Te Pūnaha Matatini researchers are making the case for why New Zealand needs to aim for a very high vaccination rate, saying a rate of 80% of over-5s could still result in 7000 deaths a year.
They also say vaccination alone isn't enough, so other public health measures are needed longer-term.
Shaun Hendy and Nicholas Steyn from the University of Auckland’s Department of Physics, and Michael Plank from the University of Canterbury’s School of Mathematics and Statistics made their case in a new paper funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Te Pūnaha Matatini.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the paper didn’t reflect government policy, but was a contribution to the debate.
“We find that there are scenarios where, through a combination of high vaccine coverage (including amongst those aged 5-11) and moderate public health measures, population immunity is achieved, resulting in very low mortality burden,” Hendy, Steyn and Plank said.
“For example, with 90 per cent vaccine coverage of the population over the age of 5, a suite of moderate public health measures and an effective test, trace and isolate system, the modelling suggests there would be around 500 hospitalisations and 50 fatalities from COVID-19 over a one year period.
“There are scenarios where, despite a high vaccination coverage, population immunity is not achieved, resulting in a disease mortality burden that is an order of magnitude greater.
“For example, with 80 per cent vaccine coverage of the population over the age of five and moderate public health measures, the modelling suggests there would be around 60,000 hospitalisations and 7,000 fatalities per year from COVID-19.
“Such outcomes could be mitigated if more restrictive control measures, akin to current Alert Levels 3 or 4, were utilised."
Hendy, Steyn and Plank noted the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine has been approved for use in New Zealand for 12-15 year olds, and may soon be approved for use in children aged 5-11 years.
They went on to say, “The results suggest that it would be valuable to develop a suite of moderate public health interventions that can be sustained for a long period of time if required.
“Interventions such as mandated mask use, ventilation requirements and some density or capacity restrictions for indoor venues, rapid-testing at workplaces and schools, and support for symptomatic people, confirmed cases and close contacts to isolate should be investigated.
“Effort should also be given to strengthening the test-trace-isolate-quarantine system, which would be expected to operate for extended periods with low to moderate levels of cases in the community, possibly punctuated by larger outbreaks in parts of the community where vaccine coverage is lower due to reduced uptake or waning immunity.
“Such outbreaks may require significant surge capacity and may need to be accompanied by more stringent public health measures. However, the higher the vaccine coverage achieved, the less such measures will be needed.”
See a copy of the research here.
211 Comments
The 7000 figure was based on 50% effectiveness of the vaccine. By the measure used, Pfizer is actually highly effective, which puts the deaths at around 2500 for 80% of over 12 y/o. The key message from Hendy's modelling is using the “Highly Effective” vaccine rating, if 85 per cent of the population over 12 were vaccinated, deaths would drop to 191. That is less than the flu.
Thanks to Politik for pointing that out
What is missing in research is the number of deaths projected caused by attempting a 90% vaccination rates and sustained lock down.
It's not "missing" at all, you just haven't seen it / read it.
The projection is that with 90%+ of the whole population vaccinated, lockdowns won't be required, and we'd be looking at about 50 deaths per year. Shaun Hendy remarked this was "10 times less" than seasonal influenza, which normally kills about 600 a year. In contrast, only 80% vaccination gives us an outcome that is 10x worse than seasonal influenza.
The 90%+ vaccination rate is alongside other public health measures including testing (likely including rapid testing), contact tracing and isolating infected individuals, vaccination certificates and likely wearing masks in some settings. Border controls will be lifted, although to what extent is not clear, but it seems there's no appetite for ongoing MIQ (so all those people demanding the government construct some purpose-built facilities - this is why it wasn't done). I expect there'll be requirements for all incoming travelers to be vaccinated and perhaps to show pre-departure tests, and maybe even a rapid test on arrival.
Very difficult to control covid though once in teh community as has been shown, and is our contact tracing actually up to it for Delta, considering how it coped early on in the outbreak. IMO we would almost still need to stick with an elimination approach, and make sure it doesn't leak into the country.
What deaths are you talking about? Virtually zero associated with the vaccine. As for lock downs, our "excess deaths" during the lockdown last year were negative - fewer car accidents, suicides (probably mostly due to access rather than mental health), flu, etc. - so on that measure, lockdowns save lives even without COVID (not that anyone sensible would try to make that as an argument for lockdowns).
It will be interesting to see whether the government will wait for the paper to be peer reviewed before basing policy on it, or just take it at face value. This is a pretty major claim, I'm not aware of any other studies internationally which have come to the same conclusion.
Doesn't seem particularly controversial to me. Just look at what's happening around the world. UK has pretty high vaccination levels, they're still having 100+ deaths a day, in their summer. That would be 35000 pa, scaled to NZ maybe 3000 pa, but winter will be worse, and after much of the population has already been exposed (a "benefit" which we don't have). US much worse on lower vax rates.
