Marshall to miss (Tier 1 Covid exposure)

[happy feet]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

Again, he is not positive so can’t pass it on. He may possibly become positive, hence being in isolation, but couldn’t pass anything on before he develops the virus.

You can still pass on the virus before you are tested as positive.

[amusingname]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

Again, he is not positive so can’t pass it on. He may possibly become positive, hence being in isolation, but couldn’t pass anything on before he develops the virus.

You can still pass on the virus before you are tested as positive.

He and the team have all tested negative 3 times since flying to Perth, and he has been in isolation since Sunday. It wouldn’t be possible for him to test negative, pass it on to someone, but then test negative again.

[CQ SAINT]

Its not that hard to understand. But its obviously very hard to accept.

[Vortex]

We live in a mad world. When will this be all over. Footy doesn't really seem that interesting or important all of a sudden.

[happy feet]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

Again, he is not positive so can’t pass it on. He may possibly become positive, hence being in isolation, but couldn’t pass anything on before he develops the virus.

You can still pass on the virus before you are tested as positive.

He and the team have all tested negative 3 times since flying to Perth, and he has been in isolation since Sunday. It wouldn’t be possible for him to test negative, pass it on to someone, but then test negative again.

Patients have tested positive up to 2 weeks post a negative test result. That’s why a potential exposure means a 2 week isolation period.

[happy feet]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

Again, he is not positive so can’t pass it on. He may possibly become positive, hence being in isolation, but couldn’t pass anything on before he develops the virus.

You can still pass on the virus before you are tested as positive.

He and the team have all tested negative 3 times since flying to Perth, and he has been in isolation since Sunday. It wouldn’t be possible for him to test negative, pass it on to someone, but then test negative again.

Patients have tested positive up to 2 weeks post a negative test result. That’s why a potential exposure means a 2 week isolation period.

[B.M]

So we really don’t know if Marshall is positive yet?

Either he tested negative so is right to play.

Or we assume he could be positive - and perhaps his team mates who are close contacts?

[kosifantutti]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

So we isolate all of Paddy's close contacts and Paul Hunter's. And he played on Saturday so all of St Kilda and Port. And all of their families and close contacts. Where does it stop?

Someone at the Precinct had it when Roma was there. There is a small chance that he has it hence he goes into isolation. But not his contacts.

I'm in isolation at the moment because I was somewhere in the vicinity of the positive case at the MCC. But they are not isolating the 300 odd people I was in contact with between Sunday and Thursday. It wouldn't take long until half the state was in isolation.

[amusingname]

If he’s a tier 1 contact

What does that make Paddy Ryder

Who would’ve been wrestling with him in ruck drills

If Marshall is positive

So could at least 6 team mates

Then during the game that could be spread to Eagles players

Then they take it home!!!

Again, he is not positive so can’t pass it on. He may possibly become positive, hence being in isolation, but couldn’t pass anything on before he develops the virus.

You can still pass on the virus before you are tested as positive.

He and the team have all tested negative 3 times since flying to Perth, and he has been in isolation since Sunday. It wouldn’t be possible for him to test negative, pass it on to someone, but then test negative again.

Patients have tested positive up to 2 weeks post a negative test result. That’s why a potential exposure means a 2 week isolation period.

Correct, but if the person was only around others at the start of the 2 weeks following exposure period and tested negative after contact with others (such as Rowan and the rest of the team), there is no risk to the rest of the team, as he wasn’t either positive or infectious before he was in isolation.

[amusingname]

I didn’t think it was that hard a situation to explain. Rowan does not have the virus, he may develop it in the next week, that’s why he is in isolation. He has tested negative numerous times as have the rest of the team. You cannot pass on the virus if you don’t have it. So as long as he is in isolation, the rest of the team is alright to train and play.

[The_Dud]

Different rules should apply to the vaccinated. That’s the only way we will get the masses jabbed. Agree it’s the only way out

Except that, being vaccinated doesn't stop you from either getting the virus or passing it on to others, including those who have been vaccinated. That's the dilemma. Of course, if everyone was vaccinated, then a measure of protection against severe illness is afforded. At the moment, that is the out strategy. But this time last year, there was no delta variant, so who knows what's around the corner. Sometimes, coronaviruses just stop mutating. Hopefully Covid-19 will be one of them.

Vaccination will mitigate it to no more serious than the seasonal flu. Not pleasant, but you can live with it without being imprisoned every couple of months.

It may be that everyone needs a booster every year because it mutates. If so, that’s okay if it keeps us out of lockdown.

