Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Saturday, 11 September 2021

Israel and Delta

                                           Pic courtesy WSJ



Israel's experience with the Delta strain of the virus, and the success or otherwise of its vaccination programme is instructive for Australia, given the likely rocky road ahead on the road map set out by the PM and the NSW Premier.

As this is written, Israel is dealing with a third wave of the virus, specifically the Delta variant. On September 9th 2021, Israel reported 5861 new cases and 6 new deaths. This contrasted with the situation in 2020 when the country went into lockdown averaging 4000 new daily infections, and daily deaths reached a high of 101 on January 20th 2021.

So the rate of infection is higher in 2021, but the death rate lower. The other change since a few months ago is that the lockdowns in Israel were lifted prior to the increased rate of infections.

Because we are not comparing like with like in two aspects (a different more infectious variant and lighter restrictions) it is difficult to come to definite conclusions, but some things seem evident.

1.  More people are becoming infected, but fewer are being hospitalised and dying.
2.  The lockdowns were effective in reducing transmission, and lifting them has increased transmission.
3. More people are recovering, but it is too early to understand the nature of that recovery.

All of this suggests caution. 

This caution should emanate not only from the figures above, but also from the possibility (or likelihood) that new variants will emerge. That is, after all, how viruses behave.

Vaccination is not the silver bullet, but it does seem to help. It needs to be remembered that even in Israel, only 61.1% of people are fully vaccinated. 

That doesn't bode well for Australia, where the figure stands at 32.6% fully vaccinated as this is posted.


21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some interesting reading on the Vaccine can be found on the TDA site which indicates as many deaths as were recorded in Vietnam, occurred after being vaccinated and complaints received.
Of course they only admit that 9 deaths were directly related to the jab "after investigation". The method of investigating deaths with the jab and deaths with covid are totally different. With covid means they don't look for an alternative reason for death.
with vaccination they look for every possible reason to exclude the death from their numbers.
https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report

Anonymous said...

Have a read on the most positive Vaccination rate per capita and the results...Gibraltar.
https://twitter.com/GibraltarGov

Not pushing a point just thought you may not have seen it.

1735099 said...

with vaccination they look for every possible reason to exclude the death from their numbers.
Who is "they" and why would "they" do this?
More conspiracy theories?

1735099 said...

Not pushing a point just thought you may not have seen it.
What point are you "not pushing?"

Anonymous said...

"Who is "they" and why would "they" do this?" They would be the people responsible for recording the findings in the report put out by the responsible Government body the Therapeutic Goods Administration which can be found at https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report
Merely an observation of facts supplied. If you go a little deeper in researching the site you will find all the detail. 43 pages I believe. If you can find a conspiracy of sorts among the reports of the TGA, please let us know.

Not pushing a point means I am not debating, arguing or trying to influence your thinking. In this instance it was merely information that you may not be aware of that you may be interested in when next you comment or write a post on the subject.

You really should comment on the content rather than beat around the bush with inane questions. It is a standard practice of someone with little substance to continue with.

1735099 said...

If you can find a conspiracy of sorts among the reports of the TGA, please let us know.

Whoopee-do! You've answered the first question.
Now answer the second - the "why" question.
You're the one beating around the bush.
Come out in the open and answer a third question.
Do you believe the TGA is engaged in some kind of conspiracy, and if so, why?

Anonymous said...

In case you didn't notice, Bobby, you were the one talking conspiracies. My comment suggests that you should point out where among the factual reports by TGA that might be.
Since I merely pointed out factual reports and apparent different methodology used without any accusations of "conspiracy", in order to keep you informed, why have you headed off at a tangent in order to avoid comment? You could have just read up on it and said nothing rather than attempt to "shoot the messenger".
Since I did not suggest conspiracy (you did) The "why" question on your part is irrelevant and makes no sense. How would I know the answer to your allegation of conspiracy?

Given your understanding or otherwise of the application of the statistics gleaned from the information I gave you to check and your suspicion of conspiracy, perhaps you should be asking yourself Q.3.

Bad, no, really bad form from the blog owner.

1735099 said...


