The Australian Covid myth implodes

This is not a sustainable way to live in this country,” declared Scott Morrison, Australia’s prime minister, on August 23rd. He was defending a dramatic shift in covid-19 strategy. Since the start of the pandemic Australia has used an approach dubbed “covid zero”, stamping on outbreaks down to the last case, whatever it takes. From now on, cases will be allowed to rise as long as hospitals can cope with them. The plan is to drop most restrictions once 80% of adults are vaccinated, which looks achievable by the end of the year.

Early in the pandemic Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the Pacific closed their borders and set up quarantine hotels to keep the virus out until vaccines were available. More than 30,000 Australians overseas are waiting to return home because of limits on how many can do so each month. Some who got stuck in India contracted covid-19 there and died. But for most of 2020 life in Australia carried on as usual, with schools, restaurants and theatres open—and no masks in sight. When a covid-19 case slipped through the quarantine wall, meticulous contact-tracing prevented big outbreaks. By August 25th Australia had registered 39 covid-19 deaths per million people, compared with about 1,700 per million in Europe.

But the highly contagious Delta variant, which spread globally this spring, has pushed the zero-covid approach to its limits. “It’s not just that you have to do everything you do better. It actually breaks the system,” says Catherine Bennett of Deakin University in Melbourne. Delta spreads so easily that even if contact-tracers reach an infected person within 30 hours of a positive test, their contacts would already have passed the virus down several chains of transmission, says Dr Bennett.

The only way to curb such outbreaks has been through short lockdowns known as “circuit-breakers”. With more infections slipping through the net, that leads to what Dr Bennett calls an “epidemic of lockdowns”. More than half of Australians have been in lockdown at one point or another since June. Melbourne has seen more than 200 days of lockdowns since the pandemic began. Hence the plan to ditch the zero-covid paradigm and accept that cases, and to a lesser extent deaths, will rise.

How high they will rise depends on how quickly Australians are vaccinated. About a quarter are fully jabbed, compared with 50-60% of Europeans and Americans. In addition, almost no Australians have acquired immunity naturally, through infection. Australia’s campaign got off to a late start because of supply delays. It had pre-ordered large quantities of a vaccine that failed in clinical trials, as well as of the AstraZeneca jab. The distribution of doses to 40,000 family doctors, spread over a vast country, has hit some snags. But vaccination has accelerated in the past week.

Other countries using the zero-covid model are in a similar predicament. All of New Zealand is now in lockdown, as cases have hit their highest level since April 2020. Vietnam’s remarkably successful tracing system has been crushed by Delta. Until April this year the country’s new daily case rate had almost always been in single digits; now it is north of 10,000.

Throughout the pandemic the zero-covid countries have been the envy of the world. The final stretch, however, will be their toughest. ?

I said, right at the start of this thing, before lockdowns were a thing, that I hope when the dust settled we would all be a lot less free. 

Seems we'll never be as free as we were two years ago ever again.

Delta has finally caught up with Australia, although their vaccination drive is starting to pick up, and all could be offered a vaccine within months. 

Australia's covid will be similar to the vaccinated countries, except without the initial vaccine-less pandemic. 

Australia has lots of advantages…only modest urbanization, an outdoor climate, a healthy population and the Pacific Ocean. There were no mysteries in their relative success.

 Like New Zealand, they have numerous advantages, as you listed.
Although countries with similar conditions to Australia and New Zealand did not fare as well- and suffered more deaths and more lockdowns. 

Aus/NZ's approach to eliminating Covid worked with quick circuit breaker lockdowns. 
Instead of trying to cope and co-exist with Covid, they killed it. 

With Delta, it is probably not possible to eliminate it from a country, and they will now need to change their game plan. The first approach has bought them time to get vaccinated. A game plan that worked...