There are some people who can’t be vaccinated and have to rely on everyone else doing the right thing for protection.

It is safe for the vast majority. What are we to do? Shut down society forever? That is hardly realistic and certainly not desirable.

Even Dan Andrews says, “We will not be going into lockdown to protect people who will not protect themselves.”

I hope you have had your shots Dud, or will once you are eligible.

If you decide against it, that’s ok. Just take responsibility for the consequences

I think you misunderstand me.

I am 1000% behind the vaccine and personally think it (and all) should be mandatory. Alas I am not eligible yet, but let’s not get in to that sh*tshow…

My post was about those who vaccines won’t work for, people with cancer, autoimmune or other immunologic disease, or an organ transplant. They don’t get the option of choosing, they have to rely on everybody else doing the right thing.

That’s where the “if you don’t want the vaccine that’s fine, it’s a risk you have to live with” falls apart for me, as it’s not just you, it’s risking the lives of others who don’t get the luxury of being selfish.

[bigcarl]

I am 1000% behind the vaccine and personally think it (and all) should be mandatory. Alas I am not eligible yet, but let’s not get in to that sh*tshow…

My post was about those who vaccines won’t work for, people with cancer, autoimmune or other immunologic disease, or an organ transplant. They don’t get the option of choosing, they have to rely on everybody else doing the right thing.

That’s where the “if you don’t want the vaccine that’s fine, it’s a risk you have to live with” falls apart for me, as it’s not just you, it’s risking the lives of others who don’t get the luxury of being selfish.

We can help those vulnerable people and “do the right thing” by getting the jab and reaching herd immunity. That way it cannot get a foothold in the community.

Everyone else who has the opportunity and doesn’t take it, they can take their chances as far as I am concerned. In fact, they would be the selfish ones for putting the vulnerable … people with cancer, autoimmune and other immunological diseases or an organ transplant … at greater risk of it running rampant through the community. And yes, I realise the jab doesn’t always guarantee 100 per cent immunity or stop you spreading it.

But any case, it seems it has been decided. In the words of the premier, “we won’t be going into lockdown to protect those who refuse to protect themselves.” Even he realises the lockdowns must stop and life must go on.

[Sanctorum]

We live in a mad world. When will this be all over. Footy doesn't really seem that interesting or important all of a sudden.

So true Vortex, there are far more important things in life right now with so much uncertainty due to the pandemic, especially for young families that lack the financial security to feed and educate their kids and pay off mortgages.

It is reminiscent of my youth when the Cold War was in full swing and there was so much strife all over the world, epitomised by this 1959 hit from the Kingston Trio:

[Sanctorum]

I am 1000% behind the vaccine and personally think it (and all) should be mandatory. Alas I am not eligible yet, but let’s not get in to that sh*tshow…

My post was about those who vaccines won’t work for, people with cancer, autoimmune or other immunologic disease, or an organ transplant. They don’t get the option of choosing, they have to rely on everybody else doing the right thing.

That’s where the “if you don’t want the vaccine that’s fine, it’s a risk you have to live with” falls apart for me, as it’s not just you, it’s risking the lives of others who don’t get the luxury of being selfish.

We can help those vulnerable people and “do the right thing” by getting the jab and reaching herd immunity. That way it cannot get a foothold in the community.

Everyone else who has the opportunity and doesn’t take it, they can take their chances as far as I am concerned. In fact, they would be the selfish ones for putting the vulnerable … people with cancer, autoimmune and other immunological diseases or an organ transplant … at greater risk of it running rampant through the community. And yes, I realise the jab doesn’t always guarantee 100 per cent immunity or stop you spreading it.

But any case, it seems it has been decided. In the words of the premier, “we won’t be going into lockdown to protect those who refuse to protect themselves.” Even he realises the lockdowns must stop and life must go on.

By far the biggest mistake by both Federal and State governments has been the fear that they espoused about the risks of blood clots from the AZ vaccine for the under 60s. To put this in perspective, the following rationalisation in an article by Liam Mannix in The Age yesterday should be passed on to everyone that is hesitant about getting the jab that is in plentiful supply in every state:

"I know the risk (of the AstraZeneca vaccine) pales in comparison to others I take every day, yet I am worried about getting a blood clot and dying.

The answer to why this is – why I find myself worrying far more about AstraZeneca’s side effects than I probably should – reveals how our brains think about risk. And how they often get it wrong.