Formal peer review is a slow process, that will come later. They will do internal peer review I'm sure.
Peer review is more than just "I'll get my mate to have a look". There's rhyme and reason to the process, and it has to be independent. Casual observations backed up by back-of-the-napkin calculations are not really reliable enough to be basing public health policy on in the middle of a pandemic.
The scientific method requires observation, hypothesis, testing, falsification and refinement. Waiting months for peers somewhere else to have a look is not formally required. It is traditional, I grant you, but often slow and cumbersome. Companies, for example, almost never bother, and if they do it's after the fact.
This is not a crack at you, but the premise of your statement, and in fact the whole tenant of peoples disagreements with each other over this issue, ie the undermining of the scientific method by companies and Govts. to suit their agenda, and how it is almost impossible for people to take other people's words at face value anymore and what 'good' data looks like.
For example, these companies Celotex, Kingspan, Arconic as building product companies that backed up the claim their products were 'fire resistant' (by themselves and as part of a system) with 'scientific tests,' and the BBA being the Govt scientific organization that approved and verified the methodology.
The result of this deliberate and innate collaboration between these companies and a Govt. organization resulted in 72 deaths in the Grenfell fire tragedy.
The first casualty in any war is the truth, and businesses are always at war with each other, as is the elected Govt. with the opposition.
your numbers are wrong -- the Uk is averaging 144 a week -- and thats the highest for 6 months - or just over 7500 a year with a population 14 times larger than us - teh six month average is under 50 a week -- or 2500 a year - this 7000 number is total scaremongering and not based on any other country's real numbers at high vaccination rates - scaled it gives you around 550 a year or less than our current flu numbers - and thats with virtually no restrictions in place anymore -- which is certainly not their plan until well into next year
The difference is that their health system appears to be geared towards it and the have better ICU capacity than NZ has. NZs health system is the real problem here, and we apparently have the second lowest ICU beds in the OECD after Mexico. Australia even has double NZs. Oz seem to think they can open up with 70% vaccination, but I can't see how that can happen. National also previously said NZ only needed to get up to about 70% vaccinated, so I don't know where they got those numbers from.
Seems not everyone agrees, even other experts say it's overblown
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300414401/covid19-nz-rodney-jon…
I'm so tired theatrical doom porn mathematical models. They said Sweden would be a disaster, but here's Anders Tegnell, the epidemiologist and architect of the Swedish plan, discussing the huge success that Sweden has had. https://youtu.be/nZRR5zZ0I0s Sweden which never had a lockdown, and actually has the fourth or fifth lowest excess mortality in Europe.
Here's some believable mathematical modelling based on the euromomo website ...
Europe's population = 748.2 million
Europe's excess deaths from 2020 until now (89 weeks) = 394,948 (in 2020) + 200,086 (in 2021) = 595,034
European excess deaths per million = 595042 / 748.2 = 795
New Zealand has a population of 4.87 million so we could logically expect 4.87 * 795 = 3870 fatalities during the most deadly first and second waves over a 1.7 year period. That's 2276 deaths per year - not 7000! The annual covid fatility rate would obviously decrease as it’s done in Europe as people gain immunity.
We could increase NZ’s resilience by doing what India did and giving covid outpatients a tray of inexpensive medicines and vitamins containing ivermectin, vitamin D3, Vitamin C, Zinc, and an antibiotic. We could vaccinate some people too, but not kids and teenagers because that would be counterproductive! That would be evidence-based action using clinical trial data c19study.com, and learning what's worked in other countries.
For context: 34,000 kiwis die each year.
6000 die from heart disease - much preventable by diet & lifestyle. 165,000 diagnosed with types of heart/stroke disease.
A top 5 killer is Cancer - some preventable with more expensive drugs.
Suicide is a top 6 killer for males.
car crashes in the top 8 for males
How much $$$ to save more lives in these categories? Stop supermarkets selling unhealthy food? Etc
Yes, which is why we're saying take an hour of your time, get two vaccines and then we won't have to use lockdowns again.
That is exactly what they are NOT saying. In fact nearly all the experts have said the opposite. Vaccination levels no matter how high, will not be enough by themselves so it is innevitable some sort of lockdown state will persist. Granted it wont be L4, and unlikely to be L3, but even a long drawn out L2 is not off the cards.
Did you actually listen to briefing? If we can get vaccine rates high enough (big IF) and they remain effective, we will never need another lockdown - we may still need some measures, contact tracing, masks, etc. But the higher the rates, the fewer of those that are needed.
Many in these forums are always letting me know I should stop trying to infer/assume what the PM means, and just go on the words explicitly dictated. I don't recall them explicitly stating No more lockdowns. Maybe you can supply the quote? If not then by all accounts lockdowns are not off the cards.
This is one instance I would happily like to be proven wrong.
