breaking covid rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

I'm puzzled why vaccine uptake is such an issue other than as a race to reduce drastic negative outcomes from the virus for the maximum number of people. If, as we are told, the vaccines will not prevent someone who has been vaccinated from either contracting or spreading the disease but will only mitigate the outcome then, even if a population achieves 100% vaccination, the virus will continue to circulate. So, those who refuse a vaccination are simply putting themselves at risk of a more serious outcome and no-one else.
Presumably those who choose not to have the jab have evaluated this risk to themselves and are prepared to accept it. I avoid what I consider high-risk activities such as para-gliding, sky-diving and rock climbing (although I have been known to disagree with SWMBO - a perilous undertaking) but I am happy to go into my shed each day and use sharp or rapidly rotating tools. It's a risk I have evaluated and accept while taking precautions to try and avoid a bad outcome.
So, I believe a time is fast approaching when we will have vaccinated all those who want it and it will be time to open up. If different countries decide on mandating vaccination "passports" for overseas travelers, then those who choose not to have the jab and wish to travel will have a choice to make.
Pete

---

Pete

I think you have the crux of the issue there. Unfortunately the vaccines are not 100% effective but they can certainly minimise the effects on individuals, remove the necessity of a hospital visitation and quite likely prevent the unexpected and unwanted premature termination of life: So generally it can be considered a good thing. Of course nothing is entirely simple. There will be people who are medically unable to have a vaccine and those who are too young. Those groups will be placed at increased risk by the selfish or stupid few who refuse vaccination. Nothing is simple, as I said, or perfect.

There is another reason for vaccination, which in the early days was a real concern and that was the overloading of hospital resources. We have started to forget that aspect, but an overloaded hospital now begins to be unable to treat other emergency cases quite apart from Covid-19. As it is, much elective surgery was placed on hold I believe.

On the subject of a " vaccination passport," I don't really see the issue there either. We have a license to drive a car, tickets for various skills in the workplace. I would regard a vaccination passport as an extension of that way of thinking.

Invasion of privacy? Pah!. Forget about that if you have a mobile phone or a computer. That boat sailed a long time ago.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Cant help think of how NA are just another form of smoke and mirrors to keep the pollies looking good.

Try telling the famers who cannot harvest their crops, people who work in the arts, , the 40,000 people who have lost university jobs, and the thousands of former workers of the tourism and hospitality industries.

---

:goodpost:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Pete

I think you have the crux of the issue there. Unfortunately the vaccines are not 100% effective but they can certainly minimise the effects on individuals, remove the necessity of a hospital visitation and quite likely prevent the unexpected and unwanted premature termination of life: So generally it can be considered a good thing. Of course nothing is entirely simple. There will be people who are medically unable to have a vaccine and those who are too young. Those groups will be placed at increased risk by the selfish or stupid few who refuse vaccination. Nothing is simple, as I said, or perfect.

There is another reason for vaccination, which in the early days was a real concern and that was the overloading of hospital resources. We have started to forget that aspect, but an overloaded hospital now begins to be unable to treat other emergency cases quite apart from Covid-19. As it is, much elective surgery was placed on hold I believe.

On the subject of a " vaccination passport," I don't really see the issue there either. We have a license to drive a car, tickets for various skills in the workplace. I would regard a vaccination passport as an extension of that way of thinking.

Invasion of privacy? Pah!. Forget about that if you have a mobile phone or a computer. That boat sailed a long time ago.

Regards
Paul

---

Paul. I hadn't forgotten those who are unable to take this (or presumably any other) vaccine for medical reasons. I would imagine they already have strategies in place to minimize their exposure to this and other diseases.
As baby boomers (as most of us on the forum are) born into a post-penicillin world, our expectations have perhaps become too high regarding the ability of science to develop cures for any disease. I feel certain our parents, or certainly our grandparents, had a different mindset when it came to mortality - particularly infant and child mortality. They had no option and perhaps we now have to come to terms with the same reality. I realize this is harsh, and as a parent/grandparent I would be devastated if it happened in my family, but I have to accept the possibility. We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.

---

:whs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.

---

Exactly - and we protect ourselves from influenza with an annual vaccine.

Even before Covid I had to show proof of influenza vaccination before being allowed to visit my mother in a nursing home. No jab no visit.

Certainly in Australia Flu has almost disappeared, no doubt it will come roaring back at some point.

