Covid-19 Welcome to Freedom

they would also be liable for people getting sick by applying vaccine mandates.
If the mandate could be shown not to be needed. The risk is much greater without vaccination than with vaccination. This is plain old fact.

If someone fronted up with medical advice that they cannot be vaccinated and the employer still threatened them, the employer would likely be liable for resulting harm.
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,330
27,801
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Not a fan. Support vaccines but not a mandate (maybe a select few jobs/industries aside).

A bit out there, but maybe some kind of hospital triage system would have been preferable? ie. don't have to get the vaccine, but if you are unvaxxed, get covid and require hospitalisation you are last in the queue. No available beds? Best of luck at home.

Assuming everyone who wants really can get it at short notice, of course. My GP still has an automated message when you ring up saying booked out for Pfizer until November.
 

Achy Blakey Heart

Premium Platinum
Jun 29, 2011
2,398
2,707
Australia
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Celtics,Red Sox,Patriots,Dragons,
I remember getting shots before i was allowed to leave the country as a kid - one i reacted really badly to.

meh these are extraordinary times - this is like our ww2

in extreme times sometimes extreme measures are taken.

This is nothing like WW2. To suggest so is deeply offensive to the memory of those lost in war.
 
Apr 23, 2016
30,510
42,668
AFL Club
Essendon
Lol. Pretty sure i started a thread on this exact topic 3 weeks ago which mods banned cos there were too many covid threads. Lol.

total consistency.

In any cases Approved covid vaccines should be mandatory for all people eligible except those with medical exemptions.

Chief silencing you once again. Classic Chief move.
 

Marcel Proust

"Oohh WADA ooga booga" {Jul 11 2013}
Sep 6, 2018
29,608
38,560
#BigBigSound
AFL Club
Richmond
If the mandate could be shown not to be needed. The risk is much greater without vaccination than with vaccination. This is plain old fact.

If someone fronted up with medical advice that they cannot be vaccinated and the employer still threatened them, the employer would likely be liable for resulting harm.

Under 50 chances of surviving as a healthy person from covid 99.99%

assuming this is true it seems a shame to lose liberty for mandatory vax.

More so if the above FDA fact is correct.

I can see why the french are not impressed
 
Under 50 chances of surviving as a healthy person from covid 99.99%
Who keeps telling you to repeat this?

Why don’t they tell you to repeat the facts around long Covid? Around hospital overload? Medical staff exhaustion? Anything but “kekekek u wont die if u undah 50!!!11” ?
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,366
46,594
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
Chief silencing you once again. Classic Chief move.
Yeah wasnt chief. Was one of his srp mod minions. The one that says he is a lawyer.

So i decided to protest to chief with a well reasoned complaint cos well .... a mod on the internet was wrong.

and chiefs response was not to slap down the mod for over-modding or even reinstate my thread.

Instead chiefs response was for him to create a covid-19 suffix. :drunk:

no one cares about the suffixs chief. no one goes hey that topic title looks boring but i like the suffix appended to it so I might now wander in and take a gander. Cos of the suffix!


f***. i spent a whole 10 minutes writing my mandatory vaccine rant whilst i had a 2 year old jumping on my back and my eldest crying in corner cos no one wanted to play ball with him. and after all that effort it was denied an audience. Shattered.
 

The Passenger

The passenger, I am...
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Sensible Type WCE Wings Guernsey
Mar 25, 2003
35,681
28,332
Not a fan. Support vaccines but not a mandate (maybe a select few jobs/industries aside).

A bit out there, but maybe some kind of hospital triage system would have been preferable? ie. don't have to get the vaccine, but if you are unvaxxed, get covid and require hospitalisation you are last in the queue. No available beds? Best of luck at home.

Assuming everyone who wants really can get it at short notice, of course. My GP still has an automated message when you ring up saying booked out for Pfizer until November.
This is basically my position.

That being said, on the odd occasion I find myself conversing with an anti-vaxxer on the subject, I can't say I'm exactly dripping with sympathy for their arguments. Usually just want to bang my head on the table and desperately down another pint.
 
So the anti mandatory vaxxers on here … are you prepared to open up with no vaccines? Also prepared to have no one take polio, whooping cough, tb, smallpox etc etc? I mean what if everyone thought the same way ..”can’t force me to vax”? Or are you happy to say no and have you and family protected from everyone getting vaxxed?
 
