Modelling suggests an 80% vaccination rate would still see 7000 Covid-19 deaths a year

Government-funded research makes case for why a vaccination rate of above 90% and other public health measures are needed to prevent thousands of deaths

23rd Sep 21, 1:15pm by Jenée Tibshraeny

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.

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.

211 Comments

by CWBW | 23rd Sep 21, 1:34pm 1632360868

What is missing in research is the number of deaths projected caused by attempting a 90% vaccination rates and sustained lock down.

It's imprudent to decide whether to buy a car based solely on benefits without analysing the cost of those benefits.

by lowercase capitalist | 23rd Sep 21, 2:00pm 1632362453

Do you think that number is likely to be greater than 7k?

by Pietro | 24th Sep 21, 6:51am 1632423114

So far, in the current outbreak, we have had one death from over one thousand cases, at 35% full vaccination, not too many in icu either. Hard to see 7000 deaths at 80% full vaccination. The boy who cried wolf came to a bad end.

by Whatwillhappen | 24th Sep 21, 1:13pm 1632446020

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

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 8:15pm 1632471356

It was based on an overall protection by the vaccine from severe disease of 94% +/- 4%; where 94% is the central effectiveness number, 90% is the lower effectiveness number, and 98% is the higher effectiveness number.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 2:58pm 1632365910

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.

by youngdumbandbroke | 23rd Sep 21, 3:24pm 1632367496

Still waiting on those poll results Mr Labour

by WellingtonInvestor | 23rd Sep 21, 4:00pm 1632369603

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.

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:02pm 1632369748

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).

by Uh Oh | 24th Sep 21, 1:06am 1632402397

Sure, lets just hide at home for the rest of our lives... be safer right?

by chebbo | 23rd Sep 21, 1:39pm 1632361150

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.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 1:48pm 1632361718

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.

by chebbo | 23rd Sep 21, 1:56pm 1632362190

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.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 2:00pm 1632362431

Agreed. But equally the "old" model is far too slow for the middle of a pandemic. Middle ground is needed.

by chebbo | 23rd Sep 21, 2:16pm 1632363412

It's not the "old" model. It's the scientific method, and it's very much current. There's a reason we don't make knee-jerk decisions of this magnitude based on research which hasn't been peer reviewed, I don't see why this time should be any different.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 2:35pm 1632364509

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.

by Tigadee | 23rd Sep 21, 2:44pm 1632365063

@realterms Skipping or short-cutting the scientific method is probably what led to the outbreak in the first place...

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 4:00pm 1632369617

If you mean lab bio-security, that's certainly important, but not really the scientific method either.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 9:17pm 1632388657

What companies are you talking about? can you give some specific examples and I will follow your claim up with them! If they are scientific companies, then I am sure they will disagree with you :)

by Dale Smith | 24th Sep 21, 8:03am 1632427434

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.

by kpnuts | 23rd Sep 21, 5:27pm 1632374834

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

by WellingtonInvestor | 23rd Sep 21, 11:12pm 1632395520

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.

by Kiwi Tim | 24th Sep 21, 1:35am 1632404122

Sorry but incorrect. 166 deaths there yesterday. 154 unvaccinated.

by Nzdano | 23rd Sep 21, 6:10pm 1632377400

Seems not everyone agrees, even other experts say it's overblown

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300414401/covid19-nz-rodney-jon…

by fat pat | 24th Sep 21, 9:43am 1632433396

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.

by MortgageBelt | 23rd Sep 21, 1:48pm 1632361682

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

by sparrow | 23rd Sep 21, 1:52pm 1632361975

The time, effort and investment required both by the system and individuals to prevent deaths from those causes is huge. Whereas to get 2 shots of Covid vaccination takes about 1 hour in total and costs a modest amount.

by FCM | 23rd Sep 21, 2:03pm 1632362602

I dunno sparrow, fairly sure the Lock downs have cost more than a modest amount.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 2:55pm 1632365728

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.

It's very simple and straightforward.

by chebbo | 23rd Sep 21, 4:14pm 1632370475

Getting 90% of the population vaccinated won't be "simple and straightforward", which is apparently what's required to avoid perpetual lockdown, not just an hour of your time or mine.

by Noncents | 23rd Sep 21, 4:18pm 1632370720

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.

