NSW and Victoria COVID cases and deaths not slowing down

The two most populous States have released their latest COVID statistics, with a combined 97,000 new cases, and 47 deaths in the last 24 hours:

Latest posts by Chris Becker (see all)

Comments

  1. If a cheap Chinese tool performed as badly as these “vaccines” perform the average consumer would be standing at the Bunnings refund counter apocalyptic with rage.

    Would a bushfire still rip through a forest if 90% of all the trees had been treated with a powerful fire retardant by the bush fire brigade?

    Would you expect cockroaches to bother you if the Flick man had just treated your own house and 90% of the houses in your suburb?

    These jabs are clearly ineffective. We should demand a refund.

          • Ailart SuaMEMBER

            That would have to be one of the weakest ‘fact checks’ I have seen, Greg. Common sense tells you the agenda of the ‘fact checkers’; together with their ‘puppeteers’ and their unlimited resources is always going to be a mammoth task for the truth tellers. If it’s your choice to put your faith in the word of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and MSM, by all means, go ahead. I lost faith in that mob decades ago.

          • lolol Greg, don’t let facts get in your way, as Allart Sua hasn’t!

            “Common sense tells you the agenda of the ‘fact checkers’; together with their ‘puppeteers’ and their unlimited resources is always going to be a mammoth task for the truth tellers.”

            “Truth Tellers”: Where you you go on Sundays, Hillsong?

          • It is always a good idea to check facts.

            Can you please check if in fact Reuters has any financial connection to Pfizer? Fact check that please.

            Do any powerful people controlling Reuters stand to benefit financially from increased use of the Pfizer jab?

          • Ailart SuaMEMBER

            @ Anders Andersen.

            Do you get paid by the hour, or per reply? Maybe you could persuade them to pay your MB subscription, Anders. That might accord you a tad more legitimacy.

            BTW, Greg, were you able to locate any autopsy results of vaccinated people who’ve deceased that can disprove the doctors4covidethics article? The ‘fact checkers’ certainly weren’t.

            A little odd that covid19 and possible vaccine deaths are severely lacking in autopsies, don’t you think, Greg.

    • Read page 13 (efficacy considerations)
      Read page 14 (statistical considerations)

      https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download

      The vaccines exceeded the original design brief. Despite the ongoing emergence of variants with both increased transmissibility and increased pathogenicity.

      If you believed the political hype (as opposed to the scientific consensus), I don’t know what I can say to help you.

      Next thing you will be trusting used car salesmen and real estate agents.

    • TheLambKingMEMBER

      And yet, despite ‘not working,’ the data is still showing that the unvaccinated are 15 times more likely to die or end up ventilated than a vaccinated person.

      • Complete horsesh!t from a non-member who is crapping all over the comments section.

        Seems to be becoming par for the course here.

        • RobotSenseiMEMBER

          The great joy in having a wide-ranging incorrect opinion about public health matters is the knowledge that there is no downside to you being wrong. It’s not like any of them will personally be cleaning up the mess if they’re wildly incorrect.

          Anyone can be good at poker when the chips are free.

        • Tassie TomMEMBER

          Chinajim, don’t waste your time arguing with an anti-vaxxer. They’re a breed of their own, they’re never going to change their opinion, and there’s just no point trying.

      • The Pfizer jab is a gene-therapy treatment […]

        It’s not. This is just dishonest fearmongering which you’ve already been corrected on at least once.

      • I still can not fathom their are people on here thinking they don’t work. They really need to visit a brothel and get laid.

        I’ve had three shots and caught the thing and its stuffed my IBS. I don’t even want to entertain what it would be like without the jabs.

      • I still can not fathom their are people on here thinking they don’t work. They really need to visit a brothel and get laid.

        I’ve had three shots and caught the thing and its stuffed my IBS. I don’t even want to entertain what it would be like without the jabs.

        • When you die, will you still say it would have been worse without those seventeen jabs? Is there ANY turn of events where you would question another vaccination?

        • Irritable Bowl Syndrome. Anecdotally, a friend caught COVID as well and his having the same issues and has been diagnosed with IBS prior to COVID. There is so much we don’t know about this thing.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      There is the option to try the Chinese vaccine, for the rest of us.

      Personally, I’m pretty happy with the 20 fold reduction in mortality that the vaccine affords, now #letitrip is official government policy.

