The ABC is running a story that KRudd has got on the phone to the top dog of Pfizer and arranged for us to get some more vaccine and sooner
Dont know how much truth there is in it or how much is political point scoring
Printable View
The ABC is running a story that KRudd has got on the phone to the top dog of Pfizer and arranged for us to get some more vaccine and sooner
Dont know how much truth there is in it or how much is political point scoring
It sounds like instead of trying to figure out how they can make americans a "durable revenue source", maybe they should be selling doses to the aussies. It sounds like you guys need them more.
We over 60 have no choice at the moment. We can wait until October while Delta rips through Sydney and hope upon hope we don’t catch it or we get the AZ shot.
Pfizer efficacy may be slightly higher than AZ. Until the Johnson and Johnson vaccine came out you only had the MRNA and one more cynical than myself may suggest that the US stalling the approval of AZ has a lot to do with where the vaccines are manufactured and economic benefits.
refusal to notice the efficacy of ivermectin as prophylaxis despite its use elsewhere has a lot to do with approval of pfizer and moderna, too. They are definitely more effective than ivermectin, but some things here never change.
As far as your choice goes, you get the AZ and you live. You might get sick, but you live. It seems like a simple choice.
You can always get a booster shot of pfizer later.
Here is a link to Reddit and some discussion on it: Senior business figures turned to Kevin Rudd to intervene in bringing forward Australia'''s Pfizer vaccine supply : AustralianPolitics
It would seem to ring true. Rudd has no politics in this, only a solution.
Morrison has failed as a leader. His decision making is absolutely terrible. His personality is terrible. His ability to lead is terrible. The only thing keeping him in the job is the change in the Liberals constitution that prohibits him from being rolled (after the endless procession of changes, they changed their rules).
We are now stuck with a dud.
A dud.
Our country is facing a crisis. In the bushfires it was "I don't hold the hose mate"..... and during this plague he is absent. When he does appear he comes across as an imbecile.
We deserve what we voted for, but jjeessuuss can he get replaced, SOON!!!
... our very lives depend on it.
Attachment 497878
edit: I saw this fabulous piece of writing and saved it. It describes him perfectly...
Attachment 497885
JGTPfizer have since gone on the record to say it isn’t true and all discussions are only with the government and are confidential
I had my suspicions seeing as though it was reported by ABC and the Guardian. Whilst I agree Scomo could be handling things better I look around on both sides of the political fence and the pool is very shallow
Our Premier came out this morning with a harder lockdown and a statement that only essential businesses on her list can stay open. Then, in the next breath, she says you must wear a mask if working in outdoor markets or outside picking up a coffee.
Her list on the NSW site does NOT list outdoor markets and coffee shops as the essential businesses.
11am Press conference the question is asked re the tight new mask restrictions in the red LGAs and possible exemptions. The answer was there will be no exemptions as exemptions can be confusing to understand and hard to police.
12.42pm they announce exemptions to these “blanket” restrictions
Looking like a lot longer than the four weeks announced.
Good thing I didn't follow that advice :rolleyes:
US averaging 57,000 new COVID-19 cases per day due to delta variant - YouTube
based on media reporting, Pfizer jabs won't be widely available in Australia till the middle of 2022.
BUT
almost all of those cases (>99.9%) are being detected among the large proportion of the US population who believe that Covid is a Democratic plot and consequently are declining to bother with getting the "jab". The "good news"(?) is that by getting Covid for real, the cohort who "don't trust the government" may inadvertently increase the effectiveness of the US vaccination strategy by developing immunity without getting the jab.
Based on what I've seen and read, I highly doubt that the US will ever achieve a vaccination rate greater than about 60% of those eligible.
There's just too many people who "don't trust the government".
But more importantly,
at 57,000 new cases per day, the risk of being detected* with Covid is currently about 17.3 per 100,000 (daily) -- that's about 5x the risk of getting a blood clot (for those under 50) from the AstraZeneca jab. I'm not currently on top of the outcome severity for being "detected" with Covid. The reported death data is too skewed by those folks in old persons care.
