Comments on: Australia cannot treat COVID-19 ‘like the flu’

By: Peter Jones

Peter Jones — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 09:28:13 +0000

How to you reach 90% vaccination among a population in which 17% say they will NEVER take a vaccine?

The maths don’t add up. You cannot let 17% hold the rest of the country hostage, the point being opening up should happen once everyone has been offered the vaccine. If people decline then that’s their choice.

By: David Potter

David Potter — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:22:08 +0000

You can use real world data from the UK to verify your modelling. Currently 77% of over 16s are fully vaccinated. Cases currently rising, and 147 deaths yesterday. Obviously there are differences between UK and Australia:
[a] Higher proportion of AZ vaccinations relative to Pfizer.
[b] Much more ‘natural immunity’ from previous infection than we have in Australia.
[c] Minimal restrictions.
[d] A 30 billion pound test and trace regime.
etc etc.
But it makes it clear that your modelling is, unfortunately, in the correct ball park.

By: Aaron K Neufeld

Aaron K Neufeld — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 22:36:14 +0000

Such a good article, uts clear and logical. However, why is there no discussion about the variability in the model and it’s limitations more explicitly. A model is never going be right, otherwise we wouldn’t need a model. The model should produce outcomes that help an understanding of what variables create the greatest degree of uncertainty and the magnitude of that uncertainty. This article does not reveal enough of what the model can predict in that sense.

By: Margaret Colquhoun

Margaret Colquhoun — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 22:26:42 +0000

What a well-written and carefully considered article. However, with the mess the government made with the rollout of AstraZeneca and the distrust that has engendered in the minds of many seniors, the chance of vaccinating 95% of the over 60s is zero – at least while AstraZeneca is all that this group is offered.
By the way, the spokesperson for the Doherty Institute who said that an extra 1500 deaths did not make a material difference to the modelling did their Institute and its argument no favours.

By: Harry Clarke

Harry Clarke — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 03:23:59 +0000

The assumption about fatality rates is unreasonable. Observed mortality post-vaccination is much lower than in 2020. This presumably drives your extreme conclusions. You should be careful about making strong claims. This is much more than an academic exercise.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 25 Aug 2021 01:26:24 +0000

Trust the outcomes not the modelling. The arguments in this article are alarmist and unrealistic. Australia will never have 95% of the population vaccinated – no country has or will. If we wait until then, we would never open up and the costs of that both personal and economic are cataclysmic. The authors lack perspective, and they have a model which doesn’t look at human behaviour, which is why all of these models systematically and massively overstate the outcomes of deaths and hospitalisations. Look at the UK and US etc which opened up with 50% of their population vaccinated, the death rates and hospitalisation rates are way below what is said in this article. So my advice – ignore these alarmists.

By: Daryl Daley

Daryl Daley — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 07:56:13 +0000

Well done

By: Joe Weinhardt

Joe Weinhardt — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 06:27:32 +0000

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I hope that you have disseminated this research widely, especially to state and commonwealth health/chief health officers, @ScottMorrisonMP and @GladysB!

By: Biostatistics Unimelb

Biostatistics Unimelb — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 01:37:23 +0000

The modelling will need to be refined and updated over time, as variants emerge and new factors come in to view, and, while we agree with your projections, over Doherty neither predictions have taken into account the increase in mortality from vaccine, for example.

COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 general population England and Wales, by age
0-4, 0
5-9, 0
10-14, 0
15-19, 0.1
20-24, 0.2
25-29, 0.3
30-34, 0.6
35-39, 1.1
Astrazeneca, 1.7 [two dose, Table 3.]
40-44, 2
45-49, 3.5
Pfizer, 4.7 [two dose, Table 3.]
50-54, 6.1
Moderna, 6.6 [two dose, Table 3.]
55-59, 10.6
March 2020 through April 2021

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/vaccines/vaccines-09-00693/article_deploy/vaccines-09-00693-v2.pdf

By: Richard Lawrie

Richard Lawrie — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 01:20:52 +0000

I fail to understand the logic behind the Doherty Plan. At 70 to 80% millions will still be unvaccinated and this will be a recipe for pain suffering and death as they get the virus. OK I guess as long as you are not the one dying or suffering. If a number of states effectively control virus spread, why create a system that infects their population. We need a better plan that protects people, not one that puts them at risk. Seems money is more important than lives. My life matters, does yours.