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:29pm 1632371390

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.

by Noncents | 23rd Sep 21, 4:44pm 1632372299

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.

by davef | 23rd Sep 21, 5:06pm 1632373569

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.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 5:27pm 1632374862

I'd be happy enough with shifts into level 2, or even a 2.5, from time to time.

On top of high vaccination levels, sensible precautions etc.

by Uh Oh | 24th Sep 21, 1:16am 1632403006

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

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 2:09pm 1632362978

sparrow, are you unaware of the costs (social and economic) of the lockdowns?

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 2:56pm 1632365777

We're using lockdowns because we don't have any other effective tool - yet. Once we get to 90%+ of the whole population vaccinated, we won't need to use broad-scale lockdowns.

by MortgageBelt | 23rd Sep 21, 3:01pm 1632366092

$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.

by morepork | 23rd Sep 21, 3:21pm 1632367310

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.

by sparrow | 23rd Sep 21, 2:26pm 1632364013

I'm comparing the cost of disease prevention from vaccination, compared with public health and other interventions to prevent deaths from other causes. By that metric, vaccination is extremely good value.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 2:57pm 1632365832

The only other public health measure that is overwhelmingly positive from an investment:payoff perspective is fluoridation of water.

by morepork | 23rd Sep 21, 3:23pm 1632367423

I'm sure there are others, chlorination of water immediately springs to mind

by Sluggy | 23rd Sep 21, 3:30pm 1632367844

Lockdown cost me 500k in revenue. Im a small fry.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 9:20pm 1632388840

Only problem is, your not talking about a real vaccination! It is an injection. Quite a big difference!

by kpnuts | 23rd Sep 21, 5:30pm 1632375018

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!

by profile | 23rd Sep 21, 6:01pm 1632376905

"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…

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 1:53pm 1632361991

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.

by sparrow | 23rd Sep 21, 1:57pm 1632362246

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.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 2:01pm 1632362486

It's useful to have as good an estimate as you can get as to where exactly that threshold lies.

by Carlos67 | 23rd Sep 21, 2:06pm 1632362806

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.

by nymad | 23rd Sep 21, 2:13pm 1632363189

Someone doesn't understand the exponential function.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 2:59pm 1632365994

Most humans don't. It's the cause of a huge number of human calamities throughout history, both personal and public, and continues to be so.

Lots of others have become very wealthy on the back of it, too.

by MLSmith1 | 24th Sep 21, 12:25pm 1632443100

As opposed to aliens understanding it better...

by Lapun | 23rd Sep 21, 2:19pm 1632363560

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.

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:07pm 1632370037

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.

by WestieAJ | 23rd Sep 21, 4:35pm 1632371751

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.

by Nzdano | 23rd Sep 21, 6:15pm 1632377759

1% IFR among the unvaccinated sounds far too high considering the bulk of them will be children

by profile | 23rd Sep 21, 6:29pm 1632378581

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."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13554

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:04pm 1632362670

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…

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:01pm 1632366117

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.

by Lapun | 23rd Sep 21, 3:09pm 1632366557

There are two figures - number who die with influenza and number who die from influenza. I read somewhere that the former is ten times the latter. Which are you quoting?

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:14pm 1632366888

The number used by Shaun in his presentation in the press conference today. He didn't specify which it was, sorry.

by Cowpat | 23rd Sep 21, 3:47pm 1632368844

Just a week ago according to Lathanide, influenza did not cause multi organ failure like her specialist subject. 600 deaths a year appear to contradict that claim

by kpnuts | 23rd Sep 21, 5:42pm 1632375765

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 -

by kiwichas | 23rd Sep 21, 6:38pm 1632379125

Uk is around 150 dead per day according to the worldometer

by Casual Observer | 23rd Sep 21, 10:14pm 1632392040

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 2:06pm 1632362804

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.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:11pm 1632363069

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.

by Carlos67 | 23rd Sep 21, 2:13pm 1632363201

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.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:03pm 1632366206

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?

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 3:38pm 1632368282

yes & yes

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:11pm 1632370273

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.

by Noncents | 23rd Sep 21, 4:25pm 1632371113

It's called triage. It happens all the time in hospitals around the country.

