In Both Sides Now, author and ethicist Leslie Cannold presents two sides of an argument. Then it’s over to you: what do you think is true, and what do you think Cannold really believes?
Today: should Australians over the age of 50 arrange to have their AstraZeneca jab from Monday?
Yes: It’s not ideal but it’s the best chance we’ve got for safely removing the barriers to opening up our borders, and the risks to health for the over-50s are very low. No: Australians over-50s should not accept this inferior vaccine when coronavirus numbers are so low that the risks outweigh the benefits.
Yes
If you’re over 50, your chance to get your COVID-19 vaccination starts from next week. From Monday, people over 50 can get their AstraZeneca jab at general practice respiratory clinics as well as state and territory vaccination clinics. They can also book in for a jab at their participating general practice, which will start offering appointments from May 17.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Hopefully, older Australians will show up. A new Essential poll suggests that just over half of older Australians (53%) are vaccinated or intend to get the jab as soon as they’re eligible.
A big part of the hesitation is about the AstraZeneca shot. In the wake of worldwide publicity about an extremely rare but serious side effect of this and other viral vector vaccines, the poll showed only 40% of Australians newly eligible for the shot — seniors aged 50 to 69 — were willing to get either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine. Nearly a third of this age group — 29% — said they would accept Pfizer only.
But there’s not enough Pfizer to go around, and won’t be even by the end of the year when the additional 20 million doses the Australian government has belatedly ordered arrive on shore. These are intended to cover the under-50s for whom Pfizer is now the recommended shot.
This is a problem. Australia needs 70-85% vaccine coverage — or even 90% according to health broadcaster Norman Swan — to safely remove barriers on our borders. If by year’s end only about half of Australia’s seniors have been vaccinated, how can we open up?
The short answer is we can’t. In fact, according to University of Melbourne epidemiologist Tony Blakely, seniors refusing to get an AstraZeneca shot could delay Australia’s opening up by at least six months.
We all wish Australian governments had not been so late to the party when it came to Pfizer and Moderna, the two mRNA vaccines that experts agree have been the standout in the vaccine race so far.
But that ship has sailed. The decision now facing Victorians aged 50 to 69 is a take-it-or-leave-it one. Take the AstraZeneca vaccine now or miss out on vaccination until at least the second quarter of next year.
Waiting that long would be foolish. The AstraZeneca shot is 100% effective at reducing severe disease, hospitalisation and death, even against the South African variant. New trial results show it reduces transmission by 76% if the second dose is given 12 weeks after the first.
Saying “no” to the AstraZeneca jab is selfish, too. Public health crises challenge us to think as individuals but also as community members. While we must accept the risk of harm that comes from refusing medical care as individuals, in the case of vaccination, those harms aren’t confined to us.
My mind keeps turning back to all the sacrifices made by young people, especially here in Victoria, during last winter’s lockdown. They complied with one of the harshest lockdowns on earth, wearing the terrible consequences for their education, job prospects, relationships, and mental health with few complaints. They didn’t do this for themselves, because then, like now, the risk of younger Australians getting seriously ill from COVID-19 is low. They did it for us, their parents and grandparents.
Now is our chance to pay them back — by getting vaccinated as soon as we can with whatever we’re offered so that when the Pfizer shots that they need are in hand later this year, we seniors are done and dusted.
No
For Australians over 50, trying to decide whether to take the AstraZeneca jab is tricky. Risks must be weighed against benefits, as is the case for all medical interventions.
But while serious short-term side effects are rare, the benefits of getting vaccinated right now in Australia are unclear. Because we have almost no community spread.
So, how to make the choice? The experts are no help. While they admit Pfizer is the far better jab — offering comparable protection from serious disease and greater reductions in transmission — they insist older Australians should stick their arms out for the AstraZeneca jab anyway. Says Professor Anthony Kelleher, director of the Kirby Institute: “Although it would be ideal to have something that was even better than the AstraZeneca candidate, we’re not in an ideal situation.”
Professor Dale Godfrey, immunology theme leader at the Doherty Institute, agrees: “I certainly wouldn’t be writing off the AstraZeneca vaccine yet, especially since we don’t have an option of saying we want the Pfizer, or any other vaccines instead … and ‘just waiting’ could leave us very vulnerable, especially if we get another major wave.”
