Are you giving shit to the poster because of a quote from the article?

April?

The NBL did a great job last season working around COVID but the situation seems maybe even more complicated now than then. The upside of starting in December should be that viruses dont transmit quite as well in the summer months which, hopefully, should lead to lower case numbers. I think waiting for vaccine numbers to reacvh a certain level might be a bit wishful because a lot of people are suspect on the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. I'd like to think we're looking a bit closer to normal life by December but I would be shocked if we saw full stadiums this coming season. Very lucky the TV deal looks to offset the losses in that area.

Is it illogical or unreasonable to continue as scheduled? Based on your current statistics, you have a vaccination rate of 38%. By the start of the season, the rates should be 60 at least. 

If NBL's target is a full crowd for all of the teams, then of course it has to be pushed back, but how about some teams who are doing well can have a full capacity or some teams that are not that good can have a limited audience? 

Correct me if I am wrong, but will delaying the season result in fewer games? That is my concern. They should just model what the NBA did last season, which was to progressively let fans be in attendance, or at least for some states that had good protocols, they should just let fans in. 

"a lot of people are suspect on the efficacy and safety of the vaccine"

Is that still a thing?

Or is that only a thing in states not as affected my covid lockdowns?

AZ/Pfizer are as effective as each other in terms of hospitalisation/mortality. I'd be happy with 75%+ effectiveness.

Pfizer higher for symptomatic effectiveness than AZ - but now that’s mostly available to people.

AZ (negligible) blood clot risk was for youth, but as above Pfizer now widely available.

Moderna about to come in with even higher effectiveness.

There shouldn’t be any efficacy or safety suspicions by the general public. It would represent a bizarre and illogical doubt compared to much higher more significant risks that people happily deal with daily (including Covid itself).

Even ibuprofen is a substantially higher risk and that’s a hangover go-to every weekend for the exact same age demographic that has any semblance of “blood clot risk”.

Can we change it to “a lot of people are stupid” or is that too demeaning and straight to the point?

[There shouldn't be any efficacy or safety suspicions by the general public. It would represent a bizarre and illogical doubt compared to much higher more significant risks that people happily deal with daily (including Covid itself).]

Thanks Doctor KET, for repeating what the government is telling us.

So the FDA experts have said 3 doses isn't considered safe enough to risk giving the under 65s. (16-2 vote yesterday)

But 2 doses is completely safe, and we must have 2 doses, otherwise:

- Can't go to the pub with your mates

- Can't send your kid to childcare

- Can't get a haircut

And can't earn a living in some industries

" Thanks Doctor KET, for repeating what the government is telling us."

Medical community - yes, no worries.

The medical community does not speak with one voice.

Does "the government"?

For example, plenty of doctors- including the UK government official recommendation- advise against a double dose for kids aged 12-15.

In Australia, we're tying the final phase of the National Path out of Lockdown to having 80% of 12+ double dosed.

My kids are under 12 so it doesnt concern me, but I certainly would be listening to the UK advice, and many prominent experts, and would not be getting my 12 year old double vaxxed.

Who's the one government voice LV

" Most of the medical experts are on the same thinking"

Agreed, scientific consensus is common but people don't understand when reading media articles that make it appear like there isn’t.

I was going to make that point to faux expert LV but then he isn’t the type to listen to that.

I'm aware of the consensus.

But the consensus is not based on certainty, it's based on faith that everything will work out.

Potentially justified faith, but faith.

And I hold this faith myself.

I'm hoping everything works out with these vaccines. We all have skin in the game. I've had my first dose.

But we should be humble and realise this is faith, and not demonise those who don't hold the same faith in "the experts" as we do.

I had my second Pfizer jab on Friday. I feel fine, but I only have a minor sore on my arm where I had my jab which is normal.

I agree, all of Australia should of been vaccinated at the start of 2021. A real shame NSW will have more freedoms then Victoria. NSW had higher vaccination rates because of their cases. Victoria won't get proper restrictions eased by October. The politics have no idea how to run a county and our citizens are paying.

Australia is really like a puppet state. It’s crazy to think NSW and Victoria are supposedly in hard lockdowns but we’re both getting high covid rates. I really think a lot of people are over it. It’s the governments fault not taking the early vaccines when they had a chance. I don’t blame the other states having their borders shut till we get most of the country vaccinated.

Another topic invaded by Vax hysteria................

I was speaking to my cousins uncle the other day, and he reckons his mate, who's friends with some kind of doctor, told him that LK made Covid to hell get UTD another championship and to track us with the vaccines so he knows where every NBL fan is at all times.

