breaking covid rules

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out.
I'm thinking of the manipulation of the roll out by various forces, especially the Govt and possibly even people like the AMA.

Instead of starting from day one with mobile mass vaccination clinics, the GPs and their inherently slow processes were dragooned into the first charge,
Given that most GPs were already flat out with regular patients it was my initial impression that most practices were simply not in a position to deliver.

Even though I was in some sort of priority group it still took me 2 months from when I asked about an appointment with my GP to get my first shot which I received at 4pm on a Saturday arvo and they apparently had appointments booked up to 6pm.
My GP said it was being done all wrong. They were all roped in to do this, resulting in their regular patient services being compromised, and their admin staff being overwhelmed. The GPs were also losing money hand over fist having to largely do this after hours and only at medicare rates.

My GP also said that many people do not have a personal GP but instead use drop in GPs and hospital emergency departments and this is why ssohe many people in the high priority groups are still not vaccinated.

SWMBO's GP told her she'd be better off going to a mass vaccination clinic as they were booked solid with priority cases.

My suspicion is the govt hoped the way they set it up would gain them more kudos/power, and the AMA hoped it would generate more "MONEY" and perhaps control for their members.
Instead we ended up with a giant cockup along with the availability debacle.
Were's the accountability??

As has been said many times - shoulda given it to the local school tuck shop ladies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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.

---

Reducing taxes is what most people want. What gets sacrificed to do this is only of concern when the thing being sacrificed is something that particular taxpayer "likes". The average person therefore doesn't care what is cut, as long as their taxes are reduced. Many government funded organisations have very loud (or influential) supporters, but science? Under normal circumstances I'm not sure many people would notice or make a fuss about funding reduction for science (recently we have had the STEM push, but that's still quite recent and targeted at schools) so it's an easy target! The taxpayer concerns are not specifically anti-CSIRO, they are simply "less tax".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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."

---

It's not always possible for science to redirect. A bunch of scientists may be experts in breeding better wheat, and may be very well equipped to do that, but it is unlikely they could quickly (or perhaps ever) refocus on a viral disease of humans. If they were suitably qualified and equipped "medical" researchers, then such a redirect is far more likely, but such people and equipment is massively expensive to maintain, so........

One thing that covid has made very clear is that "the common good" is not something that is universally understood. We seem to be a very selfish and short-sighted society!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

One thing that covid has made very clear is that "the common good" is not something that is universally understood. We seem to be a very selfish and short-sighted society!

---

Warb

I think you have hit on the essence of humanity's failing there.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out.

---

There are/were two big problems with the vaccine roll-out. Firstly our 19th century "state" system, where health is a state run service. Secondly the media trashed the AZ vaccine so people didn't (and in many cases still don't) want it. There were/are many other contributing factors, but those caused the biggest proportion of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

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.

---

There are also government incentives for companies to conduct research. I have a relative who works for the Research and Development Tax Incentive Office of the Federal Government. There are Australian companies as well as International companies operating in Australia who have their annual tax burdens reduced by BILLIONS of dollars per year for the research they are carrying out in Australia.

So it's not only the money spent to run CSIRO and other Government bodies that comes out of money that would otherwise be available to the government for other purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

There are/were two big problems with the vaccine roll-out. Firstly our 19th century "state" system, where health is a state run service. Secondly the media trashed the AZ vaccine so people didn't (and in many cases still don't) want it. There were/are many other contributing factors, but those caused the biggest proportion of the problem.

---

I'm not sure I agree. Every doctor I speak to says, "Feds are all crap at "human services" delivery", EG Centrelink, quarantine, NBN, the aged care vac roli out. If anything its the feds failure to properly use the state systems that has us where we are now.

I think the media AZ beat issue is also a convenient excuse to not have order enough of a range of vaccines to begin with.

Our GP had no problems. We rang up to get an appointment for a flu shot. They booked the flu shot and made an appointment three weeks after that for the first AZ and another 12 weeks later for the second AZ shot. Smooth as silk. Sent out reminders as well. They are a busy practice with 8 doctors and we have been going there for years.

I think there is a scale issue involved. Last night I was surprised when SWMBO told me that our local pharmacy could give the jab. BUT, there was a catch. She overheard the booking and the condition was they had to get ten people in, because as has been mentioned in this thread, the vials come in ten dose quantities. If only one person rocks up for the jab, the remaining doses are wasted.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

I'm not sure I agree. Every doctor I speak to says, "Feds are all crap at "human services" delivery", EG Centrelink, quarantine, NBN, the aged care vac roli out. If anything its the feds failure to properly use the state systems that has us where we are now.

I think the media AZ beat issue is also a convenient excuse to not have order enough of a range of vaccines to begin with.

---

:whs:

In answer to the last few posts, in no particular order:

1/ Feds are crap at human services delivery: Yep, as are all governments. However, health is state run, so doctors are in fact dealing with state systems so may not be in a position to accurately comment on federal systems. We work closely with several doctors, and it is interesting to hear their views on each other, as well as to observe how differently they are dealing with the situation - our local doctor has completely shut down everything, moved to 100% telehealth, and is not doing vaccines. Our next nearest doctor is running an enormous vaccination centre in addition to their usual practice.....

2/ The AZ media beat-up is a convenient excuse: Australia bought a sufficient quantity of the most available vaccine to do the staged roll-out it had planned. That vaccine has been used to dose the entire population of other countries. In Australia we didn't have a massive death toll, so people weren't desperate to get vaccinated. Then the media pushed the issues with AZ and after that almost nobody wanted it. Had it been Pfizer that had been publicised as being bad, the government would have been heroes for not wasting money, (edit, shouldn't have rushed!) but not if they had split the purchase. We still, on a daily basis, get told by patients that they'll wait until Pfizer is available... That is changing, even today (Sunday), because we have now got local cases of covid and people are texting us (private phones, the pharmacy is closed) to get vaccinated with anything available.

