This is crazy...if Australians eat this, they'll eat anything. Why stop there? Force "violators" to surrender all their belongings and report to a re-education facility. I mean, isn't it worth it if a single 400lb 70 year old lives six months longer?
If you're not Australian (and therefore it might not be news), I think the lede got buried. 14% fully-vaccinated rate? WTH is going on down there? Even the reddest of red states in the U. S. are still at 34%.
"No country has got their pandemic response 100%."
OTOH, most countries aren't bordering on a single digit vaccination rate, either.
Pretty much this. I have friends in Singapore and they kept case numbers very low and didn’t feel a lot of pressure to secure vaccine supplies ASAP. Then subsequent waves hit and they realized “were going to stay locked down for 5 years if we don’t vaccinate”.
No. Like in many western nations, it came down to politics.
State governments and the Federal government hold different powers. In Australia the exercise of health care is a state-level responsibility, hence state-wide health orders leading to successful COVID management. The management of prescription medicines and their costs is borne by the Federal government.
The states that "beat" COVID are currently led by progressive parties, while the Federal government is conservative and, allegedly, incredibly corrupt.
The Federal government is to blame for the vaccination rate. The states that "beat" COVID have generally done so by going against the Federal government's advice to 'open up and live with it'.
> The states that "beat" COVID are currently led by progressive parties
No. The states that dropped the ball on COVID were the progressive states. They only "beat" COVID in the sense they let it run rampant in the first place. Australia's red state equivalents have all handled COVID near flawlessly.
That's a little confusing. The red (Labor) states are the more progressive ones (both are very centrist and tend to steal each others policies). In Australia the conservative party is "blue".
NSW is a conservative-leaning state and has had a few missteps (Ruby Princess and now). Victoria (Labor) had a bad period last year because their contact tracing was not good enough, and they left lock-down to long rather than going hard (NZ style).
QLD and WA are both Labor and have both done well and got lucky with their missteps. Queensland* has ~5 million people mostly living in the SouthEast metro areas and 7 deaths from about 1,800 cases.
*About to go into lockdown again in 3 hours, but these short sharp ones are fine and then we go back to living like there is no Covid.
The Liberal party is generally considered conservative, and Labor progressive. The federal government is currently formed by the Liberal Party (that is actually conservative). Their colour is blue.
The states that have handled covid spread well have Labor governments in power, Labor is progressive, and their colour is red.
This is a confusing take. Which states dropped the ball on Covid and let it run rampant? Which ones have handled it near-flawlessly?
By 'red-state equivalents' do you mean the ones with Liberal Premiers? If so that would seem like an inaccurate oversimplification.
The state with the highest death rate is led by a progressive party. The death rate is so high because the state government hired untrained security guards who, among other things, had sex with people in quarantine and let them out into the city for food.
When investigated, the government was evasive and engaged in cover up (including the hiding of text messages, emails among other things). Multiple government officials resigned or were pushed out in disgrace for lying about their involvement.
The cover up, the incompetence and the substantially higher death count is fine because cases are now low? Interesting argument, have you considered telling the families who had loved ones slain because of government incompetence that they later lied about?
> The cover up, the incompetence and the substantially higher death count is fine because cases are now low?
The cover-up that resulted in the government forcing one Minister and her Departmental Secretary to resign? That cover up? The one where the Premier of Victoria wrote several times informing the Secretary to pursue COVID mitigation and was ignored without comment by the secretary? That cover up? The one they had a full and independent inquiry about within a couple of months of the "cover up" beginning? That cover up? Wow, it's a pretty shitty cover up when so many of the players ended up either fired or out of work.
> Interesting argument, have you considered telling the families who had loved ones slain because of government incompetence that they later lied about?
Slain? Oh spare me the "won't someone think of the victims" when you jump directly into another thread to lie about the effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing COVID in the community, heap praise Trump's COVID approach (who is largely responsible for the huge numbers of dead in the US either through refusing to lock down and then whipping his followers into an anti-vaccine fury), and then regurgitate the lies about Hunter Biden and his apparent corruption.
I think it has to be pointed out that the other side of this is that there have been very few serious illnesses and deaths due to Covid. I'll take that over better post-infection societal immunity due to so many having had the disease.
Unfortunately, the vaccination rollout has been an absolute shambles and the NSW government reacted late IMO to the Delta outbreak.
Not sure why you got downvotes but 100 percent Australia's slow ass Vax rollout is the result of a "conservative" government. Though they are closer to resembling an authoritarian corprotocracy rather than anything truly conservative or liberal.