Quote from Influenza cases hit an all-time low in Australia in 2021 — that could be a problem when it returns - ABC News

Before COVID-19 arrived, the number of influenza cases was reaching some of its highest levels, with 313,033 notifications of laboratory-confirmed influenza across Australia in 2019 — 2.7 times higher than the five-year average — and 953 deaths.
In 2020, there were more than 20,000 notifications to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and 37 deaths.
This year, to August 29, just 484 cases were recorded and zero deaths.

-----------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aussiephil

Certainly in Australia Flu has almost disappeared, no doubt it will come roaring back at some point.

Quote from Influenza cases hit an all-time low in Australia in 2021 — that could be a problem when it returns - ABC News

Before COVID-19 arrived, the number of influenza cases was reaching some of its highest levels, with 313,033 notifications of laboratory-confirmed influenza across Australia in 2019 — 2.7 times higher than the five-year average — and 953 deaths.
In 2020, there were more than 20,000 notifications to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and 37 deaths.
This year, to August 29, just 484 cases were recorded and zero deaths.

-----------------

---

Not just in Australia but worldwide. Hasn't the low incidence of flu been put down to the Covid precautions most of us have been taking (hand-washing, mask wearing and social distancing)? All those things, especially hand-washing, we should be doing as a matter of course each flu season.
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

Not just in Australia but worldwide. Hasn't the low incidence of flu been put down to the Covid precautions most of us have been taking (hand-washing, mask wearing and social distancing)? All those things, especially hand-washing, we should be doing as a matter of course each flu season.
Pete

---

From that article and a couple of others the low incidence comes from the lack of international travel combined with the precautions as you say above.

I've been watching the situation in the UK, post "freedom day" and it's been interesting. The UK is currently running 50,000+ new cases per day, and around 1000 hospitalisations per day. The UK's Office for National Statistics has stated that in the week ending October 16th, 1 in 55 people in the UK had covid, and 1 in 14 "kids" of secondary school age (high school) were infected. This, it must be noted, is in autumn and could perhaps be expected to get worse as they move in to winter. There is pressure on the UK government to reintroduce compulsory mask usage, vaccine passports etc.

It raises interesting questions! In much of mainland Europe masks and isolation etc. never went away. I read that in Germany (and I'm not sure if it's all of Germany or just certain cities) masks are compulsory, and must be medical grade masks not just bits of cloth. Negative tests within 48hours are required for most indoor activities, and this has been enabled by having testing facilities "on every corner" that email results within 15 minutes. The levels of covid in such areas is vastly reduced compared to the "free" UK.

The UK has quite a high vaccination rate, and is now well in to boosters but were a touch slow to start their booster program, and their death toll is reasonably low compared to the infection rate. But the numbers quoted above still suggest that 1 in 55 covid cases end up in hospital, and hospital resources are not limitless. If the numbers increase beyond the hospital capacity in the winter, presumably the death toll might increase?

So we are left with a conundrum! Remove restrictions and watch the case numbers surge? Keep restrictions (forever?) and maintain control? And when does the government get fed up of paying for boosters that look like they will be required at 6 monthly intervals or perhaps even more frequently? And, playing devils advocate again, when do we start to consider whether doing all of this is a worthwhile trade-off to maintain the upward trajectory of average life expectancy?

Interesting times!

In other news, boosters are soon (in the next two weeks according to our latest information) to be made available to pharmacies, as will the Pfizer vaccine which has just been recommended by the FDA (in the US) for approval in 5 to 11 year olds. Unfortunately it is not a given that pharmacies will choose to supply boosters - when done according to the rules vaccination has not been a very profitable exercise, and the vaccinators have received a great deal of grief from some individuals (including attempted bribes to falsify vaccine history). Our local team are exhausted and completely fed up with the whole thing.........

I, too, wonder at efficacy of the the British approach to covid. According to Johns Hopkins, 12.95% of the British population have had or are infected with covid, and 2,046 people per million of population have died. Comparable death rates for Australia and New Zealand are 64 and 6 respectively. The death rate in UK is over 30 times greater than in Australia, and over 300 times that in NZ. Someone has stuffed up big time!

But there is a major debate going on behind the scenes in the medical profession and I think it will soon become public. Many professionals, especially specialists are seathing that they and their patients are being locked out of treatments that may involve intensive care, as intensive care and ventillator spaces are being reserved for existent or predicted covid patients.