3/ The ten jabs per vial issue: The industry has now been told that we have ample stocks of AZ, and no attempt needs to be made to save doses. We are also now being told that the written informed consent process can be ignored, as long as the "tick boxes" in the online system are completed with the patient giving the appropriate answers. This translates to "just shove it in to anyone who'll have it, no matter what".

4/ Government incentives to companies carrying out research: Yes indeed. Unfortunately, contrary to what many people and some politicians think, Australia is a tiny country with very little real clout. We also have a great deal of government micro-management by way of laws, and an employment system that makes it far harder and more expensive to run a company than in many other countries. So to get those big companies to do research here requires, er, encouragement. And once you start providing encouragement, the next company says "I'll only do it if you give me the same or more" and it spirals. The encouragement is done in several ways, both direct grants and also tax reduction based on expenditure - so the more a company spends on research, the more it can offset against tax. This is not just in Australia, many countries operate such schemes. The results are "interesting"; because the incentives apply to "research", the R&D branch of a company can spend more or less whatever it wants, whilst other branches may not. In one company in the UK, I was a consultant in the R&D division and I had a budget that I never got to the end of, we just bought whatever we thought we might need. In the next building, a good friend of mine worked for the "corporate" division of the same company (sales, accounting, all that normal stuff) and they were using out of date "coal fired" computers, and were unable to buy anything until months, and many pleas, after the old one broke beyond repair. Our R&D spending created tax benefits, theirs didn't! R&D conferences and meetings were in flash hotels overseas. He never left the office..... but they did give him a push-button phone!

This link is the account by a nurse (Anne Elliott), who was present in the UK during the early days of the virus, (now back in Australia) and a doctor (Stephen Parnis). They walk you through the four stages of the way in which Covid-19 grabs hold of you. It would be frightening if you were thirty and fit: Mortifying (literally) if you are eighty and fundamentally infirm.

This is what COVID-19 does to your body and why it can kill - ABC News

Interestingly, Elliott herself contacted the virus in the UK and even after the illness had subsided she did not feel "well" for some time subsequently.

Regards
Paul

I hounded "The Kids" (24, 25, 27) into going out this bloody weekend to get their shots.

The chemist was giving them out and I told them to just turn up. The kids wanted to fill out online forms and wait. Such good drones - but I ranted at them. They finally relented, went up and the chemist gave them ALL the jab with no appointment. It was busy, but there was no wait. Five people at a time.

This was the first weekend of chemist availability, also to young people, plus the first week of Canberras hard lockdown.

Now if this was only done 12 months ago.....

Goddam Fcn government.


EVERYTHING, and EVERY FAILURE lays at the feet of those in charge and all levels of government. Hold them accountable at the next election. They PLAYED WITH YOUR LIVES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I hounded "The Kids" (24, 25, 27) into going out this bloody weekend to get their shots.

---

Good work to get your kids vaccinated!

What follows is a rant, caused by lack of coffee. It is not targeted at anyone, and is largely just a vent.

The vaccine rollout in Australia was targeted towards those most at risk. It was not perfect, and as always when so many people have their hands in the pot, the waters got very muddied. However, at least in my area, it went very well. The old folks homes held clinics, mobile clinics visited to deal with the elderly and other "high risk" people very early on. A large clinic was set up in the next town (rural area) where high risk, old, essential services people (etc.) could get their shots. There was no constraint on supply or appointments - I made an appointment (for the following week) and then had to change it due to unforeseen circumstances, and they rebooked me for the following day. The clinic was largely empty when I had my shot, the nurses were bored and the "on site" doctor (in case of emergency) had almost finished his book!

The rollout through pharmacy is interesting. The AMA are dead set against pharmacy getting the ability to vaccinate - 'flu shots have been available through pharmacies for some time, but that was a battle. The AMA certainly didn't want covid shots in pharmacy. The process of getting that through was time consuming, and only happened at all because the vaccination uptake was so low. People are happier to talk to a pharmacist than to a doctor, so it was seen as an answer to getting shots in arms. However it was a long process, and started with a trial run with a very small number of pharmacies (we were one of them) to demonstrate it was possible. That pilot run was in fact cut short, due to the Sydney/NSW outbreak, and the fact that in the face of the outbreak nobody could really argue or delay it any further.....

However, with all that said, we (locally) still hear, every day, "I can't get a vaccination". It's now 6.30am, and I already have a missed call on my phone (it's in silent mode until 6.30am!) which I know for a fact is an "I need a vaccination" plea. That call is from someone who could have been vaccinated months ago, but they weren't interested. Two local cases and now everyone has to drop everything to poke a needle in them, and they'll tell you it's the governments fault. Is it? Really? Those people at the old folks home, staff and residents, who chose not to have Pfizer when the nurse was there waving the needles around and begging for arms to stick them in, are now blaming the government because they can't instantly get a shot. When did we lose track of personal responsibility?

This is my opinion. Australia has (had?) done a very good job at supressing the virus until everyone had got vaccinated. It had created a reasonable (not perfect) vaccination plan. The lack of deaths unfortunately (?) meant the population had little interest in getting vaccinated, and then the media stepped in and trashed AZ, making the uptake even less. The multiple layers of healthcare responsibility meant that apparently some areas had better access to vaccination than others, some doctors gave vaccinations whilst others didn't, and I have no idea as to the reality of those situations in other areas. In my area it was fine. Anyone over 50 could have been vaccinated at any time in the last two or three months, the old, infirm, essential workers etc. since around March (can't remember exactly!). Under 50's have also been eligible for long enough that those who wanted it have been done.

