Someone's had a long lunch.....

These European countries with high vaccination rates also have a higher tolerance for cases, sickness and deaths. High cases in the UK at the moment, but with "only" just over 100 deaths per day on average, so they carry on. Time will tell how long that holds.
Not convinced Austalia is ready for this strategy.

I did here vaccines don't stop the spread of covid. I got my Pfizer jab and I feel fine. No effects what so ever. If it means more freedom I’m down to it. All this complaining and arguing is silly. Better if we keep moving forward. Australia will have to open up someday?

Sydney, Melbourne will and Auckland will be the most affected for NBL22. Sucks I’m a Melbourne member, but the NBL will probably start in January again. Covid isn’t as bad during our warm summers.

Vaccines are still the best bet to get back to something resembling normal. Plenty of evidence to show they greatly reduce serious symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths!

NZ is trying the elimination strategy while we try and get our vaccination numbers up.
Eventually we will need to learn to live with this as it doesn't appear to be leaving any time soon but vaccination is the way forward until we can develop some resistance and or immunity.

but the NBL will probably start in January again. Covid isn't as bad during our warm summers.

They have announced it will be 18th November.

Eventually we will need to learn to live with this as it doesn't appear to be leaving any time soon

NZ locked down on the news of one Cuzzy Bro having it and its still getting worse.

NBL changed its starting date last season. Wouldn't be surprised if the NBL had to move back their starting date with cases go wild. NSW had 1,116 cases today.

Unless the NBL focus playing games in Tasmania, Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for the first half of the season. Will have to wait till November to have a good idea what’s happening?

Whilst vaccination diminishes the capacity of the virus to spread, it still spreads even if you're vaccinated.

There’s a bit of a bell curve scenario - 60-80% effective in avoiding symptoms means people will be spreading without realising and visiting family etc. if they were symptomatic, they would isolate at a higher rate - that’s going to drive up spread and mystery cases until vaccination levels are high enough where it struggles to find non-vaccinated people to spread like wildfire.

That’s the difference between 60% vaccinated and 85-90%

I'd like too now how they are getting away with bringin in imports fir both NBL and WNBL, when people can’t get back here to see family this is when they should be banning imports and giving more opportunities to Australian players who have had to miss out with NBL1.

" when people can't get back here to see family"

Coming over for work and the economy is different to coming over to see family.

Whilst things suck in a pandemic, instead of sooking, use Zoom or Facebook video call or FaceTime.

If the NBL Australianised to that extent, it’d become a shit league that no where near enough people will follow, become unviable, wouldn’t be able to afford the top Aussies it has now and end up being the NBL1.

If you want that, just go watch NBL1. NBL caters to a different market then a bunch of subpar Aussies.

One "Cuzzy bro" quickly turned into 600+ community cases Lovebroker.

NSW Govt basically giving up trying to contain or get rid of virus and pushing for vaccinations being main strategy, will make it impossible for all other states to avoid the virus.

Given other states still have different strategy, borders will stay shut for a long time because this higher risk of spreading will cause other states to go backwards very fast. Other states will not open borders when NSW are ready and vaccinated like they are predicting over the next 5 weeks and why should they. There is no way a state Govt will put their residents at risk by allowing people from a known place where virus is not controlled free access to enter their state, particularly if their own vaccination rates aren't at same level. Even if vaccinated they can still carry and pass on the virus through out the state.

This is not good for any national sporting codes, including NBL which also includes NZ aswell. Unfortunately we are probably in for another very disjointed season

Serious question. What does it mean for players, especially imports if the season is pushed back a month or 2 and assumably the finish. Do they get paid extra during the wait.

It may mean the NBLPA has to set up another fund to tide players over, players struggling financially like Mitch McCarron.

One "Cuzzy bro" quickly turned into 600+ community cases Lovebroker.

Yes I know that, thats what I mean, NZ did the right thing to act immediately with just one case and still it ballooned out.

We should have, but availability is one thing, and there would've been no urgency from the public months ago. And not sure I trust Morrison to make a good case after botching every gimme of the last 1-2 years. Australia's passage through the earlier stages had everyone complacent. SA feels comparably low risk. My motivating factors several weeks ago were beating the inevitable queue/wait and being vaccinated in the event that international travel opened earlier than expected. Low friction online bookings and jab at Wayville didn't hurt. Cases and lockdown interstate would've prompted some movement since.