In fact not just hospitals, Search and Rescue, Emergency operators, Police, Firefighters, Army, etc...

by DaveB1978 | 23rd Sep 21, 3:11pm 1632366666

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.

by tim52 | 23rd Sep 21, 3:33pm 1632368009

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.

by False economies | 23rd Sep 21, 4:21pm 1632370900

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...

by tim52 | 23rd Sep 21, 5:20pm 1632374454

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.

by False economies | 23rd Sep 21, 6:08pm 1632377296

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

by tim52 | 23rd Sep 21, 6:30pm 1632378625

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.

by Big Jim | 23rd Sep 21, 2:09pm 1632362994

Have they factored in the deaths from the vaccine ???

Safety Report #27 – 4 September 2021 (medsafe.govt.nz)

54 and running

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 2:13pm 1632363191

Your misinformation is still just as wrong as ever it was.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:04pm 1632366251

I've largely given up bothering with him.

by Big Jim | 23rd Sep 21, 4:19pm 1632370774

so not totally!

Great!

by printer8 | 23rd Sep 21, 2:37pm 1632364657

BigJim

Take a moment to read your own recommended link: "To date, the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths".

Stop twisting information and spreading all your utter cr*p.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 9:40pm 1632390020

So you are asserting that Medsafe would be publically critical of its own decision if it found anything to be critical about? Or if anyone else would point to something worthwhile to be reviewed independently, e.g. a panel of coroners, they would allow that?

by printer8 | 24th Sep 21, 7:27am 1632425248

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.

by C_T_20 | 24th Sep 21, 11:02pm 1632481369

I have asked some simple questions and you did not answer them. Simple. Then you only ever resort to calling people names if a sacred cow is questioned. Enough said.

by LASSET | 23rd Sep 21, 2:46pm 1632365216

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.

by Big Jim | 23rd Sep 21, 4:18pm 1632370701

Good point

I sure they are all being thoroughly investigated given its still under Emergency Use

Results due some time 2024

by fat pat | 25th Sep 21, 9:56am 1632520605

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

by blobbles | 23rd Sep 21, 6:32pm 1632378770

This is like trying to swat a Russian spam bot. Your complete disinformation campaign is not helpful.

by kiwichas | 23rd Sep 21, 6:40pm 1632379250

Time to boot the troll

by positivelywallstreet | 23rd Sep 21, 2:36pm 1632364569

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.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:05pm 1632366319

It was created by a NZer and has been refined over 18 months, using international evidence and also local evidence of our own outbreaks.

He specifically used NZ's shown effectiveness of contact tracing in the modelling.

by positivelywallstreet | 23rd Sep 21, 3:40pm 1632368440

There are usually several modellers quoted from time to time, it would be interesting to know how well their results agree or are they all using the same software?

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:16pm 1632370611

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.

by Property_Wizard | 24th Sep 21, 5:04am 1632416666

Is it the same Nzer who is doing the RBNZ property price forecasting?

by kpnuts | 23rd Sep 21, 5:46pm 1632375975

Are they as accurate as our economists ....... then phew

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 2:15pm 1632363349

All road deaths could be eliminated if there was a nation wide speed limit of 20kph with strict enforcement. There is no debating this would save many lives, so why don't we do this?

by Lapun | 23rd Sep 21, 2:22pm 1632363773

Toddlers killed in driveways are reversed over at less than 20kph. Why not a strict enforcement of 50 rather than giving a 10kph leeway?

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 2:29pm 1632364194

OK then if toddlers are killed in the driveways at 10kph and that's obviously terrible (no sarcasm), why don't we ban all cars, trucks and motorbikes in NZ? Why don't we stop something that will for absolutely certain save lives?

by Lapun | 23rd Sep 21, 3:07pm 1632366434

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.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:07pm 1632366476

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

by Yvil | 23rd Sep 21, 3:36pm 1632368189

"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?

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 3:51pm 1632369109

Totally agree.

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:21pm 1632370863

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.

by rastus1 | 23rd Sep 21, 6:01pm 1632376898

We have become accustomed to 500 + deaths a year form motor accidents - yet how many are too scarred to drive?

This will happen with covid..you could stay home, but you wont. You will go out and risk it.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 8:23pm 1632385431

And the risk is pretty small in the scheme of things.

by npc | 24th Sep 21, 8:20am 1632428434

Bad for business. Vaccines with a 6 monthly top-up are good for business.

by K.W. | 23rd Sep 21, 2:20pm 1632363654

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.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:31pm 1632364272

It's become more and more difficult to take anything they say seriously. Now they are eagerly talking about mass jabbing 5+ year olds.