    • Yes. Not surprising though as no doubt they manipulated the trials like drug companies always do eg only using younger healthy test subjects, think the Pfizer trial only had 4% of people over the age of 65, even though they knew before it was a disease that targeted those over 65yrs. At least using multiple shots has lowered hospitalisations of older cohorts & the metabolically weak (which are pretty much every older Aussie who eats a highly processed diet & doesn’t power walk. 😜)

      • RobotSenseiMEMBER

        The fact you think that demonstrates manipulated data probably says more about your “understanding” of the clinical trials process.

        • So they don’t excluded enrolling people from their trials based on various unfavourable criteria? They don’t exclude certain people from final trial results? Come on, It’s well known they do, it’s been proven multiple times, that’s why we have so many drugs that are little better than placebos. Yes, they can give us agood indication but the results drug companies show us for their trials are always going to be the best possible.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            I think you should have a look at the various stages of clinical trials, the types of subjects they enrol, and what they’re looking to demonstrate at each stage.

    • RobotSenseiMEMBER

      Obviously the fact these vaccines were developed, produced, and distributed in record time (except Autralia) to meet a global emergency is entirely lost on you, but they’re the best we’ve got.

      • RobotSenseiMEMBER

        Oh look, part of the monocharacter brigade is back to remind us of the global vaccine injured conspiracy that continues to have fleetingly little evidence to support it.

        • Well i have numerous clients that have had severe adverse reactions to these rubbish vaccines. One had a mild heart attack.

      • Agreed. The B29 bomber developed in WW2 underwent far less safety testing the the B747. Because the situation was desperate.

        There are a number of legitimate issues with the vaccine trials
        1. They were too small to show rare complications
        2, They were too short to give long term data
        3. They used young healthy people – standard for drug trials no one wants to subject high risk people first up This is standard.
        4. They couldn’t show a mortality benefit – in small numbers of young people over a short period. Most people who died in the vaccine and placebo groups died of something other than Covid. It is rare for a health young person to die from Covid.
        5. In order to maximise the chance of showing any efficacy that may have been present, you were not counted in the vaccinated group until 14 days after shot 2. Covid earlier that this may have been a case of “too early” rather than “doesn’t work.” Over a 2-3 year period, this window period would have been insignificant. But the trials were short term. This method has the potential to conceal any early vaccine adverse reactions (which are most likely within 14 days).

        It was recognised in the original design brief that ongoing review would be important post distribution. Specifically because of the necessarily limited nature of the trials.

    • So you had great expectations that weren’t met. Australia has done better than almost every country so far. The ball has only just been completely dropped now that a large majority of people have some protection. Perhaps some adjustment of expectations is in order.

  2. India, from the earliest days of the pandemic, has reported far fewer COVID-19 deaths than expected given the toll elsewhere—an apparent death “paradox” that some believed was real and others thought would prove illusory. Now, a prominent epidemiologist who contended the country really had been spared the worst of COVID-19 has led a rigorous new analysis of available mortality data and concluded he “got it wrong.” India has “substantially greater” COVID-19 deaths than official reports suggest, says Prabhat Jha of the University of Toronto— close to 3 million, which is more than six times higher than the government has acknowledged and the largest number of any country.
    **also stolen

  3. NelsonMuntzMEMBER

    I for one welcome our new COVID overlord. It has forced me and my family to have to stay at home. Fortunately we have the cricket to watch for the next five days.

  4. Tassie TomMEMBER

    Let’s assume that 75% of the population is going to get this whether they know they’ve got it or not. That’s 6 million New South Welshmen.

    My crude high-end estimate is that the mortality rate will be 0.05% for the vaccinated and 0.5% for the unvaccinated. I would therefore expect the final bodycount for NSW to be a maximum of 4500 people – 3000 vaccinated and 1500 unvaccinated.

    My assumptions are: Initial Covid death rate 1.5%, Omicron 1/3 as deadly as previous variants; Vaccine 10X protective against death.

    If the assumptions were slightly different: Initial Covid death rate 1%, Vaccine 20X protective against death, then we’d be looking at a final NSW bodycount of 2000 – 1000 vaccinated and 1000 unvaccinated.

    Multiply these numbers by 3 for Australia as a whole, except a higher number of unvaccinated deaths (esp. Qld and WA).