But how likely is another wave? As recent escapes from hotel quarantine have shown, our contact tracing systems, in combination with high rates of vaccination coverage of frontline health and border workers with Pfizer, have protected us well. The other risk — opening up — can’t happen until the whole adult population has been offered vaccination anyway which, given the expected arrival time of the Pfizer doses we need for this to happen, won’t be until early next year.
By then, the drumbeat to open up will be deafening, leaving older Australians protected only by the AstraZeneca vaccine in the lurch: both contributing to the government’s “fully vaccinated” figures that will trigger the floodgates to open, yet the most at risk and least protected from the variants of concern that will come pouring into the country.
It doesn’t make sense. The only thing that does is for every Australian to be given the vaccine that is safest for them and the most effective at preventing serious disease and transmission. Which means mRNA vaccines all around.
What side are you on? And where do you think Cannold sits? Send your thoughts to letters@crikey.com.au with Both Sides Now in the subject line.
Leave a comment
Yes, an a whole lot of Americans died to bring you this answer.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
“Should Australians over 50 get the AstraZeneca jab or wait for more Pfizer?”
…or, should healthy Australians not take the jab at all. Just thought I would give Australians a third option seeing that you did n’t provide said third option.
Sure, not take the jab at all is an option, in fact it’s a right, but those exercising this right must accept the accompanying responsibility: they guarantee that they are not, and will not be, part of a conduit of infection (and viral genome sequencing can ascertain this), otherwise they pay all health associated costs of all persons infected further down the conduit.
What rot is this? Health authorities, govt and even the vaccine manufacturers themselves can’t even give a guarantee that their vaccines will not produce serious side-effects and death. But you want to put all the responsibility back on those who question the efficacy of the vaccines in the first place? You might want to go back to your medical drawing board on that one.
That’s just garbage. The risk of an adverse reaction is known and it’s between 0.000004 and 0.000002% where as the risk of dying of covid if there is another outbreak due to lack of people getting vaccinated is around 2%
Sources please. And not the MSM daily mantra of cherry picking CDC and other health complex misinformation.
“if there is another outbreak due to lack of people getting vaccinated is around 2%”
You are not listening. Go to the vaccine manufacturer websites and there they will tell you in bold print that vaccines will not prevent you from getting covid.
What utter bollocks! Read the CDC Website
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html
You went straight to the very source macklyn suggested you not do. The vested interest Pharmaceutical company sponsored CDC. What do you expect? The CDC are mistrusted world wide.
The FDA are the ones that approve the drugs not the CDC. As usual, no evidence provided via a real link to support these BS claims (not even a link to an AntiVaxxer Cult “webshyte”) as usual. The CDC are only mistrusted by the Antivaxxer Cult but they only trust dodgy info from their Cult webshytes anyway.
I did n’t say the CDC approved the drugs, but they are the Pharmaceutical linchpin and mouth piece that ticks all boxes for establishment medicine and agenda driven mass vaccination. You are starting to get nasty. The only Antivaxxer cult exists in your own head. The rest of us just better researched and educated everyday people.
“agenda driven mass vaccination”? Only to eradicate preventable serious illnesses. Let’s see “MSM”, “establishment medicine” – yep all Antivaxxer Cultspeak. I have far too many Qualified Medical Professionals in my family to swallow any of this Antivaxxer rubbish.
Again, no proof of any of these delusional claims from reputable (ie non-nutbag fringe) sources is ever provided.
haha you make me laugh when your holy bible is the CDC Hand Book and the odd Lancet or two. Such MSM expertise!!!
Oh, but you have “far too many Qualified Medical Professionals in my family to swallow any of this Antivaxxer rubbish
Me thinks you Fib….no no, me knows you Fib.
You can no more know that than any other of the myriad claims you make.
BTW, it’s the TGA here – not the FDA, that’s just further proof of your Septics sources.
Very glad I don’t get Medical treatment or advice from anyone in your family. I personally know several medical Drs who agree that Covisd restrictions are totally over the top. They will NOT get jabbed.
I hope that your ‘alleged’ medicos have attached a notice – DANGER NUTCASE WITHIN – to their surgery door to alert vulnerable patients.
Spot on but you’re talking to the Clowns who have done no personal research & who believe the MSM BS!