Hendy mentioned that lockdowns wouldn't be needed at about the 90% rate while the PM was nodding (unless she'd stopped by then?). But L2 is not really a lockdown - pretty much everything is available and people can go anywhere to get it, just less conveniently. Masks and potentially capacity limiting and distancing in some environments may be part of things anyway.
If vaccines don't matter, why are wasting our time in lockdowns then?
Lets get vaccinated and move on with life, there are more serious risks that we live with every day, heart disease, ,cancer, normal flus - welcome to life... risk exists... and we need to learn to live with it...
Enough of the fear based stories that are taking our freedoms away at a massive cost under the guise of saving lives...
If that were true, we would make massive changes to what foods people could eat, make exercising mandatory and pour billions into other causes of death that we generally accept as ok i.e 5800 deaths from heart disease every year
$1.9 Billion cost of lockdowns per week to NZ.
So 8 weeks = roughly $16 billion
$16 billion divided by 7000 lives is about $2.3 million per saved life.
Vaccination is totally worth it.
However, Lockdowns are at a very high cost per saved life, which we would not apply for other preventable deaths in other categories.
The 7000 lives lost is based on 80% vaccination coverage. Without it the lives lost would be much higher, thus the $ per life much lower. During the first lockdown vaccines weren't an option.
For the second lockdown we could have had higher vaccinations, but very unlikely to have hit 80% of 5+, we're not even looking like that any time soon now that supply is no longer an issue.
if we spent some of the 60billion on earlier healthcare - - full scans for heart liver and cancer issues at 50, 55 and 60 for male and females we would catch a huge amount of issues at a treatable stage and not too late -- almost all early intervention is massively cheaper than trying at the last minute!
6Bill year for ten years invested in our healthcare system and staff would have gone a very very long way!
"As New Zealand faced the brunt of a global pandemic, the Government spent $26,000 commissioning a novel about the collapse of democracy in an association of alpaca breeders."
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/jason-walls-not-a-single-cent-more…
Those numbers don't pass the sniff test. For sake of simplicity, consider NZ's population of 5m.
They say 90% (4.5m) will mean 50 deaths.
So 4.5m vaccinated gives you 0.01% death rate (population) and 0.1% death rate amongst the unvaccinated.
If 80% (4m) are vaccinated suddenly you have 7000 deaths. So a 500k difference in unvaccinated, give you an extra 6950 deaths vs your original tally, and a death rate of slightly over 0.1% (10x higher) but over 1% amongst the unvaccinated.
Total BS IMO and just designed to bully the government into harsher restrictions and vaccination mandates.
That's because if there are many vaccinated people outbreaks would fizzle out and there would be far fewer total infections.
But I do see your point - why did they waste money getting mathematicians, statisticians and epidemiologists to produce complicated models, when Brutus Iscariot could have done it on the back of an envelope in 5 minutes.
I agree, those numbers look like a guess to me. The math must be quite difficult, you would naturally expect the death rate to decrease year on year unlike for example heart disease. Those at the highest risk will simply die in the first year and as vaccination rates rise and natural immunity build I would expect the death rate to drop into the sort of numbers that the existing flu's kill every year. The unknown is of course variants of Covid which could cause some pretty high spikes if suddenly the vaccine was ineffective. On reflection the lockdowns have cost this country dearly.
Seems totally reasonable. Compare with measles where 95% vaccination means minimal cases and any rare outbreaks involve special groups (poor & uneducated, religious). Under 95% as per some European countries and they have general community outbreaks. Of course measles is simpler since vaccination gives absolute immunity. That means we should be aiming for something like 97% of over fives and even then there will be risks to under fives.
You can do the maths on a scrap of paper. Assume you are the target so with 99% vaccination rate you have to meet 100 people before being at risk from an unvaccinated person and now you are infected you have to meet 100 people to pass it on. Ten thousand to one. Repeat that with 80% and now it is one in five. Twenty five to one.
In the first case, R<1 and outbreaks just fizzle. In the second, R>1 and outbreaks spread to everyone (unless other public health measures). The modelling isn't saying there will likely be 7000 deaths - just that we will will need other health measure to bring R down to avoid them. But with above 90% we need very few additional health measures for it to fizzle out naturally.
He was speaking to the nation directly from the Podium of Truth (on screen) between the 2 poohbahs. You don't get to do that unless they are totally onboard with the "facts" you are delivering. More like we need to find some "science" to justify what we need to do politically.
Far too high going by this paper. "All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations."
I would also like to see the modeller's crude death metric translated into adjusted life-years lost (as per Pharmac methodology below) and compared on a bar chart vs all other forms of yearly mortality.
Only then will we have some context.
https://pharmac.govt.nz/medicine-funding-and-supply/the-funding-process…
It would be helpful, yes.
But we already have plenty of context.
