Back in lockdown again.

[ben475]

Watch out for the new doomsday variant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLH5rAK ... L&index=68

[sandef]

Watch out for the new doomsday variant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLH5rAK ... L&index=68

There are constantly new variants emerging whether they become dominant depends on how they mutate

[Truedogz]

Watch out for the new doomsday variant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLH5rAK ... L&index=68

That is a pretty appalling video! I suppose anything to sell news.

I'll make three points:

1. The rate of mutation is not a measure of virulence. The nature of the changes determines that;

2. A faster rate of mutation is influenced by the environment the genetic sequence is in plus the sequence itself - some sequences are more vulnerable. The mutations may have accumulated quickly in a small number of individuals, then slowed - a likely scenario as in over three months it has been trackable;

3. The rate of increase of a new strain is partially determined by virulence but also by what it is competing against. Rate of increase is not an absolute measure of virulence. From memory South Africa has has been dominated by the alpha and beta strains of the virus. Delta is a recent arrival and as expected is increasing. So against alpha and beta the 'new' strain (been known since at least May by memory) may well be more virulent, not necessarily against Delta.

As others are indicating there are much bigger issues in front of us now to worry about.

[Truedogz]

I can imagine the shitfight that the hospitals will face when it comes time to open up the country.

This is the sort of shitfight they will face.

I shouldn't be doing this but people have asked for clarification so ok.

I need to state this is NOT the Doherty modelling. It comes from another which is far less sophisticated but where I can replicate some of what they have done.

I have uploaded parameters relevant to Victoria including age distribution, susceptibility to illness and death by age, 80% vaccination with about 1/3 of those open to 'breakthrough infection' helping spread covid etc etc plus some of the parameters used by Doherty. It can't replicate some interventions or so called TTIQ so this is akin to their worst case scenario. I have done an initial run with 200 at the start actively spreading the virus plus at the start 50 a day arriving from elsewhere.

The first chart shows the situation in Victoria after the first 6 months and gives the status at that time:

The second chart gives an instantaneous snapshot. ICU numbers peak on day 196 with 62 people in ICU:

The third chart is a cumulative summary after 180 days. This is equivalent to the data presented by Doherty but for Victoria:

I have also done a sim with initially several thousand active cases in the Victorian community plus hundreds arriving each day. You can see that the primary effect is to drag the peak earlier by a month with a some increase in peak ICU cases. At about 80% vaccination the system is resistant to disturbance:

Higher initial infections and incursions has an impact on cumulative results after 180 days, notably the deaths go from 272 to 372. The cause of this are that deaths that would have occurred after 180 days have been brought forward. There are also some other factors at work but these are less significant:

Based on Victorian data for critical beds, icu, etc the system will be stretched, particularly for those with serious illness bot not so much for critical cases. It wont be great but according to our health leaders is manageable. This is where other measures apart from vaccination will help reduce the pressure.

I'll repeat this is indicate of what might happen not what will happen. With good TTIQ deaths etc can be reduced. But I reckon it is a good advertisement for the need of people to get vaccinated.

[happyfriggincamper]

I disagree, at some point provided that everyone has had a chance to be fully vaccinated then we have to end lockdown. It becomes a personal choice to be or not to be vaccinated. As it should be. The chance of hospitals being overwhelmed is probably the biggest issue and one that I don’t have an answer for. I suspect this time next year a lot of anti vaxxers will change their minds anyway which should ease the strain on hospitals.

If you have been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and refuse (which is your right), the hospitals should have the right to prioritise vaccinated patients before you...simples

Should people promote going down the path of medical apartheid - in all fairness and for the health interests of the population and system this should not stop here and be extended to assessing situations where people have the option to make personal choices that can become a risk to being detrimental to their own health and burdening the healthcare system.

Those that don't exercise the minimum recommended amount, drink beyond the recommended intake, smoke, eat unhealthily, unbalanced BMI etc all contribute to taking up hospital beds (which could be avoided) that cost taxpayers and the state money. If these people were coerced to make better life choices no doubt we would see positive impacts to those in genuine need of health services and the cost to run them.

[Mattblack]

I disagree, at some point provided that everyone has had a chance to be fully vaccinated then we have to end lockdown. It becomes a personal choice to be or not to be vaccinated. As it should be. The chance of hospitals being overwhelmed is probably the biggest issue and one that I don’t have an answer for. I suspect this time next year a lot of anti vaxxers will change their minds anyway which should ease the strain on hospitals.

If you have been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and refuse (which is your right), the hospitals should have the right to prioritise vaccinated patients before you...simples

Should people promote going down the path of medical apartheid - in all fairness and for the health interests of the population and system this should not stop here and be extended to assessing situations where people have the option to make personal choices that can become a risk to being detrimental to their own health and burdening the healthcare system.