Oct 9, 2006
13,346
5,231
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I don't see why leaky vaccines should be mandatory, let alone ones with an already poor safety record.

Also, how can state governments overrule the federal government? Scomo needs to grow a spine!
Just describe the poor safety record of vaccines , in general or for COVID??
Any one tell me if that coward that hit the bloke on the station from behind is been charged or sued , he needs to be removed from the police , also remember how the people are forever raving on about the terrible instances of "coward punches" when people are out on the tiles, well that copper coward punched . I hope the mongrel doesn't get away wwith it , I believe he was a sargeant too. Real brave you gutless wonder!
 
Oct 9, 2006
13,346
5,231
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
So the anti mandatory vaxxers on here … are you prepared to open up with no vaccines? Also prepared to have no one take polio, whooping cough, tb, smallpox etc etc? I mean what if everyone thought the same way ..”can’t force me to vax”? Or are you happy to say no and have you and family protected from everyone getting vaxxed?
We have to open up sooner than later Vaccines are the only way, real anti vaxxers are small in number some will die badly others maybe luckier, but anti vaxxers are simply wrong , and some of them sound like the wokery of the world and climate change, like climate change , vaxxines have been happening for 70 or 80 years as climate change has been happening for several billion years, so logic says get vaccinated, or you MAY? may die bad, or get sicker than you would if you are vaccinated.
ARE WE SURE THE ANTI-VAXXERS AREN'T GREENIE FORMER HIPPIES WITH NOTHING TO DO?
i CAN'T BELIEVE THE STUPIDITY, VACCINES CUT THE ODDS, IF YOU DON'T TAKE IT, ITS LIKE ENTERING YOUR HORSE IN A RACE WITH OUT A JOCKEY AT ALL.
YOU MIGHT WIN.............. BUT YOU CAN'T WIN! Got it?
 
Like the short sighted Brazilian waxer you are very half arsed.
Simple question.

Is CFR the only consideration?

It’s OK. We know you’re using it because that’s what the loons you watch on YouTube tell you to talk about.

If you had to consider other things like long term neurological damage you’d have to change your mind.
 
Interesting:



There are few situations where someone can’t have a COVID vaccine for medical reasons. The criteria to receive a permanent medical exemption are very narrow and rarely required.

The only criteria are:

  • anaphylaxis following a previous dose of a COVID vaccine
  • or previous anaphylaxis to any component of a COVID vaccine.
For live vaccines, such the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines, people who are significantly immunocompromised can get a permanent medical exemption. But this isn’t relevant for COVID vaccines because they’re not live vaccines.
 
Last edited:
No. Maybe get back to me on my OP asking what the rationale for the vaccine mandates are.



Are you proposing vaccine mandates due to long covid?
I’m saying there is more than just deaths to consider.

Passing it on to a more vulnerable person. Health system strain, now and into the future.

And so on.
 
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
The amount of deliberately disseminated disinformation has created a unique situation. The 'anti-vaccine' movement seems to need these requirements put in place, that wouldn't normally be necessary.


So many of the areas are incredibly complicated, multifaceted and highly nuanced. A specialist in one area may not be able to properly understand and explain specialist information from another area. Even though they have clear connection. This is why we have experts, and why we look to them.
Yes, the system sometimes fails, sometimes the majority expert opinion has been wrong. What would you replace it with?

When a single sentence has enough misinformation to require several paragraphs in response, the nuance is gone and it's a serious problem.



Here is some reasons why I mostly support it.

I think it supports the employers/management because it provides them legal protection. It helps every individual business/association/etc work out specific legal frameworks and litigation. And doesn't need to find individual legal advice and frameworks with shareholders, partners, suppliers, retailers etc.

I think it supports workers/employees if their employer/manager is 'anti-vaccine'. They don't have to worry about the power dynamic, or legal positions. They can just point to the Government requirements. There is a clear outline of expectations in the workplace.


The Government/leadership should follow the advice of the majority of the science, research, data, medical expertise and knowledge etc.
 
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
The Liberal member for Monash, Russell Broadbent, will not be able travel to his electorate and will be locked out of his ministerial offices as he is not vaccinated.
The other view to that story could be argued that he is making a personal choice, that may reduce or remove his ability to represent his constituents.
I don't think either view is fair.

