At what percentage does breakthrough infections change to become an ineffective vaccine? Because an awful lot happening in Australia.

Australia was closed down and well above 80% got vaccinated. Then we opened up.
This link (fb sorry + wtf I can cut/ paste here but not before???) was posted by an Australian Senator and is factual. In case you don't like fb, it states yesterdays figures from Qld
10 deaths yesterday
1 unvaccinated
6 double vaccinated
3 triple vaccinated
9 out of 10 vaccinated of the deaths with 80-90% of population vaccinated in total.
I like their chances in court that the medicine is not effective enough to mandate.
[facebook.com]

@puff Stop spreading disinformation.

[theguardian.com]

@puff It ALSO states that 1 person was in their 40s, 1 in 50s, 6 in 80s, and 2 in 90s.

It conveniently leaves out is the unvaccinated person was the youngest of the ten or not. It also given zero data regarding comorbidities or speak to the fact that 93% of people over 16 are at least double vaccinated, so with only 10 deaths in one day in the entire country it's 1. a really grate statistic for the value of vaccinations 2. drastically skews the data to make it look like vaccinations are bad.

To put your faulty numbers in perspective. 10 deaths in a day in a country with 25 million people is less than 4 deaths per 100k, in the US yesterday we had 3866 deaths in a country with 332 million which is over 116 deaths per 100k. Our death rate is over 30 times higher than yours. The US only has 63% of the population that is double vaccinated.

Are you seriously that poor at evaluating numbers and data? You can't do a very simple comparative analysis or try to figure out possible other causes and effects of things? Do you just believe whatever nonsense people who you already agreed with tell you? You had ten people die in a country of 25 million and you think you can draw meaningful conclusions from that WITH NO OTHER DATA? Dude what the fuck? That's so sad you're that easy to fool. Ashtabula county near me has less than 100k people and they had 20 people die of covid yesterday. I know you're not good at math, so to be clear that's TWICE as many as in your whole country of over 25 MILLION people. I'll give you one guess why your death toll is so small compared to ours.

@puff 10 deaths in the entire state of Queensland? We had 12 deaths in one county here in Michigan yesterday. 227 for the state. In one day. You had 0 new cases yesterday. We had 41,000.

I would take your statistics any day and twice on Sunday. Vaccination works. Public restrictions like masking and social distancing work.

@Paul4747 we had a lot more than no new cases, 15,000 in Queensland alone. Enough "breakthrough" transmissions that we are the new hotspot with some countries, including your own, contemplating travel restrictions here. FYI [health.gov.au]

@LovinLarge @Paul4747

@puff My information was from a different site, probably not updated yet. Nonetheless, 12,000 (the number on that link, lower than what you cite) is a lot less than our 41,000. If the populations were the same, at that proportion you would still have half the cases that Michigan has.

I also notice that there are only 47 people currently in ICU. Not daily- that's the total the way I read it. Even if it's daily, wow, that vaccine is keeping a lot of people out of intensive care.

And, to answer your other question below, by definition an infection that breaks through the vaccine's defenses, is a breakthrough infection. The Omicron variant is much more transmissible than previous varieties, the vaccines are only about 70% effective from what I last read. That still means they're stopping 70% of transmissions.

Since I have a history degree and study the military throughout the ages, I'm going to present the following analogy:

Picture a group of medieval soldiers, all carrying shields. Against one foe, those shields stopped 95% of all arrows. Now they have a new enemy, more skilled or with more effective weapons, and their shields are only stopping 70% of all arrows. But even when the arrows poke through the shields, the individual soldiers are not being wounded as badly as if they had no shields at all. The arrows which break through their shields are still being slowed down enough that very few soldiers are actually being killed by them. (Compared to the casualty rate among those who have no shields at all.)

Or, in modern terms, they wear body armor. The vests originally stopped 95% of bullets. The enemy has switched to armor-piercing ammunition; now the vests stop 70%. But the bullets which do penetrate aren't traveling at full velocity, so most of the injuries are flesh wounds, not sucking chest wounds.

Does a soldier throw away their shield or pitch their armor vest in the trash because it's not 100% effective? Do we give up on the idea of protecting our troops? Or do we keep inventing better shields and better armor? (i.e. better vaccines)

You're in the position of a soldier who sees some of their line fall, and decides, "this shield is bollocks, I'm not carrying it." You're ignoring the evidence of the vast majority whose shields are still protecting them. And thus far you've been lucky enough to be out of the line of fire. When you do get hit, there's nothing between you and that bullet but skin.