Patients are classified into four groups:

• Category 0 - Emergency - immediate treatment (eg appendix, road trauma, heart attack, stroke),
• Category 1 - Urgent - treatment within 30 days,
• Category 2 - Semi-Urgent - treatment within 90 days, and
• Category 3 - Non-Urgent - treatment within 1 year.

Although often labelled as "elective surgery", treatments do not necessarily involve surgery; the constrictors are hospital bed spaces, staffing and intensive care spaces. Many urgent cases are deteriorating to become emergency cases and Cat 2 deteriorate to Cat 1. Some waiting have died. "Why are covid patients being given preference over my patients?"

If you look at the stats on Health Vic and NSW websites over 90% of hospitalisations are not vaccinated, and those with vaccinations almost always have serious other complaints.
The figures are even more stark when you look at those in intensive care and on ventillators; the vast majority are not fully vaccinated.

At what point does it become a self inflicted plaint? Why should a covid patient get preferential treatment over a cancer or heart patient? The latter are now being excluded, until they are classified as emergencies, which may be too late.

This is a critical ethical issue. It is also a standard triaging question - asked and answered multiple times a day in every hospital. Some are questioning that the underlying ethics may have been compromised unintentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

At what point does it become a self inflicted plaint? Why should a covid patient get preferential treatment over a cancer or heart patient? The latter are now being excluded, until they are classified as emergencies, which may be too late.

---

That is a question that isn't really restricted to covid, but is far more all-encompassing. It relates to everything from smokers with lung cancer through drunk drivers with car crash injuries to sportspeople (skydivers, skiers, climbers, boxers etc.). Interestingly it also relates very strongly to many of the co-morbidities that impact Covid outcomes, things like obesity and diabetes (I'm thinking more type 2 as a result of "lifestyle" more than "born with type 1"). Not being vaccinated is a choice, but so is eating too much, being unfit etc. and they all result in bad health outcomes - with or without covid!

I'm not sure that the situation in the UK is a stuff-up as such. It could be viewed as such based purely on current numbers, but it could also be viewed as a necessary step on the path to a future that incorporates Covid, or as a result of culture and lifestyle. Much of Australia has been "lifestyle restricted" (locked down) to a greater or lesser degree for the last 18 months or so. We also have a far more outdoor oriented lifestyle, and a far lower population density over much of the country. All these things help to reduce the spread of an airborne virus, so it could be argued that our lower numbers are at least partly due to cultural differences. It would also explain why most (?) of our outbreaks have been in areas of higher population density.

In any case, I'm waiting until a few months after our own "freedom day" before I throw too many stones! The problem, as I see it, is that Covid isn't going away and the protection offered by vaccines (or natural immunity after infection) doesn't seem either particularly high or particularly long lived. The result is that without ongoing restrictions, masks and so forth, the UK situation is likely to be repeated everywhere. Which again begs the question "how long do we restrict our lives to keep the vulnerable safe?". My kids have now had nearly two years of minimal social life, mask wearing and remote learning. Viewed in the context of the question about unvaccinated covid patient vs. cancer patients, what about the lifestyles of all those kids (and everyone else!) vs. those who have/will die from covid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

That is a question that isn't really restricted to covid, but is far more all-encompassing. It relates to everything from smokers with lung cancer through drunk drivers with car crash injuries to sportspeople (skydivers, skiers, climbers, boxers etc.). ...

---

Quite true, and they have all been excluded in preference to covid patients.

Quote:

---

... I'm not sure that the situation in the UK is a stuff-up as such. It could be viewed as such based purely on current numbers, but it could also be viewed as a necessary step on the path to a future that incorporates Covid, or as a result of culture and lifestyle. ...

---

I wonder if the family and friends of 140,000 dead Poms agree with you.

Quote:

---

... The problem, as I see it, is that Covid isn't going away and the protection offered by vaccines (or natural immunity after infection) doesn't seem either particularly high or particularly long lived. ...

---

Boris seemed to place massive reliance on "natural immunity after infection" or herd immunity as he called it, but the evidence seems to be that it does not exist. The available evidence seems to be that vax reduces the incidence of covid by a factor of perhaps 30, and also greatly reduces the severity of the infections that do occur. NSW + Vic Health websites are good sources.