SB

I got my second shot on Wednesday and yesterday I felt something was very wrong and I could not even get out of the car.   Today I am feeling better - but is the vaccination of any value since it cannot stop people spreading the virus or getting infected.   Will vaccination save the life of  people with morbidities  - I doubt it very, very much    I will definitely not take a booster shot  in future,  

Of all the Covid deaths reported in SA  90%  of the deaths occurred because of existing  ranging from 1 to 4 morbiidities,   King Goodwill died despite having been vaccinated - he had high blood pressure problems and was suffering from  diabetes - yet he died because of infection Covid 19 infection  despite the fact that he was vaccinated,   Just an example.  

What Draad said is true - the proclamation of logdowns and  other measures will not stop the  spreading it is just not worth losing their freedom by a Government that assume powers they would not be able to exercise without Covid 19.   

 The Government proclaim logdowns  and restrict people from doing things that they would  do as free human beings  - while taking decisions based  on data not available to the Public.   They spout now restrictions - but never provide data,    There has been studies that masks are not effective - yt people are forced to wear masks.    They never gave details other than daily infection.   Neither do they indicate recoveries and  deaths  without indicating whether those who died  may have died anyway because of existing morbidities.     Aside from it - what is the survival rate compared to the death rate.   

In the Municipality where I live there are  548 active cases in a population of 65 000 with about 6 deaths as a result of covid related problems since the start of the pandemic.  More people died of flu-related illnesses  than of covid infections - so is that enough to  safcrifice our freedom for?  .  .    

Maaik, things will gradually get better over the next few years...a combination of vaccines and people recovering from it. We'll just have to learn to live witth it...the mask mandates for schoolkids and the curfew is nonsence, not to mention the restrictions of certain businesses...can't believe there are so many fearful people.

Sharkbok  the above report is misleading, for a start life did not carry on "business as usual" when Covid hit, the national and state governments immediately adopted a national approach to the problem and therein lies its success. Before the vaccines were available they successfully reversed the graph with blunt tools every step of the way, masks became mandatory on public transport, social distancing in public places and companies allowed staff to work from home. There were and there still is a minority who flout the protocols which promotes the spread of the virus.

Here...this from today's Daily Mail

"Sydney's Delta outbreak began in the eastern suburbs in June, but it quickly took hold in the west and south-west - and more than 80 per cent of Friday's 882 new cases were confined to those areas. 

Most of the 12 local government areas 'of concern' have large immigrant populations, including Fairfield, Canterbury-Bankstown, Campbelltown, Blacktown and Liverpool.

'It is possible that some large families, who are very close and like to visit each other often, haven't taken the Delta strain seriously enough,' Mr Ahmad, 68, who lives with his four children and elderly parents, told Daily Mail Australia."

Our national government has been proactive in their response to the virus, as an example they ordered millions of doses of the vaccine before it became available, Europe cancelled the order claiming that Australia was doing well and that there were other countries more in need. The government vaccination program was thrown in limbo as they scrambled to find a new provider.

The more contagious Delta variant arrived and Oz was left defenceless, it reversed all the gains that had been made so the government was forced to introduce new protocols with a hard lockdown and heavy fines.

To date 65% have received a single dose and 35% a double in NSW and a million people received their first shot yesterday. The figures would have been vastly better had Europe not pulled a dirty on Oz. My only critiscm is that the government was too slow with regards to vaccinating our front line workers.

I laugh at the fools who pretend to know better specially about the "loss of our freedoms"...these are abnormal times demanding abnormal methods of control. We are fortunate to have a highly efficient and responsible government who struggle with a pathetic minority determined to sabotage their good work. The aim is to have 70% double vaccinated by October and for partial restrictions to be lifted. NZ is doing much the same and I daresay we can expect the same posi tives.

"I laugh at the fools who pretend to know better specially about the "loss of our freedoms"...these are abnormal times demanding abnormal methods of control."

Pretty much sums it up. 

We, the government, reserve the right to destroy your livelihood and take away your freedoms whenever we deem it necessary.

We will collude with big tech to distort, vilify and ban open discussion about Covid. And we won't apologize or be held liable when it turns out that we banned very useful discussion which may have helped the fight against Covid. 