Being younger than 50, my chance of developing a blood clot after my first jab is around three in 100,000, per Australian figures. Should I be one of the unlucky few to get a clot, my chances of dying from it are around three in 100.

That’s a risk of death of something like 0.00009 per cent. That pales in comparison to the known risk of sudden death of some other activities I undertake, like drinking too much, riding a scooter in Bali (fun but, on reflection, very stupid), or, you know, driving my car.

And, unlike drinking too much beer, getting a vaccine comes with all sorts of direct and indirect benefits to me and my community, not the least of which is protection from a virus that has a 0.004 per cent chance of killing me.

Something’s wrong here, isn’t it? Why am I more worried about a side effect that is rarer than binge drinking or car driving? If my brain were evaluating risk accurately, wouldn’t I find the sight of a large pint of beer worrying – and an AstraZeneca jab no cause for concern at all?"

There's also the established research in the UK which shows that the risk of women getting a blood clot from the AZ vaccine is 1:250,000, compared to the risk of 1:1000 for women taking the pill!!!

It's not too late for a major media campaign to get this important message out there....

[perfectionist]

...
It's not too late for a major media campaign to get this important message out there....

That's not the main reason people are hesitant about getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. It's its efficacy. So far, it has been shown to be about 60+% effective while the Pfizer vaccine is at 95%. Pfizer also has side effects - more to do with heart issues. But if you going to take an imperfect vaccine, it makes sense to go with the one that is 95% effective rather than one that is 60% effective. I have no doubt that had we ordered the Pfizer vaccine when it was available to us (40 million doses in September last year) our vaccination rate would be 50+% rather than 12%. We have plenty of AstraZeneca - enough to vaccinate everyone in Australia NOW. However, whilst the chance of getting AstraZeneca side effects is very low, the chance of getting Covid-19 is also low. There are currently about 1500 cases in Australia - out of 26 million, so on that basis, you have a 1 in 17,000 chance of getting the virus. If it was 1 in 5, like in Britain and the US, people would be lining up to get whatever is going - including AstraZeneca. And why didn't we order AstraZeneca? Simple - it's $4 a dose while Pfizer is $28.

[Sanctorum]

...
It's not too late for a major media campaign to get this important message out there....

That's not the main reason people are hesitant about getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. It's its efficacy. So far, it has been shown to be about 60+% effective while the Pfizer vaccine is at 95%. Pfizer also has side effects - more to do with heart issues. But if you going to take an imperfect vaccine, it makes sense to go with the one that is 95% effective rather than one that is 60% effective. I have no doubt that had we ordered the Pfizer vaccine when it was available to us (40 million doses in September last year) our vaccination rate would be 50+% rather than 12%. We have plenty of AstraZeneca - enough to vaccinate everyone in Australia NOW. However, whilst the chance of getting AstraZeneca side effects is very low, the chance of getting Covid-19 is also low. There are currently about 1500 cases in Australia - out of 26 million, so on that basis, you have a 1 in 17,000 chance of getting the virus. If it was 1 in 5, like in Britain and the US, people would be lining up to get whatever is going - including AstraZeneca. And why didn't we order AstraZeneca? Simple - it's $4 a dose while Pfizer is $28.

All my children aged 55 to 36 have had no hesitation in getting the AZ jab and in each case their GP has endorsed the view that there is no real difference between the AZ and Pfizer in terms of efficacy.

I'm certainly no authority but current scientific research indicates that Pfizer and AZ vaccines are now considered to have similar rates of efficacy, the only real issue being the possible side-effects of blood clots from AZ which I covered in my post above.

Price could well have been a consideration, but the main factor that led to Federal health authorities (not ScoMo or Hunt) to opt for AZ over Pfizer at that time was that the latter had to be stored at supercold temperatures whereas AZ had the advantage of being able to be stored, transported and handled at standard refrigerated conditions of between 36 and 46 degrees Fahrenheit for at least six months. Then there was the real advantage of Australia being able to manufacture AZ locally instead of relying on importing Pfizer in a very competitive global marketplace.

In analysing Australia's handling of the vaccine rollout we should not overlook the fact that the government had signed a deal in 2020 to buy 51 million doses of the UQ-CSL vaccine which ultimately failed 3rd phase trials and was abandoned in December forcing them to go back to the drawing board to source more doses of the other vaccines.

[bigcarl]

...
It's not too late for a major media campaign to get this important message out there....

That's not the main reason people are hesitant about getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. It's its efficacy. So far, it has been shown to be about 60+% effective while the Pfizer vaccine is at 95%.