Meanwhile the Brits aren't recommending at all for Under-16s.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 2:37pm 1632364622

The UK is now recommending for 12+.

by Carlos67 | 23rd Sep 21, 2:45pm 1632365121

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.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:50pm 1632365442

We are much closer to Sweden in terms of population density and lifestyle.

by Solve_it | 23rd Sep 21, 3:02pm 1632366135

Sweden has 18.6% of the adult population that is obese, NZ has 30.9%

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:09pm 1632366595

NZ is the 3rd fattest country in the world.

We also have pockets of material deprivation and worse health outcomes, particularly amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders, that I suspect Sweden does not have a similar vein of in their country.

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:23pm 1632457418

My point is that you cannot compare an unvaccinated outcome with a 70% vaccinated NZ outcome and say that the 70% vaccinated outcome will be worse. That's just simply ridiculous.

by Lapun | 23rd Sep 21, 2:54pm 1632365682

Delta is not the same as the original Covid-19. A year ago no normal child caught Covid. Now Auckland has 200 in a month. So comparing what Sweden dealt with last year with today is unwise.

by Sluggy | 23rd Sep 21, 3:38pm 1632368324

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.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 4:44pm 1632372269

She is failing these people, her so called 'core constituents', big time

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 4:42pm 1632372148

Uh yes, but Sweden's numbers also include the current situation (i.e. Delta presence) and a 60% vaccination rate. Yet there is no bloodbath there right now in line with Hendy's numbers.

by npc | 24th Sep 21, 8:22am 1632428544

They catch it, recover and become immune. Anyone with kids knows that there's an endless stream or tummy bugs, coughs and colds.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:25pm 1632363941

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.

by lowercase capitalist | 23rd Sep 21, 2:45pm 1632365110

Is wearing a mask a big issue for you? If so, how come?

I'm not really bothered by it, it takes all of 2 seconds to put a piece of cloth over my mouth to reduce the chances of me spreading anything I might have.

by kiwichas | 23rd Sep 21, 4:35pm 1632371723

He wants to show off his handsome face

by Squishy | 24th Sep 21, 3:42am 1632411775

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.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 2:43pm 1632364997

The government seems more keen to conduct a mass medical experiment on kids, to save a few obese and/or elderly lives.

by Carlos67 | 23rd Sep 21, 2:49pm 1632365396

Unfortunately the "Be Kind" is over for some people and its time to harden up. The people I know with kids are NOT rushing to get them vaccinated.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:11pm 1632366694

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.

by Cowpat | 23rd Sep 21, 2:35pm 1632364559

The government funded paper appears rapidly cobbled together including Tuesdays Pfizer's recent press release . Pointless.

by Lanthanide | 23rd Sep 21, 3:12pm 1632366762

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.

by Cowpat | 23rd Sep 21, 6:01pm 1632376873

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.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 3:13pm 1632366801

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.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 4:44pm 1632372297

The end outcome is just to erode the public's confidence in science and our institutions generally. More and more people are wising up to this BS as it gets debunked time after time.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 5:31pm 1632375080

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.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 3:22pm 1632367362

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%.

by kiwichas | 23rd Sep 21, 4:45pm 1632372337

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

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 8:08pm 1632470918

So read the report before dumping your ill-informed reckons down on this site.

by nigelh | 23rd Sep 21, 3:34pm 1632368056

If you believe the IPCC climate change modellers and a whole lot of other scientists on climate change modelling then you must believe this modeller's results.

by Dave Moderato | 23rd Sep 21, 3:49pm 1632368998

All modelled data relies, more or less, on assumptions. Actual reality cannot be modelled. Chaos can be modelled. Which chaos do you prefer?

by positivelywallstreet | 23rd Sep 21, 4:06pm 1632369971

Modelling isn an act of faith and IPCC spend years reconciling the differences in their models.

And then the range of possibilities is stated.

More work required…

by False economies | 23rd Sep 21, 4:27pm 1632371250

Yeah why bother with science? What's it ever done for us? Let's go back to looking at entrails to see what's going on and what the future holds.

by Dale Smith | 24th Sep 21, 8:31am 1632429115

Great idea, but whose entrails?

by Brock Landers | 23rd Sep 21, 3:37pm 1632368248

7000 deaths is a lot of housing supply made available.

by Dave Moderato | 23rd Sep 21, 3:46pm 1632368768

The Govt's modelled data is fear reviewed.

