Covid 19 -

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Make it optional. If the vaccine works then you and your friends and family are safe, right? So you have no chance of becoming infected by someone that refused to take a vaccine because you opted for the vaccine. so you're all good.

It doesn't quite work like that. A small percentage who get the vaccine will not develop enough antibodies to be immune. So, unless you get tested you won't know for certain that you can't catch it. Plus all the immuno compromised, like anyone getting chemo for cancer, or too young to be vaccinated, will be vulnerable.
When whooping cough outbreaks started to take the lives of babies (vaccine doesn't work until one year old) in areas where there are lots of anti-vaxers and poor herd immunity, people started to refer to anti-vaxers as "baby killers"
The whole debate gets nasty at times.
https://www.qt.com.au/news/her-daugh...-Lz9WBSm2Oa748

Originally Posted by Romulus

The basis of the stage 4 lockdown was largely attributed to the 'hundreds of people failing to isolate'. This is patently false, indeed completely contradicted by the Police who've only issued 42 fines since the lockdowns began in April.

This is a typical approach from a government which operates in a vacuum of accountability and zero care about the citizenry in general.

You're not serious? They locked down because they were getting several hundred new cases a day. If people were isolating sufficiently then those numbers wouldnt have happened.

Why are you using the numbers of fines as evidence instead of the numbers of infections? You know that being threatened with fines generally curbs behaviour?

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Make it optional. If the vaccine works then you and your friends and family are safe, right? So you have no chance of becoming infected by someone that refused to take a vaccine because you opted for the vaccine. so you're all good.

Drink driving should be optional too. You've got airbags right? You and your family should be safe, why would you care what others are doing on the road?

[marty351]

Just saw on the news, "no jab, no pay". Start treading water, ****s got deep yo!

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by marty351

Just saw on the news, "no jab, no pay". Start treading water, ****s got deep yo!

Scomo has been banging on for ages about this and frankly its fine, still gives people a choice.

Ill be in line, about happy for a few 1000 to go a couple of months before

[davenl5l]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Hopefully you're right. But is there any real point if say.. 50% of the Australian population decide to get the vaccine, and the other half don't? The 50% that don't will still cause restrictions and lockdowns to continue, as there will still be outbreaks and transmission.

When you have idiots saying things like 'if you get the vaccine then you and your friends and family are safe' and/or 'you have no chance of becoming infected by someone that refused to take a vaccine', then I guess we should expect the current situation to remain unchanged for a very prolonged time.

It should be made 100% mandatory. And the people that refuse, they should not be allowed to enter workplaces, shopping centres, etc, etc, etc. They should be isolated from the rest of the country until they do get vaccinated. The people who get vaccinated should not have to pay a price for the idiots who don't.

You are a idiot

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by marty351

Just saw on the news, "no jab, no pay". Start treading water, ****s got deep yo!

Isn't it "no jab no play"? Refers to kids not allowed in playgroups, preschool etc unless vaccinated?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Isn't it "no jab no play"? Refers to kids not allowed in playgroups, preschool etc unless vaccinated?

Yes, but he seems happy to extend to those on benefits that dont vaccinate. Fine by me, good cost save.

[George V]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Isn't it "no jab no play"? Refers to kids not allowed in playgroups, preschool etc unless vaccinated?

Yes; No access to govt subsidised childcare for kids without vaccination.

Nothing is compulsory and govt was bluffing or it was for baiting media.

Regards,
George V

[Falcon SXR8]

I think its a basic human right to not be forced to put something in your body you don't want. Im not an anti vaxer but like a lot of others question the development time of these covid vaccines and will be waiting a bit before i or my family choose to have one.

[FPV8U]

The potential vaccine is good news of hope on the horizon, recent antibody studies overseas have shown the opposite to initial thoughts of short term immunity relating to the virus and good immune response to even asymptomatic cases.

https://youtu.be/D5Z6wdu1eI0

Dr J.Campbell goes into detail.

This news combined with developing early stage treatment options and hopefully a nice warm summer could see some big positive changes.