I'm guessing because vaccinations are higher in several countries (UK, Germany, Israel, ?) where there are conservative governments. (And Trump did order a bunch of vaccines in the US.)
So yes, probably because of this conservative government. Even because of these conservative governments (State and Federal).
But not simply because of a conservative government.
Because progressive governments all over the world dropped the ball too. Didn't hear anyone attributing Australia's success to the conservative government when the country was being heralded as a miracle just a few months ago.
If anything Australia's success was in spite of the federal government. Quarantine is a federal responsibility, and they keep shirking it just so they can blame state governments when covid escapes quarantine.
> And health is a state responsibility - yet people were all too willing to throw Scotty from Marketing under the bus on that.
The state governments haven't failed on health though? The federal government explicitly declined to let the states run the vaccination program in the way that they wanted and instead went GP-first (GPs being beholden effectively to the feds).
> And health is a state responsibility - yet people were all too willing to throw Scotty from Marketing under the bus on that.
This is a nothing statement. The state based health services have generally been very well run, with the exception of contact tracing in Victoria during 2020.
The federal health responsibilities (vaccines, quarantine and PPE provisioning) have all been spectacular failures.
New Zealand is in exactly the same boat as Australia.
Being a conservative government has nothing to do with the slow Vax rollout. Over-reliance on AstraZeneca is to blame with no plan B.
NZ planned to use Australia’s AstraZeneca vaccines too, and has since dumped that plan altogether, has been scrapping together whatever Pfizer it can get and recently found a supply of the US’s unwanted J&J vaccines.
The US was led by Trump of all people who didn't botch the vaccine rollout this badly, in fact he funded the record speed the vaccines were developed via Operation Warp Speed.
The US arranged the development, logistics and rollout of a vaccine in less than 12 months. Under a conservative government.
The Federal government 1) committed a ridiculous amount of money to vaccine purchases, 2) mostly stayed out of the way at least as far as vaccine development went, then 3) mechanically distributed vaccine shipments to each state government based on population.
Nobody should get credit for #1. Few if any countries could have so easily burdened itself with that kind of debt. At the Federal level the entire political establishment in the U.S. barely blinks at spending tens of billions here or there. The Trump administration deserves some credit for #2 and #3, though suffice it to say it succeeded by ignoring and blocking high-level political officials' attempts to hijack the process.
Mostly the success of the roll out, such as it is, from a logistical viewpoint is due to states. But early on there were plenty of people blaming their own state for fumbling allocation, tracking, and delivery of vaccines to healthcare providers.
If anything, the U.S. could easily be blamed for the slow roll out of vaccinations around the world. We literally cornered the market by throwing money at pharmaceutical companies and requiring preferential allocation. And you could argue that we did so using their (the world's) money, considering how a not insignificant portion of the Federal deficit is financed by foreign investment.
If the US didn't throw practically unlimited money at pharma and research companies, hedging their bets by buying a multitude of vaccines, it's easy to see that we wouldn't have a vaccine at all right now and we'd have 10x more death.
In a world where third world countries are handily running rings around the Australian Government, it shows the emperor has no clothes.
The US' bumbling bureaucracy, as dysfunctional as it was at the time and still is, leapt into action like a phoenix from mediocrity. It wasn't even just the vaccine, it was sourcing of masks, medical supplies and more.
It's not perfect, but under 12 months is literally unprecedented and orders of magnitude faster than a vaccine has been developed, distributed and administered. Of course, this is highly unlikely to be Trump's competence rather than the competence of people he put in charge of the various pieces of the puzzle. But the results were clear.
The entire media establishment, and "experts", claimed the speed at which it was actually delivered was impossible.
I mean, let's take a look at NBC News' "fact check" from May 2020.
"Fact check: Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a 'miracle' to be right." [1]
Those "experts" said a vaccine before mid-to-late 2021 would be a "miracle".
The speed of development, production, and distribution is absolutely unprecedented. But to me your argument seems similar to proposing a counterfactual and saying, "see, the Federal government could have done so much worse". Yes, they could have. But what they did do was very much S.O.P. (faux-political handwringing in other contexts notwithstanding), and nobody should be surprised that throwing money (in a way no other country possibly could) at a national emergency didn't completely fail.