With dollops of bias confirmation, dumb arrogance and pretensions to go with their behaviour which proves their lack of education and understanding of science; more like evangelical Christian god botherers….
WTF, you’ve lost it man. Get some councelling.
Would be great if you could spell it.
re G YH, waitt… for it, the reflexive verbal tics & usages, craig just can’t himself.
It’s already begun in the stuff today, note how the prose thickens even as one flinches as ’twere from spittle.
The net equivalent of gReen inK and ranDom kapItals.
Do. Not. Feed.
If you believe the 1 or 2 shots will give you immunity from covid ,Welcome to the brainwashed group., You will once you have the antibodies injected into you , need booster shots forever.!!
Credible sources to clearly support whatever it is you are trying to argue or present? Or do we just trust your word?
Are n’t you big enough and tough enough to research it for yourself? If you are n’t then take my word for it. The only credible sources in your estimations are the MSM morning broadsheets and midday TV Networks news bulletins. Monkey see monkey do.
‘big enough and tough enough’ – interesting qualifications for research of NOTHING beyond football, UFC and matbe KFC.
Certainly lotsa KFC – must be something in those secret herbs & spices.
Yet your reasoning comes straight from the qanon mindset. Monkeys?
There is no qanon in Australia. But there is a growing clique of marxists, like you, hell-bent on implementing Klaus Schwab’s great “Reset”.
LOL…..
Whaa..”no qanon in Australia” – that’s just what THEY want you to ”think”… yeah I know, that’s an unknown concept to you.
“Do your own research”, Drew!
Meanwhile, GYH, you, Craig, Craig, Craig, Craig and Marilyn evidently have too much time on your hands. Get a job!
While there’s the threat of catching coronavirus, a vaccine is better than no vaccine for two reasons.
On a personal level, even healthy people can potentially catch coronavirus and suffer mid or long term consequences of the virus, and still potentially die from it. Being healthy isn’t an immunity from the virus and its effects.
On a societal level, anyone can potentially be a spreader. So even if you are asymptomatic and will suffer no ill effects from the virus (a healthy immune system and healthy lifestyle doesn’t guarantee this) you can still be a carrier and potentially pass on the virus to others.
The point of vaccines generally is in the context of communicable diseases. It’s not so much that we are personally saved by a particular vaccine, but that the more of us that are vaccinated, the less likely the thing we are vaccinated against can take hold in our community. Our best defence against disease is herd immunity, even if any one of us has a less than perfect defence against it.
“It’s not so much that we are personally saved by a particular vaccine,”
Exactly. But there is a large percentage of people who believe that the vaccine will stop them getting covid and their thinking is not corrected by mainstream sources. Many commenters here are deluded.
“Our best defence against disease is herd immunity”
Agreed. Vaccines and lockdowns are a waste of time.
“But there is a large percentage of people who believe that the vaccine will stop them getting covid and their thinking is not corrected by mainstream sources.”
The mainstream sources seem to be pretty clear on what a vaccine will do, and I am seeing no difference between the reporting I see from journalists and what scientists are saying about what the vaccine will do. The evidence suggests vaccines will reduce transmission, and will greatly lower the severity of the disease. It’s priming the immune system to fight back against the infection.
“Agreed. Vaccines and lockdowns are a waste of time.”
Vaccines are how one achieves herd immunity without a massive body count and much human suffering…
Lockdowns also achieve this in the absence of other control measures. We are seeing the pattern play out in city after city where lockdowns are slowing infections at a time when they are going out of control, and also from stopping infections from going out of control in the first place. Lockdowns have prevented mass deaths and much suffering. Once we have a vaccinated population, lockdowns aren’t gonna be needed, but until then they are a vital part of stopping the virus from causing needless death and suffering.
Write a answer demanding all Australian’s no matter what age should have the choice of not at all, or all world approved vaccines and not be told by gov’ts which we must have. We are not in communist China. Yet.!!
I would have to put me in the “needs further convincing” category, but I will have it if my concerns can be addressed adequately.
I am almost 57, and as you can imagine, the blood clotting risk of AZ, even though small, certainly takes a lot of the shine off.
Percentages can be used to sway opinion, and it wasn’t that long ago, when Covid was starting, that one side was saying to ignore the virus because the percentage risk of dying was so low, and the other side would point out that when you are dealing with billions of people, a small percentage translates into many millions of dead.