80% vaccination rate gives about 6,000 deaths per year
90% vaccination rate (and other public health measures, see my other comments for details) gives about 50 deaths per year.
Influenza, in a normal year, usually results in about 600 deaths.
its a Government paid for study that has no real peer review -- and is totally hypothetical -- in reality -- and we can already see that -- the evidence is different - they even admitted this is updated from earlier - they just missed out because we needed it to push the new narrative - that elimination does not mean zero cases -- so vaccinate
The UK is at around 75% vaccination rates currently and was about 50% 6 months ago of first doses and very few 2nd doses -- in teh last 6 months their ACTUAL death rates average around 50 a week -- even with no restrictions at all the current rate is 144 a week or 7488 a year - with a population nearly 14 times the size - scale that down and you get 534 actual deaths in a real situation
canada 53 a week - or 2756 a year - pop 38 mill scales to 370 a year - again around 75% 1 dose 70 two doses
This is Fear and Scaremongering at its worst -- and its this type of messaging re Delta that has led to much more stress and poorer mental health in this lockdown than any other -
All Covid deaths projections have been much, much too high. Remember Ardern warning of a potential 40'000 deaths in NZ? And no the lockdowns have NOT prevented 39'963 deaths.
But let's say there will indeed be 7'000 deaths, (mostly people in poor health). I brutally say, let 7'000 (0.1%) people who made the choice to not get vaccinated die, so that 5'093'000 Kiwis can LIVE.
Yes - deaths aren't equal, but the "Immortality Policy" ideologues don't seem to grasp that. A young child dying of cancer is a tragedy. A 95 year old on death's door finally kicking the bucket because of Covid, is not. This is reflected in other facets of our public policy decision making, but not Covid it seems.
Its looking more like a couple of thousand deaths from people that may of only had a few years left to live anyway at a cost of Billions of dollars that future generations will be paying for their whole life. I was all for the initial lockdowns but it was all wasted. We should have been in the queue for the vaccines as soon as they were available, not giving up our place thinking that elimination was going to work forever.
Ok Yvil, does this mean you don't let these people go into hospital, so that everyone who has chosen to be vaccinated gets first use of hospital resources?
Also, how do you handle people who wanted to get vaccinated but had access barriers in their way, for whatever reason? Too bad, so sad?
Well, obviously that's not practical. Even in highly capitalist US they are still treating the unvaccinated rather than letting them die and hospitals in Idaho (and elsewhere) are overwhelmed. That sort of load on our healthcare system would cause all sorts of cancellations of non-emergency surgery, late treatment of cancer, etc. That is why it is so key to keep the case load below what our hospital capacity can handle.
There are some people who can’t get vaccinated and some who can that the vaccine won’t work for. The number of deaths is not the key issue. It the number of people that end up living with disabilities and also the impact on the health system. If we end up with 100’s or 1000’s of people needing hospital care, then it is going to cause issues for people that need care for unrelated issues. The death rate from Covid-19 since the beginning is about 2%. That implies that if everyone got it in NZ 100,000 people would die. Vaccines and medical care should reduce that significantly. In the UK very few people are dying if they get COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated (2 weeks after second jab). There is a point where the cure is worse than the disease. Sustained lockdowns and restricted access to non urgent medical treatment along with mental health and economic issues will be worse than what more COVID-19 cases would do. Neither is ideal but we have to choose.
It won't be the unvaccinated dying (though they will be very over represented), its the over 60s.
UK COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report
Go to figure 2 and tables 2 to 4. For the last 3 weeks the vaccine in the UK has been 70 to 80 % preventive against death but the vast majority of deaths are amongst the vaccinated.
Is that because 70% have been vaccinated so there's just more of them? The last 2 columns in table 4 suggest so. 3 times more deaths per 100,000 in unvaccinated at 80+ and about 10 times more if you're 50ish. That data doesn't tell us the demographics of either though...
Yes there is just vastly more vaccinated than not in the age demographic, Figure 1 is vaccination by age (>90%). I don't know about the UK vax policy but you have consider how many of the over 60s were too frail to vaccinate and are therefore at even greater risk.
What other demographics you are looking for?
The other stat that works out roughly on the figure is that getting double vaxed statistically lowers your risk of dying to that of an unvaxed 20 years younger.
I was thinking of obesity.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/375886/adult-s-body-mass-index-by-gender-and-age-in-england/
That's going to have an impact on the 45-65 cohort
I have not seen anything been done on obesity and vax together. There was a CDC study showing obesity with related conditions doubling your risk of bad outcomes. I think it's worse if your younger but you have much lower base risk.
If/when vax effectiveness wares off to 60% obesity could be a bigger risk factor than being unvaxed. I have read one overseas modeller asserting this is currently the case in Israel.
Have they factored in the deaths from the vaccine ???
