variants are less likely to develop in a host with a vaccine.

---

I can't find any reference to this, nor can I see why it might be the case other than simply as a numbers game. Virus mutations, like any other form of evolution, are a random process - a mistake, if you will. The chances of such an error occurring are not impacted by a vaccine per se (AFAIK). However from the "numbers game" viewpoint, the lower the number of viruses in a body, and the shorter the time they are there, then the smaller the number of mutations that will occur. Additionally, the shorter the time during which the patient is contagious, the lower the risk of those mutations being transferred to another body. And, of course, overall the fewer people with the disease the fewer opportunities for mutation.

So like every other aspect of covid (and most other contagious diseases) the key is simply to reduce the numbers......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

The next time you find yourself talking to someone with vaccine hesitancy, switch yourself to input mode only. Don't express your views, just listen, ask questions, and try to understand theirs.

---

I did this, and I rather wish I hadn't. It didn't make me feel much sympathy.....

Apparently, in the mind of the person I "listened to", I am a sheep. And asleep. Actually it wasn't really clear if I'm a sleeping sheep, or if I'm a sheep when awake and a human when asleep. But anyway.. The guy I listened to is awake, and/or a lion - again it was somewhat confusing and might have been related to whether I was asleep or a sheep (or even a sleeping sheep) at any given point. But he very strongly believes that doing what a government says makes me a sheep, whilst deliberately flouting rules and regulations makes him a lion with a caffeine buzz. Additionally, so he says, he is not required to wake me up, which I'm quite grateful for because I suspect that I get up way earlier than him! He then suggested I Google "New World Order" if I wanted to "see the truth". [My ancient brain at this point wondered what a band formed from the ashes of Joy Division when I was a teenager had to do with covid, but I kept shtoom and later remembered they were called "New Order". Lucky I didn't say anything!]

There did not seem to be much information about why he wouldn't have a covid vaccine, other than the lion thing. I refrained from asking whether the vaccine was approved for use in ANY farm or zoo animals, because I was "listening". I also decided to accept, without question, that his lack of shoes was simply the result of being a lion......

Subsequent to this I considered the whole lion/sheep thing, and it's quite interesting from a societal viewpoint. Lions sit around all day, do very little, abandon their own family members if they become old or sick, drive out their own children if they become a threat, or their parents if they are able, and when sufficiently driven by hunger they prey on the weak of other species. What aspirations my shoeless acquaintance has!! And to think I was starting to doubt the future of our society.......

Warb

An amusing tale, which highlights that the reasons for not becoming vaccinated are many and varied. Unfortunately your barefooted lion is at the more irrational and deluded end of the spectrum. I expect we have all seen the slogans that decry the fact that such people are eligible to vote as well. Ahem! There I go...exhibiting my prejudice. :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

... Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year, (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand. ...

---

What evidence is there that a significant proportion of anti-vaxxers are illiterate? A quick scan of anti-social media suggests that many are very verbose.

What evidence is there that a significant proportion of illiterate people are anti-vaxxers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

What evidence is there that a significant proportion of anti-vaxxers are illiterate? A quick scan of anti-social media suggests that many are very verbose.

What evidence is there that a significant proportion of illiterate people are anti-vaxxers?

---

Graeme

I can't answer for the illiteracy issue, but in a similar vein the foreign language Covid sites belonging to the health dept of our government, at one point at least, were not updated and this must have been at least partly responsible for a poor understanding and consequent uptake among some of the ethnic communities. I believe this was quite a problem in the Western suburbs of Sydney. Hopefully it has been addressed now, but I have no more information one way or another.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I can't answer for the illiteracy issue, ...

---

No argument with foreign language households, Paul, but just wondering how Lance is going to justify his viewpoint. My estimate is that he was just guessing. And repeating myth being propogated by the "education mafia" that 40 to 45% of the population is "functionally illiterate".

The OECD, with significant input from the ABS, did a major study in 2012 comparing literacy rates in developed countries. They found that Australia had the fifth highest levels of literacy in the world, virtually line ball with fourth placed Sweden. Top were Japan, Finalnd and the Netherlands. Australia was ahead of the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Denmark and Korea. OECD and ABS are both very credible organisations.