No you were.
You suggested it first in your post on 13 Sept at 12:46 with this statement - with vaccination they look for every possible reason to exclude the death from their numbers.
You are inferring that "they" (I'm assuming the Therapeutic Goods Administration) are looking for "every possible reason to exclude the death from their numbers", which can mean only that there is some kind of organised effort to manipulate the statistics. This is exactly the same rubbish pushed by the anti-vaxxers across the Pacific and here, especially Craig Kelly.
This is snide, untruthful and dangerous. What possible reason can the TGA have for manipulating cause of death statistics?

Anonymous said...

Statement of fact...."with vaccination they look for every possible reason to exclude the death from their numbers". Very astute Bob..."They" is a general reference to those at the TGA compiling numbers from complaints and attributed reasons for death.
That is not an accusation of effort to manipulate statistics. It is merely pointing out that the method for recording numbers is different to that used in compiling numbers for deaths related to covid where it is known that whatever the reason for death is, if the deceased has been noted to have, or had, or in some cases been near someone that tested positive, then the death is claimed as related to covid.
If the department compiling numbers for the TGA on vacc. deaths and the Department responsible for numbers of covid death records report to the same people, who then report to the press, neither of the initial records keepers may be involved in the collusion you have mentioned may be occurring.
Nothing I have said is snide or untruthful, nor dangerous. You are after all the only one that has mentioned that there may be manipulation of numbers, or conspiratorial actions taking place at the TGA. I certainly haven't. Have I hit a nerve by pointing out different methods of recording deaths in relation to the topic at hand?

1735099 said...

if the deceased has been noted to have, or had, or in some cases been near someone that tested positive, then the death is claimed as related to covid.

That is nonsense.
The TGA does not report on Covid related deaths.
It reports on adverse reactions to the vaccinations.
From their website - The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) receives adverse event reports associated with medicines and medical devices.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say the TGA reported on deaths by Convenient-1984.

I compared the methods by which the two different sets of numbers were arrived at.

I was concerned about your cognitive ability for a while, Bob, but it really is becoming obvious you do not wish to offer any sensible reply to the facts given. Cognitive dissonance is the recognised challenge you seem afflicted with. I am, and anyone else that reads your offerings is, aware of this.

Hope your wife is well. I say this knowing the anguish you may be feeling.

1735099 said...

You keep shifting the goalposts, but let's look at just one specific allegation - It is merely pointing out that the method for recording numbers is different to that used in compiling numbers for deaths related to covid where it is known that whatever the reason for death is, if the deceased has been noted to have, or had, or in some cases been near someone that tested positive, then the death is claimed as related to covid.
This doesn't make a great deal of sense, but you seem to be saying that "cause of death" is put down to Covid without any justification. If this is indeed what you are claiming, please post the erroneous data and its sources.

Anonymous said...

Deny all you like Bobby, but do yourself a favour and research it yourself. I know you won't admit errors or even the likelihood of one...it is in your makeup. The only errors you admit to are taking action to exclude yourself from conscription not refusing to go to Vietnam.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1205.0.55.001

1735099 said...

Deny all you like Bobby
I'm not "denying" anything, just asking you to post the data you say you found showing that deaths are incorrectly (and you claim deliberately) attributed to Covid-19.
And I'm still trying to work out the connection between Vietnam and the pandemic. You'll have to enlighten readers about that...

Anonymous said...

"The only errors you admit to are taking action to exclude yourself from conscription not refusing to go to Vietnam." What has that statement to do with the pandemic? It goes to your credibility and character, Robert. The little that you have, that is.

"I'm not "denying" anything, just asking"...well as I said, "do yourself a favour and research it yourself". Don't sidestep the issue... https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1205.0.55.001

1735099 said...

There is no "issue" to sidestep.
My brother is a GP who is a consultant for two large nursing homes.
He has written plenty of death certificates.
He says that this information is nothing new, and is designed to arrive at consistent and clear practice, and to ensure that the real cause of death is recorded.
You seem to be having trouble getting your head around this, so I'll attempt to make a simple interpretation for you -
Due to the public health importance of COVID-19, the immediate recommendation is to record COVID-19 in Part I of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death.
People of advanced years almost always live with chronic health conditions. Generally, they can live for decades with these conditions, if they are cared for properly.
However, when a new virus comes along, and they contract it, their weakened immune system, together with the virus, causes them to succumb when a younger person, without the chronic condition, would survive.
The primary cause of death is the virus, not the chronic conditions they have endured for years. The question to ask is "If they hadn't caught Covid - 19, would they have died at that time?", and the answer is invariably "no".
Further clarification states -
Specification of the causal pathway leading to death in Part I of the certificate is important and all conditions and symptoms should be included. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I alongside the duration of each disease and symptom. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.
This is why the form is designed as it is - to provide the best possible information. Incidentally, the Medical Data Part 1 and 2 form hasn't changed in years.
Your reference to my "character and credibility" (apart from being your usual ad hom attack) reflects the behaviour of the anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists by abusing those who disagree with them.
It's time you stopped following Craig Kelly.