Safety Report #27 – 4 September 2021 (medsafe.govt.nz)
54 and running
CT
You are really desperate and totally lacking any argument when you are you reduced to conspiracy theory regarding the credibility and integrity of MedSafe. Your argument relies on 53 doctors independently either in error or purposely wrongly certifying cause of death.
By the way; read the article, MedSafe are still waiting on a coroner's report for one of the deaths and any question regarding cause of death is first referred to a coroner.
Your comments are making you sound like a loser in life - try basing your comments on a bit of reality and intelligence.
Jim seems to have fixated on the total number of people who have died after having the vaccine, and not actually read, or understood, anything that followed. Here's what the latest Medsafe report he linked says. I've taken the liberty of bolding the relevant parts for our dear readers.
Summary of reported deaths
Up to and including 4 September 2021, a total of 54 deaths were reported to CARM after the administration of the Comirnaty vaccine. Following medical assessments by CARM and Medsafe it has been determined that:
- 26 of these deaths are unlikely related to the COVID-19 vaccine
- 9 deaths could not be assessed due to insufficient information
- 18 cases are still under investigation.
- 1 death was likely due to vaccine induced myocarditis (awaiting Coroner’s determination)
By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly. Therefore, part of our review process includes comparing natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination, to determine if there are any specific trends or patterns that might indicate a vaccine safety concern.
To date, the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths.
This German chief pathologist seems to think there might be a problem.
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/08/08/german-chief-pathologis…
Then there's the pfizer clinical trial https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full-text
15 deaths in the vaccine arm and 14 in the placebo arm. However, after the trial was unblinded at 6 months it was revealed there were an additional 5 vaccine deaths (3 deaths in the vaccine arm, and two placebos after they switched). It does look like there's a signal in that data.
Also myocarditis following vaccination has been demonstrated in a mouse model see here https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/63…
According to the WHO the people administering the vaccine aren't following the correct protocols to prevent systemic distribution of the lipid nanoparticles https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773815575074
I have doubts that the models reflect our New Zealand lifestyle.
Suburban living, single story, small towns, private cars, a non stop westerly, low density cities with a CBD in name only.
On two islands in the South Pacific, population 5 million.
it would be interesting to know.
TPM is a government funded research centre so release all their reports on the website. I'm not sure the other modellers make their models public but I would guess they are using different models - I'd google but I don't remember the other modellers' names. A comparison would indeed be interesting.
No vehicles and we starve. I have some sympathy and agreement with your line of argument; lives could be saved by giving Pharmac more money (cancer patients living longer) or by banning dangerous sports such an Bungy or Rugby. I think the issue is agency - we can choose to play sports or drive cars and any danger is partly under our own control (tackle hard, drive fast). If taking my mask off just increased my risk then I wouldn't bother wearing one but it is the risk to others that worries me. What if that stranger I'm passing is really enjoying their life - I shouldn't be endangering it.
There will come a time when each govt reduces restrictions. Some may be retained (ref drinking alcohol and driving) and some adjusted (one standard unit of alcohol or two?). We will never close our border like Bhutan or N.Korea so sometime we will open up to the world - probably insisting on travellers being fully vaccinated and tested and at that point fairly innocent Kiwis will be at risk. By the time that decision is made both the virus and the vaccine may have altered.
so why don't we do this?
Because the benefits do not outweigh the perceived costs to society at large.
One thing we could do is what the Netherlands does, and spend more money investing in our roading infrastructure to prevent deaths and crashes in general.
Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ
"Because the benefits do not outweigh the perceived costs to society at large"
Indeed, so why don't we apply the same logic to Covid?
Why do we only talk about deaths and hospitalisations but not about the cost to future generations?
The cost of businesses failing?
The cost lockdowns take on mental heath and relationship breakups?
The toll on an whole island who has had no Covid in almost a year and is in lockdown alert level 2?
The cost fo Kiwis not being able to return to NZ?
The cost of people living in NZ not being able to visit family overseas, possibly dying relatives ?
The limit of freedom to 99% of the population?
We do! Our elimination strategy (up until now) has clearly been the economically superior strategy. People don't go out spending money when they are afraid of catching a potentially-deadly virus. The cost of an overwhelmed health system is huge. The political judgement has been that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. If you want to argue that you're going to need some serious data.
I have never seen such rubbish in print. Who are these people putting out this junk?
In Sweden, land of the no-lockdown and a population of 10 million, they have had 14,000 deaths in 21 months, the vast majority of which occurred before vaccinations were even available. Yet we are supposed to believe that with a 70% vaccination rate NZ will see 13,000 deaths in 12 months? Thats double the number of deaths per population in half as much time, as Sweden did when it was a fully unvaccinated country operating with no restrictions!
And Sweden has currently vaccinated 62% of its population, is fully open, with no mask or social distancing mandates and Covid daily deaths are still only in single digits.