Attachment 503389

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I can't answer for the illiteracy issue, but in a similar vein the foreign language Covid sites belonging to the health dept of our government, at one point at least, were not updated and this must have been at least partly responsible for a poor understanding and consequent uptake among some of the ethnic communities. I believe this was quite a problem in the Western suburbs of Sydney. Hopefully it has been addressed now, but I have no more information one way or another.

---

It's sometimes hard to distinguish reality from convenient excuse, and it also requires us to believe that every individual in a particular group (whatever that grouping be based on) will individually look up the data and either understand it or not. I very much doubt that this is actually the case, it seems far more likely that word of mouth, gossip and rumour are still the main distributors of "information", and that such "information" is more likely to represent the view of the spreader than be an accurate representation of the truth.

For example, in my (rural) area we've had various rule changes over the years regarding everything from burning stubble and controlling feral animals through to building permits and refuse disposal. The "information" that the majority of people base their actions on is the version that best suits their needs. They've never heard of the changes, unless of course those changes are beneficial to them! So a change that was well advertised - in the local papers, social media, council website and even a flyer sent out with rates bills - is entirely unknown to them, because that information was "so hard to find". However when it was quietly announced that there were to be drought relief payments made but that you had to register your claim in person THE FOLLOWING DAY (due to an administration error, the embarrassment of which explains why the announcement was indeed very "quiet"), the queue went up the street and around the corner.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year, (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

No argument with foreign language households, Paul, but just wondering how Lance is going to justify his viewpoint. My estimate is that he was just guessing. And repeating myth being propogated by the "education mafia" that 40 to 45% of the population is "functionally illiterate".

The OECD, with significant input from the ABS, did a major study in 2012 comparing literacy rates in developed countries. They found that Australia had the fifth highest levels of literacy in the world, virtually line ball with fourth placed Sweden. Top were Japan, Finalnd and the Netherlands. Australia was ahead of the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Denmark and Korea. OECD and ABS are both very credible organisations.

Attachment 503389

---

Graeme,
I think you have just found the ABS statistics that proves Lance's point -- 42% of Australian's over 16 are functionally illiterate. Look at the right hand scale, the "missing" space is 42%.


There is a reason that the data you have presented uses Level 3 literacy as its zero point.
Quoting from the Statistics Canada web resource Table 1.1 Literacy — Description of proficiency levels
Description of Literacy proficiency level 3 requires an
Understanding text and rhetorical structures become more central to successfully completing tasks, especially navigating of complex digital texts. Tasks require the respondent to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information, and often require varying levels of inference. Many tasks require the respondent to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. Often tasks also demand that the respondent disregard irrelevant or inappropriate content to answer accurately. Competing information is often present, but it is not more prominent than the correct information.
my emphasis


So a person with Level 2 literacy proficiency is not able to readily identify what is irrelevant or inappropriate content in what they are reading.
To my mind that meets the definition of "functional illiteracy"
A person with a Literacy proficiency of Level 3 can identify and disregard "irrelevant" or "inappropriate" content, a person with Level 2 proficiency will struggle or fail at that task.


Perhaps that is the reason that papers like the "Terrograph" are written for a person with a reading age equivalent to about Year 5, while the Financial Review is written for an average high school graduate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

... Firstly, vaccine hesitancy as of today is sitting at 12% (Vaccine Hesitancy Report Card (2021), Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research.). So to start off, that's a small proportion of the population. ...

---

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research is a highly respected and long established Institute within the Faculty of Economics at Melbourne University. Their latest assessment of the vaccine hesitancy rate is:
" ... * Vaccine hesitancy across Australia has been steadily falling from a peak of 33% in May and is now at its lowest of 11.8% on the 21st of October. ... "

https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-insights/ttpn/vaccination-report

But if you look at the actual vaccination rates Australia-wide then you get a different picture.

Attachment 503421 www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-4-november-2021

One would assume that most people who have the first dose will go on and have the second shot. Also note that the Health Dept's Vax figures are 2 weeks more recent than the Melbourne Institutes sentiment figures.