My guess is that we will finish up needing an annual covid vax, just like the flu - after all, flu and covid are both coronaviruses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I wonder if the family and friends of 140,000 dead Poms agree with you.

---

Quite possibly they are very upset. But also, possibly, the other 68million Poms are happily going to the pub....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Boris seemed to place massive reliance on "natural immunity after infection" or herd immunity as he called it, but the evidence seems to be that it does not exist.

---

Herd immunity is the concept that when sufficient members of the population are immune, either by vaccination or naturally after infection, the virus has nowhere to go and dies out. That concept is perfectly sound, but in the case of covid it seems that neither natural immunity nor vaccination gives a sufficient level of protection to cause the virus to run out of hosts. The vaccination may reduce the incidence of the disease, though remember that we don't test asymptomatic people so there is a degree of "no positive results doesn't mean no infections", and also the severity of symptoms (once again potentially causing some people not to bother getting tested), but not sufficiently to allow herd immunity to "remove" the disease as initially suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The available evidence seems to be that vax reduces the incidence of covid by a factor of perhaps 30, and also greatly reduces the severity of the infections that do occur. NSW + Vic Health websites are good sources.

My guess is that we will finish up needing an annual covid vax, just like the flu - after all, flu and covid are both coronaviruses.

---

I agree, although remember that this is exactly what is happening in the UK. Currently 80% of the UK have had two doses, and they're giving autumn boosters. Yet still they're seeing 50K new cases per day and around 1000 hospitalisations, and rising.

Germany, in contrast, has "only" around 68% fully vaccinated yet their new cases are averaging 5000-10,000 per day, much lower than the UK but also appear to be rising. They are also no longer providing free RATs, but have a double-vax or negative RAT (sometimes both) requirement to do many things - so unvaccinated will have to pay for a RAT every time they want to eat out, get a haircut etc., and they also require medical grade masks to be worn indoors. But it STILL seems that their cases are rising.......

I still have a suspicion that booster or not we'll see a massive increase in covid rates when we start to unlock...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I still have a suspicion that booster or not we'll see a massive increase in covid rates when we start to unlock...

---

I believe this will happen too
I find the thought worrisome as well
A lot of communities are still NOT prepared with low vaccination rates
Nth Qld in particular
Must say it has me on edge...and i'm fully vaccinated :C
Log Dog :)

The latest thinking is that, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the risk of new variants emerging, variants which could have a more severe impact on those already vaccinated.
This is an argument being put forward by epidemiologists while businesses and workplaces wrestle with the "no jab - no job" issue.
SWMBO, who works for a local authority, has been asked to complete a questionnaire regarding her thoughts on working alongside unvaccinated fellow workers. It's an issue we all face as we don't know who we are interacting with during our everyday life and is driving the continuing exhortation to wear masks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

The latest thinking is that, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the risk of new variants emerging, variants which could have a more severe impact on those already vaccinated.

---

It is true that the lower the rate of infection, the lower the "breeding ground" for new variants to develop. Unfortunately we are living in an age where numbers are everything, and people have lost track (to some degree) of reality. For example, big pharma employs hordes of statisticians to process their data and establish "statistically significant" differences that they can use to justify a product as being effective. Science has adopted this approach, but does it have any real world significance, or is it just numbers?

For example, this weekend I was reading about a U.K. report in to the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine at preventing the transmission of the delta variant. It considered the transmission of delta in "break-through" cases, i.e. people who contacted delta despite being double vaccinated. The data was that AZ was "very good" at preventing transmission of delta in break-through cases occurring soon (two weeks) after the second dose of vaccine. However that effectiveness dropped to almost negligible by three months after the second dose. So, "very good" transmission prevention - that means that the chance of passing delta to a close contact is fairly low, right? Wrong. The chance of passing delta to a close contact under those conditions is 57%, which I don't consider "very good" protection. If you were told there was a 57% chance of getting a disease, would you consider that to be safe? So what about "almost negligible", what is that in actual numbers? Well it turns out that "almost negligible" means that there is a 67% chance of passing delta to a close contact, which is about the same a with no vaccine at all.......

So the "very good" reduction in transmission of delta, two weeks after the second vaccination, actually means a reduction from 67% to 57% in the chance of passing it on. "Statistically" that's significant, but in real world terms? In either case it means a close contact is more likely to catch it than not!

The numbers for Pfizer, by the way, are 48% after two weeks and 58% after 3 months, so marginally better but still not "protection" that I'd be risking my life on!