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 5:07pm 1632373628

Very good!

by J0hno | 23rd Sep 21, 3:58pm 1632369495

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)

by J0hno | 23rd Sep 21, 4:01pm 1632369664

* i mean vaccinating kids that are not obese etc

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 6:04pm 1632377081

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.

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 4:02pm 1632369731

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.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 11:18pm 1632395885

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…

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 6:06pm 1632463588

One is a vaccine the other is a treatment - these are fundamentally different.

by C_T_20 | 24th Sep 21, 11:09pm 1632481778

No, not a vaccine until they hastily changed definitions!

by mikekirk29 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:00pm 1632369626

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

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 4:05pm 1632369925

They are certainly being liberal with the truth.

Of course, Jacinda doesn't lie. She's told us she doesn't.

She's merely liberal with the truth.

by tim52 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:26pm 1632371207

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.

by avatar99 | 23rd Sep 21, 4:32pm 1632371566

Booster shots? Natural immunity wears off just as quickly as vaccine immunity I believe by the way (but I'm not a Dr so could be wrong).

by tim52 | 23rd Sep 21, 5:29pm 1632374998

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.

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 6:09pm 1632463758

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.

by Stuart Mason | 23rd Sep 21, 4:07pm 1632370023

If this the similar modelling by academics that forcast 100000 cases a day in UK when they lifted lockdowns in July, I'm glad to read the prime minister is treating it as part of the debate only.

by realterms | 23rd Sep 21, 4:28pm 1632371309

Let's check back after the UK's winter and see if they get there or not.

by PonziKiwi | 23rd Sep 21, 5:00pm 1632373208

Yearly booster shots mandatory or your vaccine passport turns red and you can't go to the pub.

But it's because 10 percent won't get vaccinated and it's their fault for the new varients.

Sigh..

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:32pm 1632457939

It won't be yearly. It will be 6 monthly. Or even earlier if booster vaccines wear off even faster, and the Govt doubles down

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 5:08pm 1632373729

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.”

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 5:34pm 1632375261

There you go.

What a shit show of a government we have. Debacle.

by mikekirk29 | 24th Sep 21, 10:36am 1632436614

Yes let us see if Rodney Jones critique is put to gov spokespersons later and also if it comes on news at 6pm.? I would expect not

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 8:05pm 1632470740

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.

by vDub | 23rd Sep 21, 5:19pm 1632374384

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.

by PonziKiwi | 23rd Sep 21, 5:41pm 1632375676

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.

by theglc | 23rd Sep 21, 9:16pm 1632388587

$60 Billion in debt for covid response and how much of that has gone into hospitals for preparation new covid wings etc... F all

Anyone find that just slightly strange???

by HouseMouse | 23rd Sep 21, 10:23pm 1632392598

Extremely strange. Very very very very strange.

by unaha-closp | 23rd Sep 21, 5:45pm 1632375919

The model seemingly assumes zero immunity is derived from catching the virus and not dying. This is very odd, because if you are able to catch the disease (and not die) your immunity is likely to be much higher.

by nktokyo | 23rd Sep 21, 6:20pm 1632378045

Just get the bloody vaccine and stop moaning, everyone. So much social media grandstanding going on.

by Solve_it | 23rd Sep 21, 7:54pm 1632383643

Hear hear

by Cheetahlegs66 | 23rd Sep 21, 8:41pm 1632386470

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!

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 11:23pm 1632396224

How about you move to Israel!

by DD62 | 23rd Sep 21, 6:21pm 1632378089

"Bare in mind" that this is the same "modeller" that predicted at the start of this outbreak that "the modelling suggests that we can expect between 50 to 120 cases". He was only out by a factor of 10 (nearly).

Just another political lap dog!!!

by donny11 | 23rd Sep 21, 6:37pm 1632379028

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…

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 6:11pm 1632463881

You need to read the assumptions behind that modelled result.