An interesting dicotomy.

But it strongly suggests that the vaccine hesitancy rate is now significantly below 12% and probably below 5%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian

... There is a reason that the data you have presented uses Level 3 literacy as its zero point.
Quoting from the Statistics Canada web resource Table 1.1 Literacy — Description of proficiency levels
Description of Literacy proficiency level 3 requires an
Understanding text and rhetorical structures become more central to successfully completing tasks, especially navigating of complex digital texts. ...

---

No, I think that we will agree to disagree on this, Ian. The academic side of me says yes, but the pagmatic side says that there is another answer.

And I think that the OECD was on the pragmatic side when they concluded in the executive summary of the above report:
" ... * Adults (aged 16-65) in Australiashow above-average proficiency in literacy ...
* Australia shows a good match between theliteracy proficiency of workers and the demands of
their jobs. ..."

The Table that I copied centred the data between levels 2 and 3; it did not say that level 2 were functionally illiterate - merely lower levels of literacy.

The OECD uses those five levels of literacy in many studies, and has also defined them in more accessible language:

Attachment 503422OECD: Literacy in the Information Age, 2000.

You will note that it says that "... Level 3 ... denotes roughly the skill level required for successful secondary school completion and college entry ... ". I do not accept that people who cannot get into university are functionally illiterate.

With reference to Level 2 it includes " ... people who can read, but test poorly. They may have developed coping skills to manage everyday literacy demands ... ".

My interpretation of this is that they are functionally literate to the level of functionality that they require. Not the level that you and I operate on, but at a level that satisfices their needs. Naturally, a higher level of education is almost always better.

It really boils down to where you put the bar in defining functionally literacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

He then suggested I Google "New World Order" if I wanted to "see the truth". [My ancient brain at this point wondered what a band formed from the ashes of Joy Division when I was a teenager had to do with covid, but I kept shtoom and later remembered they were called "New Order". Lucky I didn't say anything!]

..

---

Joy Division...'love will tear us apart'...what a time to be alive back then
New Order's 'Blue Monday' was a fav too :monk:
Back in the day when i had hair :o
And a straight healthy back :C
Aaaahhh the memories :rolleyes:
Log Dog :)

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’ | Singapore | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’ | Singapore | The Guardian

---

To quote Vyvyan Basterd, "it was bound to happen, sooner or later"......

I read the following quote by Alan Kohler writing for "The New Daily"

" And if the nation is 90 per cent vaccinated, does it matter anyway – can we just let the unvaccinated off?That’s certainly what some of the experts are saying: Deakin University epidemiologist Catherine Bennett told the Financial Review that the remaining differences for unvaccinated people in Australia will fall away over the next few months.
“That’s going to fill the immunity gap, just because unvaccinated people are much more likely to get infected and the virus is out there.”
Which seems a bit heartless, but there it is: If you’re not vaccinated, you’ll probably gain immunity by getting COVID … if you live."

Interesting? The thrust of the comment is that you will become immunized, whether you like it or not, by the "natural" process, but the success of this is heavily dependent on you surviving the natural vaccination.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I read the following quote by Alan Kohler writing for "The New Daily"

" And if the nation is 90 per cent vaccinated, does it matter anyway – can we just let the unvaccinated off?That’s certainly what some of the experts are saying: Deakin University epidemiologist Catherine Bennett told the Financial Review that the remaining differences for unvaccinated people in Australia will fall away over the next few months.
“That’s going to fill the immunity gap, just because unvaccinated people are much more likely to get infected and the virus is out there.”
Which seems a bit heartless, but there it is: If you’re not vaccinated, you’ll probably gain immunity by getting COVID … if you live."

Interesting? The thrust of the comment is that you will become immunized, whether you like it or not, by the "natural" process, but the success of this is heavily dependent on you surviving the natural vaccination.