Why no NBL players in NBL1? Surely they can join their teams a little later.

This past season started in January and there were NBL players in NBL1.

Mcveigh and Dech came into their team halfway through the season. I think Rockets only had 2 wins at that point and went on to win the championship. Pretty sure clubs will be happy to get NBL players for half a season if can get that sort of result.

LV: "So the FDA experts have said 3 doses isn't considered safe enough to risk giving the under 65s. (16-2 vote yesterday)"

Isn't this a bit of misrepresentation? The FDA didn't vote for broader booster vaccines because the data isn't yet clear that it is necessary for everyone. There were complaints that much of the data presented was not yet peer reviewed and limited in scope with respect to the increase in immunity from Pfizer's booster shot. So it's more about lack of data than the data suggests it's not safe for under 65s.

RJD, Yes - LV completely misrepresented it, which is on-brand LV.

If he wants to put his children at risk because he thinks knows more than he does - sucks for his children I guess.

Correct 696. Advisory panel. Only considering Pfizer not the others.

Rjd what I said was correct. 3 doses not considered safe enough.

As you note, a major reason given was lack of data, leading to the lack of confidence in safety at this point.

So my point remains. 3 jabs isn't considered safe (yet). But 2 jabs is mandatory for any meaningful participation in public life.

[Rjd what I said was correct. 3 doses not considered safe enough.]

And of course safety and efficacy is considered in tandem.

For those reading the numerous posts by LV on this subject and think there must be some truth to what they're saying there is. Some. That said, some truth doesn't complete the picture and the outcomes LV claims to be facts simply are not.

In regards to their current claim regarding third doses of Pfizer LV is either deliberately using colloquial language to create an outcome which matches their already held position or doing so through lack of education on how these things work, especially in the scientific field.

The current aruguement put forward is not in fact an outcome of safe or unsafe. Science doesn't work like that.

A good anology is the court system. A jury/judge will not find a defendant guilty or innocent at the end of proceedings they make a ruling solely on the guilt of the defendant based on the facts which were presented in court. The defendant may in fact be guilty, or innocent, but the information provided is all they can rule on. Guilty or not guilty. In almost all cases a ruling of not guilty will be made due to lack of evidence. For which there may be good reason, or there may just be too little data found/presented.

In science there's a process of collecting data, testing theories, peer review and then panel/board approval of the outcomes all those things have led the researchers to believe to be fact.

In this case the panel found they lacked the required data to rule the third dose of pfizer was safe for use and of benefit. They did not rule that it was unsafe, just that they needed more data to make a ruling of any substance.

This is quite common in science. It's part of the process and simply means researchers do more research on the matter.

This is like how law takes the position of someone being innocent until proven guilty. Government authorities will take the position that any product be considered unsafe until proven safe. But it is not the same as the evidence proving that someone is innocent, or that a product is unsafe. It's simply a starting point.

It's become the norm unfortunately for many in the public to mistrust or actively oppose scientific research, usually for their own gain. Climate change being the most obvious, and unfortunately most damaging.

The anti-vax, covid isn't that bad movement is taking this to the next level. You should not listen to anyone about science other that those responsible for researching that particular field. As you shouldn't listen to a tennis coach about how to become a better basketballer. Or a better example on the topic of Covid would be you shouldn't listen to a F grade social tennis player from 20 years ago about what it takes to be an NBA All-star.

It seems that this type of scheduling scheme (postponement) would benefit those players who'd rather play outdoors, instead of playing indoors.

Indoors-preference players would (most likely) therefore have to walk into a school-building at a time when the gymnasium is available, during the timeframe where previously-inhabitat facilitys aren't available according to the rules for the schedule.

Basketball courts are construct near indoors buildings and eventually the gymnasium is salvaged for educational-needs youth; later on they have to build outdoors basketball courts once those gymnasiums are occupyed by students.

It's a type of vicious cycle, however this is also one of the potential effects of going outside, there is always the risk of wanting to go back inside. Similarly, people who are often inside, eventually sometimes want to go outside.

So from my observation, normally a basketball player could just go outside to play basketball, except with gymnasiums they are inviting players to play basketball inside, and it can lead to an educative entrapment where those players are compelled to attend a school that was built in the same building as that gymnasium.

Most players in my area probably don't want to risk having to spend extra money on playing basketball indoors { paying for transit, paying entrance fees, paying to go to tryouts } unless there's a guarantee that there will be school after that basketball tournament ends.

And furthermore, even in the event that there is school after that, there's still no transactory method of replenishing the amount of money that was spent on extraneous basketball activitys; thus substantiating the notion that the monetary circulation scheme isn't factorized by basketball in general.