* I won't equate "detection" with "catching" Covid as, like what is being reported for Sydney, you don't get tested for the disease unless you are really worried you have already have caught Covid.
Warb
living (and working) in the Central West, have you seen a marked uptake in the willingness of your customers to get the AstraZeneca jab?
e.g. of the 300 doses your wife ordered, how many have been administered?
are you actually "delivering" 10 doses per AZ vial into arms, or are you administering what you can and tossing the unused shots away at the end of each day?
a few days ago, I saw a report on the ABC News that one of those who had recently died from Covid had received their 1st shot back in April, but were waiting for the Pfizer vaccine to be available before getting their second shot.
Also, ABC News was reporting in the last week that the Moderna mRNA vaccine, when it eventually becomes available, will need to have any unused shots disposed of the day the vial is taken out of the freezer and thawed out.
Yes, we have certainly seen an increase in the number of people wanting AZ, or anything else. We still have the out and out anti-vaxxers, to whose number has now been added the "I'm not getting it until they pay me" people (there are other words to describe them!) who have latched on to the monetary incentive concept that the press have been talking about. [As an aside, my god what are the media and authorities thinking, what a precedent to set, "don't bother doing the right thing, if you wait long enough you'll get paid to do it!". Crazy.]
The pharmacy is also getting hundreds of calls each day from people wanting the vaccine. They are still dealing with callers politely, but the veneer is wearing thin;
Caller - "My dad is 92 and he needs a vaccination, the government have really f**ked this up"
Pharmacist - "The vaccination clinic was open for people of his age since April, and we had mobile clinics visiting regularly, why didn't he get it back then?"
Caller - "We didn't want it then, but we do now. The government are useless"
Pharmacist - "Well we're really sorry, but we're now booked solid for the next two months"
Caller - "The government have made a......"
Pharmacist - "Sorry"..... hangs up phone... "Yes, that's the governments fault, no doubt about it..... Moron...."
Together with assorted "I MUST have it NOW, I'm a healthcare worker at the old people's home", which had a clinic visit months ago and had Pfizer left over and thrown away because many staff and residents didn't want it. (They phoned around and managed to find volunteers to soak up a few spare doses).
The answer to the rest of that question is, um, "complicated". By the rules, the person giving the vaccination should sit down and go through the details of the shot, and the possible side effects, with the patient, and get their "fully informed" written consent. They also have to complete all the online (and some paper based) forms so the vaccination is registered for the client. A small number of people just say "yes", but many/most people have a great many questions, which take time to answer.* Once the injection has been given, the client has to sit for 15 minutes before they are allowed to leave. The shop, under covid-safe guidelines, has a maximum capacity which includes staff, people being injected, people waiting after their injection and other customers.... The result of all this is that to do the job properly, following all the regulations, is actually quite time consuming. Just out of interest, it is also a loss making process given the very low payment the pharmacy gets for each vaccination, unless they speed the process up by (ahem) "rushing" the consent process. Of course pharmacists, like everyone else, vary between those who will kill themselves to do the best job they can (my wife) and those who will cut every possible corner to make more money. Putting that all together, every single vial that has been opened in our pharmacy has been injected into an arm - even when people have not shown up or for some other reason have not received their planned jab those doses have been stuck in to people on the subs bench. On the other hand, we know of pharmacies who are opening several vials first thing in the morning and then throwing away most of it. Sadly the government at present doesn't seem concerned by this because (contrary to what the media would have us believe) we have far more AZ than we have arms to put it in!
*People tend to see pharmacists (real ones, perhaps not the "Chemists Whorehouse" factory workers) as more approachable than doctors or nurses. The result is that pharmacists often spend a great deal of time talking to clients about their medications, when the clients were too sacred/shy/confused (etc.) to discuss it with the doctor who wrote the script! The same applies to vaccinations, many people would rather go to the pharmacist who they can talk to, so the process becomes much more time consuming.
So in short, they have delivered 100% (in fact slightly more, because the vial is 10 doses plus a wastage allowance, which they use!) of all vaccine opened, they are seeing a massive increase in demand, and they are fully booked for the next two months. Given the low payment, it is simply not worth attempting to employ additional qualified "vaccinators" because it's a loss making endeavour. [Note that doctors are paid their normal consultancy fee in addition to any vaccination payment, so for them it's worthwhile to employ extra staff to increase the throughput].