Here's the problem. Governments are stupid, and they stupidly believe that people will "do the right thing". That's why the Sydney lockdown was not a "ring of steel" - the government believed that people were clever/sensible enough to see , and abide by, the "spirit of the law". But people aren't. People (not all, but many) are selfish and, dare I say it, lazy. They did what suited them, in the case of the vaccination it was "nothing", and in the case of the lockdown it was "whatever they wanted to". So nobody got vaccinated, and the virus spread. Now, when the truth starts to dawn on them, they blame the government, the doctors, the pharmacists, or anyone else that they can think of to avoid admitting that their own actions, or lack of actions, have landed them in a bad situation. In my area we now have covid. And guess where it started? At a petrol station, brought in by someone from Sydney travelling when they should have been locked down.

There has been a very strange and excessively "risk averse" approach to these vaccines. (I say "risk averse" in quotes because it is people thinking they are being careful and cautious but are in fact causing harm)

Making people wait 15 minutes.
Asking a bunch of questions about past health which have no known bearing on (very low) risk of adverse effects.
Restricting AZ due to an incredibly rare risk and running the numbers as if we won't have any COVID in the community. (If the disease doesn't exist then of course the treatment of riskier, but the disease is in fact highly contagious...)

We should be doing what other countries like the UK and Canada have done.
Stadiums, churches, mobile clinics.
25,000 people vaccinated at a stadium in Toronto in one day.


Instead we spend 6 weeks building 'mass vaccination clinics' with pretty walls that can only do a couple of thousand per day.


The sum of the above is that a significant proportion of the population are fearful of COVID vaccination. Despite it being incredibly safe and effective.
And vaccines have been more difficult to access for those that want them.

And there are still many GPs/Drs telling people to hold out for Pfizer.
Or that someone can't have AZ because they have had a clot in the past - which has completely different pathophysiology. (There are no known risk factors for the vaccine induced clotting problem, apart from it being a little bit more common at younger ages)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pippin88

There has been a very strange and excessively "risk averse" approach to these vaccines.

---

The 15 minute wait is standard for all/most vaccinations, as are the questions. 15 minutes for possible anaphylaxis (a risk with most vaccinations) and the questions to avoid/identify any risks, because there are factors that impact the risk. They also help with future analysis (and legal defence!) should there be a problem.

The building of vaccination hubs was, I suspect, an attempt to be seen to be doing something when in fact the existing facilities (at that time) were only at 50% capacity because nobody wanted the jab!

The population is/was generally fearful, but that is the fault of the media who shouted loudly about the (minimal) dangers in a way that made it sound like it was Russian roulette. It's very hard for a doctor, pharmacist, or government to persuade someone that something is safe when the media is telling them (as are all their friends) that it's not! In countries where hundreds of thousands have died of the disease it's easy to ignore the handful who died from the cure, but in Australia we had minimal covid deaths and a very well publicised, albeit small, number of deaths from the vaccine.

Overall, however, at this time I agree. We should be using any available facility to inject everyone who is willing. Those who are not willing should go to the back of the queue for both "mind changes" and also treatment if they should get the disease....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Here's the problem. Governments are stupid, and they stupidly believe that people will "do the right thing". That's why the Sydney lockdown was not a "ring of steel" - the government believed that people were clever/sensible enough to see , and abide by, the "spirit of the law". But people aren't. People (not all, but many) are selfish and, dare I say it, lazy. They did what suited them, in the case of the vaccination it was "nothing", and in the case of the lockdown it was "whatever they wanted to". So nobody got vaccinated, and the virus spread. Now, when the truth starts to dawn on them, they blame the government, the doctors, the pharmacists, or anyone else that they can think of to avoid admitting that their own actions, or lack of actions, have landed them in a bad situation. In my area we now have covid. And guess where it started? At a petrol station, brought in by someone from Sydney travelling when they should have been locked down.

---

If common sense was indeed common, there would be no need for most of the laws that exist. But as people get stupider, stupid governments seem to think that making more stupid laws will fix the problem. the real problem is that governments and law enforcement agencies have become extremely selective about which laws they enforce. They concentrate on things that can be pretty-much automated - speed/red light cameras and breathalyzers because they are easy to catch and fines/convictions are pretty much indefensible. Yet equally dangerous behavior such as tailgating or failure to give way, is largely ignored. You rarely see a police vehicle pull over a driver for a traffic infringement any more. I doubt that more than one Melbourne driver in 20 even knows the correct rules for right of way when changing lanes. Too many people now ignore or don't even know the rules that are not actively enforced. Lockdown laws are not being enforced to a sufficient degree to ensure anywhere near satisfactory compliance.

I recall that when Melbourne's first lockdown was called last year, they gave 48 hours notice that the lockdown was going to happen. Thousands of people went online to change their addresses online on their drivers licenses to locations in Rural Victoria and fled Melbourne to escape the lockdown, many of them taking the infection to the rural areas. They did ANYTHING that they could to avoid lockdowns designed for the safety of he community.

Our four-month lockdown did not end until people started to realize that if they did not obey the restrictions we would never get out of it. From where I sit, people in Sydney still have not reached that point. Having their Premier tell them that they are under the toughest lockdown any community in Australia had experienced when it was, and still is not, as harsh as Melbourne went through for months certainly does not help the matter and only adds to community frustration when they are told that conditions will have to get tougher still.

I rarely have anything nice to say about the Premier of Victoria, but he did well when he called Lockdown 6. He gave only 3 hours notice and locked down the whole state - thereby stopping the exodus of people into Rural Victoria, as that would be locked down too. But then after a week, he opened up the rural areas and immediately all the roads out of Melbourne were filled with car towing caravans, camping trailers and carrying gear for extended stays at holiday homes or friends places. All those people who fled were still supposed to be under the 5km radius rule but once they got out of Melbourne they were "free". Too many Melbournites either never learned the lessons of the four-month lockdown or have forgotten already.

