The COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Australia has begun

HappyFlyerFamily

Established Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
4,332
Solutions
1
Points
690
Those in the general population outside aged care can only get AZ, I think. I have a friend in that age group who has just had a first dose so far of AZ and is due to have the second next month. Also, a lack of familiarity with technology may mean that age group may not have found it easy to get a booking and needed help from family or friends, especially if the individual’s local GP is not part of the rollout.

73.5% first doses for 95+ is the lowest of the 70-74 and older age groups
Just to make a contrasting point about your seemingly daily 'they should have taken the vaccine already' rant.

Not sure why you didn't say 'your friend should have had the vaccine already", may be because they're your friend and you understand their circumstance, even though eligible months beforehand.

It would be nice for you to talk about other you don't know with the same care and courtesy and not tar everyone that can't get vaccinated right now with the same brush.

Feel free to defend yourself.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,434
Points
815
Just to make a contrasting point about your seemingly daily 'they should have taken the vaccine already' rant.

Not sure why you didn't say 'your friend should have had the vaccine already", may be because they're your friend and you understand their circumstance, even though eligible months beforehand.

It would be nice for you to talk about other you don't know with the same care and courtesy and not tar everyone that can't get vaccinated right now with the same brush.
Well when I say my elderly friend has just had the first dose, with the second due in August they must have had the first in May.

I took AZ nearly a week after I became eligible and could have had it sooner if I'd tried harder. One dose provides a decent level of protection from death which is the primary goal of the vaccination program. Two doses reduces that further and is better for other concerns such as secondly protection from serious illness, thirdly limiting transmission and finally where possible ideally protection from getting sick at all.

Everyone in the older cohort has had plenty of time to have at least one dose and should be coming due for the 2nd dose over the next few months and that 2nd dose can be brought forward in places like Sydney where there is high risk. There's no justifiable reason in my view why we shouldn't have a date or specific vaccination target for beginning to relax restrictions (e.g. allowing home quarantine for those returning from low to mid risk countries, if an individual is fully vaccinated) before the end of the year when vaccination rates will be much higher than what they are now. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me on this. Some states trust unvaccinated people who have caught the virus in the community in Australia to quarantine at home, but those who have flown in from overseas, are fully vaccinated, and have tested negative to having the virus are not.

Very few adults have health reasons that mean they shouldn't take AZ. People that shouldn't take AZ e.g. the immunocompromised could get badly affected by illnesses such as the flu as well, but we didn't decide to lock down whole states to protect people from that, but rather expected affected individuals, their friends and family to decide for themselves what steps to take to mitigate the risk, and those running high risk settings to take steps as well. The vaccination rollout is meant to facilitate changing from seeking to eliminate risk to mitigating it. Thankfully we are not seeing the hundreds of deaths in aged care in NSW that were seen in VIC last year because most of the elderly in aged care have chosen to be vaccinated and have been vaccinated.

There are lives being lost because of the impact of the restrictions on people, not just the virus itself. With those most at risk of dying from the virus having had plenty of time to get vaccinated at some point there needs to be consideration of the impacts on mental health and livelihoods when weighing up the way forward, not just physical health risks.

Not giving freedoms back to the vaccinated is working to discourage those that are unvaccinated and in lower risk areas of the country from seeing any rush to get the jab.
 

MooTime

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2019
Messages
656
Points
370
Qantas
Gold
Virgin
Gold
Ah we know the target, everybody that wants the vac, has to have the chance to get one.

Targets move, circumstances, excuses, conditions etc etc. Most may want a 2 digit figure & hold it to the gov, that's more likely to end not so well.

We know it's minimum 70% both doses of all eligible, gov modelling whenever it's released will be in the ballpark, with conditions I'm sure.

All we can do as individuals is get the jab ourselves & lightly try to instill a positive vibe to others regarding the vaccine (as I've read a few here have done so), can't force it down people's throat's or into their upper arm, even though we may like to.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,434
Points
815
Every age group 80-84 and up now has 40%+ fully vaccinated.

For the most part the vulnerable that want to be are either fully vaccinated or well on the way to be. It’s time we should be starting to switch from risk elimination to mitigation.

30-34 year olds have 10% fully vaccinated, so every age group 30-34 and up has at least 10% fully vaccinated.

When today’s numbers are released tomorrow we should have over 25% of 45-49 year olds fully vaccinated.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,434
Points
815
Oops...

On a rollout of this size mistakes like this are bound to happen occasionally. It's a much better mistake giving too little than giving an overdose, though any overdose likely to be given if the doctor/nurse isn't completely careless is still probably going to be safe.
 

bcworld

Established Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,304
Solutions
1
Points
710
On a rollout of this size mistakes like this are bound to happen occasionally. It's a much better mistake giving too little than giving an overdose, though any overdose likely to be given if the doctor/nurse isn't completely careless is still probably going to be safe.
Well the overdose happened pretty much the first week of the roll-out of I recall correctly.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,434
Points
815
Well the overdose happened pretty much the first week of the roll-out of I recall correctly.
And it that case the doctor made a careless mistake.

If this is the first significant mistake since then it's pretty remarkable that it's been this long between mistakes in the rollout.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,434
Points
815
The jump in second doses for 70+ yesterday was significant, from 37.43% to 38.44% whereas first doses went from 77.48% to 77.84%.

We or track to easily go well past 50% of 70+ population, the largest category of those most at risk, fully vaccinated next month.
 

HappyFlyerFamily

Established Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
4,332
Solutions
1
Points
690
Qantas is offering staff a day’s pay to go and get vaccinated. Joyce wants the vaccine mandatory for all aviation staff. Qantas does the flu injection and would be happy to help in the rollout. Joyce has had his first Astra Zeneca - he is 55.
Can't the Qantas CEO just make a mandatory rule for his staff?
 

TheRealTMA

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
6,852
Solutions
1
Points
1,325
Qantas
Platinum
That might fall foul of some kind of employment law? The government would be in a better place to make that kind of ruling, I'd have thought.
Ah. I just asked that in another thread. Why not just make it a condition of employment? They mandate many other things for their staff.
 

OZDUCK

Established Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,643
Points
980
I think if passengers will be required to be fully vaccinated for international travel then it would be logical to require any staff interacting with passengers for those flights or their baggage to be vaccinated as well.
In the early 1970's my duties meant that I was required to board vessels and aircraft with the Commonwealth Dr. before Health Pratique had been granted. Therefore I was required to be vaccinated against Smallpox and Typhoid. This was a perfectly reasonable and sensible rule and a Covid vaccination should be required in the same way for persons interacting with passengers and crew.
 

Hvr

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
10,671
Solutions
4
Points
1,535
Qantas
Platinum
Why not just make it a condition of employment?

hey can do but it gets complicated with unions etc.


It comes down to whether or not COVID vaccination is an inherent requirement for the role.

E.g. For a bus driver a specific licence is required, i.e. an inherent requirement of the role.

If I'm sitting in an office by myself then it would be hard to argue that a COVID vaccination is an inherent requirement of the role.

Where as if I'm working with medically vulnerable people it's easy to argue the vaccination is an inherent requirement.

Of course the vaccination needs to be available and time to attend may be required.
 
Your simple solution to home security. Quickly view what’s happening at home when you're not there, giving you peace of mind.

Simple plug-in installation means you’ll be up and running in no time.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Top