You're trusting to luck that you won't get hit. I prefer to stack the odds in my favor.

@Paul4747 I understand your analogy and agree to a point, the vulnerable should take it. One flaw in it is the spear chucker's keep replenishing themselves (from world wide) and the shields fall apart quickly.
Is the lower hospital numbers due to the vaccine or Omicron being more contagious/ less lethal, remaining in the upper respiratory system unlike Delta? Of course vaccine manufacturers will claim credit but I'm not so sure, probably a bit of both in truth but unknown atm.
If mandates should be used so people protect themselves, helping society, then why are no other medicines mandated? Diabetes the obvious one which I'm sure put a huge strain on hospitals when there are plenty of effective pre-emptive medicines around. Should it be mandated, consent taken away, that diabetics must take medicine? A road fraught with danger imo.
Ed the link is Canadian, I'm Australian but trending the same

we will talk in six months and see where the disinformation comes from.
And I visit a nursing home multiple times a week, unvaxxed and I can assure you that masks, hygiene and distancing are more effective than these vaccines. There is an outbreak at the home. Not from me, one of the fully vaccinated (3 shot) staff as they worked under a false sense that they were good to go. I assume I have it when I visit and act appropriately and safely. You see, vaccination is not the only way we can complete life tasks safely as we are constantly told. There are effective alternatives,.
Supporting peoples right to choose, consent, makes me selfish? Then what does insisting all take it for their own perceived protection make them? And what about those injecting kids to achieve a herd immunity? Or is it for the child's own protection in your learned view? Being dead against inoculating kids with a medicine with no long term data available when they are not vulnerable, does that make me selfish as well?
Vaccines don't stop you being contagious either ffs, they just treat you personally like diabetic medicines, keep you out of hospital like diabetic medicine.

@puff

If mandates should be used so people protect themselves, helping society, then why are no other medicines mandated?

Um... several medicines are mandated. There is a whole series of childhood vaccinations that are required before enrolling in the public schools. In Michigan, the list is as folllows:

Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
(DTP, DTaP, Tdap)
Polio
Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
Hepatitus B
Meningococcal Conjugate
(MenACWY)
Chickenpox

The only reason- the only reason- this vaccine is being treated any differently is because it has become politicized by those trying to deny there's a pandemic at all, those insisting their "personal freedom" trumps (hah) public health, and those who are in the anti-vax camp thinking they know more than their doctors. (The last applies to all vaccines, of course, but it's fueling the fires as well.)

@Paul4747 Childhood vaccines directly benefit the child and have gone through thorough scientific testing before being released on the public.
Will covid vaccines directly benefit 99% of those who take it? (recall fatality figures prior to vaccine with average age of death above average life expectancy).
This is an emergency approved medicine, covid-19 vaccines. Full testing has been bypassed because it is deemed an emergency.

1. Because emergency approved, no way they should be mandated as there is no liability for the manufacturers.
2. In a true emergency with a true deadly pandemic with a highly effective medicine, there would be no need to mandate as the threat of the deadly virus outweighs any risk of taking experimental medicine. This is not the case as I see it and thus, mandates were introduced to fill an agenda.
   PS In Australia you may refuse vaccinations for children. Those parents who do this are misguided, I do not agree with them, but the world is not perfect and consent is important.
   We all have to tolerate others we don't agree with. Life.

@puff You know, I was going to ask a follow-up question, but it's a waste of my time. Good day.

@Paul4747 No worries mate. Nice chatting

Maybe he thought then I'd be the only one who would look at the post and point out how ridiculous the arguments it contained were?

because I was unable to copy paste links in comments mainly

Seriously, why Wouldn't you feel free to be Very Rude???

Yes know all that but the main justification for mandating is not to protect people, nor is it to lessen pressure on hospitals. The reason used to justify mandating is to stop spread, and it is not doing a good job/ not living up to it's claims. The court will decide.

@puff The mandates are only necessary because right wing elements are sabotaging mitigation of this pandemic.

