2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

Forums › Health and fitness › 2019 Novel Coronavirus Covid-19 Discussion

1 | ... | 1731 | 1732 | 1733 | 1734 | 1735 | 1736 | 1737 | 1738 | 1739 | 1740 | 1741 | ... | 2421

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2779021 15-Sep-2021 19:51

Batman: I don't think there any chance of getting 90%.

Not willingly maybe, but I think we're going to be surprised how much coercion can be applied without breaching claimed "human rights" concerns of the dickheads.

Coming fairly soon would be my guess, as the 78% booked or jabbed once isn't good enough and new bookings and daily jabs have plateaued.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Stu

Hammered
8244 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779022 15-Sep-2021 19:56

Handle9:

Looking at the latest stats published on Newsroom there appears to be a fairly significant problem with getting vaccine uptake in group 3. Uptake is excellent in all other groups but having very low uptake in the vulnerable population is a serious concern.

This was mentioned at today's stand-up after a question from media. It was suggested this result may be because some people who had been expected to be vaccinated under group 3 may have been included in the group 4 stats instead. They're going to look in to the numbers and see if it needs correcting.

It think this is quite possible, in part as the criteria for group 3 appeared to be tweaked late during the group 3 vaccination period. When I first went to book, believing I was group 3, the criteria wasn't actually clear that I was, so I didn't/couldn't book. I later heard there had been some changes made to the way the site functioned, and went in to pre-register for my age group under group 4. I had a look at the group 3 criteria again first, and it now stated clearly that I did actually qualify under group 3. I made a phone call to make sure I wasn't mistaken, and was offered a booking under group 3. Others may not have realised this.

Further, it would appear that if you book under group 3, then you're tagged as being vaccinated in the group 3 bracket and included in that statistic. However, if you just booked when your age bracket came up, or under the free-for all, or were a walk-in, then you're categorised as group 4. This will hopefully be confirmed in the coming days.

People often mistake me for an adult because of my age.

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Referral Links: Sharesies - Backblaze -

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? If so, please consider supporting us by subscribing.

No matter where you go, there you are.

Handle9

11160 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779024 15-Sep-2021 20:06

Fred99:

Handle9:

The total population stats are around 58% with either one or two doses with a further ~6% booked. There's a fair way to go to get to 80%

Total eligible population is 70% jabbed at least once, 78% jabbed or booked.

It matters to get that fact right.

I was clear that it was total population.

Both eligible and total population numbers are very important, especially with regard to transmission.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2779025 15-Sep-2021 20:08

Stu:

This was mentioned at today's stand-up after a question from media. It was suggested this result may be because some people who had been expected to be vaccinated under group 3 may have been included in the group 4 stats instead. They're going to look in to the numbers and see if it needs correcting.

Not a particularly PC thing to say, but I'd guess that there'd be a reasonably strong correlation between education, wealth, and health status for some of the <65YO subgroup that made them eligible and included in group 3.

The +20% that haven't booked is the big problem which needs to be sorted.

We have unlimited supply of vaccine for our population.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2779028 15-Sep-2021 20:15

Handle9:

I was clear that it was total population.

Both eligible and total population numbers are very important, especially with regard to transmission.

Yes I realise that (both points). Your pessimism from afar - for NZ's general handling of the pandemic - kind of leads me to think that you choose carefully what you say, but sometimes it's hardly for what I'd consider good reason.

Choosing the lower of the two stats (% total or % eligible) matters if you're trying to make some kind of statement about either New Zealand citizens/residents - or the government's response.

MadEngineer

4223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2779043 15-Sep-2021 21:50

Fred99:

sbiddle:

Yes

Good. You acknowledge that the large benefits outweigh the small risks.

Let me put this back to you Fred99: So if you had a teenage son who wants to get vaccinated and has a family medical history of a brain aneurysm would it be Yes or No? Fact of the matter is if that's the case, at least in Australia your son would be turned away from receiving AZ

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2779046 15-Sep-2021 22:22

MadEngineer:

Let me put this back to you Fred99: So if you had a teenage son who wants to get vaccinated and has a family medical history of a brain aneurysm would it be Yes or No? Fact of the matter is if that's the case, at least in Australia your son would be turned away from receiving AZ

I'd be having a very thorough detailed discussion with a really good GP and/or appropriate specialist(s) who can talk in plain english about perceived risk - even though nothing may come with a 100% guarantee.