Pre-Delta, I was of the opinion that we should wait and see on vaccines, as the urgency wasn't there to justify rushing them through without adequate testing. The UK and US didn't have that luxury, they had to just go for it, but there was no reason for Australia to take that risk.

The NSW Delta outbreak changes the math on that significantly, but there's still no way we'd be in this mess if NSW had just locked down in the first place. If the people at the top take it seriously, the population will take it seriously.

Any hope of playing to full crowds this season, in Victoria, I think would be exceedingly optimistic!

We'll have thousands of cases a day by October the way it's looking, and I just can't see Andrews allowing capacity crowds- regardless of vaccination rates.

Most of last season was in an environment where COVID was successfully restrained, but this season we've got a situation where COVID is now here to stay, and the various Premiers might butt heads a bit and look to take different approaches.

So there's potential for this to get very messy. But let's hope common sense prevails, and there's at least free movement through Australia for players and fans, and at least some number of crowd allowed.

The NSW Delta outbreak changes the math on that significantly, but there's still no way we'd be in this mess if NSW had just locked down in the first place. If the people at the top take it seriously, the population will take it seriously.

Initially I wanted to fault Gladys for not hard locking down straight away, however Victoria, ACT and NZ locked down at the first sight of Delta, NZ in particular with one case and the flood gates still opened.

Again I am no expert but Delta changed the game where it looks like we have to give up zero infections and settle for thousands of them provided the hospitals can cope.

Victoria had cases in the double digits before locking down. Not sure what happened in NZ. And if NSW had kept theirs under control there wouldn't be as many cases slipping through to other states, which is what's really ballooned it.

#687 Agree that the vaccine reduces severity, but isnt that just for the vaccinated person?

I could be wrong but AFAIK if a vaccinated person (who the impact is less severe) passes virus onto an unvaccinated person, the unvaccinated person would have full impact (not less severe).

If this is true then anyone not vaccinated when everything opens will be in trouble... therefore if that is a large part of a state, the borders won't open until they are ready

I hope I am wrong

You can't compare what's going on in Victoria, NZ and Canberra to to the shit fight in NSW. NSW cases are far greater than all those states.

We are not.

The comparison is each state's handling at the beginning of their infections.

Whether soft lock down (Gladys) or hard lock down immediately (Jacynta) the numbers of Delta cases seem to grow either strategy.

However I can see QLD and WA had their own incidents and were able to recover.

What happened in NZ? I'm not familiar with that one.

Two hubs:

- WA
- TAS

I'm the last person who'd defend Gladys and co. believe me, but Delta or whatever variant is next is going to hit everywhere eventually. Unfortunately it took this current out break for any sort of serious vaccination push, and I have no doubt that if a snap lock down had happened immediately and we were back at zero cases, vaccination rates would be incredibly low until the next outbreak happened somewhere, somehow. I put the blame on the length of the lockdown on Gladys and co. not acting decisively, but there's plenty of blame to go around far and wide re: the overall vaccination rollout. We had a great chance to get ahead of it and failed miserably.

While not final, NBA is looking to impose quite different restrictions on unvaccinated players. Unvaccinated NBA players will sit in different sections during meals and travel by plane/bus. Unvaccinated will have to go into quarantine if they are in contact with a positive covid case, whereas vaccinated players will not have the same restriction. Unvaccinated players will get tested every game day and training, possibly twice on some days, whereas vaccinated players will only get tested if showing symptoms.

They are going to be pariahs.

In the NBL, if they can't travel to away games, why even bother giving them minutes during home games?

Good luck to any player that doesn't want to get vaccinated. More hassles, worse ultimate outcome for themselves as the side-effects of covid are almost certainly worse than the vaccine, and worse for others because the unvaccinated are likely to put more burden on the healthcare system and are more likely to spread covid. With a high R0 and vaccinated people being contagious, everyone will get covid eventually.

@ anon722;

Absolutely agree, it is. There haven't been AZ supply issues for awhile now, but still poor Vax rates for 40+ before delta hit due to all the conflicting opinions and advice from different states. The way the whole thing has been handled has been farcical, and that has come from ScoMo down.

I think everyone should have the right to choose whether they get the vaccine for COVID (or anything else for that matter), HOWEVER, I also feel that anyone who chooses not to get the vaccine (including NBA/L players), will need to be acutely aware of the consequences they face for not doing so.