Obviously this is looking only at transmission, and the other benefits of reducing the seriousness of the symptoms still remain....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

... the "no jab - no job" issue.

SWMBO, who works for a local authority, has been asked to complete a questionnaire regarding her thoughts on working alongside unvaccinated fellow workers. It's an issue we all face as we don't know who we are interacting with during our everyday life and is driving the continuing exhortation to wear masks.

---

This is a really serious issue challenging employers, large and small, at the moment. Two similar but different issues; consider:

• employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
• employer allows unvaccinated customers normal accccess to premises.

Employee develops covid, which turns to long covid, which becomes life changing, claims she was infected by an unvaccinated fellow worker. Can the employee sue the boss for negligence for unecessarily exposing them to covid? [It could involve long term support, plus massive legal fees]

I do not know the answer to this question. But I do know that there is an army of lawyers looking for the opportunity to find out.

Next question; if any employer decides to lock out all unvaccinated people, then who is the policeman? What is his authority? Would this breach competition law?

Hi Graeme

You are correct. It is very clear law imposed by similar legislation applying in every State and Territory that employers have a duty to ensure that a business is carried out in a way that is safe. It goes beyond the traditional common law duty of care which is merely to take reasonable care.

I think it's actually fairly simple. You have a well-known hazard (Covid-19 infection leading to illness). You therefore have to manage and attempt to eliminate, or sufficiently mitigate that risk, so far as reasonably practicable.

I think when you look at what all the blue-chip organisations and other larger employers are doing you'd get a good clue about what the legal position is being assessed to be.

I don't think it would be a competition law issue in terms of locking people out. If you're talking about the legal right to exclude the unvaccinated, you would ordinarily be the occupier (as owner or lessee) of your business premises with a right to limit access as a matter of property rights.

Chris

I see a distinct legal dilemma here.

The employer is obliged to provide a safe workplace, but at the same time he also has to provide an equal opportunity workplace without discrimination. The larger companies may well be becoming more insistent for vaccination status, but I believe the police have some legal challenge in place at the moment regarding compulsory vaccination. This could well create a precedent, depending on the outcome, either way.

Regards
Paul

Edit: PS. And the winners are the.....lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

... I don't think it would be a competition law issue in terms of locking people out. If you're talking about the legal right to exclude the unvaccinated, you would ordinarily be the occupier (as owner or lessee) of your business premises with a right to limit access as a matter of property rights. ...

---

Under common law, a business owner had a clear right to exclude virtually anyone he so chose. Very common with publicans "banning" people, but grocers and other retailers also did it.

That right is now much more restricted, more complicated and more ambiguous - the effects of both anti-discrimination law and competition law.

Suppose a retailer banned an unvaccinated person. He immediately screams discrimmination because he is gay, Aboriginal, Jewish, Islamic, whatever. There a many cases of publican who banned people on behavioural issues, and then faced discrimination allegations - and lost.

Similar position under competition law. A business essentially cannot advertise a product for sale and then decline to sell to an specific individual - often refered to as "bait advertising".

It's only a dilemma if discriminating based on vaccination status is or involves a type of discrimination prohibited by legislation. It is only discrimination based on particular attributes that are prohibited by legislation, and subject to exceptions - eg race, gender, orientation, religious belief et cetera.

So far, the anti-vaxxers are trying to shoehorn vaccination status into a protected category with no apparent success by trying to argue it is an incident of political or religious belief or similar.

There may of course be other particular regimes and avenues of attack under particular legislative schemes such as whatever pieces of legislative regime govern police administration (for example).

Hi Graeme

I agree somewhat. Although I don't think "bait advertising" falls under competition law per se - it's just a prohibited trade practice. (Although consumer protection against trade practices is within a broad Commonwealth Act dealing with both competition and consumer law so the titles can suggest they're linked.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

... It's only a dilemma if discriminating based on vaccination status is or involves a type of discrimination prohibited by legislation. It is only discrimination based on particular attributes that are prohibited by legislation, and subject to exceptions - eg race, gender, orientation, religious belief et cetera. ...

---

I am not sure that it is that simple, Chris, as may publicans have found out - expensively.

There have been quite a few cases where a publican has "banned" a drinker on the basis of behaviour. The "evictee" has then sued arguing discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or gender preference - and won. Damage payments and lawyers fees against the publican - $$$$$.