Not sure how accurate that is (although it's believable, sadly) because we are still supposed to get "matching" shots, and the records show which 1st shot you had....... Some people are mucking about because the media at various times has reported that a mixed dose is more efficacious, but currently 2 of "whatever you can get" is better than 1 and a long wait...
Moderna (unopened) is stored at 2C to 8C for up to 30 days after defrosting, but only 12 hours at 2c to 25C after opening, and there are 15 doses per vial. We are supposed to be getting Moderna in September, and she's been talking about doing a few Sunday sessions specifically for "at risk" younger people. Mind you she's also been talking about selling the pharmacy, or just shutting it and walking away, because so many people have abandoned any semblance of civility and common sense!
Should line people up, all in a room 10, 20 or 50 at a time.... explain everything to everyone, ask the room questions, then pop them all in the arm.... bang bang bang.
None of this namby-pamby, one-on-one crap.
Then NEXT! for the next 50....
Tricky, isn't it? Because as Doug says (I suspect sarcastically!), people don't want to ask health questions in public - perhaps they don't want everyone to know that they had a heart attack 6 months ago, or that they have an allergy which they think might make them more likely to have a reaction, but they still want to find out what difference their condition might make. Also, of course, 50 people social distancing at 4smq per person is a big room, you'd have to shout! And, more seriously, if you inject 50 at a time and (god forbid) you are unlucky enough to get multiple people with anaphylaxis, what the hell do you do?
The whole situation is very complex. Many people don't really understand what's going on, some are scared, some are over-reacting (in either direction) and many make the mistake of reading/believing the media, or worse "social media". And that's before you try to cater for the lunatic fringe!!
Queue Monty Python "Nail 'em up, I say. Nail some sense in to 'em.."
Its the lunatic fringe that gets traction because of statistically insignificant (?) issues such as anaphylaxis and blood clotting.
If 50 can't be done simultaneously (of which I was being arbitrary/facetious), why not 10. Ten is better than one.
And why not 50? What are the incidences of anaphylaxis.... is it so common that 50 can't be done? Curious questions.
Why not have 50 people in the room to get immunised? They don't have the disease! Bit late for an immunisation while in the throws of not breathing :)
Why not get 50 in the room and let 10 people self-prune themselves for that round as they want to know more?* Make them friggin wait..... get the majority done. This is what the whole herd-immunity thing is right?
Maybe I'm just silly. :)
* how hard is it to have a FAQ which answers 95% of all questions? Read it before one even turns up....
Great sign that should be all over billboards and in newspaper adverts.
Attachment 499250
The local Government "immunisation centre" does about 6 at a time (6 nurses giving shots), and they have a doctor on hand for any emergencies (a tiny number of people have a reaction to almost any injection, not just covid). They also have a very large room (actually a hall at the showground) so can have a large pre and post waiting area without social distancing issues. They also have separate nurses to do the check-ins, so the consent process is significantly quicker (the nurse vaccinator does ONLY the consent and a small amount of data entry, the receptionist does most of the data entry). They therefore have a much higher throughput, most of which until recently was wasted drinking coffee! As for a FAQ, well I believe there is one but sadly most people would rather believe what their mate said in the pub; the value of a FAQ when up against "mates" and social media is very much reduced.
There's a few other things to note, however. Firstly those staff in the government facility are hourly paid, they don't have to make a profit. Which is lucky because until recently they've been sitting around with nothing to do - in fact a report I read (in the ever-trustworthy media, but supposedly quoting government data) said that even the week before last, in Sydney, a government facility injecting AZ had 50% unused appointments - the staff are being paid to wait for the occasional patient! In a pharmacy situation, the pharmacy is paid by the injection. If it takes 2 minutes and you do 30 an hour you make money. But if you do the job properly and do 4 an hour you make a loss. [Edit: I'm talking about number of shots per "vaccinator", not just the total number, and I'm using random figures just as examples!]. How you view this depends on whether you are the concerned patient, the already vaccinated person being locked down because of the "vaccine hesitant", the greedy business owner or the conscientious healthcare professional.......