As someone above mentioned, anyone who is unvaccinated, will effectively become a pariah in society. Workplaces will soon start either mandating vaccines or making it so it's effectively impossible to do the inherent requirements of your job, as you'll be excluded from meetings, certain work sites etc.

[Victoria had cases in the double digits before locking down. Not sure what happened in NZ.]

Victoria had zero cases (or maybe 1?) Then 5 cases. The lockdown straight away. Then 29!

NZ went harshest lockdown ever (no take away food!) After 1 case I'm pretty sure.

ACT also locked down after minimal cases.

Delta is more infectious. Between that and "lockdown fatigue", lockdowns simply don't work. NSW did let the "cat out of the bag" in a sense, but that cat would've got out of that bag sooner or later anyway.

(Victoria had controlled 2 previous Delta outbreaks in May and July but with hindsight now, that seems like good luck).

[As someone above mentioned, anyone who is unvaccinated, will effectively become a pariah in society.]

This is true, but it's not exactly an evidence based response.

International evidence shows vaccines are only 39-60% effective against catching Delta.

So if you're unvaxxed, you have double the risk of catching covid compared to the vaxxed.

Unvaxxed and vaxxed people have similar viral loads.

Now, if you're unvaxxed you have much higher chance of symptomatic disease. Which means much higher chance of being at home resting too.

Unvaxxed people aren't the main cause of the current outbreaks around the world. Delta is running rampant in places with high vax rates.

We are well past the stage of worrying about infection rates (globally). It's hospitalisation rates that's the key now. Everyone reading this will more likely than not get some strain of COVID in the not so distant future.

100% agree with that. Will have to live with it like the rest of the world who are going about their business like usual.

Vaccinations will only stop you getting more sick. Listening to Dwayne's world and now they’re saying that the AFL is encouraging people to get vaccinated.

NBL is considering the same message. Will have to pull through together so we can get back to what we love.

A few issues with these statements, LV:

"International evidence shows vaccines are only 39-60% effective against catching Delta.

So if you're unvaxxed, you have double the risk of catching covid compared to the vaxxed."

That is quite a big difference right there. But once you take into account the massively decreased risk of hospitalisations and an even greater decreased risk of deaths, vaccines are very effective against Delta.

"Unvaxxed and vaxxed people have similar viral loads."

Yes, but there is no evidence yet about whether that translates to a similar R0 for vaccinated vs unvaccinated. The likelihood is that the R0 of unvaccinated is significantly lower than the vaccinated because the increased amount of symptoms will provide more vectors of transmission.

"Now, if you're unvaxxed you have much higher chance of symptomatic disease. Which means much higher chance of being at home resting too."

That's a fair point. But also counter that against the decreased chances of contracting Delta for the vaccinated. You could also make a similar argument about staying home for those fewer vaccinated people that contract covid and show symptoms.

"Unvaxxed people aren't the main cause of the current outbreaks around the world. Delta is running rampant in places with high vax rates."

I'm uncomfortable with that statement. Look at places like India or Saigon for Delta outbreaks in unvaccinated populations, compared with mostly vaccinated places like Israel. Huge difference. Saigon is a disaster, even with late hard lockdowns, spreading far more than Israel with much less restrictions. Hospitalisations and deaths, it's night and day. Delta is spreading widely because it has a far higher R0. Even if vaccinated people couldn't spread Delta, you'd see significant outbreaks.

My opinion is that we can't get herd immunity, so the pressure of achieving that is gone. It's an individual decision to not get the vaccine. But those that choose to remain unvaccinated will assist in overloading the hospital system, affecting patients without covid too. It is likely to result in the government extending lockdowns too. Want to end lockdowns? Get vaccinated. The original idea of flattening the curve should apply here. Vaccines are the solution here; if not, lockdowns until there are enough vaccinated people whereby hospitals will not be overflowing disaster zones. 70% of the adult population, or about 55% of the entire population, is not good enough.

Some fair points there rjd (and I've had the first shot myself) but reality is the hospitalization risk for healthy people in their 20s and 30s is minimal. If those in their 20s and 30s don't get vaxxed, it won't cause the hospital system to be overwhelmed.

People in their 50's, 60's etc, obviously a different story.

Hospitalization risk doubles every 16 years.

So if you're 30, your 60 year old parents have 4 times your hospitalization risk. Your 90 something grandparents would have 16 times the hospitalization risk.

I'm not personally comfortable coercing healthy teenagers and 20 somethings to get the jab.