Quote:

---

Hi Graeme

I agree somewhat. ....

---

Me, too, Chris, but we are so far into unchartered waters that I think we have to be really careful not to be too dogmatic.

Bait advertising is a very small part of the overall competition policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... And the winners are the.....lawyers. ...

---

So true!

Graeme what you're described sounds like someone being found to have actually discriminated based on gender et cetera in the sense of being disbelieved. Of course no-one actually admits to discriminating for prohibited reasons - it's always except in rare cases dressed up as something else.

I would caution against anecdotes when assessing the legal system. They are frequently false, repeated, amplified without being based in reality.

A famous one is the one about how you should never even move someone in a car accident because if you injure them (for example their neck) you will be sued. It is not legal reality. However the stories were passed around so much that eventually every State passed a law protecting "Good Samaritans" from liability for any good faith efforts to assist people at accidents.

The authors of the law reform report that ushered in the changes even noted that their own research and all public submissions had failed to ever identify a single case where anyone had ever even been sued (successfully or not) for such a scenario. See https://treasury.gov.au/sites/defaul..._Neg_Final.pdf at 7.21

"The Panel understands that health-care professionals have long expressed a sense of anxiety about the possibility of legal liability for negligence arising from the giving of assistance in emergency situations. However, the Panel is not aware, from its researches or from submissions received by it, of any Australian case in which a good Samaritan (a person who gives assistance in an emergency) has been sued by a person claiming that the actions of the good Samaritan were negligent. Nor are we aware of any insurance-related difficulties in this area."

Despite this, the State laws introduced all included a protection for "Good Samaritans" just because of the easy to believe stories and chain emails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

... I would caution against anecdotes when assessing the legal system. They are frequently false, repeated, amplified without being based in reality....

---

Totally agree but I was not referencing urban myths - but actual court cases.

Quote:

---

... A famous one is the one about how you should never even move someone in a car accident because if you injure them (for example their neck) you will be sued. It is not legal reality. However the stories were passed around so much that eventually every State passed a law protecting "Good Samaritans" from liability for any good faith efforts to assist people at accidents. ...

---

Good example of a pervasive urban myth; but as you say, even before the legislation, there was never a case, successful or otherwise, against a "good Samaritan".

I saw this that resonated with me.

I consider Anti-Vaxxers to be my absolute enemy. They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

Enough of compromises. Enough of tolerance. Anti-scientific stupidity is a disease within itself.

Attachment 503248

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

..... They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

---

This is the bit that gets me. Paying for my diesel this afternoon I watched a guy march in, no check-in, no mask and glaring at everybody, daring people to say anything. Why? Personally I don't find checking in or wearing a mask to be sufficiently onerous that I won't do it (though I do feel for those who have to wear a mask all day!), but to regard refusing as some kind of a statement is something I don't understand. What exactly is the statement? And does that "I don't follow the rules of your society" attitude extend to refusing medical treatment when the worst happens?

Graeme do you have the citation / name of the case?

I'm not intending on testing if you don't know - I'd just be interested in this example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I watched a guy march in, no check-in, no mask and glaring at everybody, daring people to say anything..... And does that "I don't follow the rules of your society" attitude extend to refusing medical treatment when the worst happens?

---

This is EXACTLY what makes them my enemy. They are the enemy of SOCIETY ITSELF.

99% of ALL cases are now of the unvaxinated.

They are costing us ALL money. They are risking ALL of us. They are risking our CHILDREN and the sick, old and helpless.

This defines them as an absolute enemy.

The fact this bloke had to glower at everyone is absolute proof of the very wrongness they are perpetrating. He KNEW he was doing wrong. They should NOT be served, they absolutely MUST be shunned. Dont serve them. Tell them to never come back. They have marked themselves out for exclusion.

Let them die in their own homes, on their own time, at their own cost.

Absolutely and utterly bugger them.



YES... this is provocative, but how is it any LESS SO than these anti-vaxx scumbags? My opinion is the exact opposite of theirs. Their opinion is only an opinion, it isn't science. Its pure wilful ignorance. By them declaring themselves my enemy, I know exactly who to avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

Graeme do you have the citation / name of the case?

I'm not intending on testing if you don't know - I'd just be interested in this example.

---

No; but you can go search a law library if you wish.