Attachment 499527

With regards to lockdown rules, seems like everyone can make their own.
I live inside a reasonably large lga. Recently I received in the mail a cheque from rms.
Why it wasn't direct deposited to my bank??? Who knows.
This necessitated a trip to the bank. Our local bank closed several months ago. So next closest bank is approximately 30Km away, but still within my lga. There are closer banks, but outside my lga and further than 5Km from home.
Arrived at bank, no covid security other than qr checkin. Promptly told by teller I should have waited until lockdown finished to come in and make the deposite. No problem I said, if your bank waives any overdraw penalties. Nope.
But other establishments have tight covid security, and avidly check qr checkin.
Places are very quiet, except for takeaways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

One thing I haven't heard that much about is the complete mess of the Australian vaccines roll out. I'm thinking of the manipulation of the roll out by various forces, especially the Govt and possibly even people like the AMA. ...

---

I had my final phizer shot in early June: what a shemozzle!

My GP's clinic is not doing covid vax, and referred me to the state government program.
First: I had to find the enrolment pages on an extremely difficult to navigate website,
Second: I had to complete an online enrolment form, including a medical history,
Third: I had to find the clinic; it actually was in the bar of a closed hotel,
Fourth: I had to complete the medical history again, and wait about half an hour past my appointment time,
Fifth: I had my shot - took 20 seconds,
Sixth: Then I had to wait 15 minutes for "side effects" - sound practice,
Then I went home and waited 3 weeks for second shot.

Each time I attended there were about 12 staff members present, doing the check in, supervising the waiting queue, supervising the after effects waiting, but only two peolple actually doing the vaccinations. Engage a few more vaccinators and the throghput could easily have been raised by a factor of five or six.

But blind Freddy does not work for Health Tasmania.

Quote:

---

... SWMBO's GP told her she'd be better off going to a mass vaccination clinic as they were booked solid with priority cases. ...

---

Many GPs down here are refusing to give covid vaxs as "Health" - not sure if its state health or federal health - are insisting that they do an eight hour attending or online course on how to give a covid vax. Most feel insulted and have declined.

A GP friend was "bludgeoned" into attending by his large practice - "someone has to do it" - and he describes the course as a total waste of time and worse than anticipated. He says that the only thing he learned is why covid vax comes in ten shot vials - all other vax vials are single shot. The reason is simply that the international glass industry could not gear up fast enough to produce the hundreds of millions of little glass bottles required. By going multishot they reduced the number of vials required by 90%. They will probably start producing single shot vials in 2023 or 2024.

Quote:

---

... My suspicion is the govt hoped the way they set it up would gain them more kudos/power, and the AMA hoped it would generate more "MONEY" and perhaps control for their members. ...

---

Probably true, but then they still managed to shoot themselves in the foot. For 100 years the AMA opposed nurses being able to administer injections. SWMBO is a RN and for the first 10+ years of her career registered nurses were not permitted to administer injections - "only doctor can".

Quote:

---

... As has been said many times - shoulda given it to the local school tuck shop ladies.

---

Too sensible.

A fair criticism from post #133, but my wife and I had out shots (AZ) on the very first day we were eligible. Same with the three kids. Very first day.

The probabilities of adverse immunisation reactions are meaningless and not worth consideration. The probabilities of complications of COVID are vast.

I've been shouting about this disease since Dec '19. I saw the initial outbreak and said to all who would listen that "this will be a thing" but I was written off as a conspiracy nutter. I personally believe that its going to get 100 times worse before it gets better. (OK, I might be a bit nuts....) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Overall, however, at this time I agree. We should be using any available facility to inject everyone who is willing. Those who are not willing should go to the back of the queue for both "mind changes" and also treatment if they should get the disease....

---

On this, I saw one German(?) pollie posit an idea.... "No immunisation? You pay full price for your subsequent care."

I like this idea.

If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission!

That's if they make it.... maybe their estate can pay otherwise....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

... The probabilities of adverse immunisation reactions are meaningless and not worth consideration. The probabilities of complications of COVID are vast.

... If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission! ...

---

No; they do not have the right to infect you, or me or the kids down the street.

Another approach that is working.
A favourite niece is an RN in a very large hospital that was right in the front line of the battle - many covid patients, many infected staff, many staff in covid quarantine, very major staff shortages, very excessive shifts, exhaustion, barrier nursing, PPE, etc. Medical Superintendent arraged for early vaccination of all staff and obtained sufficient phizer and A-Z. Pharmacy staff were vaccinated on day 1 (they warehoused the vax) and virtually all professional staff were very quickly done - doctors, nurses, nutritionists, physiotherapists, OTs, psychologists, etc. There were a lot of hold outs amoung support staff - orderlies, cleaners, kitchen, etc. Then the MedSup introduced daily testing for non-vaccinated staff at the start of every shift. A very unpleasant proceedure with a swab about 50mm up a nostril. Now most staff are vaccinated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

If some anti-vax nutter, right-wing nutter, hyper-Christian nutter or some other anti-gov crusader decides its their "right" to get infected with COVID, fine, but let them pay the full price of admission!

---

...or left wing anti-vaxxer? Or non-Christian nutter?

They come from all spectrums guys. I know! Ive got them in the extended family from all those spectrums.

It's the fringes - and the fringes of a table cloth hang NWS&E

I've given up long ago batting away at their various tropes. Not worth it.

My local chemist just told me (today) he will be doing AZ vax's by the end of the week.

He apparently needed "training" and an approval.

Jesus wept. He's a compounding chemist with a PhD. Training, for a needle. Must be a tricky one indeed if a bloke like him needs training....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

My local chemist just told me (today) he will be doing AZ vax's by the end of the week.

He apparently needed "training" and an approval.

Jesus wept. He's a compounding chemist with a PhD. Training, for a needle. Must be a tricky one indeed if a bloke like him needs training....