In any event, credit for the development and production of the vaccine is due to the pharmaceutical companies. Absolute production capacity was (and remains) structurally constrained. There was plenty of cash globally to finance production; cash only bought you priority in line. (That's why they were so quick to give up patent rights.) Also, for the mRNA vaccines, most of the development was finished mere days after the genome was published. Conversely, the Federal government bears some responsibility for the egregious production errors with the J&J vaccine because of lax oversight, though most of that laxity was rooted in earlier years.
Regarding timelines, here's Anthony Fauci being reported on March 3, 2020 as saying "[T]he whole process is going to take a year, year-and-a-half at least." The article goes on, "Fauci said vaccines are being developed and will soon be ready for testing, but 'I don't want to overpromise.'" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/03/offi... (To be clear, that's March 3, not May 3.)
The first shipment of Pfizer was mid December. That's over 9 months later than Fauci's statement, yet nearly 3 months earlier than the initial 1 year estimate.[1] But in context that's not much of a discrepancy. And the vaccine wasn't really widely available until later. As someone under 50 I couldn't get my first dose until late April, 2021.
People, including public health officials, were reciting the same "12 to 18 months" refrain for several months after Fauci (and others) gave the original estimate. It had become a talking point; a talking point in a context where health officials were fighting political narratives that were hostile to mandatory masking and shutdowns in favor of doing nothing while we waited for a vaccine. It's disingenuous to go back and criticize people for not decreasing the number after every public hearing and news conference. It's especially disingenuous to do so while failing to recall all the times that Trump and others denied and diminished the risk of the pandemic (including its lethality), and gave optimistic (if not outright misleading) predictions for various initiatives and therapies. Remember, Fauci and others were trying to set expectations amidst a cacophony of self-serving claims, and to do so in a way that maximally preserved the credibility of the health community if things went sideways, as they almost certainly would from their perspective in time.
Health officials made some egregious missteps early on; missteps that squarely reflected poor application of known science and medicine. (Mostly they were reciting old science, but that's their fault all the same.) But using a conservative estimate of 12 months as the earliest date for general vaccine availability is hardly one of them. As far as I'm concerned, for a ballpark estimate (and ballparking it is all anyone could have done), it was spot on.
[1] I remember an early NPR interview with Fauci where he gave a flat 1 year estimate; no 1 - 1 1/2 years. But I don't remember the precise date and am not about to go look it up because it's a pointless dispute. Certainly at the time I remember thinking t...
Being able to manufacture locally was still a good idea but the thrombosis issue (and the overreaction) turned people off taking AstraZeneca, and there was no Plan B or C.
Governments don't have a lot of credibility to start with, so no one believes them when they say it's better than Covid - similar situation with the J&J vaccine in the US. Maybe a few more deaths and more lockdowns will turn people around.
Why do people keep referring to “red states” when discussing lack of vaccination and not demographics?
It appears that lower income, as well as predominantly black and brown people are leading the numbers of non-vaccinated people. Even NPR makes it sound like all unvaccinated people are white conservative Trump supporters when that is clearly not the case.
Not with the number of vaccines the federal government has been purchasing, or with the speed they've been rolling them out, or with the length of time its taken to approve any local manufacturing.
This is a terrible take. There is a tonne of freedom to do and say as one wishes in Australia. The guns are not absent, they are licensed and backed by background checks and regular license renewals that are tied to criminal history checks, police databases, and mental health proceedings.
Health care is largely free, education is excellent, almost every town has perfectly drinkable water (almost), and there's plenty of food to go around. Our passport works, our wages are competitive, and out anti corruption , pro employment, pro consu.er rights laws are some of the best in the world.
I'd say you should review your take on the situation.
I mean you could see the black plague as what loosened a 1000 year grip on society the Church had.
At this point, liberalism could be in the same position with COVID. I don't even see the evidence that liberalism is compatible with the internet so it might have already been in trouble in 2019. When you add Covid on top of that only digital authoritarianism seems compatible with what you get.
I think people right now would even vote for digital authoritarianism if given the choice so you can't blame politicians for following the will of the people in a democracy.
44 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] thread"No country has got their pandemic response 100%."
OTOH, most countries aren't bordering on a single digit vaccination rate, either.
Meanwhile they didn’t prioritize vaccinations.
"We've bought some time, what should we do now? Maybe shore up our healthcare system in case a wave hits us?"
"No. We... wait.".
State governments and the Federal government hold different powers. In Australia the exercise of health care is a state-level responsibility, hence state-wide health orders leading to successful COVID management. The management of prescription medicines and their costs is borne by the Federal government.