Reality is, long term safety is unknown. The clinical trials only look at certain things. For example, huge numbers of women have volunteered for a new study looking at effects on menstruation- as they've self reported changes following the vaccine- but this wasn't even noticed during the clinical trials as they weren't looking for it.

The FDA approval of the Pfizer vax was subject to ongoing reporting of THIRTEEN clinical trials by Pfizer- looking at things like Myocarditis, pregnancy outcomes- the last of these studies won't be reported to the FDA until December 2026.

So reality is, anyone who takes the vax (as I have) is voluntarily partaking in a worldwide experiment.

Yet, government are talking about (effectively) coercing healthy young people with low risk profiles from this virus, into taking part.

That's a bit dystopian for my liking.

Oh, and I'd add that thousands of the Pfizer control group have subsequently been vaxxed anyway, limiting the helpfulness of the Pfizer studies. Real world data is the best data we have, but regardless, we're still talking about a brand new medication using new technology that's never been successfully deployed in humans before (mRNA).

And final comment, I'm pragmatic on this.

Spread also an issue- healthy 20 somethings can still transmit.

If the data showed that the unvaxxed were 10 times more likely to catch and spread covid, then I'd say coercion was justified on the basis of the effect on other people.

But that's not what the data is showing at all.

It's also funny reading insecure anons who think that people discussing scientific issues is all just an effort to sound intelligent.

Btw, all fair points there, LV, especially on the point about young people not likely to be much of a burden on the healthcare system.

" International evidence shows vaccines are only 39-60% effective against catching Delta."

Effectiveness against Delta strain per Doherty Institute
Symptomatic infection: Pfizer 83% AZ 61%
Hospitalisation: Pfizer 87% AZ 86%
ICU admission: Pfizer 87% AZ 86%
Mortality: Pfizer 92% AZ 90%

Trust this assists.

Cheers rjd

KET, The 39% figure comes from a report by the Israel Ministry of Health, based on real world data- from the first country to vaccinate widely. Suggests immunity wanes.

But it sounds like studies are coming up with wildly different results.

I've read more about hospitalisations by age and vaccination status and now not so confident about young unvaccinated adults not putting much of a burden on the hospital system if many remain unvaccinated. A higher proportion of young adults appear affected by Delta. Although I suspect the increase in the proportion of young adults hospitalised may be at least in part be due to more older age groups receiving the vaccine. Fellow google doctors, research it.

I understand the argument that mRNA is a new technology and we don't know if there will be long-term side-effects of it, but the same can be said for covid. The difference is that only one option is actually a functional virus that infects many sites around the body. The mRNA vaccine obviously doesn't involve any active viral component, while the mRNA doesn't interact with DNA. It just tricks the body to create a part of the spike protein that is a feature of the surface of the virus to allow the immune system to become familiar with it. As for longer term effects, is there anything that has shown concern beyond a month or two? Meanwhile, if bracing for impact with the actual covid virus, a Norwegian study has about 50% of 16-30 years old who contracted covid but didn't require hospital treatment had symptoms that persisted at least 6 months. A UK study has 17% of those aged 19-29 hospitalised suffered organ damage. Long covid needs to come into the calculations.

Just to be a bit more clear, that's 17% of the '19-29 age group that were hospitalised' experienced organ damage.

The devil is often in the detail with studies like those. To draw meaningful conclusions, you need to consider - where did they draw the study participants from?

An Australian study on long COVID followed long term outcomes of 3,000 people, being 95% of *all* cases in NSW registered between Jan and May 2020. That's an impressive study group with a wide frame of reference.

Less than 5% of people were still experiencing symptoms after 3 months. And those who did were typically older and with pre existing conditions. This suggests the proportion of healthy young people with "long COVID" will be *significantly less than* 5% of all those who report a positive case. Which is only a subset of all who contract coronavirus. (Given many are asymptomatic, or people who don’t bother getting tested). So you could be talking 1 or 2% of young people who contract COVID end up with “long COVID”.

And on Delta, it's infecting young people because it’s more infectious. Older people were vaccinated first everywhere in the world, so when this highly contagious new strain emerged in populations with wide vaccinations amongst the aged, the logical outcome was younger people comprising a higher proportion of cases.

But I’m not aware of anything showing that it’s actually more dangerous to young people once they catch it.

Strange a 38 year-old woman from Sydney died from covid just one day contracting it. She must of had other health issues. Sad when your a mother of 4 children. :(

[As for longer term effects, is there anything that has shown concern beyond a month or two?]