@puff

1. Citing reasons that don't happen to be the most important reasons to do something doesn't invalidate it being a good idea. If I said people should save 20% of their paychecks incase there was a really big sale on cotton candy and they'd want to have liquid funds available if it came to pass, it may be the wrong reason to save money, but that doesn't mean saving money is a bad idea or that if people started saving money for that reason and realized it was dumb that they should just blow all the money they saved even though there are actual good reasons to save money.
2. Many people can state many reasons for doing something. By your rationale, if we can point to one that's not the best reason to do something, that should be sufficient reason not to have to do it?
3. Science is all about testing and learning and changing what we believe based on the best available evidence. If they originally cited one reason, and it turned out not to be the best reason, wouldn't you be glad they were willing to amend it as needed? If they didn't, we'd be back to the realm of the religious who believe the same thing on Wednesday that they did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.

@puff Doesn't stopping the spread of Covid also protect people and reduce pressue on hospitals? It seems like you're playing semantics and nitpicking here.

@Paul4747 Would love to stop the spread Australia was basically covid free and we got 80-90% of adult population vaccinated, then we opened up. Yesterday Queensland had about 15,000 new cases detected. So I pose this question;
How many "breakthrough" infections have to occur until we dismiss the idea they are breakthrough and admit this vaccine does not stop transmission?

@JeffMurray You don't just forfeit the need for consent to introduce a mandate for an intended purpose, then change your reasoning when the medicine does not live up to it's promise.
Your point #3 is the whole point. They are not deviating as more information/ science comes in. They are staying the course, keeping to the original agenda, ignoring the failings of the vaccine.

@puff I can't speak to their failed messaging, but now that you know that even though that's not a good reason, there are good reasons, you can stop worrying about whether or not they're saying the right reason. You realize the stance you're taking is childish and myopic, right? Are you honestly trying to tell us all that if they simply stated the reasoning as I have, that you wouldn't be complaining right now?

@JeffMurray No I'm saying the reasoning used now does not justify the removal of consent. I will tell you a little story.
I have been interrogated and broken. In 2020 I was forced to take a flu jab in order to visit a nursing home. Now I have always discounted flu jabs as not effective enough yet to take, with one year only 30% efficiency. So when I got that flu jab, informing the Chemist clearly I was doing it under duress, all those memories of being broken came flooding back; self loathing and disgust, anger at compromising my principles and breaking.
I understand fully what it means to force someone to go against their belief and it is not nice, like forcing a devout Muslim to eat bacon'. It crushes you. In Australia instead of visitation to loved ones used as coercion, they use peoples careers and livelihoods instead and it really sucks. It has caused a lot of pain to many.
Removing medical consent is an extreme move and as an extreme move, you better bloody make sure the medicine is worth it.
Sorry, but these medicines don't make the cut, nor does the situation warrant it. Just my opinion of course..

@puff

1. It's not removing consent. You are still free to say no.
2. We agree on principle that there are circumstances it's reasonable to remove consent or even forcibly detain. We just disagree on the line where it can be done.
3. Your country has had an infinitely better response and outcome as a result of the measures employed by your government. It's a shame that you can't understand how beneficial that is to all citizens because you're so self-centered all you care about is if you had to do something you didn't want to do. Boo-hoo. Which, I might add, is ridiculous. You were willing to get a flu shot to go to a nursing home, but you wouldn't get the covid shot simply to do your part to reduce the overall negative impact of a deadly global pandemic on your country and its citizens. Real nice. Furthermore, your country may not be as wealthy as mine, and maybe they had to employ stricter rules in order for it to not go bankrupt. That sucks for you as well, but life is terrible and unfair. Bottom line: if you want the advantages of living in a society, you have to participate and do your part. Your mad they can threaten you livelihood if you don't get your shot, well, having the job and making money to buy the things you want is part of that society.
4. The medicine is worth it. You're just too blinded by your echo chamber and too myopic to see how and why.