We have the answers, you don't. We decide what's best for you, you don't. We reserve the right to backtrack on our "advice", you don't.

And the idiotic peasants gobble it up... Gagging for that gold star on their report card. 

There isn’t one credible study that proves that masks work….just as one example of your government not working for you. They do lower oxygen intake though and have damaging effects on the social development of children.

Governments in general have little to do with the outcome, it’s a confluence of demographic factors. The US states for example have taken vastly different approaches to Covid and deaths per million correlates very poorly with any of these approaches.

Who needs any kind of study to know if masks work or not?

How many times do the Trumpanzees need to be told that masks are not worn to protect the wearer, they're worn to protect people from the wearer?

Now, if you accept the very obvious and irrefutable fact that when you cough or sneeze, the droplets expelled travel a shorter distance if you're wearing a mask than they would if you weren't, then it's very simple . . . masks do work. Who needs a study to know this?

Poor ROOITWIT is im. Une to science.

Studies show again and again that masks are useless.

Now if you had not been such a closed minded bigot you would have read the articles I posted on this and would not now be making such a jackass of yourself yet again.

Rooitwit imagine a guy putting up one of the diamond mesh wire fences.  You ask him why he was putting up the fence and he tells you to keep out the mosquitos.

Would you believe he is on the right track? Well maybe you would.

Study after study in hospital settings have been done to see if masks stop staff picking up the Corona virus. There was no evidence they. Masks are actually very bad for your health Rooitwit.

Do yourself a favor and read my posts explaining what the real science says.

And no rooitwit the Universe did not create itself out of nothing.

Hahaha haha ou rooitwit all at sea as per usual. 

Irony is lost...

Draad frequently misplaces irony like a set of car keys. 

 Lots of anecdotal evidence on masks….but the virus strands are a 50th the width of a human hair and easily slip in and out of masks. Several big studies to prove masks work were suspiciously terminated. Here is a halfway decent study that shows if masks work, they hardly work.

Henning Bundgaard, MD, DMSc, a professor and consultant in cardiology at the University of Copenhagen and coauthor of the study, told Healio Primary Care that it is important to note that the researchers only assessed the effect of masks as personal protection — not “source control.” 

“The identified potential positive effect of the mask for prevention — although small — might still be of interest considering COVID-19 is a very serious disease,” he added. 

Bundgaard and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled study in Denmark from April 3 to June 2, where participants who spent at least 3 hours per day outside of their home were randomly assigned to wear a mask or to not wear a mask when away from home.

Those asked to wear a mask were given 50 high-quality surgical face masks with a 98% filtration rate.

At the time of the study, Danish authorities did not recommend the use of masks, and less than 5% of people outside of hospitals used masks, according to the researchers. However, authorities recommended other preventive measure during the study period such as quarantining people with COVID-19, physical distancing measures, limiting contact with people, frequent handwashing and cleaning and limiting visitors in hospitals and nursing homes. Denmark’s cafes and restaurants were closed from the start of the study period until May 18.

Among participants, the researchers evaluated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at 1 month based on positive antibody results, polymerase chain reaction or diagnosis at a hospital.

A total of 3,030 participants were assigned to wear masks and 2,994 were assigned to not wear masks.

Bundgaard and colleagues found that 1.8% of those who wore masks and 2.1% of those who did not wear masks tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. They determined that the difference between the groups was -0.03 percentage points (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54-1.23), with the findings in favor of those who wore masks.

……

Statistically insignificant.

Anecdotal evidence . . . big studies . . . controlled studies . . . blah blah blah!

The question of whether masks are effective is really as simple as this . . .

Two people cough or sneeze. One is wearing a mask and the other isn't. The droplets of spittle or saliva expelled by the person not wearing the mask travel further than that of the person who is wearing the mask.

If you don't believe that's true then you're an idiot. If you accept it as true then you're conceding that masks are effective in reducing the spread of the Trumpvirus .

No need for "big studies" . . . it really is as simple as that.

How often do covid infected people cough?

How often do they sneeze?

