Mandatory Vaccinations And Medical Exemptions
- Thread starter Goosecat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I like to discuss these things, it often adds more information that I may not have been aware of so I can grow my own opinion. The frustration here is that none of this information is being presented by one side, while that side is continually requesting other information, which is leading to the question... does this information actually exist?
What I find interesting is that in this particular discussion i've had the line thrown at me for when I hadn't answered provided some information (which was asked without answering the original question, btw) - "The fact that you cannot do so speaks volumes". I wonder if they hold their posting to the same fact?
personally i spend all day on bigfooty instead of doing what im paid to do
ps: boss, thats a joke
Would it be the ultimate hypocrisy to be fired by your boss because they found out you were using BF during work hours... by using BF during work hours??
- Banned
- #3,704
well i suppose the boss gets to do what they want since they own the place right.Would it be the ultimate hypocrisy to be fired by your boss because they found out you were using BF during work hours... by using BF during work hours??
You are not going to get any discussion, they respond to your posts with questions because they have no coherent response to answer you with. There are some posters in this thread that you can have a discussion with, but if a poster ignores a couple of detailed responses from you they aren't going to suddenly start having a real discussion. That is not why they are posting.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,959
- 43,401
- AFL Club
- Essendon
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...business&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Has anyone posted this yet? Of course it shows the actual data is completely opposite to that ludicrous "20 times" figure those morons from the Conversation came up with from their ridiculous modelliing. If they're modelling is this far off, how far off is the modelling the Governments are using to disrupt our lives?
Has anyone posted this yet? Of course it shows the actual data is completely opposite to that ludicrous "20 times" figure those morons from the Conversation came up with from their ridiculous modelliing. If they're modelling is this far off, how far off is the modelling the Governments are using to disrupt our lives?
This is the thing that also always got me about all these anti-science types.
Cynical, suspicious or just iconoclastic about government or institutions? Yeah okay, I can understand the argument.
But then placing blind trust in snake-oil salesman, New Age crystals, faith healers and god knows what? Makes no sense to me
- Banned
- #3,709
did you do the research yourself or are you just blindly believing what they tell you?
I'm not necessarily supporting the modelling in the first article. However, this article is referring specifically to the Delta variant while the other was referring to all known covid infections. They were also using AZ specific results to build their modelling on while this refers to combined vaccination results. So they were always going to get different outcomes and comparing the two in that sense doesn't really work.
I consider myself to be a relatively calm and patient person and have faith that we may be able to get to a point where a real discussion could occur, or my upper threshold of when that faith is lost may be a touch higher than others.
Either that... or I'm a masochist.
OK... Now I'm considering the fact that I may actually be a masochist.
The fact of the matter is though, we living in a multi-vaccine world and delta is the main concern. One is based on mathematical modelling with various assumptions, the other is just a study of real world results. I know which type of data i tend to prefer as more valid.
I'm confident that the conclusions here are more likely than the 20x more likely figure.
And this again raises this question. If, based on the evidence, you're just as likely IN PRACTICE to pass the virus on. How can anyone justify different treatment of vaccinated or unvaccinated.
As i've always maintained, the vaccine is a PERSONAL protective measure. Take it if YOU want to protect yourself, otherwise we're all in this world together, we're all likely to 'catch' covid at some point. If we're vaccinated we should be fine. If we're not, we may be fine, we may not. Im happy to live in that world and I hold no ill will to anyone else's vaccination status. It's time to move on and get back to living.
Even if the spread is the same it is clear you are less likely to end up in hospital if you are vaccinated.
Therefore to help society and prevent hospitals getting over-run they are mandating vaccines.
If COVID was a disease where once you get it and you’re not vaccinated you just stay at home and eventually get better or drop dead instantly then there would be no risk to the health system collapsing and therefore no need to mandate vaccines.
I don’t understand what’s hard about that to get?
We're already at 80-90% of people getting vaccinated without mandatory imposition. I don't see the material impact on hospitals from that minor percentage to justify mandatory medical procedures. Pretty simple stuff.