    I haven’t been counting individual states’ numbers, but Australia has had about 500 deaths during the Omicron wave. We’re going to end up with between 6000 and 13,500 deaths.

    We’ve still got a long way to go. But the good news is that once it’s done, it’s over.

    ….. until China builds their next virus.

    • “But the good news is that once it’s done, it’s over.”

      That’s a mighty assumption to make, innit?

      Also excess deaths will be much higher because folks can’t get in for elective surgery and diagnostics ect.

      • Yes, big assumption there. I suspect it and any new variants will likely remain a slightly worse flu, it’ll always take out a high number of older & metabolically unfit people as even if your lungs don’t get overwhelmed it triggers most of our leading underlying conditions eg hypertension etc. All those conditions brought on by eating the typical Aussie diet of highly processed low fat & excess sugar foods our supermarkets are full of.

      • I’m not aware suspending elective surgery had a mortality impact. I though there was a reason they called it “elective”.

        • Nah “elective” is a bit of a misnomer. Basically just means non-emergency not non-essential. Like early stage cancers could be considered elective because they’re not gonna kill you today. It’s obviously not ideal to push work load back to a later date for health systems, because by then there will be more surgeries accumulating to get through.

        • I’m not aware suspending elective surgery had a mortality impact. I though there was a reason they called it “elective”.

          Consider a hip or knee replacement that might allow someone to remain active for longer (or at all).

        • Tassie TomMEMBER

          Elective hernia repiar delayed – dead gut from strangulation within the hernia.
          Elective gallbladder removal delayed – necrotising pancreatitis from gallstone pancreatitis.
          Elective colonoscopy delayed – metastatic colon cancer which should have been picked off when it was a polyp.
          Elective knee replacement delayed – fall down front steps and head injury due to unstable gait.

      • I think the diagnostics is one we are not giving enough consideration. Excess deaths from deferred colonoscopies, breast cancer screeings etc will take years to become apparent, but they are clearly a cost of the policy decisions.

    • Death rate goes up when you run out of ICU beds : pretty much anyone who needs it will end up dead. The good news is there seems to be enough capacity for now, but the age group that needs ICU beds the most are not being infected yet.

      Northern Territory has 22 ICU beds in total. They are screwed.

      • RobotSenseiMEMBER

        They still retain the capacity to turn operating theaters and recovery areas into ventilator-capable spaces so the “true” ICU capacity is being a little understated.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Probably the more pertinent question. ICU nurses can double vented patients; they don’t like it, but it can be done.

            They’ll make it work.

          • 3 years ago the Lismore Base Hospitl had a major upgrade 3 floors were added to the existing building with new wards .
            they have sat empty because there was no allocation for staff.
            The NSW Health system is a joke in very poor taste., the Nurses and Mid wives associations have been calling loud and long for increased staff to patient ratios, better pay and better conditions..

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            Secret whispers:

            The issue of which cohort of doctors was going to staff that new ICU come Covid time from was very controversial and continues to be. Lots of resistance from various groups. But this is only speculation.

        • RobotSenseiMEMBER

          Medically unethical.

          I think there was an article in “the fake left” the other day written by a haem/onc about how an ICU asked her to move one of her patients out to a non-vax Covid patient could be brought in. The haem/once refused and her patient did pass away quickly in ICU, but it got me thinking…

          From a brutally utilitarian point of view, and with limited resources, the patient(s) who have the highest chance of recovery should get those resources. Yes, people should get vaccinated, protect their own health etc etc but ethically I still don’t think that health practitioners should refuse people ICU treatment solely on that basis. In this case, you have to consider the high recovery rate for Covid, along with the miserable prognosis for haematological malignancies, and say: which one stands the better chance of getting in and out of ICU alive?

          So I guess you can debate the pro/con of vaccination itself, but threatening to withhold treatment for people is going that step too far IMO.

          • So I guess you can debate the pro/con of vaccination itself, but threatening to withhold treatment for people is going that step too far IMO.

            +1

            It’s the first step over a slippery slope with some pretty scary outcomes at the end.

          • RobotSenseiMEMBER

            People who still drink don’t get liver transplants.
            Due to many factors:
            1) scarcity of organs
            2) technical difficulty of procedure
            3) risk of non-compliance with anti-rejection therapy in future
            4) combining 1) and 3), equity of instead providing an organ to someone who will comply with necessary treatment post-transplant

    • Tom, you again appear to be confusing IFR with CFR. They may be an order of magnitude different.