---

Dying might even be preferable to "Long Covid"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I read the following quote by Alan Kohler writing for "The New Daily"

" And if the nation is 90 per cent vaccinated, does it matter anyway – can we just let the unvaccinated off?That’s certainly what some of the experts are saying: Deakin University epidemiologist Catherine Bennett told the Financial Review that the remaining differences for unvaccinated people in Australia will fall away over the next few months.
“That’s going to fill the immunity gap, just because unvaccinated people are much more likely to get infected and the virus is out there.”
Which seems a bit heartless, but there it is: If you’re not vaccinated, you’ll probably gain immunity by getting COVID … if you live."

Interesting? The thrust of the comment is that you will become immunized, whether you like it or not, by the "natural" process, but the success of this is heavily dependent on you surviving the natural vaccination.

---

another twist on the Covid topic
even fully vaccinated Canadians are dying from Covid Sen. Josee Forest-Niesing, 56, dies following struggle with COVID-19 | CBC News.
as a community, do we chalk this woman's death up to
1. Bad luck ?
2. complications from her auto immune disease ?
3. a reasonable expectation given that no Covid vaccine is more than about 94% effective?


Note that as far as I know, the only vaccine that was 100% effective was that against smallpox. Smallpox is now fully eradicated and all remaining samples of the virus have all been destroyed.


Although I voluntarily got myself double vaccinated, and don't want the unvaccinated to be members of my herd, I have sympathy with those who chose to remain unvaccinated. Much as I hate to say it, they have an equal right to participate within our society.
The alternative is to authorise the police to either herd the unvaccinated into camps or to shoot all those who refuse to be vaccinated -- and as a country we fought WW2 on the basis that that approach to individual human rights was completely and utterly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

another twist on the Covid topic
even fully vaccinated Canadians are dying from Covid Sen. Josee Forest-Niesing, 56, dies following struggle with COVID-19 | CBC News.
as a community, do we chalk this woman's death up to
1. Bad luck ?
2. complications from her auto immune disease ?
3. a reasonable expectation given that no Covid vaccine is more than about 94% effective?

---

I'd say a combo of all 3.
PLUS
Every vaccine's dwindling resistance in time to the infection/hospitalization and death. Apparently this is not the same for everyone - some people like immunocompromised should probably get their boosters earlier than 6 months while others may be able to go a bit longer.

Even if the earth's 7+ billion people were fully recently vaccinated so 94% efficacy (with many vaccines its less than this), 6% of those is still 420+ million people or only about half of all reported infections so far. Even if more variants don't emerge, this thing has still got a long way to run so I don't know why people are saying we're finally getting back to normal. Just look at what's happening n Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research is a highly respected and long established Institute within the Faculty of Economics at Melbourne University. Their latest assessment of the vaccine hesitancy rate is:
" ... * Vaccine hesitancy across Australia has been steadily falling from a peak of 33% in May and is now at its lowest of 11.8% on the 21st of October. ... "
One would assume that most people who have the first dose will go on and have the second shot. Also note that the Health Dept's Vax figures are 2 weeks more recent than the Melbourne Institutes sentiment figures.
An interesting dicotomy.
But it strongly suggests that the vaccine hesitancy rate is now significantly below 12% and probably below 5%.

---

Vaccine hesitancy can't really be judged by vaccination rates.

Hesitancy is not a black and white thing, some people are slightly hesitant , all the way through to others who might be strongly hesitant, and others who flip flop in between. It also does not mean "refuses to get get vaccinated", but "hesitates or waits for an unspecified period" for a whole bunch of reasons". And just because people have one dose doesn't necessarily means they will have a second, let alone a third dose. The significant thing about hesitancy is that is almost certainly "breeds" hesitancy, so even if "hesitants" eventually get vaxed they spawn more hestitants and this creates headaches for medical authorities trying to manage pandemic timelines.

Hesitancy can be thought of as passive or active or a combo of both or in-between.
Someone who doesn't get vaxed because they are too lazy are more likely in the passive camp.
When push comes to shove eg limitations in what that sporting event they can attend, or their job's on the line, then they often the get the jab.

Recently we heard of a nurse who has from day dot been actively telling people NOT to get vaccinated. However, she waited until the last possible moment to get vaccinated so's to keep her job, but still also goes around telling people not to get vaxed.
So even though she's vaxed I'd call her an active hesitant.