That's an interesting article and the data in it is valuable for management of the virus. I'd note a few things
1) statistical analysis =/= modelling
2) independent sources are independent - meaning that they have nothing to do with the government - hence the bolded in your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
3) that data doesn't really discount the 20x more likely point anyway - that is that in a random single interaction, you are 20x more likely to get the virus from an unvaccinated person, than a vaccinated person. But this study takes into account household contacts of people we know have the virus. So the important figure is the 2x more likely it was assumed that an unvaccinated person was to transmit in a random interaction. Further to this, household contacts have numerous interactions - and it doesn't matter how many would have caused an infection, only if one actually did. That an unvaccinated case may have given it to someone twice doesn't factor in this study.
Victoria has approx 15,000 public hospital beds. 20% of Victoria’s population is approx 1.34 million. Even if around 1% of the unvaccinated end up in hospital we have a serious issue. Pretty simple stuff.
Just on this, the article you did quote wasn't so great (in my opinion) at actually explaining the equal transmission rates. It mentioned a statistically significant increase in transmission within unvaccinated households, but I couldn't see it go into specific statistics around transmission between unvaccinated to vaccinated (or the other way around), unless I missed it. The actual research paper does go into this though and places both situations at around the 25% mark.
This doesn't answer any of the points you are making above, just adding in some data that I don't think was well represented in the article.
My opinion... at the vaccination rate we are now I welcome the fact we are opening up. If there are people at this stage who have chosen not to get vaccinated, then I hold no concerns in regards to that. However, if we do suddenly see an increase in serious cases in unvaccinated people leading to an overload on the hospitals, then this is going to result in another lockdown... and I can imagine that would create some serious tension between those that are vaccinated and those that are not.
- May 5, 2015
- 1,718
- 2,482
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
stopped listening to or looking at any modelling from these so called experts ages ago. Remember the 100"s of THOUSAND deaths Australia was supposed to have?. Lucky we all washed our hands and social distanced to prevent this. Same experts that predict climate change, rains that will never fill dams, sea levels a metre higher then what they actually are, perth should have been a ghost city by now etc etc. All used to generate fear.
Any medical professional not fully supportive of vaccinations and Goverment actions get deregistered for "spreading false information", but you can make any wild claim and exaggeration about covid with impunity.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,959
- 43,401
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #3,721
oh look, another person who thinks climate change is fake because it rains sometimes.
btw if you apply a 1% mortality rate across the 25m population of australia (with the widely held assumption amongst antivaxxers that we will all get it sometime), you would indeed have 100's of thousands of deaths. thats just maths. Plus then you go on to say that we prevented it with social distancing???
what even is your point except to say that science is a lie?
- May 5, 2015
- 1,718
- 2,482
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Your comprehension is sadly lacking
I clearly stated exaggeration of predictions. Waste of time even replying to you.
- Banned
- #3,723
except that i pointed out that the average death rate across our population would have met those 'exaggerated' predictions.
and while you complain about exaggerated claims of professionals far more educated in their subject matter than yourself, you make the wildly exaggerated claim that any doctor critical of the government is deregistered.
your bias and intent is obvious. You should find something to back up your wild claims before Gruffles makes an example out of you with cold logic and reason
- May 5, 2015
- 1,718
- 2,482
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
ok, will do
Healthcare professionals have been warned they could be stripped of their ability to practise if they disseminate information about Covid-19 vaccines which regulators consider to be false or misleading.
The Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) have issued a joint directive warning members they risk disciplinary action for providing ‘false or deceptive’ advice or information that could undermine the national vaccination program.
The statement has been supported by national health professional boards across the nation, including the medical, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, dental, chiropractic, Chinese medicine, paramedicine and osteopathy boards of Australia.
The directive encompasses the provision of information to patients, as well as the publication of information on websites and social media, raising concerns that medical experts could be prevented from sharing genuinely-held concerns about Covid-19 vaccines.
The directive states: “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
- May 5, 2015
- 1,718
- 2,482
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
correct
Healthcare professionals have been warned they could be stripped of their ability to practise if they disseminate information about Covid-19 vaccines which regulators consider to be false or misleading.
The Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) have issued a joint directive warning members they risk disciplinary action for providing ‘false or deceptive’ advice or information that could undermine the national vaccination program.
The statement has been supported by national health professional boards across the nation, including the medical, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, dental, chiropractic, Chinese medicine, paramedicine and osteopathy boards of Australia.
The directive encompasses the provision of information to patients, as well as the publication of information on websites and social media, raising concerns that medical experts could be prevented from sharing genuinely-held concerns about Covid-19 vaccines.
The directive states: “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