This is a really interesting question.

As mentioned earlier, the original clinical trials have been compromised by many of the control group subsequently being vaccinated. However, fortunately there's data being collected by governments everywhere, with millions of people being vaccinated in every sizeable first world country.

There was a sizeable Israeli study using over 800,000 people showing various side effects of mRna, some quite concerning eg myocarditis. However it concluded that myocarditis was significantly more common from a covid infection than from vaccination. (11 per 100,000 from covid vs 2.7 per 100,000 from vax).

Which is, of course comparing apples and oranges because you might not catch Covid for another 2 or 3 years if at all, by which time you would've had your 2 initial doses plus another ~3 boosters. So what are the risks from 5 vaccines compared to Covid? We don't really know because widespread boosters is a relatively new thing. It's only been in the past 15 or 20 years that significant numbers of people have had yearly flu boosters, and obviously they weren't mRNA.

Plus, it didn't account for age and sex differences. Young males aged up to ~30 have significantly more myocarditis risk than anyone else.

(As you rightly point out though, we don't know the long term effects of covid either).

At the other end of the spectrum, deaths are being reported in the adverse events registers. But when you're talking about older people with underlying health conditions, it's difficult to say on a *individual case by case basis* categorically whether a vaccine "caused" the death. How do you satisfy that burden of proof? I assume the population wide statistics aren't yet showing anything too worrying, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Time will tell and it will be fascinating examining all these types of questions over the long term.

" Suggests immunity wanes."

Yes, but we knew this already - due to antibody levels and variants mutating away from the original. It's always going to be a rolling battle, hence booster shots.

The immunity doesn’t wane instantly so you’re being misleading, it’s like saying last years flu vaccine isn’t effective this year, therefore this years vaccine isn’t effective statistically.

But also, Israel didn’t reach baseline levels of full vaccination, they are under 70%, let alone the 80/85% which is the actual figure that has always been necessary.

One shot only provides 33% against symptomatic response in Pfizer (the vaccine they’re using, but that stat is the same for AZ anyway).

Israel has a large number of people vaccinated with one shot, not fully vaccinated. You’re meant to get your second around 3-6 weeks ideally, they haven’t been doing that, in favour of getting more people with a single shot.

So you might as well rubbish your 39% stat.

Also - don’t see the point in people trying to read and understand journal articles. They’re too hard to genuinely understand - you can’t just rockup and “read science” and get a proper interpretation and understanding. It’s too easy to get a false sense of understanding and sprout of a wrong interpretation. You’re better off just asking a doctor.

Forget the “devil in the detail” - you don’t understand the detail so don’t go condescending others about it. That’s from a lawyer that grew up in a family of medical doctors, I know better than to pretend i understand that stuff. Just ask people who know what they’re talking about to simplify it for you.

If the argument is "you don't understand the scientific details so don't bother discussing it", then why did you just spend several paragraphs calling my comments "rubbish" and "condescending"? Why bother having this discussion at all?

Also KET, if you come from a family of Doctors then you should know they're exceedingly busy treating patients, and wouldn't necessarily be across the latest studies around vaccine effectiveness at all. (One of my mates is a Doctor in a major Melbourne hospital).

And its a complete furphy lumping all knowledge into the too hard basket.

Facts and logic are accessible to all.

When I write technical advice letters on complex matters, some of my clients have a good understanding of the issues, despite having no education in my field. As they should- if I do my job properly, explain my terms and write with clarity.

Of course it depends on the exact topics. Not everything is highly technical and same applies to some of the stuff being discussed in this thread.

" you don't understand the scientific details so don't bother discussing it"

I didn't say that or imply that. You really need to learn to read or stick away from bad faith arguments.

I said don’t go pasting articles that you’re misreading and using it to pretend you have faux understanding and then criticise people about “the devil in the detail".

You don’t understand the devil in the detail, so stop criticising others about it.

Having an opinion and a view is one thing, what you’re doing is another.

" and wouldn't necessarily be across the latest studies around vaccine effectiveness at all."

But you are? What kind of argument is that, seriously?

LV, I'll get to the core of the point here.

"International evidence shows vaccines are only 39-60% effective against catching Delta."

Vaccines are designed to protect the person when they are infected. That’s why I put helpful statistics about the effectiveness of the vaccines for when people are infected.