(( The result being that the efficacy of basketball videography, in terms of its correspondance to audience-response, is extremely marginal and fiscally reliant upon being unorthodox, rather than being profound. ))

Therefore, it's not surprising, in my opinion, that there's a postponement of the indoors basketball leagues, since the price of playing basketball there is extremely high compared to the overall net-gain of using that building for a school instead.

So in conclusion, I think that basically all sports leagues will be postponed until an audience is allowed to observe those sports.

Great post Hogwash68

What I said was

"So the FDA experts have said 3 doses isn't considered safe enough to risk giving the under 65s"

Perhaps I should've finished with "at this point" or simply said "isn't YET considered safe enough".

But my point remains unscathed after much commentary (mostly helpful) in this thread.

There may be more data and subsequent updated recommendations soon. But as it stands, 3 jabs isn't "safe and effective" but 2 jabs is mandatory for any meaningful participation in re-opening of society and work.

It's not safe or unsafe.

It's safe or not tested thoroughly. Your language is dangerously bad when it comes to this topic.

Pfizer has attempted to prove its safety and effectiveness for under 65s via their presentation to VRBPAC.

However they only succeeded in convincing 2 of 18 expert members of the panel.

Therefore, safety is unproven because initial attempts to prove its safety have failed.

And of course more data will emerge. But that doesn't invalidate my above statement.

" But my point remains unscathed after much commentary (mostly helpful) in this thread. "

It's easy to have that view if you ignore anything you don’t like.

Hogwash makes a very very good post, and

Hogwash's post helpfully clarified my comment and provided additional context, but didn't invalidate my point that the initial attempt by Pfizer to demonstrate safety and efficacy of their booster has failed.

We all better hope the booster is proven perfectly safe and effective because Australia's whole covid strategy relies on having vaccine protection into the future.

To calrify LV is wrong and his language is unsafe. Is that better?

People can make up their own minds.

"initial attempt by Pfizer to demonstrate safety and efficacy of their booster has failed."

It failed because Pfizer surprised the panel with data that they hadn't reviewed before and hadn't been peer reviewed. It's really frustrating when people knowingly misrepresent using fragments of facts to push their agenda. It amounts to classic propaganda and we are seeing a lot more it in relation to covid and vaccines.

I hadn't read that. If true, then the full day meeting was scheduled merely to waste the time of 18 top experts? Since the only data provided was not reviewed?

I'm not sure if that improves my confidence in the process.

And quit assigning motives and agendas. That's unhelpful.

I've had my first dose. If anything, my desire is that all vaccines are proven totally safe and effective, which will help Australia (and the world) return to normality.

" And quit assigning motives and agendas. That's unhelpful."
Once you added your political view into your arguments it opens you up to criticism on motives and agendas.

“ People can make up their own minds.”
Ideally with the assistance of experts though, not your lay interpretation of it all.

There needs to be one containment thread just for COVID so it doesn't infect every other single topic which is what is currently happening.

I feel like a refreshing beverage

Not sure what delaying will achieve?

If anything this season will be more challenging, due to the stupidly of NSW
Just because they're prepared to tolerate thousands of cases, and X% deaths, doesn't mean the rest of the country has to follow suit. Some teams won't travel to NSW, and the NSW teams won't be able to enter some states

Apart form the obvious issues, I'm not fully up on which states have problems and what the current exact restrictions are between states.

but I tend to agree with #1984 and #1985

Assuming we have some cities that can host full crowds (eg Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Cairns, etc) Games should begin in those cities, and other teams should move ahead of time to complete quarantine, and then begin the season in a "travel-bubble" using charter flights between the safe cities add or subtract cities to the bubble as things change over time. Maybe Brisbane or even Christchurch.

Not much news from the League.

They delayed the season last time, and in the end I don't see how it really helped. Still had to be entitled to play at home, team 72 quarantine, and the whole league having to adapt to constantly changing schedules.

If anything, this season's going to be more challenging, and I don't see the delaying will fix that.

Some other states made it clear that they are not going to follow New South Wales living with covod policy.
And even if they do, that probably means more restrictions on games, not less. We you have City like Perth, that has practically no community kofoed, we can have games with full crowds, without restriction. Where is inner-city where there is community covered, it may well be business as usual, but they're unlikely to allow huge superspreading events such as full crowds at games

We you have City like Perth, that has practically no community kofoed, we can have games with full crowds, without restriction. Where is inner-city where there is community covered, it may well be business as usual, but they're unlikely to allow huge superspreading events such as full crowds at games