Hopefully Australia and in particular Victoria moves towards providing some antibody screening sooner rather than later so we can start to develop a better situation picture, I’ve mentioned before that if they had the blood donations screened it would be an excellent way of encouraging donation and collection of value able data at the same time.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by leesa

You're not serious? They locked down because they were getting several hundred new cases a day. If people were isolating sufficiently then those numbers wouldnt have happened.

Why are you using the numbers of fines as evidence instead of the numbers of infections? You know that being threatened with fines generally curbs behaviour?

No. Re-read and re-watch Andrews press conferences. His justification was based on the number of people failing to quarantine/self isolate, likely to increase the possibility of community spread. What Andrews failed to address was the failure of the hotel quarantine debacle being the cause of the outbreak.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by marty351

Just saw on the news, "no jab, no pay". Start treading water, ****s got deep yo!

Scomo was testing the water yesterday morning when saying there will be 25 million doses available for Australians, and only a few will be exempt from taking it, those with a medical exemption. He back peddled quick when questioned by Neil Mitchell of 3AW later in the day when asked if the vaccine would be mandatory. But the governments intent is to roll out the vaccine program the same way the no job no play and no jab no pay principle applies.

Let us see what happens when the government rolls out the 'no jab, no pay' type approach for this Covid vaccine. The principle will be the same as childcare rebate and preschool and kindly enrolment. Basically, anyone on any type of government payment (pension, unemployment benefit, family tax benefit A/B) must be vaccinated to receive their payment.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Falcon SXR8

I think its a basic human right to not be forced to put something in your body you don't want. Im not an anti vaxer but like a lot of others question the development time of these covid vaccines and will be waiting a bit before i or my family choose to have one.

Welcome to the 'anti-vaxxer' world, where the government uses financial coercion to get you vaccinate. Anyone receiving any sort of government payment or subsidy better be ready to roll up their sleeve or lose your government subsidies. This includes and childcare subsidies, rebates, FTB A/B.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Scomo was testing the water yesterday morning when saying there will be 25 million doses available for Australians, and only a few will be exempt from taking it, those with a medical exemption. He back peddled quick when questioned by Neil Mitchell of 3AW later in the day when asked if the vaccine would be mandatory. But the governments intent is to roll out the vaccine program the same way the no job no play and no jab no pay principle applies.

Let us see what happens when the government rolls out the 'no jab, no pay' type approach for this Covid vaccine. The principle will be the same as childcare rebate and preschool and kindly enrolment. Basically, anyone on any type of government payment (pension, unemployment benefit, family tax benefit A/B) must be vaccinated to receive their payment.

While it sounds a bit communist I am for it, had some evil thought of sterilizing some but probably too far.

I think jab/no jab will be a great conversation once we get anywhere near a vaccine. Right now its wasted energy.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Romulus

No. Re-read and re-watch Andrews press conferences. His justification was based on the number of people failing to quarantine/self isolate, likely to increase the possibility of community spread. What Andrews failed to address was the failure of the hotel quarantine debacle being the cause of the outbreak.

Putting aside how the outbreak started.

There was/is a requirement for people who may be infected or confirmed to be infected to self isolate.... Simple to understand.

Instead people were going to get tested, then while waiting for the result they were going to work, going to the shops etc and worse still there were a significant number who still went out even after having a positive test.

The disparity between the number of people doing this and the number fined was because of "administrative" issues. The teams doing the people at home checks (ADF and Health workers) were finding people not at home... but the police didn't/couldn't follow up with a fine.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Polyal

While it sounds a bit communist I am for it, had some evil thought of sterilizing some but probably too far.

I think jab/no jab will be a great conversation once we get anywhere near a vaccine. Right now its wasted energy.

I'm all for it too. People will understand the plight of the 'anti-vaxxers'. Financial coercion sorts out the men from the boys when it comes to these matters.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by cs123

Putting aside how the outbreak started.

There was/is a requirement for people who may be infected or confirmed to be infected to self isolate.... Simple to understand.

Instead people were going to get tested, then while waiting for the result they were going to work, going to the shops etc and worse still there were a significant number who still went out even after having a positive test.

The disparity between the number of people doing this and the number fined was because of "administrative" issues. The teams doing the people at home checks (ADF and Health workers) were finding people not at home... but the police didn't/couldn't follow up with a fine.