Cases that I remember, which were widely reported in the Hobart Mercury include:

• Aboriginal person evicted from Moloney's Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
• Prominent Aboriginal activist also evicted from Moloney's Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
• Gay person evicted from Downtowner Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
• Lady evicted from a Launceston Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued.

All events occurred 10+ years ago. Maloney's, a previously very popular hotel, had extended legal action and was subject to an unofficial boycott; they went bankrupt a couple of years later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This is EXACTLY what makes them my enemy. They are the enemy of SOCIETY ITSELF.

99% of ALL cases are now of the unvaxinated.

They are costing us ALL money. They are risking ALL of us. They are risking our CHILDREN and the sick, old and helpless.

This defines them as an absolute enemy.
... .

---

Absolutely.

They are killing people; people who have serious ailments but are being denied beds in hospitals. There is no election for "elective surgery" which frequently does not involve surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

This is a really serious issue challenging employers, large and small, at the moment. Two similar but different issues; consider:

• employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
• employer allows unvaccinated customers normal accccess to premises.

Employee develops covid, which turns to long covid, which becomes life changing, claims she was infected by an unvaccinated fellow worker. Can the employee sue the boss for negligence for unecessarily exposing them to covid? [It could involve long term support, plus massive legal fees]

I do not know the answer to this question. But I do know that there is an army of lawyers looking for the opportunity to find out.

Next question; if any employer decides to lock out all unvaccinated people, then who is the policeman? What is his authority? Would this breach competition law?

---

First time that I have ever tried quoting myself !!!

Here is an ABC Story that sums up the issues that I raised:
Unvaccinated workers could pose serious legal risks to businesses, lawyer warns - ABC News

Bottom line is that we will not know for certain what the law is until it goes to court and works its way through the ponderous system, and the Full Bench of the High Court finally decides. This usually takes years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I consider Anti-Vaxxers to be my absolute enemy. They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

Enough of compromises. Enough of tolerance. Anti-scientific stupidity is a disease within itself.

---

I think we need to be a little kinder and aim for understanding of the anti-vax community. Because I don't have the data on anti-vaxers specifically, I'll go a little broader and consider those with vaccine hesitancy. I'm not advocating agreement, but a respectful attempt at understanding. Much like vegetarians, electric car owners, hermits and those with a religious faith, it would be both inaccurate and unfair to assume they all have the same motivation for the decisions they make. When we make no attempt to understand their position, there is every chance that our repeated dogma is meaningless to them, so we just shout louder and call them names. I'll come back to this later.

Firstly, vaccine hesitancy as of today is sitting at 12% (Vaccine Hesitancy Report Card (2021), Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research.). So to start off, that's a small proportion of the population.

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year, (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.

Let that sink in.

What percentage of our population were actually able to understand official Government communication. This is a complex topic, and it's hard to convey nuanced information simply. So if those who struggle to read are left behind by authoritative sources, where are they left to find their information. No doubt they will continue to sift through results until they find something they understand. But now they're not getting information from trusted sources any more. The online search and content algorithms noted that they went down an anti-vaccination rabbit hole for twenty minutes, and now selects similar results for them in subsequent searches. Newspapers and their nightly TV news and current affairs shows are happy to splash inflammatory headlines which by their very nature are attention grabbing and easy to understand. Couple this with the illusionary Truth effect, and what do we expect the outcome to be? The fact that we only have 12% hesitancy is, I think, remarkable.

Now back to my first paragraph where we're shouting loudly and calling people names. Every person I know personally who hesitated before getting a vaccination was worried about the health of their kids and/or themselves. They aren't raving nutters or conspiracy theorists, just normal people who felt conflicted by the information they were exposed to. Compassion, understanding and reasoned, patient dialogue are the things that brought them around. When we start yelling at them and calling them names, I imagine it would be far easier and emotionally safer for them to disengage from public discourse, rather than risk a conversation with someone who may be able to broaden their understanding.

The next time you find yourself talking to someone with vaccine hesitancy, switch yourself to input mode only. Don't express your views, just listen, ask questions, and try to understand theirs.

We watched Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure with our kids last night, so I'll sign off with:

"Be excellent to each other."

As the restrictions get lifted more people will get Covid and need to be hospitalised. In the majority they will be the unvaxed.

It doesn't matter as to why they did not get vaccinated they just need to understand that if they get sick and start to die they should not expect to move up the hospital admittance list ahead of other equally sick people who did the right thing and got vaxed.