@JeffMurray

1. Coercion removes freely given consent.
2. agreed
3. Mandating medical treatment only occurred because a pandemic was declared by the WHO for a novel virus, a new one. So what medicine was mandated first? The flu jab which has nothing to do with covid. A blatant abuse of power imo.
4. At the start a vaccine was to be developed for the vulnerable only, that's what we were told. When people like me mentioned we can see where this is going, mandates will be introduced, we became part of the flat Earth conspiracy nut brigade. Well what has happened? I fully intended to take the vaccine but the longer I waited, the less confidence I had that taking it would be a social good. Different story if it stopped transmission.
   This is the law as it has stood all my life. One of the laws I like so I will keep defending it.
   [alrc.gov.au]

@puff

1. But you still don't have to consent...
3. An influenza vaccine could reduce strain on the healthcare industry, which, during a global pandemic, could save immeasurable amounts of resources and lives. I would not say that has nothing to do with covid.
4. As I have already mentioned several times, there are clear benefits to the shot that would result in social, medical, and financial good. The fact that you continue to pretend like that isn't the case speaks volumes about you and clearly shows everyone why you'd get lumped in with the flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.
   So are you saying that even in the case of ebola, you don't think the government should be allowed to force vaccination (if it existed) or quarantine without freely given consent?

@JeffMurray We are not talking about quarantine and I'm fine forcing that on people through mandate as it does not invade bodily integrity.
Australia followed a zero covid policy for 2 years. What you are seeing here now is our first wave still peaking. Suicides have gone through the roof in that time and businesses ruined because of the severely enforced lockdowns.
You pose the magic question many are asking in Australia; Was it worth it? Medically you may say yes re covid, but there is a huge medical backlog now due to the lockdowns, mainly late diagnosis and delayed treatments.
But this policy not only affected the medical situation and has come at a huge cost to society. Some kids in Victoria basically missed 2 years education with the social skills you learn at school. 2 years!!! Expats were unable to return home. Remember these lockdowns continued because we kept having a few "active cases", like half a dozen, and with a zero policy, authoritarian leaders immediately lock down all, hide and it all goes away. All and I mean all of these outbreaks occurred because of govt quarantine breaches or staff catching in hospitals. The plan was vaccinate 60%, then 70%, 80% now 90% in some states then open up and to the govt's credit, they have.
As I have mentioned before it is more arse than class that when we opened up it happened to coincide with the rise of Omicron, a more contagious but less severe strain which appears to only affect the upper respiratory system. And with daily new cases in the 10's of thousands with a vaccinated population between 80 and 90%, the vaccines fail in controlling the spread of the virus.
I originally posted about an upcoming court case whose argument will be that as transmission is not stopped but it will protect you, it should be left to personal choice and not mandated. I wish them the best of luck and believe it is a solid argument.

@puff You make some valid counterpoints, and a lot of these things we still can't quantify and evaluate now, two years in, let alone at the beginning of the pandemic. Were there things we could or should have done differently in hindsight? Sure. But no one has the benefit of hindsight in the present.
Ultimately, however, we're not getting anywhere. You also still haven't answered if you believe there's ever a scenario you'd believe it would be reasonable to force a vaccination.

@JeffMurray I find that question the same as is there ever a scenario when i believe it would be reasonable to kill someone. The answer is yes, when they pose a direct threat to a person or society. I think we agree on that.
Where we disagree, is does the current situation require that? I'm sure our differing views have a lot to do with the different way in which we have experienced this pandemic, the difference in our countries/ culture.
Hindsight will be interesting for this pandemic. But historically as pandemics go with accompanying death rates considered, I think in hindsight this one will hardly rate a mention (apologies to any personally affected, not downplaying the pain going on but providing perspective).
It is a 9/11 moment for the world again. How the world changed after 9/11 was quite drastic with the war on terror going 20 years and surveillance states being developed. It is changing quite drastically again now.

@puff
It did pose a threat to society.

Also, hardly rate a mention?? We were just in a period of the highest number of daily cases during the entire pandemic, and it's already well into the tip 10 deadliest pandemics of all time. Where are you getting your information you base these opinions on?!?

@JeffMurray percentage of population who died ie Spanish Flu was 5% not 0.3%. Bubonic plaque 30-90% [en.wikipedia.org]
Also the demographic this hits the hardest eg average age of covid death was greater than life expectancy, still up there. Spanish Flu hit people in their prime.

This pandemic is really more comparable to bad influenza seasons than historic pandemics if you look at both these factors ie fatality rate and demographic of victims. This statement will no doubt upset some, but can it be disputed?
Raw numbers now are bad, but there is a lot of us. 860,000 out of the US population over 2 years is not close to 1% (3.4 million +/-)