Parliament’s rules for operating virtually require MPs to use secure video links from their offices, not their homes. Effectively this means that Daniel Andrews has passed laws that prevent an elected Federal member participating in Parliament.

This is, at least, misinformation.
It's a short, powerful looking sentence. But it's fallacious.
Why ignore
1. Any Federal MP sitting virtually, has already reduced their capacity to fully participate.​
2. There have been rules that have been adapted or changed, where reasonable, since the pandemic. This one can continue to change.​
3. There is multiple reasons that a secure video link is required. It makes sense that it would be installed in their electorate office, but doesn't mean it's not possible to install it into certain homes, or to find some other way to connect securely.​
4. The Federal parliament created the strict rules around virtual attendance.​


Additionally, he previously reduced his capacity to participate in certain areas of Government before. When he stood down from "the speaker's panel and his committee chairmanship".
A small part of his reasoning was that he believed Greg Hunt misled him. The implication being that he would now mistrust Greg Hunt.
His very first statement in his list was.
“I’m uncomfortable with mass vaccination of the population, with the vaccine that is, according to Minister Hunt, being trialled across the world.”​



So the story is based on a Facebook post by a Federal MP, explaining his position of mistrust, where he specifically mentions the Federal minister for health, Greg Hunt. And this Federal MP may not be able to participate in Federal Parliament, due to Federal Parliament rules, that could be modified again.

And the takeaway from this, is that "effectively this means that Daniel Andrews has passed laws that prevent an elected Federal member participating in Parliament."

But none of what I've just explained matters to certain people, because it's too much to read, or they will just disagree due to confirmation bias, or someone will throw in a quip that 'justifies' it being disregarded.
Because that sentence is short and looks powerful. While my multiple sentences are boring.
Which is part of why I support the requirements. Because in our current climate, it's seemingly impossible to combat misinformation/disinformation.
 
Sep 21, 2009
16,583
14,728
AFL Club
St Kilda
I found the the comments from Josh Bornstein interesting. He said it is likely that courts will uphold employer orders compelling employees to be vaccinated. And employers who didn’t ensure their workers were vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of that failure, people became sick or died.
“Any direction or order from an employer to an employee must be lawful and reasonable in all the circumstances,” Mr Bornstein said.​
“In the context of a pandemic – and in particular Delta variant, which is highly infectious and dangerous – it is likely that courts will uphold employer orders compelling employees to be vaccinated.”​
On the flipside, Mr Bornstein said employers who didn’t ensure their workers were vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of that failure, people became sick or died.​
Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace and a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that safety can result in very extensive legal problems,” he said. - Brisbane Times

I also think his comments are interesting. And they seem clear and reasonable.

Do you find any of it unusual or unreasonable?

Does this imply that employers who compel employees to be vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of the vaccine, people became sick or died?
You make a compelling point in support of the requirements.

Also, I feel like the comments you keep referring to, explained it.
On the flipside, Mr Bornstein said employers who didn’t ensure their workers were vaccinated could leave themselves open to being sued if, as a result of that failure, people became sick or died.​
Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace and a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that safety can result in very extensive legal problems,” he said. - Brisbane Times
So in this case, the employer is following regulations, requirements, the law etc.

I'm struggling to envisage a scenario where the employer could be successfully sued, in your 'hypothetical'. Can you expand on it please?

Also, from the same article.
Associate Professor at the ANU College of Law, Dr Ron Levy

Dr Levy said a court faced with human rights claims, would balance that with the untold social upheaval, economic catastrophe and, most of all, widescale death and morbidity from COVID-19.​
“It is likely that the court will back the Victorian government, either in whole or in part,” Dr Levy said.​
“Courts particularly tend to defer to governments in times of emergency, like this one.” - Brisbane Times

From what I understand, if it all turns out to be an international conspiracy. The employer would still be protected, but the Government could then be sued.



Josh Bornstein seems a bit muddled. The vaccine mandates are State Government measures. But he's talking about employers being liable.

If employers are liable for people getting sick by failing to apply vaccine mandates then they would also be liable for people getting sick by applying vaccine mandates.
How?

What's another scenario where you'd hold your position?
Harnesses, safety goggles?

It's possible that our views on these things are so opposite, that I'm completely missing important context, or what you might feel is base knowledge.
 
Back