The states that "beat" COVID are currently led by progressive parties, while the Federal government is conservative and, allegedly, incredibly corrupt.
The Federal government is to blame for the vaccination rate. The states that "beat" COVID have generally done so by going against the Federal government's advice to 'open up and live with it'.
No. The states that dropped the ball on COVID were the progressive states. They only "beat" COVID in the sense they let it run rampant in the first place. Australia's red state equivalents have all handled COVID near flawlessly.
NSW is a conservative-leaning state and has had a few missteps (Ruby Princess and now). Victoria (Labor) had a bad period last year because their contact tracing was not good enough, and they left lock-down to long rather than going hard (NZ style).
QLD and WA are both Labor and have both done well and got lucky with their missteps. Queensland* has ~5 million people mostly living in the SouthEast metro areas and 7 deaths from about 1,800 cases.
*About to go into lockdown again in 3 hours, but these short sharp ones are fine and then we go back to living like there is no Covid.
The Liberal party is generally considered conservative, and Labor progressive. The federal government is currently formed by the Liberal Party (that is actually conservative). Their colour is blue.
The states that have handled covid spread well have Labor governments in power, Labor is progressive, and their colour is red.
When investigated, the government was evasive and engaged in cover up (including the hiding of text messages, emails among other things). Multiple government officials resigned or were pushed out in disgrace for lying about their involvement.
Just so we're clear.
The cover-up that resulted in the government forcing one Minister and her Departmental Secretary to resign? That cover up? The one where the Premier of Victoria wrote several times informing the Secretary to pursue COVID mitigation and was ignored without comment by the secretary? That cover up? The one they had a full and independent inquiry about within a couple of months of the "cover up" beginning? That cover up? Wow, it's a pretty shitty cover up when so many of the players ended up either fired or out of work.
> Interesting argument, have you considered telling the families who had loved ones slain because of government incompetence that they later lied about?
Slain? Oh spare me the "won't someone think of the victims" when you jump directly into another thread to lie about the effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing COVID in the community, heap praise Trump's COVID approach (who is largely responsible for the huge numbers of dead in the US either through refusing to lock down and then whipping his followers into an anti-vaccine fury), and then regurgitate the lies about Hunter Biden and his apparent corruption.
It’s like a forest that has never done a controlled burn, never had a forest fire and it hasn’t rained in a very long time.
Stay at square 0.
So yes, probably because of this conservative government. Even because of these conservative governments (State and Federal).
But not simply because of a conservative government.
The fact is the Australian federation model has an odd separation of responsibilities which makes this challenge uniquely difficult for Australia.
The state governments haven't failed on health though? The federal government explicitly declined to let the states run the vaccination program in the way that they wanted and instead went GP-first (GPs being beholden effectively to the feds).
This is a nothing statement. The state based health services have generally been very well run, with the exception of contact tracing in Victoria during 2020.
The federal health responsibilities (vaccines, quarantine and PPE provisioning) have all been spectacular failures.
Being a conservative government has nothing to do with the slow Vax rollout. Over-reliance on AstraZeneca is to blame with no plan B.
NZ planned to use Australia’s AstraZeneca vaccines too, and has since dumped that plan altogether, has been scrapping together whatever Pfizer it can get and recently found a supply of the US’s unwanted J&J vaccines.
The US arranged the development, logistics and rollout of a vaccine in less than 12 months. Under a conservative government.
Nobody should get credit for #1. Few if any countries could have so easily burdened itself with that kind of debt. At the Federal level the entire political establishment in the U.S. barely blinks at spending tens of billions here or there. The Trump administration deserves some credit for #2 and #3, though suffice it to say it succeeded by ignoring and blocking high-level political officials' attempts to hijack the process.
Mostly the success of the roll out, such as it is, from a logistical viewpoint is due to states. But early on there were plenty of people blaming their own state for fumbling allocation, tracking, and delivery of vaccines to healthcare providers.
If anything, the U.S. could easily be blamed for the slow roll out of vaccinations around the world. We literally cornered the market by throwing money at pharmaceutical companies and requiring preferential allocation. And you could argue that we did so using their (the world's) money, considering how a not insignificant portion of the Federal deficit is financed by foreign investment.
In a world where third world countries are handily running rings around the Australian Government, it shows the emperor has no clothes.
The US' bumbling bureaucracy, as dysfunctional as it was at the time and still is, leapt into action like a phoenix from mediocrity. It wasn't even just the vaccine, it was sourcing of masks, medical supplies and more.