When all's said and done, the biggest issue is still that the media scared the hell out of people with the "AZ will kill you dead" reports, so people didn't get the vaccine months ago. Even now there are people who are waiting for Pfizer because they think it's "better", whilst others are panicking and blaming the world for their own lack of preparedness. Still others are continuing to say covid is a hoax (we hear that every day!).
Being able to give many vaccines is only relevant if you have many arms to put them in!!
I was entitled to the vaccine and booked in back in April. When I was already at the doctor he told me to see the front desk and make the appointment. Appointment made 6 weeks into the future for the astra Zeneca shot. Someone from the front desk called me the day before and said I was not entitled to it and would not stop talking before hanging up the phone. I literally did not say a word.
So I thought I would register online
The online QLD portal said I was entitled to a shot. I entered my email and phone number but that was 2 months ago and I have not heard a thing. It a confirmation nothing. Others I have spoken to said the got the same lack of response
I really don’t understand how this works, from I I have been told you don’t book and just show up and you get a shot. This seems insane to do this during a pandemic when systems exist to book.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I'm not sure of the ages of many here, but I'd wager we are all in the "doomed of you catch it" group.
You all should be getting pushy for a shot. Canute can only hold back this tide for so long. Check my video from above.
I went to South America for a while in the early 90's. I saw poverty and disease there like I'd never seen. I absolutely don't need to be pushed into vaccination!
People hesitating are fools. They will die. Long COVID is a thing. Its serious.
I'd wager many of our USA forumites know of someone no longer with us.
I saw this on Reddit last week :)
Attachment 499264 Attachment 499265
I saw this interesting study on long COVID...
There Are More Than 50 Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 | RealClearScience
WP
It is somewhat baffling how much emphasis has been placed on the chances of having an adverse reaction to the vaccinations (blood clotting, anaphylactic etc) compared to the chances of contracting the illness, particularly if you live in the cities, and even more so the after effects of what is now collectively called "long covid."
If you are one of the susceptible few, which are not that many, but more than those at risk of vaccine after effects, Covid-19 is, as I have mentioned before, a very nasty insidious disease. We were treated to this in the very early days with Forum member Rob Streeper's account of how it laid him low for six months and he was still experiencing some side effects. That was way back in the first half of 2020.
Perhaps there are a few people out there who could benefit from 20:20 vision. :rolleyes:
Regards
Paul
..about people walking around like nothing is going on in the states....well, how delta has changed things!
Where I am (pennsylvania, pittsburgh actually), the rates here are relatively low for delta, but I'm sure they're a lot higher than they were.
Still, most people are walking around maskless (the vaccinated rate here is very high).
Nonetheless, until data changes, it looks like pfizer is only about 40% effective in preventing delta, but highly effective still at preventing hospitalization and even more effective as a percentage in preventing death.
I don't personally want to have covid (and don't *think* that I have), but not looking forward to the idea of getting a booster shot a few months after most folks were just finished with their second shots.
Wouldn't want to be chancing it without a vaccine, but also don't want to be tied to vaccines if the chance of serious covid after two shots is low and building natural immunity from there is more effective.
The western world may have to adapt its attitude towards life expectancy! It's a difficult thing to contemplate, and just as difficult to discuss without upsetting people, but currently we use medicines to keep people alive well beyond the point where nature would have "reclaimed" them. We are defying nature, and perhaps it is inevitable that nature will attempt to redress the balance? Sooner or later it will succeed!
In the case of covid, the virus (like all "lifeforms") is constantly evolving. At present, the delta strain is the one causing us most problems, but next week/month/year a new mutation will arise that is more efficient at spreading. There will, of course, be a great many mutations that are less efficient at spreading, but those will die out simply because they _are_ less efficient. The difficulty (for us) starts when the new mutation that spreads more effectively is also one that does more harm - from an evolutionary standpoint I assume the "damage" trait can't be described as "efficient" because the virus gains nothing from killing us! Nonetheless, rapid spreading plus high damage is bad for us!!