There is a small benefit in people delaying getting vaxed for a short time and that is it spreads the vaccination load so the vaccinators can cope. If 25 million people were to turn up at the same time the system would not cope and would create more hesitancy especially for subsequent doses.

Quote:

---

... Although I voluntarily got myself double vaccinated, and don't want the unvaccinated to be members of my herd, I have sympathy with those who chose to remain unvaccinated. Much as I hate to say it, they have an equal right to participate within our society. ...

---

I absolutely and totally disagree with that statement, Ian, in the strongest possible terms.

My wife has been battling serious non-curable illnesses for over ten years and her auto-immune system is seriously compromised. Her haemo-oncologist recommended that she be vaccinated as soon as possible with the following conditions:

• vaccination be at least 14 days before or after other scheduled treatments, and
• vaccination be administered in a hospital in case there was severe reaction (low possibility).

She has had to cancel a couple of appointments because of other treatments, but has turned up three times for her first vaccination:

1. Clinic had run out of vaccine,
2. Nurse took medical history, said "too risky" for me, and declined to administer vaccination,
3. Repeat of previous appointment, except several doctors called in when my wife protested - all agreed "too risky".

My wife remains in an extremely high risk category but is still not vaccinated.

All we can do is minimise the risk of her being exposed to the virus. It is unlikely she would survive. Your "friends" do not have any "right" to associate with my wife, or with me, as I would then be a conduit to my wife.

I have a right to chose not to associate with arrogant and irresponsible recalcitrants.

They do not have any "right" to kill my darling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

another twist on the Covid topic
even fully vaccinated Canadians are dying from Covid Sen. Josee Forest-Niesing, 56, dies following struggle with COVID-19 | CBC News.
as a community, do we chalk this woman's death up to
1. Bad luck ?
2. complications from her auto immune disease ?
3. a reasonable expectation given that no Covid vaccine is more than about 94% effective?

---

Once again playing Devils Apricot.......


2

I have said before that our society has fooled itself into thinking that people live forever and that any death is somehow both awful and avoidable. Of course it is sad when people die, but the reality is that death is inevitable. We have medicines and treatments that prolong the life of people who would otherwise already have died, and that's great. But death is still inevitable. The whole process of evolution - which is how the human race ended up at the top of the food chain - is based on the "more suitable candidates" being the ones that survive, prosper and breed. Others fall by the wayside (AKA die). Now in modern times we have attempted to avoid this reality, and to a large extent have been quite successful. The problem is that we have also fooled ourselves into thinking that this is right/proper/natural and that we will inevitably overcome anything that tries to challenge us. Worse still, we have adopted the belief that this massive life expectancy is somehow a "right". Unfortunately nobody has told mother nature that this is the case, so diseases still have a worse impact on those who are inherently unwell, or old, or malnourished, or who for any other reason are less able to fight infections and heal themselves. This is why influenza is a minor annoyance for most young and healthy people, but (was) a major killer of older folk. Most diseases are similar. Covid completely follows this pattern, whilst we read that "a 33 year old" has died of covid, if you look at the details you'll almost certainly find it was a "33 year old" who without medical intervention and bucket loads of pharmaceuticals, would already have succumbed to something else. I was following the covid situation quite carefully and every case where the headline said "young person dies" the reality was that the young person had serious underlying health issues.

In the case of Josée Forest-Niesing, you'll note that her pre-existing condition was said to be an "autoimmune disease affecting her lungs". What does covid target? According to US National Institutes of Health "the virus that causes COVID-19, spreads in the lungs, manipulates the immune system, causes widespread thrombosis that does not resolve, and targets signaling pathways that promote lung failure, fibrosis and impair tissue repair". Sounds like a match!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Although I voluntarily got myself double vaccinated, and don't want the unvaccinated to be members of my herd, I have sympathy with those who chose to remain unvaccinated. Much as I hate to say it, they have an equal right to participate within our society.