---

Yep, it's laughable. It was exactly the same here, giving 'flu vaxes every day but needed training for covid. But if you could see how much time my wife wastes on accreditation, re-accreditation, writing and maintaining standard operating procedures, and the myriad of other nonsense they have to do, you'd cry, you really would. Like I said in an earlier post, Australia micro-manages everything to a ridiculous degree...

It's not just medicine though, it's everything. I read an official "government" (or whatever board/council sets the rules) thing about what electrical work you can DIY. It stated, and I quote (as near as I can remember!);

"Australia has very much more restrictive rules about electrical work than many other countries. There's a very good reason for this, electricity is dangerous and can kill you".

Hang on. The "very good reason" for Australia being more restrictive than other countries is that electricity is dangerous? But isn't it equally dangerous in those other countries?......

Or; I used to fly a drone around my farm, to check water troughs etc. after some surgery made me immobile for a while. Then they changed the rules, so I had to apply for an exemption from needing a license to fly my drone. Then, when they had my details, they changed again so I had to register my drone and get a license. It's the same thing, ever increasing licensing requirements that achieve nothing except keeping a bunch of paper-pushers in a job....

Same thing with farm chemicals. Same thing with 'roo culling (sorry if this is offensive to anyone). Every time the license needs renewing the process is more onerous and the new license lasts a shorter time. And (back to governments stupidly believing people will do the right thing!) every time they make the requirements more onerous, fewer people bother following the rules! It's completely counter-productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

It's not just medicine though, it's everything. I read an official "government" (or whatever board/council sets the rules) thing about what electrical work you can DIY. It stated, and I quote (as near as I can remember!);

---

Have you seen the current training programs for someone to hold a stop/go sign these days??? Wow!

Money is good though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bendigo Bob

...or left wing anti-vaxxer? Or non-Christian nutter?

They come from all spectrums guys? ...

---

Local teenager summed it up best. "He's an AAS" - pronounced "***". Sounds like a word you are not allowed to use on the Forum.


AAS = arrogant and stupid.

I was chatting to my GP while getting some scripts about things in general and he gave me an example of a new drug ruling brought in by some bureaucrat in Canberra.
Its for Nexium - a common drug for gastric reflux. It’s available in 20mg and 40mg doses. You can buy 20mg over the counter but it’s twice the price of that on prescription. You can get 5 repeats for the 20mg on the script.
40mg is quite a common dose but now the doctor has to ring Canberra to get a release number AND they can’t get repeats so every month a patient has to come in, pay a consultation fee, the doctor has to ring Canberra and then writes a script. He said the guys in Canberra taking the phone calls are spewing.
Also a drug used to treat one type of cancer is subsidised and costs $50 a month but take the same drug for another type of cancer and it costs $70000 a year?

Damn this lockdown - gives one too much time to mull over things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

Damn this lockdown - gives one too much time to mull over things.

---

The medical system does that kind of mucking about all the time. It's supposedly to save money, but it is decreed by people who don't seem to understand how things work. For example, the diabetes registration now lasts for only 6 months (?) before the patient has to see a doctor and get a new form signed. I'd bet that if you totalled the cost of all the patients seeing the doctor twice as frequently just to get a form signed, it would cost far far more than the money that might be wasted by a small number of people who (apparently) recover from diabetes and therefore didn't need blood sugar testing consumables but still get them....

The prescription vs over the counter pricing is also fun, and it gets better. The discount pharmacies advertise "cheap" prescriptions. What they often do, in fact, is to supply the product as a private script, so the customer pays the over the counter price rather than the PBS price. Because some drugs are quite cheap, this does sometimes give a lower price..... but..... the private script price doesn't count towards the patients "safety net", so whilst the individual price is cheaper, for those people who take a lot of medication they never hit the safety net limit. That means they pay that lower price all year, rather than getting it for free once they've hit the safety net. Of course the cheap pharmacies don't tell people this! We've had some very angry people who, towards the end of the year, suddenly realise that their total medication bill is far higher because they "saved" a few cents on some scripts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

The prescription vs over the counter pricing is also fun, and it gets better. The discount pharmacies advertise "cheap" prescriptions. What they often do, in fact, is to supply the product as a private script, so the customer pays the over the counter price rather than the PBS price. Because some drugs are quite cheap, this does sometimes give a lower price..... but..... the private script price doesn't count towards the patients "safety net", so whilst the individual price is cheaper, for those people who take a lot of medication they never hit the safety net limit. That means they pay that lower price all year, rather than getting it for free once they've hit the safety net. Of course the cheap pharmacies don't tell people this! We've had some very angry people who, towards the end of the year, suddenly realise that their total medication bill is far higher because they "saved" a few cents on some scripts!

---

Warb, you may be able to answer this. Do you mean the pharmacies who offer the $6.60 scripts that pensioners and us DVA Gold Card holders are entitled to at $5.60? I thought that these still count towards the safety net but at the cheaper price meaning you still hit the safety net when you have spent the same amount. I go to a chemist who charges me the $6.60 so that I hit the safety net earlier than if he gave me the $1 per script discount that others do. Once I hit the safety net my scripts are free for the rest of the year and so are my partner's. My annual expenditure on scripts is the same whichever way I go but by not getting the discount, my partner's full price scripts become free earlier in the year.

Have I got this right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Warb, you may be able to answer this.

---

I believe there are various different approaches, but I want to make sure of the details before I answer! My wife is in a video conference at the moment, if I'm still awake when she gets out I'll ask her (otherwise tomorrow morning!) and let you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

The medical system does that kind of mucking about all the time. It's supposedly to save money, but it is decreed by people who don't seem to understand how things work. For example, the diabetes registration now lasts for only 6 months (?) before the patient has to see a doctor and get a new form signed. I'd bet that if you totalled the cost of all the patients seeing the doctor twice as frequently just to get a form signed, it would cost far far more than the money that might be wasted by a small number of people who (apparently) recover from diabetes and therefore didn't need blood sugar testing consumables but still get them....