No, that's whats been reported and how the government wish to portray it, but it is not backed up by the stats. Subsequent follow ups by the Police have confirmed this which is why only 40 odd people have been fined.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Romulus

No, that's whats been reported and how the government wish to portray it, but it is not backed up by the stats. Subsequent follow ups by the Police have confirmed this which is why only 40 odd people have been fined.

So the government is saying that but you have other information?

[Fed]

I don't do needles so they will have to put it in a pill for me.

[PhilT2]

Imagine a situation where a person on the dole refuses to vaccinate and knocks back a job in an aged care centre that requires staff to vaccinate. You'll all be happy to keep paying tax so this person can stay on the dole and doesn't have to compromise his principles and get the shot (and the job)

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Imagine a situation where a person on the dole refuses to vaccinate and knocks back a job in an aged care centre that requires staff to vaccinate. You'll all be happy to keep paying tax so this person can stay on the dole and doesn't have to compromise his principles and get the shot (and the job)

This person wouldn't be eligible for the dole if they refused the Covid vaccine under the no jab no pay rule.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Romulus

People will understand the plight of the 'anti-vaxxers'. Financial coercion sorts out the men from the boys when it comes to these matters.

'Plight', as commonly used, implies that the moron are entitled to some sympathy in much the same way as we should care about the plight of starving children in Africa.

By definition, the term means "a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation" but I struggle with the concept that a situation that is avoidable and of ones own making based on some feeble logic or sense of 'rights' can properly fit the definition.

I've no issue with coercion or the application of sanctions against those who refuse to do something that (by the time it is available) will offer a measure of protection for not only them but for the entire community.

[PhilT2]

Originally Posted by Romulus

This person wouldn't be eligible for the dole if they refused the Covid vaccine under the no jab no pay rule.

There isn't a "no jab no pay" rule. I think someone misheard someone saying "no jab no play" which is a real rule that does exist. If the "no jab no pay was even suggested by anyone in gov could you show me where? Not saying it didn't happen just want to get the facts straight.

But back to the question, do you want to keep supporting the anti-vax welfare recipient?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

There isn't a "no jab no pay" rule. I think someone misheard someone saying "no jab no play" which is a real rule that does exist. If the "no jab no pay was even suggested by anyone in gov could you show me where? Not saying it didn't happen just want to get the facts straight.

But back to the question, do you want to keep supporting the anti-vax welfare recipient?

Correct, there isnt a no jab, no pay rule, yet. Labor and Greens have already hinted they wouldn't support legislation if it was introduced, as well as PHONP. No, I wouldn't want to support an anti-vax welfare recipient, or anyone on welfare who can work but choses not to.

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

But back to the question, do you want to keep supporting the anti-vax welfare recipient?

Yes, someone being on benefits for a limited period of time that’s actually seeking a employment shouldn’t be forced to relinquish their personal rights leveraged on being able to feed themselves or their family.

I’m about as far from a supporter of long term welfare recipients as you’ll find but that’s not something that should be leveraged.

People got upset about rights when the government wanted to have the Welfare card that restricted where and what money could be spent on, what your suggesting is a massive reach from there.

[marty351]

Originally Posted by Fed

I don't do needles so they will have to put it in a pill for me.

Wuss.

[Citroënbender]

It’s OK Martinka, it will be a suppository.

I’m still unsettled by this inference that “a cure” (my summary of the way people are thinking) is just around the corner.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by PhilT2

There isn't a "no jab no pay" rule. I think someone misheard someone saying "no jab no play" which is a real rule that does exist. If the "no jab no pay was even suggested by anyone in gov could you show me where? Not saying it didn't happen just want to get the facts straight.

But back to the question, do you want to keep supporting the anti-vax welfare recipient?

Listening to Dr Nick Coatsworth this morning on Skynews you better prepare yourself. He's wanting a minimum of 70% uptake of this vaccine and is looking at the current legislation including changing NJNP and other instruments under a carrot and STICK (emphasis added) approach.

[Polyal]

Gawd NJNP, I think 2020 will be known as the year of acronyms!