Now we’re getting the opposite argument. “We are going to give X million people Astra Zeneca, and we can say with surety Y number of people will die. However, because this is such a small percent, it probably won’t be you.”
Reminds me of that joke, “Five out of six Russian Roulette players say they played the game, and they’re fine!”
Other things I really want to find out include:-
Why is 50 the magic number? I know a cut-off line has to be drawn somewhere, but does anyone know why older people are less likely to get the clots? It’d have to be the only advantage i know of in having a more clapped out bod than a 20 year old!! I really would like to hear some science, to take away the vague worry that we’re not just getting thrown to the wolves.
Also, with the blood clotting odds known, can someone tell me what’s the total number of deaths we can confidently expect from the AZ jabs, once we’re all done? I think we deserve to know, and not as a hard to visualise percentage, but in body count terms.
Because just say it’s a hundred, you have to visualise that, and ask yourself if we as a nation couldn’t have just waited a bit longer for the mRNA vaccines to arrive?
If Australia was being ravaged like Brasil or India or the States, I would let them jab me with AZ in a hot sec. But we’re not, so that changes the risk/return equation in my mind.
People might argue that over 50s should get the shot in the spirit of community, but the real spirit we’re being asked to display is “I’ll take it because odds are…it won’t be me that dies. It’ll be someone, but so long as it’s not me, I don’t mind.”
That’s not my idea of community spirit.
I agree wholeheartedly, Glenn – with everything you have said.
I’d also like to point out that a few months ago, Guardian Australia ran an interesting article about the “type” (for want of a better word) of people, that were likely to die or suffer severe consequences of/from Covid…based on scientific research, as the virus headed into its first year.
According to the, “Research”, those who were most at risk of both outcomes, based on the available evidence of hospital records, including death’s, were people who were either obese or morbidly obese.
From memory, and it wouldn’t be difficult for anyone to find the story in question, researchers further stated that the success of any of the available vaccines wasn’t guaranteed, due in part to a big percentage of the developed world, “including Health Care workers”, falling into either category…obese or morbidly obese!
In other words, the more overweight a person, the more chance of contracting the virus and either suffering long-term effects, or dying.
Interestingly, the topic has never been raised again.
Additionally, as I commented a few weeks ago …many Health Care workers that my husband has spoken to, during trips to a large hospital for Cancer treatment, have stated they won’t be, “getting either vaccine until they know for sure” how “safe” they are.
The mind boggles!
This “jab or no jab” scenario is oh so Scott Morrison.
To start with, Pfizer versus AstraZenaca. One cheaper less efficacious, one more expensive more efficacious.
“Australia at the top of the queue” etc etc
Responsible older Australian(s) hopefully, accept jab regardless. For we must do what is necessary for our children and grandchildren.
Scott’s personal “Pfizer” choice. Our “no” choice. One in, all in? Otherwise no herd immunity and . . . massive mental health upsurge.
I am of an older generation. I will comply. I am a client of an aged care rural, remote service provider. A provider forced to discriminate. Indigenous, tick. Non indigenous, X. All due to our Territory government’s refusal to authorise non-indigenous client vaccinations via our service provider.
Thankfully, fellow indigenous clients are allowed the jab, as are agency staff who are non-indigenous. Whereas, in my case drive four hours return, to a GP. This necessity is in direct denial of both ‘Charter of Aged Care Rights’ and, ‘Aged Care Quality Standards fact sheet’.
TL;DR version: your questions are in bold, answers are underlined and supplied from easily verified official sources which I’d link to if this website allowed me to link to things.
“Why is 50 the magic number?”.
You can find the answer to that in plain English on the health gov au website (URL not used because I don’t want this post moderated out of existence, search for “About the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine” on said website if you want to find the below yourself).
Overall the rate of TTS is estimated to be about 6 cases per million people vaccinated. But the rate is estimated to be higher (20-40 cases per million) in those under 50 years of age. These Australian estimates are not exact because there are very small numbers of TTS cases in Australia.
6 cases of thrombosis per million for over 50’s, vs 20-40 cases per million for under 50’s. Why? – clotting efficacy might decline with age (along with all the other things the human body does less efficiently as it ages) – ask a doctor.