Lets be honest here, Sweden made a tough call and it could have backfired really badly. Its quite possible that the overall health of people in Sweden is higher than New Zealand. So the question is where do we sit on the scale ? Places like the USA are obviously near the bottom, the virus totally ravaged their general population of fatties. Not sure you can directly compare the outcome in New Zealand to that of Sweden, we have more than our fair share of fatties over here as well.
The children catching it here is due to where it is. South Auckland, large numbers of bodies in 3 bedroom homes, not as healthy, eating shitty food and crap access to healthcare.
This is an equity issue, not a variant one. Definitely something Jacinda doesnt want to discuss at length.
Also - anyone thinking that permanent mask mandates are gonna fly in New Zealand can FRO.
Currently they're only legal under the Government's enabling act, that gives the Director of Health dictatorial powers to override the Bill of Rights, Privacy Act etc (freedom of assembly, freedom of expression etc).
This is the Pandemic Emergency Declaration, that needs to be renewed every 3 months and affirms the state of emergency that allows the government to tell us what to wear, the limits on our commerce and congregation etc. There will come a point pretty soon where this declaration will be farcical (i.e. at a vaccination level that is sufficiently high to reveal we aren't in an "emergency") and this declaration will come under judicial review.
At this point Parliament will have to openly debate which ongoing measures are palatable.
Most deaths occur in over-65s [link] so I'd concentrate on them. The overall rate is a meaningless measure because deaths are not even remotely distributed evenly over the population. Nursing homes, retirement communities, bowles clubs, bingo halls etc. need to be better than perfect with disinfection and hygiene.
Double vaccinate everyone is the obvious best policy at present.
I watched the conference and eventually got bored and turned it off. I didn't see any journalists ask about booster vaccinations.
But saving boosters for those in groups 1 and 2 and eventually group 3 makes sense.
The models have been in development for 18 months. This latest report is a follow up to their report in June, which didn't fully take account of delta and how contagious it is.
Doesn't sound like it's "rapidly cobbled together" to me. Sounds like you just disagree with it and so are coming up with lame reasons to attack it.
My comment refers only to the substandard rapidly cobbled together paper /report. It does not refer to their models, their adequacies or not, and irrespective of the time frame of their development as you are at pains to point out. Stop getting your knickers in a twist.
I'm not disputing the quality of the authors, the paper, or its findings, but I say bollocks to the notion it's independent.
I've worked on contract for government departments before, and I can tell you this - outwardly facing, all the talk will be about the work being independent and not government policy, but the bureaucrats / pollies will be all over massaging draft versions of these things to ensure the final report fits their narrative.
yeah.
It's enlightening spending some time in and around ministries and ministers. The notion of 'free and frank advice' is total bollocks.
All advice, including that from outside sources, is managed to suit the political ideology / narrative of the day. There's a huge amount of group think.
It's all frightfully Kafka-esque.
Without reading the study, gut feeling is that an assumption of 50 deaths per year under 90% vaccinations feels way too low. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt around intentions (ie. that this is not some devious ploy to give the 90% campaign a massive boost), however...
Even with the other non-lockdown measures implemented, as assumed, it's hard not seeing a large chunk of the NZ population not being infected in 2022.
10% unvaccinated - that's still a lot of people susceptible.
And for the 90% vaccinated -the science is saying all things being equal people will get less severe symptoms, and fewer people will die - but.... some people who are vaccinated still do get very sick, and some do die.
Not saying this is the wrong strategy necessarily, but the numbers at face value look a bit dubious to me.
I would have thought we would still be talking hundreds of deaths at 90%.
Quite right,HM, as the unvaccinated will be the poorly educated obese hypertensive diabetic or otherwise high risk living in crowded circumstances and will skew the figures, the 10% unvaccinated could be the most vulnerable group by far
Of course the percentage death rate will be much worse if Middlemore etc are overloaded and we run out of beds, staff and oxygen and can't treat everybody or anybody.
In medicine the people who need and benefit most from any intervention are generally the hardest to involve, for all sorts of socioeconomic reasons
Siblings in London say that now that the fear has passed people are moving on and feel coming out about opinions on the policy that would previously been shouted down. They dodged the mandate bullet so can now live life relatively-normally going t pubs etc (what else in London? ) with or without vaccine (as in young healthy 20 somethings that have had delta and chose not to get vaccinated) and can travel to most countries in Europe. Their view is that our sheltered experience means fear is driving this carry on about vaccinating kids which is not data driven and therefore not being adopted by european countries. Older folks pushing for this need to realise that we will all eventually be exposed to covid so the best bet is to vaccinate EVERY at-risk group and then open up so we can move on also. I wish we were looking to Denmark etc rather than Aussie and US. Obesity/ICU capacity situation means NZ lockdowns make sense for now until we get around 80%-90% then let's move on and focus on other issues that we need to sort (such as healthcare system capacity, tax system , inequality, education system, dairy mafia, immigration policy etc)
Thanks for your input. In my opinion vaccinating healthy kids against this virus is bordering on criminal. We have short term side effect data, but zero long term data. Of course Pfizer etc want to say it's safe, they make billions off this and are indemnified against any problems.