---

This is the big question, isn't it? In the past all societies have protected themselves by removing the infectious individuals that threatened society as a whole. Whether we are talking about leper colonies, or "hospitals" (typhoid Mary was quarantined in hospital twice, the second time for 23 years until her death at the age of 69), people who are a risk to society have always been removed to protect the majority. You can view prison as the same thing - those who would have a negative impact on society as a whole have been removed. We justify prison as "punishment" and "re-education", but it can also be viewed as a way to protect the rest of us from people who would harm us.....

I guess the question comes down to where we draw the line? In your example of WWII, the human rights issues were things that did not actually threaten other members of society (at least from a modern viewpoint). Skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, gender, these are things that do not impact other people and an individual should indeed have a right to do or be whatever they choose - if it doesn't affect anyone else.

But what about things that DO affect other people? We have laws that define limits on behaviour, and they mostly come down to behaviours that impact other people. Whether that be speeding, drunk driving, theft or murder, the basic underlying concept is that it is wrong to do things that negatively impact others. You'll notice here that the basic right to religious freedom, for which we fought WWII, is overruled when that religion does things that "we" as a society, don't like. The Taliban have the right to hold whatever religious views they please, as long as those views follow our own principles of right and wrong.

Equally, from a health viewpoint, if someone's state of mental health makes then a danger to themselves or others, they can be committed to a hospital for treatment, and such treatment can be administered on an involuntary basis. Now of course we are very good at justifying this as being in the best interests of the patient, but it is also removing them from a position where they can negatively impact others and then using pharmaceuticals to modify their behaviour to be more in line with what society believes is correct. They have rights of course, the right to confidentiality, the right to privacy and various other "human rights", but they don't have the right to refuse treatment or to leave hospital until they are no longer classed as a threat to themselves OR OTHERS.

We are very good at declaring things to be a "rights issue", but when does one persons right outweigh someone else's? It has been declared that the right to drink and drive is less important than the right to not be hit by a car, because the actions of an individual are outweighed by the impact of those actions on others. It has been declared that the right to not have working brakes on a car (in this case the "inaction" of failing to maintain your car) is outweighed by the rights of others not to be hit by a car, because the inaction of an individual is outweighed by the impact of that inaction on other people. So why does the right to not be vaccinated outweigh the rights of others to not be exposed to a dangerous virus?

Just asking..!

Warb, perfectly stated.

I'm saving this.

Clive whipping up a storm:

Factcheck: Clive Palmer uses 12-minute radio interview to make false Covid claims (msn.com)

A disgraceful outburst. Some people will believe: Some just want to believe.

Regards
Paul

The latest mutation "of interest" is omicron. This variant has been promoted to being a "variant of interest" much more quickly than previous strains. This is largely because not only does it carry a large number of the more "interesting" mutations, but also it seems to have taken off in Africa in a big way. The spread has been described as a "vertical spike" in the number of new covid cases reported in South Africa.

A number of people have flown in to Australia from Africa and tested positive over the last few days, and these positive cases are undergoing genomic sequencing to establish whether the virus in question is omicron or some other variant. Unfortunately, as always, the comments made by the Health Minister (or possibly the version reported by the media!) are less than totally accurate. There is a degree of spin in use to state that none of the cases are confirmed as omicron, when the truth is that none have been confirmed as omicron because the testing results aren't yet available. Equally, to state "the advice is that omicron is no more of a risk than other variants" is not quite the same as admitting that as yet we really don't know because the testing and analysis haven't been finished, but the data has been described as "troubling but incomplete".

So two weeks before NSW opens up and does away with the requirement for check-ins, masks and so forth, we are now banning non-residents flying in from from 9 countries and requiring 14 days quarantine for residents returning from them. The virus has also been detected in the UK and Belgium, and I have seen reports that it is suspected of being in the US. So quite possibly everywhere!

It's approaching Christmas, and my mother's favourite Christmas drink was a "snowball", so today I'll be playing Devil's Advocaat........

How long do we keep opening up and shutting down in the face of a virus that is constantly evolving? When, if at all, do we decide that we just have to live (or die) with it?

Really good summation, Warbs; brings together what we are hearing from many sources.