People under 50 are considered more likely to suffer harm from the thrombosis from AstraZeneca than from the ill-effects of the virus at current exposure levels (eg: we haven’t had a massive outbreak yet), thus the current advice for them to wait for Pfizer.
“Also, with the blood clotting odds known, can someone tell me what’s the total number of deaths we can confidently expect from the AZ jabs, once we’re all done? I think we deserve to know, and not as a hard to visualise percentage, but in body count terms.“
*sigh* I hate stats.
ABS data for 30 June 2020, estimated resident population broken down into age groups, pulled from the ABS website released 18/3/2021, September 2020 reference period:
25,697,298 total population (estimated) of which 8,749,703 are over 50.
Assuming everyone over 50 gets jabbed (not likely – probably more like 60% at this rate but I’m sticking with 100%), exactly 6 fatal thromboses per million… 8.749703 times six equals 52.49 maximum deaths from thrombosis from the over 50 demographic if every single person in that age group got vaccinated.
Weigh that up against the deaths likely from us having a proper USA/UK/Italy-style outbreak where our hospitals are completely slammed, no ventilators are left, everyone has to stay home for months, and our economy tanks so we are unable to afford the next vaccine at market rates so we are somehow even further back in the queue (Thanks Scomo!)…
thanks Libratorr!
These are projections. They are not statistics for God’s sake. And massively fudged projections at that. So it’s if if if. If you are really serious instead of hell-bent on political point scoring, go online and give yourself an acid test. The over-all death rate, any death regardless of what it is, in every country on the face of the earth has actually come down. So regardless of covid the world death rate is actually declining. Please do the exercise and lift the veil and for once satisfy yourself that we are all being conned. I would put up the links, but the Mod is relentless.
Could you elaborate on ‘These are projections. They are not statistics for God’s sake. And massively fudged projections at that’?
Let me quote your good self to exemplify why your assertions are worthless nonsense:
“But the rate is estimated to be higher (20-40 cases per million) in those under 50 years of age. These Australian estimates are not exact because there are very small numbers of TTS cases in Australia.”
I’ll quote from the latest UK weekly report (23/4);
“The report has collated data inputted up to the 14th April 2021 via the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme. …
But as predicted, with the rise in vaccines administered came a rise in adverse reactions with 143,034 reported adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine and 548,495 adverse reactions to the Oxford / Astrazeneca vaccine…..This rate could actually be higher as only 1 – 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported, according to the MHRA themselves…..
Pfizer vaccine….31 people are now blind and a further 119 have had their vision impaired. In total there have been 2219 eye disorders reported so far…..
AstraZeneca ….As of the 14th April 2021 a total of 124 people have been left blind, 362 left visually impaired and 1415 have suffered from blurred vision. A total of 7814 eye disorders have been reported as adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca jab…..
There have also been 253 different types of stroke / brain haemorrhages thanks to the experimental Pfizer vaccine resulting in 24 deaths……..
495 cerebrovascular accidents, 53 ischaemic strokes and 79 cerebral haemorrhages…..
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed…..
57 women have now lost their baby due to the Pfizer mRNA “vaccine”. This includes 53 miscarriages, 1 report of a premature baby sadly dying, 2 reports of foetal death and 1 tragic report of a stillbirth…..
another 33 women have lost their baby due to having the AstraZeneca vaccine.This includes 30 reports of miscarriage and 3 reports of stillbirth….
as of the 14th April 2021 691,429 adverse reactions have occurred in total due to both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jab. This includes 9,125 blood disorders, 16,282 ear and eye disorders, 7,345 cardiac disorders, and a shocking 145,806 nervous system disorders which include brain damage, strokes, paralysis, and seizure….”
Can you provide the actual hyperlink to the report so the source can be validated? The term “UK weekly report” is not a credible reference in itself (it could be from the Tinfoil Hat Weekly for all we know).
“(it could be from the Tinfoil Hat Weekly for all we know).”
Like the Lancet and other medical academic hocus pocus.
You need to be more careful – that quote you reposted was to one of your, other nom-de-guerres.
Not this one you silly billy…
Your usual BS reply. Use your own brain & computer & search for yourself. Use a different search engine than Google – like SwisscowsDOTcom.