They aren’t designed to prevent infection. They do have an outcome associated with spreading - which is what you’re actually talking about - but it’s not the core function.

Where it does become a core function is what’s called herd immunity and that’s not reliant on the effectiveness of the vaccine, it’s reliant on the baseline number of people vaccinated.

So, you’ve used that broad figure in Israel, where they haven’t achieved anywhere near the baseline levels. In terms of fully vaccinated they are something like 22 on rankings.

I’ve provided you with helpful stats on the effectiveness of vaccines and you’ve responded that they’re not reliable and then used a completely different statistic and connected the two as if the three stats I’ve provided you are the same thing as the one you’ve provided.

You’ve muddied the water, and confused yourself and gone on to criticise about devil in the detail.

As I said, the dangers of reading a journal article and thinking you know more than you do and following it up by criticising others with a false sense of ego.

It’s a waste of time!

"False sense of ego"

Oh dear me, listen to the lawyer!

I didn't criticise anyone about the detail- I was merely suggesting rjd needed to be across some detail to draw conclusions about hospitalization risk and long covid in young people.

On effectiveness of vaccines against spread, its now widely recognised that herd immunity is impossible, and that "breakthrough infections" are happening much more than was anticipated several months ago. It's a misnomer really, given the thousands upon thousands of vaccinated people catching and spreading covid in UK, Israel, USA etc.

[" and wouldn't necessarily be across the latest studies around vaccine effectiveness at all."

But you are? What kind of argument is that, seriously?]

It was a response to your comment that
"you're better off just asking a doctor".

For a lawyer, you could certainly do much better at following a line of argument.

Oh dear me, listen to the lawyer!

Didn't say that - LV your reading comprehension is shocking when you don’t want to read things properly.

And you need to start making your points in good faith instead of intentionally misreading people and pisstaking after which is exactly what you did there.

Lawyers are known for understanding detail, when they are so used to delving in it, they know how easy it is for people to think they’re across something when they really aren’t. Read: that’s you now.

Maybe some people understand the concept of "you don’t know what you don’t know".

Where does that play now? You’re playing internet doctor and when someone says that doesn’t replace - you know - actual expertise, you pull the elitist card (which would be more effective if the person is claiming to have expertise opposed to calling out your lack of)

You need a big warning symbol on your posts which say “unsubstantiated opinion with a heavy dose of ego”.

Because you’re not just chucking your opinion in - which would be absolutely fair on a forum.

You’re doing this:

I didn't criticise anyone about the detail- I was merely suggesting rjd needed to be across some detail to draw conclusions about hospitalization risk and long covid in young people.

That is 1) criticising on detail; 2) you’re not across the details, you’re just pretending you are; 3) the risk you haven’t even used a helpful statistic, you used risk of catching, not risk of an infection being symptomatic, hospitalisation, mortality.

You know, the ones I posted for you that are widely available and broadly agreed for now and have no baring on the stat you pulled out.

You then argued peripherally about hospital capacity. Your argument is a messy slippery slope that muddies the water.

Argue against #1 by providing a completely unrelated point #2. I tried to bring you back to the core point by providing stats that were actually relevant for you.

On effectiveness of vaccines against spread, its now widely recognised that herd immunity is impossible

You’re not reading - it helps to read before you respond.
I’m not arguing about herd immunity and whether it can be achieved.

You were talking about risk of catching, I said that relates mostly to the amount of people vaccinated, not the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Vaccines for the most part are based on protecting people for when they get infected. Not preventing infection in the first place.

Does it provide an element of prevention? A little - but the correlation for preventing infection is about the baseline numbers of people vaccinated. Otherwise called colloquially as “herd immunity”.

You linked that with symptomatic response, hospitalisation. They don’t link like that from an effectiveness stand point. Ie, your 39% figure doesn’t negate the ~85% effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation.

Ive been trying to get you understand that point. You’re being misleading to people on here and then calling people out about not being “properly across the details”.

You also criticised veracity vs real world scenario, but 1) effectiveness hasn’t been studied beyond an antibodies level all that much; and 2) your stat was on infection not effectiveness; and 3) the results you’ve come up with are based on a number well below the baseline being vaccinated, so the stat isn’t helpful in drawing the conclusion you’ve been drawing.

So your stat is “low number of people are fully vaccinated means lots of people get infected”.

The answer? No shit Sherlock. As I’ve posted before, the affect is a wild fire where those vaccinated and not symptomatic spread it and those not fully vaccinated get sick and hospitalised and it can’t be traced easily therefore hard to control.

