Comments by "annoyed aussie" (@annoyedaussie3942) on "Difficult COVID month ahead" video.

Well this time round most " Western" vaccines were tested more on Western people than others because infection rates higher. So this reason shouldn't apply to these current vaccines. I am Australian and we don't need emergency use or at least not yet. Emergency use means not guaranteed to the normal standard, you are effectively in a phase 3 trial.
4
@BobWidlefish depending on the infection rates of a country , you might find if you are talking about governments that they are just like Australia and New Zealand, no need for emergency use of a vaccine at this point in time if they have done fairly well. Africa as a continent would have the highest rural population and they do take precautions so the virus spreads pretty slowly. I would just hope governments act in the true interest of their citizens and the ultra cold Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are probably not suitable for any low income countries because the logistical and higher vaccine costs probably can't justify it. Being in Australia I am happy for us to wait for further data etc. , I am also guessing our government is realising having vaccines could be a curse because everyone will want all travel restrictions gone and it's not going to happen all the travel restrictions will remain the same until either the virus is gone internationally or everyone vaccinated and vaccines truly are 90% plus effective which I am sceptical of and also if the vaccine looses efficacy after 8 months or so pretty pointless most people taking it unless it's decided to be a permanent 2 times a year thing. Sorry for raving on.
4
The numbers you refer to as low are not, slightly below national average certainly , about the same deaths per capita as adjoining states Georgia and South Carolina but at the moment significantly more than California and significantly less than New York. I think weather variability plays a big role along with population densities. Florida retirees that came from interstate are well to do so they are less likely to die than some poor pensioners stuck in some welfare accommodation. People lock themselves down naturally if they are at risk but comparing US states is like comparing the fitness levels of contestants entering The Biggest Loser reality tv show, a pretty low standard to compare against. Killing 0.1% of ones population is nothing to jump up and down about.
3
That's only the UK and the ONS number is the real number based off death certificates, no idea why they do the 28 day thing because it only causes confusion and or scepticism.
2
That's the first positive think I have heard about South Dakota. I suppose at least they seem to be able get 1 thing right.
1
@guidospanoghe8896 We learn more all the time , all lockdown lite models are essentially the same, they all failed. Every US state is a lockdown lite model. If you look at South Dakota 0.18% of the population dead despite 40% rural and no big city. Higher climate variability makes the spread change quickly, if you notice a country like Brazil where the weather is fairly stable the spread will be constant but the north east and midwest of your country highly variable so cases explode as soon as gets cold. Florida having ocean on both sides is probably the least variable climate of a US state so easier to deal with this virus. These are things only learnt in hindsight, seems the whole world really didn't have a clue, but containment countries have done better and lockdown lite have all done poorly.
1
@guidospanoghe8896 What you just said is silly, Florida 20,000,000 people and 22,000 dead. Queensland Australia 5,000,000 and 6 dead. If you think those numbers are the same you are incorrect. If you say different versions of lockdown lite appear to have produced similar results when adjusting for demographics, that does seem to be correct. Since there hasn't been a single US state lockdown you seem to be comparing lockdown lite and not realising the lockdown places who succeeded are as open as Florida but without the deaths. Edit: It appears the population density across Belgium is about 15 times that of Sweden and a 10% higher obesity rate, also and this is just a guess based on neighbors and a quick search Belgians kiss each other like the French and Swedes only hug. So if you enter the adjustments in I think you might find no difference not that Sweden did better. When hospitals overflow as happened in Belgium no choice but to do a mitigation ( not containment) lockdown. So it's not fair or reasonable to compare very different jurisdictions. The only thing for the future is do countries really want to go through the same path or would containment in the beginning be a better policy. Evidence so far says containment is better.
1