All this, it must be remembered, is nothing new. All diseases act the same way, which is why influenza kills many people every year, and also why we have a new 'flu vaccine every year - developed to address the strain (or strains) currently causing problems. It would be reasonable to assume that the situation with covid will be much the same, an annual booster developed to act against the latest strain(s) of covid.
Natural immunity is derived from the body being infected and "learning" to produce antibodies. Unfortunately the body has to learn, and produce sufficient antibodies, before the disease kills it! Subsequently the body has to "remember" how to produce those antibodies, and over time (for some diseases) it forgets. So the body, ideally, needs constant/frequent re-exposure to the disease in order to maintain its immunity. When put together, this explains "life" - the young and fit survive the new disease, develop immunity, and then enter an "arms race" with the disease to see whether the body, or the disease, can develop faster and "win". The old and unfit can't develop and maintain their immunity, so nature reclaims them. Science has stepped in and developed vaccines that allow the body to learn to produce the antibodies without having to survive the disease, but in many/most cases we need booster shots every year, five years, whatever. We, as individuals, often choose what vaccinations to worry about - as a farmer I make sure my tetanus vaccination is always up to date, for example. I also vaccinate my livestock, who also get boosters as required.
With covid, I have no doubt, we have another disease that will require frequent boosters. We have already seen that all the current vaccines decrease in efficacy over time (as the body forgets!), so unless we have constant low level re-exposure a booster seems likely. We have also seen that covid has developed some more "efficient" mutations, and that the current vaccines vary on their efficacy against the various mutations, so again a booster seems likely.
Interestingly (well, I thought so!) I was reading a paper that suggested that in fact covid is mutating at a lower rate than many other viruses, but that the mutations tend to be better (from the viruses viewpoint) and so survive and spread. Apparently many other viruses mutate at a significantly higher rate, but the mutations tend to be inferior to the parent and therefore don't survive/reproduce. That's an interesting concept, because it could be taken to mean that those other viruses have more or less reached the top of their game, but covid might still be a way from its peak variant. If anyone needed prompting to get a vaccination, perhaps this should be taken in to consideration..... we should get on top of the current strain(s) before they have the ability to mutate in to something even worse!!
I have two thoughts -from the outset, they told us that it would be a slow mutating virus, and that's true. When a new variant comes up, it lasts for months at least and other dominant strains are slow to come along. I don't know that life expectancy is something that we need to seriously adjust, but we have something that will take advantage of certain types of vulnerabilities (diabetes, serious heart diseases, immune systems damaged by cancer treatment).
What's not well established yet is whether or not boosters will be more effective than vaccine and then natural sickness on a relatively regular basis (annually).
Delta can get past two pfizers, but the death rates are only high for the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. So, we need to seriously contemplate in the long term once someone is vaccinated and has a low chance of death or morbidity if we're going to compare boosters or natural immunity, and that data needs to be made public.
what's totally clear is that having any comorbidities and going head long into a high viral rate transmission of covid is *bad*. The nursing home in WA state (washington in the USA) showed that lesson early - folks didn't know they were breathing huge amounts of covid and the employee group with a median age of 38 went to the hospital at a rate of 50%. The death rate among the elderly was high.
I somewhat expect that we'll find transmission rates after vaccine or illness are higher in the presence of high levels of virus in the air vs "solidly enough to catch it".
I'm sure the CDC is tracking the kind of data that I mention, but we hear little about the death rate of those who had covid previously vs. the vaccinated (in terms of the infection on the second go around). We hear constantly how much better the vaccine is, but it's only compared to the unvaccinated who haven't had covid previously. It may be that after everyone has the vaccine, we're not generally better off in the long term living on boosters.
My suspicion is that it will depend on the background health of the individual. Much the same as for 'flu, the young and healthy can (relatively) easily deal with an annual case of the 'flu, they can survive the illness long enough for their body to learn/remember how to create the required antibodies. The old and infirm have more trouble - for influenza in Australia the death rate increases massively with age (and additional health issues).