I am not a Dr. My layperson's guess is that the risk from catching covid for triggering an aneurism would probably be much higher than any risk from vaccination, and the particular related risk from the AZ jab is clotting - which isn't the same as an aneurism (clots vs leaks) though both can cause "strokes". But covid can cause all kinds of acute cardiovascular complications, as well as long-term sequelae, some of which may very well contribute to risk of future aneurism. So yeah - definitely worth discussing with an expert - which I'm not.

mattwnz

20045 posts

Uber Geek

#2779065 16-Sep-2021 01:04

Oblivian:

Yes, this is a rough situation given they weren't advised

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-woman-shocked-to-learn-covid-19-vaccination-centre-closed/QIU6JZUDC7GZQJA62EMT4BBFGI/

But... it does say her number wasn't on file. And despite

"I didn't just walk up somewhere, I followed what they said to do, I felt like I was being a rule follower and I almost felt like I was being punished for it," she said."

This is a case of what I touched previously. News and information is dynamic. People aren't being proactive like has been asked in standups. And as we found on the other thread. Users here were - were rebooked at a further away location, made use of the walk ins instead.

I had the situation when I went to get mine, they had closed the vaccination centre early, and they didn't advise us, even though I was booked in. There were quire a few annoyed people. Instead we were told to go to the drive through testing centre, which was on the other side of town and needed a car. Apparently we didn't need a booking to get vaccinated through that. Drive through is probably the way to go , but it needs people to have access to a vehicle.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2779066 16-Sep-2021 01:11

Fred99:

MadEngineer:

Let me put this back to you Fred99: So if you had a teenage son who wants to get vaccinated and has a family medical history of a brain aneurysm would it be Yes or No? Fact of the matter is if that's the case, at least in Australia your son would be turned away from receiving AZ

I'd be having a very thorough detailed discussion with a really good GP and/or appropriate specialist(s) who can talk in plain english about perceived risk - even though nothing may come with a 100% guarantee.

I am not a Dr. My layperson's guess is that the risk from catching covid for triggering an aneurism would probably be much higher than any risk from vaccination, and the particular related risk from the AZ jab is clotting - which isn't the same as an aneurism (clots vs leaks) though both can cause "strokes". But covid can cause all kinds of acute cardiovascular complications, as well as long-term sequelae, some of which may very well contribute to risk of future aneurism. So yeah - definitely worth discussing with an expert - which I'm not.

Not sure what point you are trying to make MadEngineer. No one under 18 is being offered AZ in Australia, regardless of their risk factors.

Assuming the 'teenager' was 18+, if their doctor agreed they were at risk of aneurysm they would have been entitled to Pfizer right from the early stages of the rollout many months ago.

As Fred99 rightly points out - COVID itself can cause very serious complications, and at much higher rates than any of the known possible side effects of the vaccines. If (hypothetically) Australia only had AZ available and there were lots of cases, a doctor very well may have advised someone with the risk factors you have described to have AZ despite the very small risk of complications, because the risk of COVID complications would be much higher. But that is not the situation in either Australia or New Zealand so the scenario you suggest is moot.

Twitter: ajobbins

Handle9

11160 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779067 16-Sep-2021 01:21

Fred99:

Handle9:

I was clear that it was total population.

Both eligible and total population numbers are very important, especially with regard to transmission.

Yes I realise that (both points). Your pessimism from afar - for NZ's general handling of the pandemic - kind of leads me to think that you choose carefully what you say, but sometimes it's hardly for what I'd consider good reason.

Choosing the lower of the two stats (% total or % eligible) matters if you're trying to make some kind of statement about either New Zealand citizens/residents - or the government's response.

You could take the statements at face value, they are hardly controversial or "political." You don't know me and have no idea about my "reason," whatever that is meant to mean.

If you think a post breaches the FUG or the rules of the health forum, complain to the mods. I don't need to answer to you.