Until you achieve baseline numbers, that will occur. That has been made clear day after day after day.

and that "breakthrough infections" are happening much more than was anticipated several months ago. It's a misnomer really, given the thousands upon thousands of vaccinated people catching and spreading covid in UK, Israel, USA etc.

Don’t say misnomer - it’s not one and if it was you wouldn’t be in a place of knowledge to know it. You can’t say “herd immunity is impossible” as proven by countries that never achieved herd immunity levels of vaccination. You know, as I already told you that Israel’s levels aren’t there.

Is it possible to vaccinate faster than strains mutate? We don’t know - maybe not likely.

Which leads me to this wonderfully accurate post:

It's often better to know nothing than to know just enough to be dangerous & arrogant.

Usually there are basic, broadly agreed aspects by the relevant expert community. Some people want to go to the knitty gritty like LV has and decided to then go “that’s inaccurate”.

What happens? A false sense of understanding and arrogance and stubbornly uses the information in a way that ends up departing in accuracy even further from the broadly agreed simplistic information.

So someone like RJD goes “hang on, what?” and LV reacts with a verbal spiel on criticism about legitimacy and detail as if he’s spent the last 10 years experienced in epidemiology and respiratory disease.

That’s very different to proffering an opinion.

" It was a response to your comment that
"you're better off just asking a doctor".

For a lawyer, you could certainly do much better at following a line of argument."

But you're acting like you do. The fact you’re not means you are in no position to make that point.

I understand what you’re arguing.

I’m saying it’s a shit argument and you’re a hypocrite.

Ha.

Dear me.

They should replace the old saying "never argue with an idiot- they'll drag you down to their level and beat you at your own game".

Replace idiot with lawyer.

Ironically you're arguing about topics you know little about, but doing your best to understand- and then berating me for doing the same.

Whilst completely misrepresenting a comment I made about "detail" even after its been clearly explained to you. My comment was related to a specific issue- one which you haven't even responded to. And then you accuse me of arguing in "bad faith"!!!!

The sad thing is you're actually being serious, too.

Take a deep breath and a step back.

I hope you apply better comprehension skills and more aptly understand the opposing views in your professional career.

So we've got the LV classics here.

I make the point that as a lawyer to who deals with the devil in the detail in things, it becomes apparent how easy it is to think you understand things when you don’t. Especially if you’re delving into reading journal articles and studies when you’re a lay person.

You have decided to misinterpet that as "lawyer thinks his argument is better because he’s a lawyer".

Which leads to:

“ Replace idiot with lawyer.”

You’re a troll LV, simple as that. You should know better than to pull that stunt.

I say, it’s better to ask a doctor than to down the slippery path of reading articles and thinking you know the details.

You decided to misinterpret another clear point as being stifling opinion. Again, no reasonable person reads it that way.

Bad faith arguing like that achieves nothing apart form everyone knowing you’re a troll and people like RJD calling out your crap.

Then you’ve got and translated points with an argument that doesn’t make sense:

Linking vaccine effectiveness with infection rates - wrong - I’ve gone into depth why. You haven’t argued against it - you’ve just shot with troll points.

To make it clear again: vaccines are about preventing effects when infected. Vaccination rates are about preventing infection.

Capiche?

You said Israel US UK prove herd immunity levels are impossible.

They haven’t reached baseline levels of vaccination. You can’t draw that as proof of point.

Capiche?

Thanks for the fun - but I don’t think it helps anyone for you to be bullshit artist-ing and spreading faux doctor misinformation, even if it helps your massive trolling ego.

Yours sincerely,
Idiot Lawyer

Another thing that was misunderstood amidst KET's War-and-peace rant.

The comment about herd immunity being unattainable is not purely based on places where vaccination rates are lower than Australia's targets. It's scientific opinion which is also based on growing understanding of Delta's infectiousness and waning vaccine effectiveness against that strain.

Also, where does pragmatism fit in? How many countries in the world have 80% vaccination (look it up). If so, are the models around 85% or 90% vaccination even relevant for discussion? Not hugely. We live in the real world, not a theoretical model based on information that changes daily.

[You're a troll LV, simple as that]

And you're an arrogant know-it-all, who is guilty of some of the same things you've spent thousands of words in this thread accusing me of.

" And you're an arrogant know-it-all"

Did you miss the entire part of the argument about you pretending to know things you don't?