---

I'm not so sure about that.

I seem to recall that the AMA's lobbyists* had a dust up with the pharmacy guild's lobbyists around the time Turnbull was toppled.
The pharmacy guild's lobbyists wanted to make medicines "cheaper" overall by doubling the number of repeats allowed on each script. The AMA's lobbyists didn't want a bare of that as it would mean that doctors only saw the "cash cow" half as frequently. Guess who prevailed?

My guess is that the "diabetes registration only lasts 6 months" is an outcome of that lobbying campaign around the number of repeats permitted on a script. More Medicare income to the quacks and screw the patient.
It certainly won't be about "saving money" for either the patient or the Commonwealth ...







* elsewhere I've seen "lobbying" described as large scale institutionalised bribery.
Little wonder there's no Federal anticorruption commission

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Warb, you may be able to answer this.....

---

OK, this might get complicated!

All PBS listed medications have a government defined/agreed price. For a PBS script, that price is what the patient pays (the co-payment), however the price is also subject to a co-payment cap. The cap is $41.30 for "ordinary" patients, or $6.60 for pensioners. So, using metformin as an example, the agreed price is about $20, and that is what a patient pays, but a pensioner only pays $6.60 due to the pensioner co-payment cap. If the medication in question had an agreed price of $100, the normal patient would pay $41.30 whilst the pensioner would pay $6.60. All of these payments count towards the safety net.

With me so far?

In order allow some competition, pharmacies requested the ability to reduce that $6.60 pensioner co-payment (out of their own pocket/profit, as it were) and it was decided (the industry is government regulated) that they should be allowed to give a $1 discount on that co-payment. That's the reduction from $6.50 to $5.60.

The "safety net" is reached when the patients family (it is family, not individually based) spends a certain amount in a (calendar, I believe) year. The amount is roughly $1300 for a normal patient, $300odd for a pensioner (these numbers are from memory, pre-coffee and subject to early morning inaccuracy!). When the patient has spent that amount, the safety net kicks in and subsequent scripts are free for the remainder of the year. All the co-payments discussed above, $6.60, $5.60, and the "up to $41.30" count towards the safety net.

The added complexity is that the government agreed price does not always reflect the actual price of the medication. So for example, the metformin I mentioned above has an agreed price of $20ish, but is actually dirt cheap, costing only a few dollars, but under the PBS, the price is $20. So the option for the pharmacy is to supply the product as a "private script". Private scripts normally cover medications that aren't listed on the PBS, and are basically a way for doctors to supply medications that are outside the PBS system. So a pharmacist can in fact dispense a script as "private", and thus outside the PBS rules. This means that a dirt cheap drug like metformin could be supplied at a dirt cheap price, but would not count towards the safety net. Depending on how much medication a patient and their family takes, this might produce a saving. However it also risks them missing the safety net, which might means over the course of the year they spend more, not less! The difficulties arise, of course, when the pharmacy neglect to explain all this, the patients take the "instant savings" and then halfway through the year start to wonder why they're still paying for their medications....

Some extra notes! There are a couple of other components to the price that muddy the waters still further (of course there are, this is Australia!). There is a small dispensing fee wrapped up in the pricing, and also sometimes a brand premium if there is a cheaper generic product that the government would prefer you to have. Additionally, some medications are in fact cheaper to buy over the counter (Panadol etc.) though I'd guess most doctors wouldn't bother writing a script for them. Also Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders all get the pensioner prices, or free if they are themselves pensioners. Lastly, there has been some discussion on whether the $1 discount on the co-payment is in fact a good thing, and talk of it being dropped. The bottom line is that all PBS pricing is regulated, whilst dispensing things as private removes the (price) regulations but also the safety net.

As one final point, seeing as we are talking about community spirit and acting for the common good. The PBS is massively expensive, and it's budget is constantly increasing. Whilst it certainly benefits the pharmacy for people to get their medications, as a tax payer it is worth remembering that unused medications still cost the government money, and they get that money by charging income tax. If you (generic "you"!) don't need the medication, don't get it! The pharmacy regularly see's bucket loads of medications being brought back by relatives of old people who have died. They sometimes have hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of medications, yet they have still had their latest script for the same meds dispensed just days previously. We also see people getting scripts that they have no intention of taking, or things like antibiotic repeats (written by the doctor "in case you need them") when they have already recovered. They get them "just in case they might need them in the future" when they self diagnose something entirely different (risky in itself!). Whilst it's free for them, it still contributes to our tax bills!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

I'm not so sure about that.

I seem to recall that the AMA's lobbyists* had a dust up with the pharmacy guild's lobbyists around the time Turnbull was toppled.
The pharmacy guild's lobbyists wanted to make medicines "cheaper" overall by doubling the number of repeats allowed on each script. The AMA's lobbyists didn't want a bare of that as it would mean that doctors only saw the "cash cow" half as frequently. Guess who prevailed?

---

I have a so called "diabetes check up" with my GP once a year but whenever I need meds for any of my "conditions" I just email my GP and he write me up prescription and next time I'm driving past his practice I stop in and pick them up. Maybe thats because I see him so often for other stuff?