      “Let’s assume that 75% of the population is going to get this whether they know they’ve got it or not”
      OK. So this is talking about IFR. People who are infected – even if they don’t know it.

      “My crude high-end estimate is that the mortality rate will be 0.05% for the vaccinated and 0.5% for the unvaccinated”
      I don’t know where this figure comes from. Is it an average of various figures you have seen?

      The best estimates of IFR are around 0.15%. Across a population. Original strain. Pre vaccine.

      Ioannidis came up with 0.05% for 70.

      https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

      Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data
      John P A Ioannidis
      a Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, California 94305, United States of America.
      Correspondence to John P A Ioannidis (email: [email protected]).
      (Submitted: 13 May 2020 – Revised version received: 13 September 2020 – Accepted: 15 September 2020 – Published online: 14 October 2020)
      Abstract
      Objective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
      from seroprevalence data.
      Methods I searched PubMed and preprint servers for COVID-19 seroprevalence studies with a sample size  500 as of 9 September, 2020. I also retrieved additional results of national studies from preliminary press releases and reports. I assessed the studies for design features and seroprevalence estimates. I estimated the infection fatality rate for each study by dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of people estimated to be infected in each region. I corrected for the number of antibody types tested (immunoglobin, IgG, IgM, IgA).
      Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average ( 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.
      Conclusion The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case- mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.

      • Tassie TomMEMBER

        IFR of Covid Mk 1 was higher than 0.15%. Way higher. Peru has had a mortality rate of 0.6% of the whole population (diagnosed, infected but not diagnosed, AND not infected at all). Bulgaria, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Hungary have all lost more than 0.4% of their populations to Covid. And even the USA and UK have lost over 0.2% of their entire populations to Covid.

        An IFR of 0.15% is still possible if it is just as deadly upon the second and subsequent reinfections and the entire population of Peru has been infected 4 times, but this is so unlikely as to be impossible.

        Where do I get 1% – 1.5% from? An estimate based on the data. And none of the data is perfect because there will always be undiagnosed cases.

        I’m not being alarmist. For perspective the Irish Great Famine in the 1840s wiped out 20-25% of their entire population.

        • Many countries have an annual mortality of around 1%. Some quite a bit higher. Population turnover.

          0.6% to Covid smacks of mis-attribution.

          That said, I wonder off high altitude exacerbated the illness in Peru.

  5. ‘Government management of Omicron blighted by false assumptions, bad planning’

    “Omicron is a gear change and we have to push through,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday. “You have two choices here: you can push through or you can lock down. We’re for pushing through.”

    Surveying the present shambles, you’d have to conclude the gearbox is shot.

    Morrison’s “either-or” dichotomy is simplistic and misleading, trying to disguise the failure to have been better prepared with a more nuanced response.

    It wasn’t “either-or”. It was about managing to best effect a transition that must be made to the so-called “living with COVID” new world. The challenge was to find the right settings on a spectrum of choices.

    So what went wrong? Almost everything, it seems. Federal and state governments share blame, but as PM, Morrison has to shoulder prime responsibility.”..

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-14/covid-omicron-management-blighted-by-false-assumptions/100755284

  6. Distractions pile up on more distractions, The Tennis imbroglio distracts us from the Scovid shambles that distracts us from the great hairy herd of elephants in the room that is the ever increasing Climate catastrophe. (don’t mention the war.)
    Covid is giving great cover to the Fossil Fuel industry .
    But silently every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year this is happening
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/07/global-warming-of-oceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second
    but we are to distracted to notice.

  7. I would say all of this is going according to plan for Dom NSW and Scomo. Where you see failure, and a system crumbling they see success that people will eventually “get used to”. They IMO are psychopaths.

    Goal of party: To boost immigration again, suppress wages especially from people educating themselves (aspirational skilled workers), keep house prices high, infrastructure to funnel money to mates and put the economy first for big donors.

    Problems: Closed borders, lack of pop growth, COVID, vulnerable people, extra stimulus required for poorer workers SME’s in COVID times, pretending to want to solve COVID/caring for the community, etc. Mortality rate that still means mild for most people but high overall compared to other viruses.