There are lots of other reasons to finish up in hospital but just because you couldn't be bothered to get a shot should not be one of them.

If they have a genuine medical reason to not be vaxed then they should be exempt.

As soon as the gov start to enforce this the problem will go away, just like when Covid started to spread, vaxing took off.

Sorry if this attitude upsets a few but I get really p's'd off by the few b's that think only of themselves and ignore the risk and stress that they expose people like me who are in a medically vulnerable position.

LanceC, thank you for your wisdom. I think its good. I'll feed that into the old Noggin and assimilate it :)

Lance

Thank you for your reasoned and considerate approach. You have in fact highlighted what happens when the majority start to become "afraid" of the minority and the consequences it might have on them. Actually terrorism is another example of this. Without knowing actual numbers, I suspect that there are very few genuine terrorists, ( a few more sympathisers of course) but the effect they generate, without going into the ethics, is quite out of proportion.

Coincidentally I have become aware of people not wanting to get the vaccine and this does trouble me more than a little as one is a nurse and the other is a doctor....... Their issues are that the vaccine rollout has been considerably hastened compared to traditional timeframes (arguably understandably, but not to their satisfaction) and the full implications are not completely understood yet. However, these concerns were not enough to prevent me having my two shots. To some extent now the issue is whether the vaccines, which were fundamentally developed to combat the original virus, are going to be effective on the Delta variant or indeed any other mutation that develops and is virulent.

Will time only tell?

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceC

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year, (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.

---

I made a comment earlier about modern science being based on numbers, and that the numbers might be "statistically significant" but that doesn't always make them relevant to the real world. Another trend of modern science is to link datasets based on numbers without ever proving a causal relationship. This, I suspect, may be an example. I personally know, and through the pharmacy I am exposed to, a number of people who won't get vaccinated. Those people comprise a mix of all socio-economic groups, and people of widely varying intellects and education levels. Whilst it is true that a portion are not capable of understanding (or in some cases even reading) a detailed analysis of the case for vaccination, it is also true that most of that particular group would not even attempt to understand the issues, their views are based on other things entirely - their worldview is skewed away from what many of us consider to be the norm. Equally there are large numbers of people of similar education levels who have happily been vaccinated, so lack of understanding would not seem to be the problem. That would seem to be backed up by the fact that I also know nurses, teachers and one marketing manager (for a pharmaceutical company!) who refuse to be vaccinated - understanding the data surely cannot be the issue for them? None of them, by the way, are objecting on religious grounds or [edit: typo] due to medical conditions.

There are a great many issues involved, from basic belief systems through to outright fear of needles (and for some people it's easier to scoff at a vaccine than admit being worried about a needle!). Lack of reading ability may be a small part of the problem, but realistically you don't need to understand the details to understand that it's the right thing to do. On a daily basis we all use and do things that we don't understand, and we do so on the basis that someone who does understand it has decided that it is the right thing to do. Whether it's using a phone, driving a car or taking a tablet, very few people understand the details of what they are doing. I am unsure why one particular vaccine (and in a lot of cases it is one particular vaccine, many of these people have 'flu shots every year) should require a greater degree of understanding than the myriad of other things that people do on faith!

I read a few interesting things about sociopathy and anti-mask wearing, plus anti-vaxxers. (My daughter is a psych and talks of these things)

These people absolutely DO NOT CARE about you.

This makes them genuinely dangerous people.

Sociopathic traits linked to non-compliance with mask guidelines and other COVID-19 containment measures

Quote:

---

In the online study, 1,578 Brazilian adults completed a measure of maladaptive personality traits between May 21 and June 29, 2020. They also completed assessments of empathy and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures.

The researchers found that those who scored higher on measures of callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsivity, manipulativeness, and risk-taking tended to be less compliant with COVID-19 containment measures, such as socially distancing, washing hands frequently, and wearing a facemask in public. Participants with greater empathy, on the other hand, tended to be more compliant with COVID-19 containment measures.

---

Lance..a most intelligent, and sensible comment. Well said.
For me, I do as the Amish do..shun the anti's.

In Victoria it is rather simple, employers, employees and customers for most events are required to be double vaccinated and show the details to the venue.

For those not so vaccinated only little is open, basically food and medical need, but click and collect is available.

All this is legally mandated by the chief health officer and is expected to remain in force until well into 2023.