1/3 National Cabinet targets of 70% & 80% (16 years +) vaccination thresholds equate to 56% and 64% of total population vaccinated. Australia must do better than these vaccination rates because.....
107
956
95
2,777
2/3 I calculated we need 68%min & preferably 80% of total pop to be vaccinated. Grattan Institute recommends "fully vaccinating 80% of all Australians, & 95% of the over-70s", to "give us the best chance of gradually returning to normal life – with open borders & no lockdowns".
17
367
12
1,434
3/3 NZ is targeting 78% of total population and Singapore is targeting 75% of total population. National Cabinet modelling must to be published for public review & for Australians to understand why Government targets are so low compared to estimated local and overseas targets.

Aug 1, 2021 · 12:26 PM UTC

58
515
18
1,998
Load newest
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
We must vaccinate children
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
(especially with Australia having such low pre-vax population immunity immunity compared with most unfortunate countries.)
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Thank you for making this public. This is just another 2 card poker trick. When will they be completely honest with us.
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Perhaps govt knows they are expecting Pfizer supplies insufficient for larger vaccine targets? The lack of transparency in public health goals is very disappointing.
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
They are so low because there are expendable parts of the population. Old, people with disabilities, poor, First Nations people, and those with comorbidities
5
3
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Purely political. Most of the general public won’t realise how these percentages are really quite low.
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Cause Clotty doesnt care
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Vaccination targets is the business of epdemiologists! Australians know by now to listen to expert epdemiologists and ignore politicians, especially the PM whose expertise demonstratably lies in falsehoods and missinformation. Proffs McLaws and McIntyre are the referent sources.
1
12
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
You saying modelling has not been published, for checking, altered parameter reruns? Not good science. How can McVernon et al not submit for peer review? doherty.edu.au/uploads/conte… to validate model? Doherty model clearly not accurate anyway, we not seeing 20-50k dailies 60 days in
1
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
That modelling is being done by colleagues of yours, perhaps this is a discussion worth having with them. They might be able to shed light on why the modelling has not been published and how to work with government to publish them.
3
Load more