As you do with any modelled result or any prediction (these are two different things).

by dago | 23rd Sep 21, 6:51pm 1632379909

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.

by waymad | 23rd Sep 21, 7:51pm 1632383512

The old saw applies here:

All models are wrong, but some are useful....

by Somebloke | 23rd Sep 21, 8:35pm 1632386157

Any idiot that refuses a vaccine at this point deserves to croak, why should I and my staff be disadvantaged and inconvenienced by them, let the bastards get Covid. End Lockdowns Now!

by sunchap | 23rd Sep 21, 9:02pm 1632387743

The FDA ruled out Covid boosters for those under 65 yesterday due to high rates of myocarditis in Israel, (where 85% of hospitalised are double vaccinated). I believe this is the beginning of the end of the Covid cult.

by Somebloke | 23rd Sep 21, 9:21pm 1632388889

'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…

by theglc | 23rd Sep 21, 9:27pm 1632389235

yes, 2 things can be true at the same time

never the less when 600 of the hospitalised in serious condition are double vaxxed it does raise some questions

by Somebloke | 23rd Sep 21, 9:36pm 1632389781

Do you even have a concept of scale? Its true that a slap with a hand can hurt, its true that a slap with a 10 ten truck at 100km can also hurt, clearly these things are both true but one of them is irrelevant to your survival.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 11:31pm 1632396678

Hyperbole! Like most who try to argue for vaccination in the face of inconvenient facts.

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:39pm 1632458394

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.

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 8:01pm 1632470461

Fake news

by jerry_NZ | 23rd Sep 21, 9:00pm 1632387620

The propaganda in the country is unreal. It is far superior to communist countries!

Unfortunately NZ'ers were not exposed to it and are an easy target....

by theglc | 23rd Sep 21, 9:31pm 1632389505

anyone concerned that they now want to pump the vax into healthy 5 year olds that have a 1/10000 chance of being hospitalised with covid? with an experimental vaccine?

vaxing the young to protect the old and weak... which it wont

gotta wonder

by house hunter | 23rd Sep 21, 9:33pm 1632389620

Yes, seems a little hasty.

by C_T_20 | 23rd Sep 21, 11:32pm 1632396764

Some doctors would argue that it is criminally negligent!

by pacifica | 24th Sep 21, 1:15am 1632402940

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.

by theglc | 24th Sep 21, 10:51am 1632437484

poor comparision polio to covid

how about the flu to covid, do we give the flu jab to kids each year?

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:42pm 1632458571

Even the flu is a poor comparison. More children have died from influenza and RSV than have died from Covid. Maybe if we had a vaccine for snotty noses?

by C_T_20 | 24th Sep 21, 11:30pm 1632483037

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.

by Dale Smith | 24th Sep 21, 8:43am 1632429808

Heh, we already give it to pregnant persons, so giving it to kids after than have been born is nothing out of the norm. What has history ever taught us about what could go wrong with doing this?

by Brutus Iscariot | 23rd Sep 21, 11:34pm 1632396898

Yes, it's utterly vile.

Brits have said no.

US saying maybe, and guess who's capital the big pharmaceutical companies have more influence in.

by pacifica | 24th Sep 21, 1:17am 1632403069

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.

by C_T_20 | 24th Sep 21, 11:42pm 1632483778

Where has it been proven that the injections of mRNA has no negative medium or longer term side effects? Those studies have not even been carried out. It is openly admitted by scientists that they view Israel as one giant experiment.

by streetwise | 23rd Sep 21, 9:35pm 1632389708

That's good news if 7000 anti-vaxxers are wiped out.

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:51pm 1632459108

Since Covid has a 99.7% survival rate, that would require roughly 2.3M people to be unvaccinated. But then they would have gained natural immunity that is far superior to vaccinated immunity, so they can then all sit back and laugh at the vaccinated people dying.

by Uh Oh | 24th Sep 21, 1:01am 1632402112

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

by pacifica | 24th Sep 21, 1:24am 1632403464

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).

by K.W. | 24th Sep 21, 4:54pm 1632459255

Imagine what is going to happen when the flu comes back. People are saying that like RSV, its going to be the worst season yet due to lack of exposure. Whats the bet more people die from flu than Covid in the future as a result of closed borders and lockdowns?

by Somebloke | 24th Sep 21, 9:15am 1632431738

I can tell you that if lockdown doesnt end in the next week we will be laying off all our staff. Repeat this for many thousands of people all over the country and you will see mental illness and suicide numbers that dwarf any risk from a vaccination.

by theglc | 24th Sep 21, 12:14pm 1632442471

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…

by Mr Pink | 24th Sep 21, 3:04pm 1632452684

BOLLOCKS

by AndrewRiddell5886 | 24th Sep 21, 6:15pm 1632464115

It is so depressing reading all these reckons about modelling by people who don't even look at the assumptions behind each modelling run first, and then comment.

Science education is clearly abysmal in schools.