The solution to all these medication problems is to rethink and raise our consciousness levels and restructure society.
What I mean is that we are all healthy beings until we get it wrong.
Nature has all solutions for our wellbeing. If we eat natural locally grown foods in season our health will be maintained.
We can enjoy a long healthy life without many ailments.
Processed foods, frozen and transported foods are not healthy. Grow our own or use community gardens for health foods and use the local farming community.
Restructure housing so we are in smaller communities looking after each other, socially, mentally and physical wellbeing.
Financial reset worldwide back to precious metals backed currencies. No Fiat currencies printing money at will causing inflation. This will stabilise housing costs and take pressure off debt and income earning, allowing time for families to spend precious time together. with reduced working hours.
Off the couch getting exercise as a daily practice.
We would easily be able to counteract physically any pandemic because of our better health and avoid any restrictions and the need for vaccines.
This is a brief summary which could invite much more discussion and create controversy. However the principles are sound and can be easily verified with research and an understanding of the alternatives to which our current society operate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

I have a so called "diabetes check up" with my GP once a year but whenever I need meds for any of my "conditions" I just email my GP and he write me up prescription and next time I'm driving past his practice I stop in and pick them up. Maybe thats because I see him so often for other stuff?

---

One of the most common-sense things to come out of Covid is the Telehealth appointments. Bob, your doctor is probably claiming an appointment fee from Medicare when he writes you up a script under the relaxed arrangements we are currently benefiting from.

If all I need from my doctor is new scripts or regular referrals I make a telehealth appointment and instead of going and sitting in the doctors waiting room for an hour and a half breathing in whatever diseases other patients might be breathing out, I sit at home and she calls me. She emails the scripts to the Pharmacist, who loads them onto the App and I order over the App. When I get a message telling me the scripts I ordered are ready to collect I go in and out of the pharmacy within two minutes. She also emails referrals to the relevant practitioners. Why haven't we been doing this forever? It just makes sense. I only need to go and physically see the doctor if I have a new condition, or if she needs to review me, like maybe once a year. Doctors still get paid, Pharmacists still get paid. I get the medications and treatment I need. If I am in doubt or the doctor is in doubt I can be called in to the surgery for a face-to-face consultation.

Why does it take COVID to bring in reforms such as this? It's like working form home. After a year and a half, companies are realizing that they have not lost control of their employees and they are not paying for office space. Employees are happier with the "short commute" form the bedroom to the spare bedroom. Jools is not catching filthy diseases on the train and bringing them home to me. If it were not for the deaths and suffering, COVID could have been the greatest reformer of society ever.

I tried to do a Telehealth for my dentist and they wouldn't let me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

It's like working form home. After a year and a half, companies are realizing that they have not lost control of their employees and they are not paying for office space. Employees are happier with the "short commute" form the bedroom to the spare bedroom. Jools is not catching filthy diseases on the train and bringing them home to me. If it were not for the deaths and suffering, COVID could have been the greatest reformer of society ever.

---

This I disagree with. It is an unfortunate fact that the human species is inherently lazy and selfish. There are people who struggle to be better, but the majority don't, or at least may try to fool others (and perhaps themselves) but deep down are doing what's best for them. Working from home is an example of something that is too easy to abuse for most people to resist - that's why Netflix were asked to reduce video quality to save bandwidth when so many were "working from home". Unless you are a movie critic, why are you watching Netflix?

One of the reasons that I'm so cynical about this is that big pharma is a high-pay employer and therefore (in some situations) create a "luxury" work environment. 20 years ago I was involved with two different big pharma "work from home" situations. One was in the US, and it was largely accepted that "working from home today" simply meant a day off, but was genuinely part of the company policy - "they" believed that people were actually working. The second situation was just before the internet became ubiquitous, and I was involved with installing network links to people's houses so they could "work from home" using the companies network (no internet at home in those days). We monitored the use of those network links and the usage of the laptops we supplied - not secretly but we didn't shout about it either - it was (pharma, remember) in spirit a "blind study". Guess what. Almost nobody used either the laptops or the network links when they were "working from home". Sometimes people would log in for half an hour in the morning to check their email, but that was about it. The project was canned.

Now it must also be remembered that things have changed since then. A friend of mine who was working for a large IT company told me, a couple of years ago, that his staff (by company policy) got free use of their phones all day, to do whatever they wanted (not work related!), and a raft of other non-productive measures had been taken for "employee welfare" reasons. As a result, the output had dropped to almost nothing, he had twice as many staff producing half as much output, and he was just about to call it quits because he was over it. He was unable to keep his customers happy because his staff did nothing, and that (apparently) was completely acceptable to the company as long as the staff were happy. So perhaps if that is a true reflection on the modern workplace then working from home is no great loss?!

The GP will also do referral renewals direct to my 3 specialists without any physical appointment. This Gp is very popular. It not unusual to have an official wait time of 10 business days for an appointment but I usually keep him updated by email about any developments any let him decide if I should go see him and if required he usually sees me within a day or so. For my latest left ankle situation I have seen him once and after that I must have sent him at least a dozen email updates. He’s subsequently referred me for 3 scans. Ankle is still rubbish despite any meds we’ve thrown at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

This I disagree with. It is an unfortunate fact that the human species is inherently lazy and selfish. There are people who struggle to be better, but the majority don't, or at least may try to fool others (and perhaps themselves) but deep down are doing what's best for them. Working from home is an example of something that is too easy to abuse for most people to resist - that's why Netflix were asked to reduce video quality to save bandwidth when so many were "working from home". Unless you are a movie critic, why are you watching Netflix?

---

It is not the people working from home that are the big users of Netflix etc. It is all the others who can't go out and clog up the supermarkets and shopping centres or going to school/uni. Their bandwith usage was leaving very little bandwidth out of the total available on the internet for the work from home people to make use of. For example, we are on a 250mb/sec plan and when I do a speedtest through the day I generally get somewhere between 20 and 50 mb/sec. It is just enough for Jools to work from home and a little bit left for me to browse the web or maybe the music in the shed.

For most people working from home now, they log into the work network over the internet and their supervisors have many ways to monitor their activities. They really do WORK from home. Supervision could be via the PC camera/microphone, screen monitoring or monitoring their work queue and key stroke frequency. Others may be taking phone calls redirected through their link with the work network. The supervisor would know when they are logged in to take calls and if they are actually on a call. It is possible these days for the supervisor to micro-manage the worker even more closely than if they were actually in the office, and the supervisor could be doing it from their own spare bedroom. Not only can they be monitored, a recording can be made of the worker's activities for use to defend illegal dismissal charges.