Anonymous said...

So what you have explained here Bobby is that people with chronic conditions that contract convenient-1984 have death arrive earlier. Would that not indicated that your virus acts as a catalyst, as they invariably die of the pre-existing problem or car accident or being in close proximity to a person that had proved positive, as one number cruncher stated when claiming a young person recently.

By the way I am not who you think I am and I don't follow Kelly. Letting you know that you are losing any credibility that you think you may have had is not abuse, Bobby. But stating that it is would indicate just how you may have become thin skinned. That is not abuse either by the way, merely pointing out the obvious.

Many governmental forms do not change over the years but as you are aware the instructions on how to fill them in, and the incentives on offer, is quite another story.

1735099 said...

So what you have explained above is that you are quite OK with the notion that people with chronic conditions that contract Covid 19 have "death arrive earlier" (to use your own words).
These vulnerabilities, of course, apply to a large cohort of the population, not just the frail aged, and include large numbers of people with disabilities of all ages, many of them children.
Having spent most of my career teaching kids with disabilities, and getting to know their parents, I suggest you discuss your eccentric view of the value of human life with such a parent.
Or maybe you could chat with someone who has an elderly parent in care.
I'll give you some advice - make sure you have an escape route organised...

Anonymous said...

No Bobby, I tried to explain to you, that in many cases that a conclusion that could be reached, is that with the addition of the "virus", to a list of chronic conditions that can and will kill a person, that the virus acts as a catalyst, hastening the process. If you wish to reply in a manner that makes me appear to be heartless in an effort to avoid a reply with some value, then that is just an indication of your mindset, not mine.
Giving yourself another pat on the back with an explanation of what you were employed to do throughout your life, and the effects it has on the parents of those you had dealings with does nothing to enhance your image.
You have no idea of who I am or my experiences with death, and its aftermath, throughout my life.
You are also unaware that I have personal experience of three years with a wife who had cancer and eventually succumbed to it. My wife and I managed her period of palliation at home where she passed in the presence of her family. She was 64. Don't presume to lecture me on treatment of the elderly. I am not unfamiliar with aged care services.
When you reply you really should stick to the subject you choose to blog about and the comments made, without trying to diagnose those who comment. You do not have the life experience to be qualified to do so.
Once again, I really do hope your wife is doing well.

1735099 said...

No Bobby, I tried to explain to you, that in many cases that a conclusion that could be reached, is that with the addition of the "virus", to a list of chronic conditions that can and will kill a person, that the virus acts as a catalyst
Which is a repeat of what you said upthread, and an acknowledgement of my point.
I commiserate with the loss of your beloved wife, but that makes no difference to the fact that there is absolutely no foundation for criticism of how the Australian health system has managed the pandemic.
We have (for example) made a much better job of it than the USA, where deaths per million stand currently at 2118, compared to 48 here. What is your explanation for a death rate, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, 260 times ours?
See - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Part of the reason for this is the amount of disinformation being spread by conspiracy theorists across the Pacific.
Some of it has seeped into the discourse in Australia.
It kills people...

Anonymous said...

It sets up people for dying by other conditions and especially in the elderly and already infirm. Other causes have also been included and the WHO decided that in early August it better change the means by which a covid death could be recorded. Catch up on your reading.

Thank you for the commiserations. It wasn't meant to make a difference to the subject, but to give you a tiny bit of insight into my experiences and understanding of what you may also be going through.

You still do not reply in relation to my well wishes for your wife.

You probably should compare Australia with a country with a similar demographic. The yanks had different answers to how to go about things and there were matters of health and aged population that created problems for them. And the States were not isolated ASAP as the island of Australia was. We might have had a few less dead and infected if Dandrews of Victoriastan had handled his end better. He and his group of 8 avoided any action by setting up and defining the terms of reference for his risible enquiry.



Blog Archive