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779081 16-Sep-2021 07:03

Stu:

This was mentioned at today's stand-up after a question from media. It was suggested this result may be because some people who had been expected to be vaccinated under group 3 may have been included in the group 4 stats instead. They're going to look in to the numbers and see if it needs correcting.

It think this is quite possible, in part as the criteria for group 3 appeared to be tweaked late during the group 3 vaccination period. When I first went to book, believing I was group 3, the criteria wasn't actually clear that I was, so I didn't/couldn't book. I later heard there had been some changes made to the way the site functioned, and went in to pre-register for my age group under group 4. I had a look at the group 3 criteria again first, and it now stated clearly that I did actually qualify under group 3. I made a phone call to make sure I wasn't mistaken, and was offered a booking under group 3. Others may not have realised this.

Further, it would appear that if you book under group 3, then you're tagged as being vaccinated in the group 3 bracket and included in that statistic. However, if you just booked when your age bracket came up, or under the free-for all, or were a walk-in, then you're categorised as group 4. This will hopefully be confirmed in the coming days.

That makes a lot of sense, as Group 3 who would tend to be older, and who have existing conditions, you would expect they will be very keen. Its still quite an anomaly, but OTOH the volume is probably quite low as a % of the population. Group 3 is generally a smallish subset of Group 4

Handle9

11160 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779086 16-Sep-2021 07:10

tdgeek: Group 3 is generally a smallish subset of Group 4

Group three is ~1.7 million, group 4 is ~2 million. Misclassification seems a likely explanation but group three is a very large cohort.

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779092 16-Sep-2021 07:28

Handle9:
tdgeek: Group 3 is generally a smallish subset of Group 4

Group three is ~1.7 million, group 4 is ~2 million. Misclassification seems a likely explanation but group three is a very large cohort.

Yes, I underestimated the over 65's.

Although

In 2018, in the total population:

19.6% were children (aged 0–14 years)
65.1% were working age (aged 15–64 years)
15.2% were aged 65 years and over (65+ years).

So, Group 3 that are only 65+ is 15% , add to that the heath issues, maybe thats super high?

Group 4 is 12+ to age 64, so say 70%

Your numbers , which Im not denying, put these two groups as broadly close in volume, but the back of an envelope comparison shows Group 4 should be significantly higher. I have no idea the volume of health issue related people that are in the Group 4 age group but are classified as Group 3. It would seem that those over 12 with health issues is very high.

tdgeek

29587 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2779103 16-Sep-2021 07:52

Interesting take on Newshub this morning.

7:10am - Epidemiologist Rod Jackson told The AM Show on Thursday Ireland is the "poster child" for COVID-19 vaccination rates this week with up to around 90 percent of the population vaccinated, he said.

"I don't think they have opened up yet but we can watch over the next few months and I think that's an incredibly luxury we've got that we can see what happens to Denmark, because they have opened up now, Ireland … and Norway, which is another country which is a bit behind them with the vaccines, but all three countries are very similar to ours in populations so it's an opportunity for us to see what happens there."

However, he noted there is one "big, big difference" between us and those countries - "they've had a lot more cases and a lot more deaths".

"Denmark has had 100 times more deaths from COVID than New Zealand. Ireland has had 200 times as many. Norway has done okay, they've had 800 deaths, but we've had 30 so they are still 20 times [higher]. But they have all had a lot more cases and a lot more deaths so they are starting from a different level."

Shows that 90% is achievable, the problem we have in NZ is that as we have had very minimal deaths, its not seen as urgent by the population, compared to these similar countries that have dealt with that, and the concern that it gives, that increases the need to vaccinate. Maybe the opening up scenario might help as that hits the news more.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2779118 16-Sep-2021 08:56

Handle9:

If you think a post breaches the FUG or the rules of the health forum, complain to the mods. I don't need to answer to you.

I don't "complain to mods". (Maybe one or two times over more than 10 years).

A problem we have with vaccine rollout is "hesitancy/antivaxx" and to get a feel for the "final numbers" - critical for getting an indication of when we might be able to get out of lockdown misery - then % eligible is a far more useful figure than % total population. That's it. Easy.

1 | ... | 1731 | 1732 | 1733 | 1734 | 1735 | 1736 | 1737 | 1738 | 1739 | 1740 | 1741 | ... | 2421