How quickly do droplets descend to ground? 

What are the chances of inhaling droplets before they fall? 

What percentage of infections occur due to coughs and sneezes?

... Exactly how effective are masks? Do they slow infection rates by 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% or 100%?

The argument seems to be that even if they slow infections by 1%, it's still a valid measure. 

Is it though? 

Let's take one potential and large scale negative consequence...

If very young children around the globe are wearing masks in pre-school, what are the social and educational consequences? Are we sure that this won't affect them in ways that we don't yet understand?  On the scale we are talking about, are we certain that if it does turn out to affect them, that it won't be a massive problem in the future? 

I know that, in dogs, missing or poor administration of certain socializing techniques can result in negative behaviors that are virtually set in stone once the dog is past 8 months of age. 

Perhaps it's a thin argument but it does strike me as though much of the way covid had been handled amounts to kicking the can down the road to a degree. And we don't really know or understand many of the consequences. 

And then, even if the above argument is entirely wrong, should it be banned from being discussed. 

According to most social media sites, arguments like this should be censored. 

... Which is, to me, one of the biggest problems with all this because next discussion of other topics will be banned and censored too. 

IE It's not as simple as that, Rooi. 

Fair enough, then see the comment above "If you don't believe that's true then you're an idiot."

Masks help.

"I don't like wearing masks when I go out."

What an utterly pointless and vapid comment.

I don't know anyone who likes wearing masks. Do you seriously think you're unique in not liking masks? Huh?

Thought I was speaking for myself, but okay.

FYI 'n donkie se "huh" as hy klaar ge "uuh" het.

Of course you were speaking for yourself but the question remains, do you know people who do like wearing masks? Even one? If not, what was the point of your stupid comment?

I believe the point is quite clear...that it may bias me, regardless of how many other people do or don't like wearing masks.

Have you had a stroke?

n95 masks that doctors use in medical surgery can be up to 95% effective. They are a respirator, not just cloth. 

When I use masks (typically indoors at a shopping mall), I have some generic version of n95 masks - because the medical industry has grabbed all the stock of the original. 

If you have bought a cheap mask in Checkers or Pep, then it might be as low as only 5% effective at protecting you. (When you breathe, some of the air will be taken from the side as you inhale and exhale). 

However, cheap masks will still help protect other people from you if you have Covid, as the cloth would catch "some" of the microscopic particles attached to saliva if you had Covid. 

If you poured a tiny bit of water on a piece of cloth, it would not all seep through to the other side. 
So, a cheap mask will catch at least some of the water particles (Spittle) - that limit's how much Covid spittle, that you breathe into the open air.  

Haha

Well that didn't take long. 

‘Masks help’ but proper comparative studies show almost no effect……’but people sneeze it just has to help’….sure but the help can’t be measured. Let’s apply the same standards we did to Hydroxychloroquin, anecdotal evidence is invalid, no benefit can be inferred until demonstrated in a proper, high sample count,  study.

As for your theory Shark,  all that Covid caught in the mask isn’t captured. It builds up and is released. Is somebody exhaling through a covid impregnated mask safer than somebody exhaling normally?

Who knows? The bottom line is until we can actually demonstrate that masks lower the risk to the wearer and that masked populations have less Covid than similar unmasked populations….it’s speculation.

I have heard several air flow experts opine that the only way to effectively filter air is through mechanical, 100%enclosedfilters.

If the medical consensus is that masks do not work, why do doctors wear masks in surgery? 
Surely if they thought it was nonsense, take the mask off as it will be easier to operate on the patient. 

When people breathe out, they release microscopic particles of saliva into the air. The virus binds itself to the spittle.
Some type of cloth filter is bound to stop at least some of the spittle. N95 masks might not be 95% effective, but they are better than a random piece of cloth with no filter. 

Governments are following what the scientists are saying. What other motive would there be to force people to wear masks- bar Covid? 

The big blunder by scientists is to not ensure the governments advise on wearing proper masks like N95, given they are now readily available- on Amazon - and multiple other places.