I suspect, therefore, that the vaccination situation will go the same way as for 'flu, being that young fit people don't even know a vaccine exists, whilst older and infirm people are strongly advised to get it. I had never had a 'flu vax until I was over 50, now I get one every year and this year my doctor also recommended the pneumococcal vaccine.
Of course all this is dependent on covid staying relatively constant. If it mutated to a form that is as transmissible as delta but as with the mortality rate of SARS (10%) or MERS (35%) then all bets are off!!
I think you're right. There is some back and forth at the CDC in terms of financial interest in vaccines and continuing to test them (as there is with the university health systems here that get grants to test vaccines. For example, one of the individuals on the panel that's more or less deferred clinical testing on ivermectin has involvement in a university health system that is declared as the only system qualified to do ongoing testing - the grant size was 9 figures. Regardless of what anyone thinks of ivermectin, that should've been disclosed.
The CDC generally retracts identities of individuals in some of the committees, though I think there's a two part answer for that:
1) they should disclose information requested in FOIA requests here in the US
2) despite the FOIA issues, if they do disclose individuals involved, the nutters who think covid doesn't exist will attack
Metaanalysis suggests ivermectin is pretty effective taken at symptom onset (50-85%) as an antiviral, and potentially with some prophylactic effect. It shouldn't be used *in place* of vaccines, but potentially along with it.
I believe Merck is developing a "low cost" antiviral regimen to be taken early in covid cases (it will "only" be $700 or so).
Strangely, their comments about how it must be used match when ivermectin is or isn't effective in meta-analysis (e.g., ivermectin doesn't show much improvement in mortality if given late - to my knowledge, nothing so far really shows effectiveness for long haulers carrying a whole bunch of nonviable proteins).
My point being in the US that if there are two alternatives, the one that continues the flow of money better will be the one that's chosen. The fact that a clinical trial of ivermectin hasn't been done here based on findings of meta-analysis is bonkers.
On the investor side, Pfizer has stated that they expect that the covid vaccines will become "durable long term revenue" like the flu vaccine.
Many here (young or not) do get the flu shot every year. I've generally always gotten it - only learned last year that as someone who has respiratory sickness each year (not critical, just annoying - bronchitis) that there's a fair chance that the flu vax increases the likelihood I"ll end up with bronchitis (this conclusion is the result of trivalent vaccine clinical trials and is statistically significant with an expected multiplier of 4). I'm a little that nobody has ever mentioned that to me as bronchitis is a multi-week totally survivable non-threatening but completely miserable state to be in. I've never had a case of the flu that lasted more than a couple of days, and even at that only one of those days in each case (twice in the last 21 years) was a partial loss.
At any rate, if the data suggests categories of individuals should be getting boosters often (I think that will be the legitimate case for vulnerable individuals who don't have an effective robust response), and some large cohort is just as well off (comparing covid symptoms and outcomes to the same with vaccine, plus vaccine side effects), we won't know for quite some time.
It seems appropriate right now for them to be studying third shots for the vulnerable, and I think they are. It seems just as appropriate to measure the long term outcome of the non-vulnerable groups to vaccine vs. actually getting covid as the idea that the vaccinated can't get or spread covid is now no longer accurate.
(the odds are on our side for covid to become more transmissible but no more severe - long-term experience with virii always leads to the most deadly having a short widespread public life due both to their effectiveness (incapacitating their hosts and limiting spread) and our response. But something like delta that leaves most people ambulatory and can spread before they show symptoms could have a long lifetime until something as mild but even more transmissible comes along).
One thing I learned in my years as a consultant in big pharmaceutical companies is that profit is the only driver behind the business. It's nice to be able to say "we saved humanity" (or whatever) but it's still not worth doing if it can't be turned into $$$$....
Regarding the "high damage" mutations, yes indeed they do tend to suffer from killing the host before they can spread - the reason I said earlier that high damage isn't really "efficient" for a virus. However, given the "long covid" symptoms that are currently being publicised, there is room for strains that last long enough to spread but still do significantly more damage than current strains, even without a high rate of rapid mortality.