And that’s why you’re arguing because I said go talk to a doctor instead.

You know, the part where you were an arrogant pretend-know-it-all?

And now you’re being a Trump with “no u”.

Classic LV.

" Like there is comedy and then there is comedy GOLD."

But also danger that he's spreading misinformation. He’s making anti-vaxxors blush at this point.

[Did you miss the entire part of the argument about you pretending to know things you don't?]

Didn't stop you clearly misunderstanding what I was writing about "detail".

Start with "knowledge" of what's actually being said.

Lawyers! Ha. Ha. Ha.

" Lawyers! Ha. Ha. Ha"

Tall poppies syndrome. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Because you're so intent on criticising people when you argue and expecting people to take your supposed legitimate word - what do you do with yourself?

What experience can you rely on to provide veracity?

Because I know you’re not relying on basic information that’s plastered everywhere publicly like me - as you’re arguing against it.

LV - you’re getting as bad as the Perth trolls these days - cool your jets yeah?

#919 you're right

I think when you’re locked down for so long it frustrates when people spread nonsense like LV does :(

@923

Yep, it is getting as bad as the other forum that I frequently go to.

They should replace the old saying "never argue with an idiot- they'll drag you down to their level and beat you at your own game".

That doesn't make any sense.

The saying is that they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If they can beat you at your own game they can't be much of an idiot, can they?

Viruses contain RNA, rather than DNA, for the most part. Many viruses do therefore spontaneously mutate, as strands break and recombine, and if that results in a stronger or more virulent virus, then that strain begins to dominate. Darwins theories on natural selection actually work when it comes to viruses.

So yes, one can actually say that newer, more resistant, more virulent, more transmissible strains will continue to emerge and dominate. And yes, those strains will be the ones not as easily defeated by hand sanitiser and masks.

And yes, I think eventually we will see something similar to the flu-vaccine. A flu-vax is necessary every year, becuase there are always new strains emerging and spreading, so each year the vaccine is created for the most prevalent new strains. So after a couple of years, whilst you might still have antibodies, they're no use against the current flu.

There's also the fact than in the premature rush to normalise, the lockdowns are not as stringent, and adherence not as complete, as previously. There's an article somewhere, that rips apart Gladys' assertion that "NSW Lockdowns are the most stringent in the country."

Even with the current vaccine, as I understand it, it only limits the impact of the virus when you catch it. One study I saw said that the death rate dropped from several percent, to a fraction of a percent.

As for basketball, I think that if anything we're worse off. There's not going to be any games played in NSW, Victoria, or NZ at present, and travelling from those places will be extremely difficult.

Darwins theories on natural selection actually work when it comes to viruses.

Are you implying they don't work elsewhere?

Daniel Andrews has stated he could bring Victoria back to zero where Gladys cannot (paraphrasing).

Today Victoria recorded 340 and trending the same as NSW.

Things are not improving in either state. NZ is still a concern but at least they are trending downwards.

A bubble seems to be a default solution.

If we were to have a bubble where would the best place (or least worst) place be?

Adelaide? Good size, safe state, 'central location / time zone', now has EFTPOS.
Perth? Very good size, safe state, less friendly time zone causing East coast to watch hoops at potentially 10pm with DLS.

Tasmania? Don't know the size and following there. But could be a boost to the expansion team and really drum up interest in the sport / league and the team.

Would AEC or Perth Arena even be available?

Do NT have NBL quality courts? or would it be too humid / slippery on the court?

Other states will get cases once they open state borders.

Once NSW and Victorians can travel overseas, surely that will be the straw that breaks the zero covid Camel's back for McGowan, Palascuk etc. Surely then, people in the zero states will have had enough.

Adelaide? Good size, safe state, 'central location / time zone', now has EFTPOS.

Game changer!

The NBL are proposing to delay the season to some time in December. Supported by most clubs.

If they are banking on the 70-80% vaccination mark, how will they handle New Zealand's 35% vaccination rate? What of the states that won't open up?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-proposes-delaying-season-start-to-december-to-maximise-crowds/news-story/147c85b8f7a5040271754eec5ba210c5

We'll get there on the vaccinations here in NZ
Massive push to get it done so we don’t constantly go into lockdown.

Breakers owner Matt Walsh has conceded that they will need to play on the road for the start of the season but wants assurances that they will have a stable base and won’t be shuffled around Australia at zero to short notice like last season.