    How to solve:

    Don’t keep the borders closed. Everyone must be infected so people think there is no point of “closing the borders”. Otherwise people will get used to that lifestyle and we can’t achieve our goals. Closed borders worked “too well”. Apply pressure on states that have closed borders with negative propoganda “e.g. hermit kingdom, live with the virus like it is some peaceful housemate, etc”. If the leaders want to do the right thing then white ant their support from within (e.g. news outlets direct to voters in QLD, WA, SA, TAS, etc). Nether mind that closed borders will make this a one off wave preventing variants vs epidemic and that few viruses have actually become endemic.

    Most of all we can’t have any counterfactual for people to point to showing our lack of care (e.g. WA).

    Let everyone get it, and ignore the sick. Not a goal of us so only pretend to care, do things that look like we are doing “something” but don’t actually impede our goals. The sick aren’t part of our plan anyway and are expendable. They all had “underlying conditions” anyway; where many people do and it isn’t that rare as you get older.

    Control the narrative: Most people will have mild symptoms so enforce that COVID isn’t a big problem with propaganda and that people who are concerned are “alarmist, pessismistic and weird” (i.e slander to win an argument). That people advocating no COVID or controlled COVID are mad and going to cost us too much and hurt the economy. Never mind that most viruses (even Polio, etc) were mild for MOST people but still devastating given large amount of infections with long term complications (see MS cause study today traced to a virus). Also don’t care that zero COVID economies have done the best in the last 2 years.

    Stop testing, stop controlling. Being the worst with COVID also means we are the most “open” by definition. Get it out of the news cycle by defunding PCR tests, and making it a “personal responsibility” thing. No data/tests = no cases = all good. Remove transparency in health system with “confidentiality clauses” on workers, etc. Nothing to see here bascially.

    Long Term: Argue for more privatisation as the health system doesn’t work and needs to be “more efficient”. Defund it, break it down and make it like “toll roads” or the US system. Private does everything better. In the end we will pay more per person for the service privately with worse outcomes. Private System > Unfunded System that was allowed to break. Get mates to own it and pay them more than you paid public servants to do the job.

    Casualities: Immunocompromised, health workers and hospitals, injured, people with other health conditions, supply chains, small business economy as people go into unofficial lockdown, injured, pregnant women, long term side effects, kids/schools, community services, community businesses (e.g. the local pub) and more.
    Winners (The only ones that count): Property Developers, Universities, Large Banks and Corporations, Treasury, Vaccine and Equipment manufacturers, Large Construction Companies with ties to Government and Govt Contracts (e.g. Transurban), Large Airlines/Infrastructure Companies, etc.

    • RobotSenseiMEMBER

      Pretty much it, the classic cycle of: don’t invest, let the people who care and work in it burn out, claim “the system is broken”, privatise it, leave the people who can afford it sweet and leave the poor and vulnerable to fend for themselves.

    • Note: To say something a little controversial vaccines are one of the main enablers of this political state IMO, or at least our imperfect ones we currently have. The political economy has now become political health. They allow the spread of COVID, despite long term pain to the community, to be within acceptable margins to still get the “Goals of the Party” above. As long as on aggregate we are functioning, individual suffering and circumstances don’t need to be considered too much.

      Just like in the GFC when people were predicting house price falls due to economic theory and not taking the government reaction into account (in the end massive price rises) I fear people did the same with the vaccines in terms of COVID (health and statistical health studies) and not taking the government reaction to account with the new context. Vaccines work, but they don’t solve the problem to the extent that closed borders do as shown by death and number count. Without vaccines on the horizon we might of had less COVID in society ironically (at least in western countries), not more due to political incentives.

      Before vaccination getting everyone infected was not an option – those problems would of bit too hard affecting even their vested interests. The causalities and sickness (and the fear that spreads from it) would of been too catastrophic in their eyes for even their donors to benefit. This was probably a once in a generation alignment of the community and big end of town cost/benefit/risk curves. Hence the COVID free, mostly world beating place to live Australia was in most states until Oct-Nov last year with wage pressures rising, migration stopping, money given to unemployed, etc.

      It forced a Liberal government to do things against their long term ideology.

  8. Gladys B and ScoMo really do have lots of blood on their hands for letting this thing rip!

    COVID-zero would have been a much wiser strategy, and we proved it was possible for a period of time of rare nation-wide discipline in 2021…. *Sigh*