SCIENCE said:
and now this
prima facie seems reasonable but we’ll give you 900 s to pre-empt us and give us your
¿ thoughts ?
oh all right we’ll mollwollfumble this one
The sluggish vaccination rollout in non-COVID states such as Western Australia and Queensland — and both states’ resistance to exposing their population to the virus — means they are missing out on the “maximum protection period” from the vaccines, leading experts say.
Why is this important ¿ Why do they need “maximum protection” right now, when they actually have control without “maximum protection” ¿ Surely maximum protection comes from having good infection control measures already.
Experts say research showing a waning efficacy of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines means a sluggish rollout could equate to more circulation of the virus when the states eventually open up, putting the vulnerable at risk.
Well yes, that’s going to happen no matter when your waning efficacy happens.
Bennett told the ABC the first couple of months after vaccination was the “maximum protection period” and the population was “less likely” to pass on the virus. “In the short term, the vaccines work particularly well,” Professor Bennett said
Oh so now it’s apparently mainstream after we’ve been saying for 6 months, it wears off, well, so, where’s them booster shots then ¿
“So this is the advantage of taking the maximum benefit from the vaccines in those first couple of months after most people get their second dose, as we’ve seen in NSW and [now] Victoria, to actually ease restrictions because that should help us not get the big surge [during the] necessary part of opening up.”
- “nececssary” … “opening up” WTF
- because the “big surge” comes from mobility going from 30% to 100%, and not from mobility going from 100% to 100% ¿ Think about that for a moment
MacIntyre said a speedy rollout was critical for the non-COVID states. “You never know when an outbreak is going to occur that can upend everything,” Professor MacIntyre said. “They need to vaccinate everyone as soon as possible.”
On what basis is that justified ¿ That is: if vaccine effectiveness wears off after a couple of months, then what do you think is going to happen if you vaccinate everyone as soon as possible, but the outbreak that upends everything happens 4 months after that ¿
Oh wait, that’s what’s been happening in other places around the world, who the fuck would have thought ¿
Oh oh wait wait here’s the punch line, suddenly here we go ¡
According to Professor Cunningham, getting to 90 per cent or above should still be the main priority for all jurisdictions, to reduce the circulation of the virus.
Imagine that.
“My professional recommendation is booster shots for the ageing after six months, and for the immunocompromised after three months,” he said.
About 500,000 people would be eligible for a third dose under ATAGI’s advice. The federal government is yet to commit to date for booster shots for the elderly or other vulnerable communities, but yesterday indicated it would like the rollout in aged care to start next month.
OH, RIGHT
Maybe lead with this actual valid justification that you can only get your 3rd dose after you get your 2nd after you get your 1st, for greater and more durable protection, from severe disease as well as transmission.
Maybe actually also correctly frame the justification, because claiming that “studies of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines showed they were still highly effective in protecting people from hospitalisation and death” means that the actual purpose of the 3rd dose is not going to be to maintain an already maintained protection “from hospitalisation and death”, but to restore protection from transmission.
Nah, as transition says, the fuckers in the media don’t do correct justification, they do narrative and sycophandemic panderemic clickbait.