Different story for those with conditions, but once again this is a case of kid's futures being gambled with to satisfy the neurosis of the old.
I work at the university and have access to online academic journals.
I searched 'Fluoxetine Covid' , and there's a shitload of academic journal articles in 2021 indicating it's covid- treating potential.
One study found very strong potential treatment value of a fluoxetine–remdesivir combo. Several studies suggest fluoxetine has strong antiviral properties against covid (but not other viruses, so it seems very covid- specific)
This is all very promising, hopefully this early promise is confirmed and we will have more ammo to our covid fighting weaponry.
High vaccination levels + better treatments + plus sensible precautions (and no more lockdowns) has to be the way forward from here.
You do realise under what pretense the current crop of injections have been declared as ‘safe and sound’… and been granted ‘provisional’ approval? It is based on the narrative that no other treatment being availabe…? You think it is any wonder that drug companies are suddenly proclaiming existent, cheap and well understood treatments for other health issues could not be tested equally as fast as current so-called Covid vaccines? Funny that…
PM said virus jumps between “unvaccinated “
Did not admit, as ever, that virus infects vaccinated too. So vaccination is not a total solution. Notice that now we armrest approaching 80% target the narrative is altered again as the experts have known all along that vaccination does not stop transmission.
I notice a journalist asked why modelling cited does not accord with experience in Singapore right now where v high vaccination and still getting 900 cases a day in a 5.9m pop? Nor Israel. Which has 10 times more infections per million head pop than Aus despite latter being less than 50% vaccination? This data is out there on worldometer and it does not cut it I am afraid to call such questioning “misinformation”
Also Henry 7000 dead projection is garbage
uk has 160 deaths per day or 58000 per year at current rate. NZ if proportionate would be 4300
If we get to something like 90% vax the can be kicked till for another 6 months. Between our late vaccination burst and going into summer it will look like everything is fine. Group 2's vaccinations wearing off will be the only thing that could go wrong.
After the vaxes have worn off and without any natural immunity I can't see how we don't get a big wave like the UK last winter.
There are very few reinfections. Natural immunity (regardless if infection date) is roughly 10 times better than vax (only since start of this year) depending on study. You don't have to be a doctor to look at statistical studies and data.
These vaccines look to stop preventing infection after about 3 to 4 months.
Boosters will never get to 90%, the trust will be gone if it ever gets that bad (the "nobel lies" will be found out). Maybe Novavax last longer with less side effects.
FFS the PM said that vaccines are not a total solution.
Why do you prefer peddling fake news?
And you need to read some books about what modelling is and isn't.
Our PM has a significantly greater grasp on what it can and can't do than you are showing.
And she went over that ate the 1 pm presser, if you had bothered listening.
So now the government's own modeller has come out and said that Hendy's numbers are BS. That didn't last long.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300414401/covid19-nz-rodney-j…
“That is 140 deaths a week. Singapore has had 11 deaths with just under 80 per cent vaccinated over the last month,” Jones said. (Singapore has a similar population to New Zealand.)
“If you’re going to use this model in this way it should be peer-reviewed by global experts.”
“It's absolutely unconvincing – it really needs to be reworked.”
Fake news.
Rodney Jones quoted in Stuff this morning "The modelling's fine, but the modelling is not the answer, it's time for modelling to step back."
The article then goes on to say Jones suggested letting experts, who have studied previous outbreaks and pandemics, take the lead.
The only reason NZ has taken the elimination approach is because our hospital systems can't cope with Covid sick patient requirements. Even at 80 - 90% we will have people on oxygen in tents in car parks around the country. Not to mention a lot of the new innovative Covid drugs now available around the world are not even being considered here. My family are all in the UK vaccinated and getting ready for winter, their new normal (Lockdown). We are not going back to normal folks and if Covid continues we will be living on printed money for years to come. I really hope I am wrong.
We will be living on CBDC and UBI
Only matter of time before we are given retail accounts at the central bank. Then a bank collapse and everyone will switch their bank currency to their central bank account. Then we only have one bank. Then the vaccine mandate can end and no boosters as objective achieved.
Quick questions: Does vaccination prevent carriage and/or reduce viral load? No.
Does this mean a vaccinated person is just as likely to be infectious as a non-vaccinated person? We don’t know.
The antibody response to vaccination is very specific (the antigen binding fragment encoded by the variable part of the gene). Should another variant emerge is it possible that vaccine efficacy may fall? Yes. We see that with delta.
Is it true that an unvaccinated person develops an antibody response that is broader than a vaccinated person? Yes, their immune system may recognise multiple antigenic epitopes on the viral surface/capsid.