The company my son-in-law works for are now saving $25 million per year in office space leasing costs and have said that they will NEVER bring their "desk workforce" back to the office. Times have changed.

Edited to add: I had also meant to say that reducing the resolution on Netflix would also help in the cases where there was someone working from home while other members of the household such as children were home from school watching netflix. There might still be people watching netflix while working form home but they would also have to keep their productivity up for the other reasons I mentioned above.

Working from home, if you've the job for it, is a fabulous innovation. It goes directly to what MichaelGT was saying.

For @MichaelGT's post above (#133), I completely agree with what you are saying, except that I feel that frozen food is a fantastic resource and reduces food waste (which is a scourge given poverty and hunger). I personally feel sugar and processed white flour are pure evil. Tasty, but cancer-causing evil.


I also feel our society has become a "cult of being busy" and work is seen as a virtue. I've disagreed with the virtues of endless pointless toil for the sake of being busy.

I'd heavily wager that if we interviewed old men on their deathbeds about their greatest regrets in life "working more" would NOT be one of them.... being with the family, having relaxed pleasurable time with friends and companions and actually seeing their kids grow up would be #1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

For most people working from home now, they log into the work network over the internet and their supervisors have many ways to monitor their activities. They really do WORK from home. Supervision could be via the PC camera/microphone, screen monitoring or monitoring their work queue and key stroke frequency. Others may be taking phone calls redirected through their link with the work network.

---

I suspect it varies with what sort of work is being done. One of my nieces works for a bank, and when the first "work from home" push happened she was able to work from home where I could see what she was doing, just by chance. Because her job, at that time, was telephone based, it was exactly as you say. She had a VPN to the bank network, all voice and data went through that VPN and therefore she "could" be monitored closely. I honestly have no idea whether such monitoring actually happens, or in fact is "legal" - these days almost anything can be seen as an invasion of privacy, I'm not sure that monitoring by camera would survive a good lawyer! In any case, she did seem to take calls, but I also noticed a fair number of breaks to get coffee. On the other hand, I suspect that (given what my friend told me about the IT company in the UK) she probably didn't do too much more when located in an office!

For such jobs as hers it's quite easy to monitor activity, but much harder for other jobs that don't revolve around voice or keyboard time. But that has always been the case. Years ago I ran a consultancy company and had some programmers that worked from home. It was interesting watching their working habits. I had one guy who was almost nocturnal, all his work, all his access to the systems, was after midnight. He did a good job so it wasn't a problem, but had his job involved any significant communication with customer or other staff it would not have been tolerable!

Overall I do agree that things have changed, but I also suspect that many people will still do as little as they can get away with, and working from home plays directly to that failing. I guess we will learn in time whether the savings in reduced office space do indeed outweigh any reduction in output (if such reductions actually happen!). Of course, given the constant decline in customer service provided by many large companies, the attitude may be "it really doesn't matter as long as it saves money".....*

*On Monday I spent over 4 hours trying to get a replacement VOIP phone from Telstra. The phone was dropped, so physically damaged and now works sporadically. It is one of those situation where Telstra provide the hardware and state that non-Telstra hardware may not work and isn't supported, so I can't just get something else. After spending nearly 30 minutes trawling through Telstra's web site and failing to find anything even remotely applicable (I can buy any number of mobile phones, but nothing else!), I decided to call their business "support" service. The first attempt to call phone support involved being on hold for 15 minutes and then the call being dropped. The second attempt involved 20 minutes on hold, followed by a conversation with someone who was very hard to understand, who kept having to put me on hold whilst he checked things with someone else, and finally (40 minutes later) told me that my local Telstra shop would be able to supply the new hardware. He was unable to help any further.... So I called the Telstra shop. They laughed and said "not a hope in hell". Next I tried the online "chat" system. This involves typing messages to someone who is clearly dealing with about 30 other chat sessions at the same time, so there is a 5 to 10 minute delay between typing and getting a response. Firstly I had to identify myself, by providing details that nobody, NOBODY, would ever know. So I had to contact "the office" and get those things emailed to me. So 40 or so minutes in, and I was now apparently authorised! Another hour or more of "ten minute lag" chat responses, during which I had to find out what hardware Telstra had supplied, because apparently they don't record such trivia, and finally a promise to post me out a replacement. "Is there anything else I can help you with today"? Damn it Warb, why didn't you quit?! Stupidly I asked if there was an online portal where I could just order the hardware from Telstra. He gave me a link to telstra.com and said "they're on there". No, no they're not, If they were I wouldn't have needed to call you. "Oh, then try your local Telstra Business Centre, here's a link to tell you where it is". Used the link, the answer is "Broadmeadow, Newcastle". 280km away, in a lockdown. Really? "Oh, well you could phone them..." OK, well thanks anyway!

I later got an email saying the order for my part was being processed. Hurrah........ The following morning I got an email saying it was out of stock, and they would email me again when it was available to despatch - no ETA, nothing. I am told (not by Telstra) that one Telstra Business Store has had this exact part on backorder for weeks, and has no hope of ever seeing it.

I eventually resorted to buying a dubious "used" one from eBay, and hopefully I can cobble it together to make it work long enough that I can move away from Telstra to a provider who at least pretend to care about their customers.

Sorry for the rant! However I guess this is relevant in two ways. Firstly it goes to my comment about "saving money" being far more important than actually working, or keeping your customers happy. Secondly, and you've probably seen this coming, THIS IS THE PHONE IN THE PHARMACY, SO THEY CAN'T RELIABLY COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO BOOK COVID SHOTS!!!