It's not perfect, but under 12 months is literally unprecedented and orders of magnitude faster than a vaccine has been developed, distributed and administered. Of course, this is highly unlikely to be Trump's competence rather than the competence of people he put in charge of the various pieces of the puzzle. But the results were clear.
The entire media establishment, and "experts", claimed the speed at which it was actually delivered was impossible.
I mean, let's take a look at NBC News' "fact check" from May 2020.
"Fact check: Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a 'miracle' to be right." [1]
Those "experts" said a vaccine before mid-to-late 2021 would be a "miracle".
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-cor...
In any event, credit for the development and production of the vaccine is due to the pharmaceutical companies. Absolute production capacity was (and remains) structurally constrained. There was plenty of cash globally to finance production; cash only bought you priority in line. (That's why they were so quick to give up patent rights.) Also, for the mRNA vaccines, most of the development was finished mere days after the genome was published. Conversely, the Federal government bears some responsibility for the egregious production errors with the J&J vaccine because of lax oversight, though most of that laxity was rooted in earlier years.
Regarding timelines, here's Anthony Fauci being reported on March 3, 2020 as saying "[T]he whole process is going to take a year, year-and-a-half at least." The article goes on, "Fauci said vaccines are being developed and will soon be ready for testing, but 'I don't want to overpromise.'" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/03/offi... (To be clear, that's March 3, not May 3.)
The first shipment of Pfizer was mid December. That's over 9 months later than Fauci's statement, yet nearly 3 months earlier than the initial 1 year estimate.[1] But in context that's not much of a discrepancy. And the vaccine wasn't really widely available until later. As someone under 50 I couldn't get my first dose until late April, 2021.
People, including public health officials, were reciting the same "12 to 18 months" refrain for several months after Fauci (and others) gave the original estimate. It had become a talking point; a talking point in a context where health officials were fighting political narratives that were hostile to mandatory masking and shutdowns in favor of doing nothing while we waited for a vaccine. It's disingenuous to go back and criticize people for not decreasing the number after every public hearing and news conference. It's especially disingenuous to do so while failing to recall all the times that Trump and others denied and diminished the risk of the pandemic (including its lethality), and gave optimistic (if not outright misleading) predictions for various initiatives and therapies. Remember, Fauci and others were trying to set expectations amidst a cacophony of self-serving claims, and to do so in a way that maximally preserved the credibility of the health community if things went sideways, as they almost certainly would from their perspective in time.
Health officials made some egregious missteps early on; missteps that squarely reflected poor application of known science and medicine. (Mostly they were reciting old science, but that's their fault all the same.) But using a conservative estimate of 12 months as the earliest date for general vaccine availability is hardly one of them. As far as I'm concerned, for a ballpark estimate (and ballparking it is all anyone could have done), it was spot on.
[1] I remember an early NPR interview with Fauci where he gave a flat 1 year estimate; no 1 - 1 1/2 years. But I don't remember the precise date and am not about to go look it up because it's a pointless dispute. Certainly at the time I remember thinking t...
Trump is not a "conservative", he's a Trumpist (America-first Liberal.) He happens to lead the Republican Party, but that's mostly a coincidence.
When you look at his policy decisions (vaccines, anti-CCP, border security, economic performance), he's the best US President in 75 years.
All Biden had to do was to continue Trump's executive orders and sleep even longer than he already does.
Apparently the Morrison government completely bungled the vaccine rollout. My elderly parents can’t even get a shot and it’s not for lack of trying.
The selection criteria for choosing AstraZeneca was their lobbyist being former Chief of Staff of the Liberal party.
Governments don't have a lot of credibility to start with, so no one believes them when they say it's better than Covid - similar situation with the J&J vaccine in the US. Maybe a few more deaths and more lockdowns will turn people around.
Is that a joke? Argentina and Peru are doing better than Australia... What's the excuse now?
It appears that lower income, as well as predominantly black and brown people are leading the numbers of non-vaccinated people. Even NPR makes it sound like all unvaccinated people are white conservative Trump supporters when that is clearly not the case.
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-...
I'd say you should review your take on the situation.
At this point, liberalism could be in the same position with COVID. I don't even see the evidence that liberalism is compatible with the internet so it might have already been in trouble in 2019. When you add Covid on top of that only digital authoritarianism seems compatible with what you get.
I think people right now would even vote for digital authoritarianism if given the choice so you can't blame politicians for following the will of the people in a democracy.
I am just glad I am old with no kids.