I note that the debate has jumped from the delta strain to the omicron strain. There are ten Greek letters between those two - epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, kappa, lambda, mu, nu, and xi. Am I right in assuming that World Health have identified and sequentially named ten other variants of covid, but these have not yet been sufficiently prominent to receive media coverage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

... my mother's favourite Christmas drink was a "snowball", so today I'll be playing Devil's Advocaat........

---

Custard, in a glass.

Quote:

---

... How long do we keep opening up and shutting down in the face of a virus that is constantly evolving? When, if at all, do we decide that we just have to live (or die) with it? ...

---

This is an incredibly polarised and politicised question, almost impossible to debate without (illogical) emotions being triggered. On a very simplistic level, the loony left is saying "keep everything locked as someone might get sick or even die" and the rabid right is saying "open up everything, we cannot afford lockdown." Of course, reality is somewhere between those extremes.

Preliminary economic indicators seem to be suggesting that the world economy has found ways to continue in spite of lockdowns, and those countries that have locked down have generally done better than those societies that have remained more open. [Aus and NZ have both done better economically than US and UK.] I think it may be because people like Trump/Biden and Boris have grossly underestimated the economic costs of sick people and dead people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Custard, in a glass.

---

Fizzy custard, and my dad used to throw in a shot of brandy.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Preliminary economic indicators seem to be suggesting that the world economy has found ways to continue in spite of lockdowns, and those countries that have locked down have generally done better than those societies that have remained more open. [Aus and NZ have both done better economically than US and UK.] I think it may be because people like Trump/Biden and Boris have grossly underestimated the economic costs of sick people and dead people.

---

I'm not convinced, at present, that we have any real idea of the economic outcomes. It largely depends on who is doing the analysis (as always) and what they are looking at. In Australia we are seeing (locally, and it's being reported across the country) a resistance of people to return to work (it is suggested they've become used receiving benefits and not working), resulting in shortages of staff. I know many businesses that are having trouble getting staff, either their previous employees or replacements. Equally we are still seeing and hearing the "due to covid" line being used to excuse everything from lack of service to lack of stock. Prices are increasing, presumably to counteract reduced stock movement (sales), with the result that at least temporarily the bottom line for many businesses is still OK, but how long can price increases be maintained? Presumably at some point the buyers can no longer afford to pay more... Unless we get another inflation/wage increase spiral which is just playing with numbers!

I have a sneaking suspicion that all the politicians, looney left and rabid right, are still just hoping that by some miracle it will all just go away! Clearly the leftist "none shall die" viewpoint is impossible, and whilst a growing number of the population want a "return to freedom", I suspect that would change if their friends started dying.

To quote "Airplane", it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking..... but maybe not snowballs!

My understanding is that the virus' sole aim in life is to survive and it does anything it can to achieve this: Probably, in reality, not much different to any other life form including us. I believe there have already been several mutations, but these have not be viable, from the virus' point of view, and so little has been said of them as they fall by the wayside.

This new Omicron appears to be extremely virulent, but too new to say exactly in what direction with ease of infection and severity being the two issues foremost in our minds. The question is why it has developed in Southern Africa (not just South Africa)? One theory is because of the unusually high incidence of HIV (too few facilities to control and insufficient education to warn) and the increased susceptibility of people with that condition. These viruses are most insidious when coupled with people having immuno deficiencies.

The virus knows when it is on to a good thing ( from it's point of view).

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

To quote "Airplane", it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking..... but maybe not snowballs!

---

And methamphetamines. (Lloyd Bridges?)

:wink:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

... I'm not convinced, at present, that we have any real idea of the economic outcomes. It largely depends on who is doing the analysis (as always) and what they are looking at. ...

---

Quite. That is why I carefully used the word preliminary before economic indicators. And "economic indicators" are the raw data as prepared by the various national statistics offices and central banks, before any commentators have massaged them. GDP is up in Oz and NZ, down in US and UK; ditto employment. Too frequently, "journalists" take an anecdote and build that into an "economic analysis". "Uncle Fred is unemployed, therefore unemployment is up."