The ivermectin situation is slightly more complicated than perhaps it would appear on first glance (assuming that it does actually work, which I haven't investigated). Ivermectin is a heavily used anti-parasitic. In various formulations it is used for everything from headlice in kids through to worms in dogs and cats. We buy it in 20litre drums to drench cattle and sheep, and the injectable version for cattle is 500ml for $90, with a dose rate of 1ml per 50kg animal weight, so assuming the same rate (based on nothing at all!)- a 100kg man would take a 36cent dose! This creates a few problems for the covid indication. Firstly, it is very hard to justify a great deal of expensive testing for a drug that is know to be dirt cheap - the pharmaceutical companies can't charge $hundreds a dose for something you can buy over the counter at your local rural supplier. If they globally raise the price of the active they will lose the agricultural sector, which is almost certainly a far bigger loss than anything they might make from covid treatments, and if they don't then they risk people taking animal drenches as a prophylactic. On a more light-hearted note, it might also call in to question many existing regulations, for example we cannot use ivermectin in animals within (from memory) 48 days of slaughter for human consumption - that would seem a strange requirement if people started taking it as a prophylactic for covid! I was talking to another farmer when Donald Trump started talking about ivermectin, and we were joking about all kinds of possibilities - perhaps farmers could pre-dose meat with ivermectin, like water is dosed with fluoride?..!
From memory, wasnt this why the CSIRO was enacted?
To pursue science for the people, rather than profit? They look into things like Ivermectin and other necessary things that Big Pharma refuses to?
Guess that's all been culled now. :(
Bah.....who needs science when you have......"thoughts and prayers" :rolleyes: :D
The longer COVID remains in the community, the greater the chance of a new 'Epsilon' mutation (or some other more deadly/transmissible variant) popping up. And here we are struggling to deal with Delta.
Who needs scientists, who make decisions based on evidence and logic, when we have "experts" who rely on political expediency and looking good for the next election.
This is certainly part of it, but by no means the only reason. All government agencies are taxpayer funded, and whilst at times like these (or for certain industry sectors) we are very keen to have government agencies doing research, most people, most of the time, would rather have lower taxes. Very few people, if they are honest, want their hard earned pay being taken for things they have no interest in! So agencies like the CSIRO are run on tight budgets, to minimise costs. It is also quite hard for them to effectively monetise their research, because that involves production/manufacturing/marketing which are not in their remit, and also attracts the criticism that "my tax has paid for the research, why do I have to pay more for the results?".
In contrast, "business" can, when it desires, through money at something if they think it will be profitable. That includes staff salaries..... So whilst I have no doubt that there are some talented people in the CSIRO, the problem remains that the really talented people often get poached by big business. It takes a very dedicated person to turn down a doubling of their salary and the opportunity to have as much of the latest equipment as they need! This happens across the board, not just in science - governments (worldwide) tend to be at the low end of the pay scale for most job sectors, and therefore often lose their better staff to big business. That's always assuming that those talented people don't get picked up straight out of university by the corporate graduate recruitment programs.
The result of the above is that agencies like the CSIRO are often very good at doing "steady research" for sectors like agriculture, but perhaps not quite so successful in other areas. When they do have a success, more often than not it is then licensed or sold, so the credit goes to the manufacturer who brings it to market, and the taxpayer never knows what their money was used for..... So political expediency is to reduce that funding, reduce taxes etc. etc.
Rolled my sleeve up yesterday :
First of two jabs
Was only scared of one thing :C
That was the needle itself :B
Log Dog :)
Whilst I would have to agree that pressure and results are not a primary concern for such institutions as the CSIRO, I would expect, but don't know, they are increasingly having to justify their existence in the this commercial world. However, to say the government is reducing their funding because of taxpayer concerns I believe is exceeding generous towards the politicians and I don't see it as any more than a money grab for political expediency.
In this instance, as in Covid-19 times, the agency could have diverted attention to this pandemic if they had not had their structure so disabled. The argument against would be that it cost too much to keep things running for such an event: My comment would be can you afford not to do this? All hypothetical now, but very short sighted. I would also comment that we, as a group of people, are extremely self-centred and apparently are incapable of seeing a greater good. I can understand that attitude from people barely eeking out a living. I cannot accept that is the right attitude from people who are "comfortable."
Regards
Paul