Are they all verified reactions, David, or just coincident conditions? That is, if someone gets a headache within a week of getting a jab, is it recorded as an adverse reaction. Same for the vision issues, any actual causation or are you just quoting correlation. If no cause is shown, it cannot be assumed.
Further, as a headache, sore arm, slight fever etc are fairly typical of just about every jab, what level do we get to before we actually count reactions?
Honest question, so far highly doubtful all these conditions can be ascribed to the jab. Unless you have verified information showing causation.
In other words, are these just numbers?
They are just numbers when it does n’t suit your commenting platform, but valid facts when it does. Is there a vaccine for that?
Ha Ha – good one. Wish Dogs breath would get a jab asap.
Yeah, but, not like from ‘MSM’ like journals, like Lancet, like, real numbers, like from Murdoch or, you know, real sites. You know?
Great post with factual info & still at leat 1 lunatic gave you a down vote. There are a lot of stupid MSM swallowers out there & they’re not interested in doing any delving for themselves. Dumb & slack as.
The Brit government is now reporting adverse reactions weekly. They, too, are using the Pfizer and AZ jabs.
Their first report was released in late Jan, 7 weeks after they began jabbing the population.
There are oodles of adverse reaction types being recorded in large numbers, well beyond the headline ‘rare blood clotting condition’.
And, the adverse reaction numbers are accelerating, well ahead of accelerating jab numbers.
To boot, a copy of the modelling done by the Brits, prior to their most recent hardish lockdown, is available on the web. Given ‘Open Up Johnson’ accepted the modelling, it would appear Johnson noted all the holes in the vaccine PR, and responded accordingly
The Hungarians, who went early getting whatever jabs they could (incl AZ, Pfizer and Sinopharm), have started reporting their safety and efficacy numbers.
The safest and most efficacious – by some distance in both measurements, according to the Hungarians, is the Russian Sputnik V.
Washington Post, April 2nd;
“San Marino, themicronation withinItaly, stokes envywith speedyRussian-suppliedvaccine campaign”.
Not a member of the EU, so didn’t have to wait for EMA approval.
Given Pfizer have told European countries their next orders will cost ~60% more than earlier orders, I wonder what Morrison and Co have agreed to pay?
The UK government is also reporting on the gross fall of infection and illness and death rates as a result of the very high proportion of the population who now have COVID antibodies, thanks in large part to their rapid (indeed rushed, but when the devil drives…) immunisation roll-out.
Well you would certainly flippin’ hope so!
Find yourself the modelling I referred to.
Summary, Page 1, No 2;
“The modelling presented here does not account for waning immunity nor the future emergence of immune- or vaccine-escape variants. The B.1.351 strain of SARS-CoV2 is of particular concern for the UK, given the known reduced protection against mild to moderate disease from some vaccines.”
No 4.
“While more data have accrued on real-world vaccine effectiveness and coverage, modelling results remain highly dependent on assumptions about unknown factors”
Dated March 31st.
Now throw in there are not just variant strains but, more lately, hybrid strains e.g. India and Brazil.
So, just how well will the various vaccines perform against hybrids and, if they do perform, how long will any developed immunity last?
How will the stroke frequencies vary? How about the other ‘clotting conditions’, such as the one becoming more frequent in the blood vessel that connects the gut to the liver?
How about the emerging adverse reaction, where blood vessels start losing pressure, and leaking?
Etc………….
Most of us here like most Australians are Pro-Choice when it come to the issue of vaccines. But when will you come clean and stop hiding the fact that you are one of those rabid Pro-vaxxers? Your defense of the indefensible is stark.
Do you have any credible source for this:
‘The Hungarians, who went early getting whatever jabs they could (incl AZ, Pfizer and Sinopharm), have started reporting their safety and efficacy numbers.
The safest and most efficacious – by some distance in both measurements, according to the Hungarians, is the Russian Sputnik V.’?
If we don’t close the border entirely, then even under 50s would benefit from the AstraZeneca jab in the event of an outbreak. Are we really that much better equipped for the upcoming winter then we were 12 months ago when Melbourne fell to an outbreak? Without strict quarantine (contra the right-wing culture warriors, what we have isn’t strict) there’s every chance of an outbreak that has the potential to kill many. Those of us under 50 and not on the front lines are vulnerable now if an outbreak happens.
Government fixes the quarantine system, then the equation changes again…