Those that don't exercise the minimum recommended amount, drink beyond the recommended intake, smoke, eat unhealthily, unbalanced BMI etc all contribute to taking up hospital beds (which could be avoided) that cost taxpayers and the state money. If these people were coerced to make better life choices no doubt we would see positive impacts to those in genuine need of health services and the cost to run them.

If I take my child to hospital, I'll go postal if they send me home because the beds are full of unvaccinated, fat, smoking, alcoholics...just saying

[4liters]

I disagree, at some point provided that everyone has had a chance to be fully vaccinated then we have to end lockdown. It becomes a personal choice to be or not to be vaccinated. As it should be. The chance of hospitals being overwhelmed is probably the biggest issue and one that I don’t have an answer for. I suspect this time next year a lot of anti vaxxers will change their minds anyway which should ease the strain on hospitals.

If you have been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and refuse (which is your right), the hospitals should have the right to prioritise vaccinated patients before you...simples

Should people promote going down the path of medical apartheid - in all fairness and for the health interests of the population and system this should not stop here and be extended to assessing situations where people have the option to make personal choices that can become a risk to being detrimental to their own health and burdening the healthcare system.

Those that don't exercise the minimum recommended amount, drink beyond the recommended intake, smoke, eat unhealthily, unbalanced BMI etc all contribute to taking up hospital beds (which could be avoided) that cost taxpayers and the state money. If these people were coerced to make better life choices no doubt we would see positive impacts to those in genuine need of health services and the cost to run them.

We already tax smokers and drinkers more to help recover some of the additional costs they impose on the health system, and as a form of coercion. There’s lots of debate around sugar and fat taxes too, and some countries have already implemented them.

So maybe the answer is to simply deny the Medicare rebate to unvaccinated people and use the money saved to build and staff more ICUs.

[Lightningx]

Another 3 weeks of lockdown. Bloody beautiful.

[happyfriggincamper]

I disagree, at some point provided that everyone has had a chance to be fully vaccinated then we have to end lockdown. It becomes a personal choice to be or not to be vaccinated. As it should be. The chance of hospitals being overwhelmed is probably the biggest issue and one that I don’t have an answer for. I suspect this time next year a lot of anti vaxxers will change their minds anyway which should ease the strain on hospitals.

If you have been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and refuse (which is your right), the hospitals should have the right to prioritise vaccinated patients before you...simples

Should people promote going down the path of medical apartheid - in all fairness and for the health interests of the population and system this should not stop here and be extended to assessing situations where people have the option to make personal choices that can become a risk to being detrimental to their own health and burdening the healthcare system.

Those that don't exercise the minimum recommended amount, drink beyond the recommended intake, smoke, eat unhealthily, unbalanced BMI etc all contribute to taking up hospital beds (which could be avoided) that cost taxpayers and the state money. If these people were coerced to make better life choices no doubt we would see positive impacts to those in genuine need of health services and the cost to run them.

If I take my child to hospital, I'll go postal if they send me home because the beds are full of unvaccinated, fat, smoking, alcoholics...just saying

Sorry I don't get your view on introducing medical apartheid rmeasures. Is it just limited to segregation relating to gene therapy vaccines for Covid?

Or you agree when we are talking holistically about personal choices people make and the impacts these can have on the health care system - that it's fair to also bring other personal life choices into consideration in order to ensure that the those who are in the most genuine need and have taken personal measures to maintain their health are prioritized over those that have made decisions that ultimately risk putting unnecessary stress on the system?

[cobby]

I disagree, at some point provided that everyone has had a chance to be fully vaccinated then we have to end lockdown. It becomes a personal choice to be or not to be vaccinated. As it should be. The chance of hospitals being overwhelmed is probably the biggest issue and one that I don’t have an answer for. I suspect this time next year a lot of anti vaxxers will change their minds anyway which should ease the strain on hospitals.

If you have been given the opportunity to get vaccinated and refuse (which is your right), the hospitals should have the right to prioritise vaccinated patients before you...simples

Should people promote going down the path of medical apartheid - in all fairness and for the health interests of the population and system this should not stop here and be extended to assessing situations where people have the option to make personal choices that can become a risk to being detrimental to their own health and burdening the healthcare system.

Those that don't exercise the minimum recommended amount, drink beyond the recommended intake, smoke, eat unhealthily, unbalanced BMI etc all contribute to taking up hospital beds (which could be avoided) that cost taxpayers and the state money. If these people were coerced to make better life choices no doubt we would see positive impacts to those in genuine need of health services and the cost to run them.

So maybe the answer is to simply deny the Medicare rebate to unvaccinated people and use the money saved to build and staff more ICUs.

Except you'd then have the high court held up with federal tax law debate regarding Medicare taxes and the right to take them from those excluded from using it. Its far different than being excluded from centrelink payments for one reason or another. Being excluded from Medicare is fine by me, I've used it less times in 25 years than I have fingers on 1 hand.