As I understand it, AstraZeneca is not as good at stopping you from actually getting COVID. But is equal with - if not better than - the others at keeping you out of hospital. IE, you may still get a mild case but won’t get seriously ill.

Any case it was all that was available to me at the time, so I took it. No side effects.

Twelve per cent of the population vaccinated is lamentable and says something about pampered, entitled Australians.

Just get it done so we don’t have to lockdown every couple of months.

[Ghost Like]

It was always going to be like the boy with the barrow as soon as we gave people choice and pharmaceutical companies a reason to run campaigns.

[CURLY]

...
It's not too late for a major media campaign to get this important message out there....

That's not the main reason people are hesitant about getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. It's its efficacy. So far, it has been shown to be about 60+% effective while the Pfizer vaccine is at 95%.

As I understand it, AstraZeneca is not as good at stopping you from actually getting COVID. But is equal with - if not better than - the others at keeping you out of hospital. IE, you may still get a mild case but won’t get seriously ill.

Any case it was all that was available to me at the time, so I took it. No side effects.

Twelve per cent of the population vaccinated is lamentable and says something about pampered, entitled Australians.

Just get it done so we don’t have to lockdown every couple of months.

Agree. I had mine done ASAP. As Ive posted just give a cut off date then all open no more lockdowns.

[B.M]

Double dose of AZ

No dramas

[remboy]

I’m getting my second AZ shot on August 16. Just in time to go and see the Saints in the finals!

[darylcowie]

I had my first Pfizer vaccination about 5 weeks ago and had no significant ill effects until about a week ago, just as I was contemplating dose two.
While I was at the Suns game on the Gold Coast I felt like I was going to collapse, with a heavy sensation around my heart and a sense of nausea and light headedness .
A week later, after many GP and an 11 hour ememergency department visit many things have been ruled out, but heart inflammation is still on the table (I'm finally getting a stress echo test later this arvo to rule out angina).
I'm 52, not overweight, but with a family history of heart disease that was not fatal until well into my relatives' 70's.
If angina is ruled out as I suspect it will be, all that is left for a differential diagnosis is heart inflammation, which is a known "rare" side effect of Pfizer vaccination, that is more common in young males after their second dose.
If you are in any doubt about your susceptibility to clotting (AZ) or heart inflammation (Pfizer), don't get vaccinated!
Needless to say, regardless of my health outcome I won't be getting dose two.

[Ghost Like]

I had my first Pfizer vaccination about 5 weeks ago and had no significant ill effects until about a week ago, just as I was contemplating dose two.
While I was at the Suns game on the Gold Coast I felt like I was going to collapse, with a heavy sensation around my heart and a sense of nausea and light headedness .
A week later, after many GP and an 11 hour ememergency department visit many things have been ruled out, but heart inflammation is still on the table (I'm finally getting a stress echo test later this arvo to rule out angina).
I'm 52, not overweight, but with a family history of heart disease that was not fatal until well into my relatives' 70's.
If angina is ruled out as I suspect it will be, all that is left for a differential diagnosis is heart inflammation, which is a known "rare" side effect of Pfizer vaccination, that is more common in young males after their second dose.
If you are in any doubt about your susceptibility to clotting (AZ) or heart inflammation (Pfizer), don't get vaccinated!
Needless to say, regardless of my health outcome I won't be getting dose two.

Stay safe & strong dc. The suggestion is always to consult your physician, if any doubt, act on the side of caution. Understandable & reasonable your reluctance.

All others, not at risk of clotting or heart inflammation, should get a jab if vaccination is our only hope to stop living on our knees.

[darylcowie]

Cardiologist said all is ok with my heart today, which eased my anxiety somewhat, but failed to explain my symptoms, which are now easing, but I won't risk ivaccination again.
Vaccine hesitancy is justified, we still have freedom of choice in this country.
Having said that I really feel for airline and aged care workers.
Lockdowns this year have inspired ny partner and I to bring forward our planned retirement relocation to Queensland, whereas last year AFL made lockdowns just bearable.

[bigcarl]

Cardiologist said all is ok with my heart today, which eased my anxiety somewhat, but failed to explain my symptoms, which are now easing, but I won't risk ivaccination again.
Vaccine hesitancy is justified, we still have freedom of choice in this country

Glad to hear you are ok. I agree jabs should be a choice. No one is making you take them. I fear that Covid is with us for good, though, and hope that you are not at risk when we do eventually open up as we must.