4 ms·

There are other benefits to the vaccine other than reducing spread. They of course are not quite as effective against Omicron, but they are still there. With

There are other benefits to the vaccine other than reducing spread. They of course are not quite as effective against Omicron, but they are still there. With the testing infrastructure beyond capacity (some samples have expired before getting tested), I don't think catering to people who chose not to get vaccinated right now is a good idea. This will of course change as the pandemic further develops in Australia, but the rules as they are written at the moment make sense. Australia doesn't need to be importing further risk to its health care system already at capacity. Absolutely clumsy performance from the government and they should have to answer for this show.

exodust 5y ago
> There are other benefits to the vaccine other than reducing spread. Omicron spreads easily among the vaccinated. Any "reduced spread" is negligible. The only other benefit is reduced severity of illness. Most over 60s and vulnerable in Australia have had the vaccine. That leaves the unvaccinated group as mostly younger, healthy and significantly less likely to need hospital care. They are not a risk or burden. They get mild symptoms, recover soon after, and now have natural immunity. > importing further risk There's statistically no risk. An unvaccinated person who tests negative is not a transmission risk or an illness risk. This is where we're at with Omicron. Your suggestion to discriminate against those not vaccinated, doesn't add up.
- omegabravo 5y ago
  Your distribution for local people is largely irrelevant to who is visiting the country. Health care is beyond capacity at the moment. I fail to see how you can assess an unvaccinated person with no other attributes as statistically no risk. We're not talking about Djokovic, we're talking about the rules for immigration. An unvaccinated person who tests negative is more likely to become infected and require hospital care than a vaccinated person. It doesn't matter how remote, we are beyond capacity at the moment, this is where we're at with Omicron. Most suggest this will be a short wave, in which case we can reassess once it has passed.
  - exodust 5y ago
    > "It doesn't matter how remote" It does matter. We don't mandate helmets for walking the streets, even with the remote chance you might stumble and hit your head. We should not disrupt society or deport/hate people because of "remote" and insignificant risks in an environment where the virus is already on the loose, spreading easily. > "An unvaccinated person who tests negative is more likely to become infected..." It doesn't work like that anymore. Many unvaccinated people by now have had the virus and therefore have some immunity. Even if you aren't ignoring natural immunity, Omicron will spread among vaccinated people every time. This is evidenced in the current surge data, and also reflected in countless anecdotes shared by others, and observed in my own family: Fully vaxxed, vents and air going like crazy, the virus nevertheless spread around the family with ease. Another confirmed anecdote: An elderly family friend went to dinner with 10 others. All fully vaxxed. One had Covid without knowing. ALL members of the dinner table contracted the virus and all became sick, including the source. None died or needed ventilator, but I think 3 or 4 needed oxygen levels monitored and 2 went to hospital as precaution. The vaccine likely helped reduce severity. But transmission was NOT stopped or slowed. The virus scored a perfect 10 that night, infecting every person at the table. Risk mitigation needs to be practical, fair, humane, effective and not politically motivated. We don't need to tell unvaccinated people to "go back where you came from" when they visit our shores. There is no gain from that with a virus already running wild.
    - omegabravo 5y ago
      It's definitely more complex than I gave credit. A previous infection can and likely has better short term protection than double dosed. I'm unfamiliar with how long it lasts for. I think I've come around and I wouldn't be against allowing recent infected and recovered in. Unrestricted is not an option at the moment while the current wave is meaning people are missing hospital treatment.

exodust 5y ago

> There are other benefits to the vaccine other than reducing spread. Omicron spreads easily among the vaccinated. Any "reduced spread" is negligible. The only other benefit is reduced severity of illness. Most over 60s and vulnerable in Australia have had the vaccine. That leaves the unvaccinated group as mostly younger, healthy and significantly less likely to need hospital care. They are not a risk or burden. They get mild symptoms, recover soon after, and now have natural immunity. > importing further risk There's statistically no risk. An unvaccinated person who tests negative is not a transmission risk or an illness risk. This is where we're at with Omicron. Your suggestion to discriminate against those not vaccinated, doesn't add up.

omegabravo 5y ago
Your distribution for local people is largely irrelevant to who is visiting the country. Health care is beyond capacity at the moment. I fail to see how you can assess an unvaccinated person with no other attributes as statistically no risk. We're not talking about Djokovic, we're talking about the rules for immigration. An unvaccinated person who tests negative is more likely to become infected and require hospital care than a vaccinated person. It doesn't matter how remote, we are beyond capacity at the moment, this is where we're at with Omicron. Most suggest this will be a short wave, in which case we can reassess once it has passed.
- exodust 5y ago
  > "It doesn't matter how remote" It does matter. We don't mandate helmets for walking the streets, even with the remote chance you might stumble and hit your head. We should not disrupt society or deport/hate people because of "remote" and insignificant risks in an environment where the virus is already on the loose, spreading easily. > "An unvaccinated person who tests negative is more likely to become infected..." It doesn't work like that anymore. Many unvaccinated people by now have had the virus and therefore have some immunity. Even if you aren't ignoring natural immunity, Omicron will spread among vaccinated people every time. This is evidenced in the current surge data, and also reflected in countless anecdotes shared by others, and observed in my own family: Fully vaxxed, vents and air going like crazy, the virus nevertheless spread around the family with ease. Another confirmed anecdote: An elderly family friend went to dinner with 10 others. All fully vaxxed. One had Covid without knowing. ALL members of the dinner table contracted the virus and all became sick, including the source. None died or needed ventilator, but I think 3 or 4 needed oxygen levels monitored and 2 went to hospital as precaution. The vaccine likely helped reduce severity. But transmission was NOT stopped or slowed. The virus scored a perfect 10 that night, infecting every person at the table. Risk mitigation needs to be practical, fair, humane, effective and not politically motivated. We don't need to tell unvaccinated people to "go back where you came from" when they visit our shores. There is no gain from that with a virus already running wild.
  - omegabravo 5y ago
    It's definitely more complex than I gave credit. A previous infection can and likely has better short term protection than double dosed. I'm unfamiliar with how long it lasts for. I think I've come around and I wouldn't be against allowing recent infected and recovered in. Unrestricted is not an option at the moment while the current wave is meaning people are missing hospital treatment.