But you aren’t considering the cellular response and involvement of T cells? True, but there is a lot less information in this area.
Disclaimer: pro vaccine, vaccinated (which I now regret given data published in the last month).I’d love to see a true vaccinologist debating aspects of the above. The current experts brought forth are a step away from having a true handle on the data. Its like you need an electrician but you keep getting a plumber or roofer. Hey, they are all tradesmen!
He also predicted 80,000 dead in march 2020. Dont think we should just this guys models..
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120604818/new-model-s…
No modeler has been right to-date so why are we still even taking these people seriously? (I mean the government - no normal person would).
The writing is already on the wall. We already know the UK don't want the passport system and I fully expect the EU to back away from that as well.
If you try put anything about this on the MSM sites, it's censored but both the EU and UK are investing much more heavily on treatment programs now and scaling back on their vaccine programs. Not 'misinformation' but pure fact.
They already started on this line the other day but NZ government (Australia is a different kettle of fish) will never admit failure so you will see a very subtle shift gradually towards the end and once summer fully hits, treatment programs will be the main focus and vaccines won't even be the focus. At the end of the day, NZ always follows, usually 3-4 months behind the rest of the world.
'85% of hospitalised are double vaccinated' - but what percentage of their population are not hospitalised at all? Only 0.5% of the population have actually reported infections in the last 7 days, and a tiny minority of these have been hospitalized, because vaccinated people are 97% less likely to require hospitalisation. Thats not propoganda, thats science. https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countri…
Hospital admissions in Israel are almost as high now as in the two previous peak periods of hospital admissions. Currently at 165 per week, as opposed to 195 per week (Sept 2020) and 225 per week (Jan 2021). While vaccination may be making a difference, its also possible that Delta is less virulent and that natural immunity is also making a difference.
No criminally negligent is using unmodified ECT to torture children and the NZ govt, who defended the medical practitioners, and NZ courts, who denied victims basic redress to rehabilitation, are completely fine with that and the massive breaches to human rights. Anything less pales in comparison while we still don't have a justice system that functionally works for victims instead of protecting criminals. Criminally negligent would be not vaccinating children against highly infectious viruses that overwhelmingly have higher risk to disabled and kill them. Or do you really like polio too and think all children should have the joys of burying friends dying from it (having caught it through being unvaccinated) like our family did (and that was after being disabled by it). Viruses are not things you can protect kids from by putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and praying. Viruses don't care how healthy you think the kid was to start. It can and will disable and kill far more healthy kids than you can imagine.
Both myself and my daughter are vaccinated for Polio. My daughter also had the MMR vaccine. So don’t go attacking people personally. I am not a anti-vaxxer!! I am simply refusing to be bullied into taking a treatment that I don’t believd is really safe longer term! No more and no less.
I fully agree with your criticism of the successive poor governments in this country. But is that reason to force by shaming people who do not those who don’t want to be a guinea pig with an experimental treatment that does not even qualify to be called a vaccine. They had to change definitions in order to start the big so-called ‘vaccination’ campaigns all around the world. Well, just follow closely what happens in other countries and make up you own mind if our governmeng is telling us a full story or not. I don’t see even a hint of a rational and calm debate anywhere about the various aspects of Covid.
We had nuclear testing on my relatives and they are still alive even with genetics & chromosomes provably modified. A vaccination that is proven to have negligible effect on healthy people, and does not interact with anything except the immune system effects (where the immune system is strongest for children) then they would be far safer vaccinated than those older with more immune related/complication conditions (and even they overwhelmingly have negligible effects to the vaccination). In fact should children get infected with the virus they are far more likely to develop incurable disabling immune responses that will affect them just like viruses have for those older.
Uh huh... we have had 24 deaths since it started in nearly 2 years and this guru Trent thinks we'll get 7,000 deaths with 80-90% of the population vaccinated... ok, sure....?!
So your assuming basically 7% of the population catches COVID and 2% of those people die....
Clearly a few gaps between the dots here..... this is not the spanish flu that killed 1 in 10ppl
Probably more the related collapse of the health system killing others who need treatment but cannot get it. Even the RSV which was far less infectious cancelled a huge amount of surgeries, larger amounts of necessary specialist appointments for urgent treatment and took far more ICU capacity than we had at the time. Just think what it would be like if we didn't lock down with the small spread of delta originating from a single person entering the country. Imagine what it would be like if we had 100 people as virus origin points weeks before the first case in a community is detected (as testing is barely covering those who will admit they are ill to workplaces and government officials).
that probably explains the lack of rational in your comments.
all the high risk have had the opportunity to be immunised already, there is no need to insist on aiming for 90% of the population to be vaxxed.
We should be planning for covid to be endemic and scaling our health services for the increased needs and opening up to a new BAU
https://www.dw.com/en/how-some-eu-countries-managed-to-ditch-covid-19-r…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.