Covid-19 Mandatory vaccines

Remove this Banner Ad

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
40,009
18,572
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies

We should be doing this here.
Hard to bill un-vaccinated patients when you have un-vaccinated cops, ambos and medical staff all the way down the line.

Gooses and ganders.

Unless a person has a valid reason to not be vaccinated. ("sky fairy said no" not a valid reason) then no job where you come into any contact with the vulnerable.
That would cover all emergency services, medical and psychiatric care, aged care, child care etc.
I have no issue with anyone being un-vaxxed in a mining, construction, retail etc etc situation.

Apart from the fact that having a portion of the population un-vaccinated will assist in a controlled spread, necessary for evolving immune response, it gives an indicator of the how virulent the virus mutations may be.

If everyone who is un-vaccinated starts dying en masse then we know we have a major issue and can respond.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

cartwright

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
8,992
11,608
here
AFL Club
St Kilda
What I want to know is what % of the vaccinated people who initially held off didn’t actually want it & only got it because they decided it’s not their fight, they cbf and don’t wanna lose their livelihood over a stance.

Been saying it for a half a year how I don’t want it but will eventually get it to do things the constitution actually says I actually can’t be prevented from doing.. Like travel. 🤦🏻‍♀️
regardless of Aus law, which country did you expect to travel to and think you won’t require a vaccine ? And how did you expect to get there?
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
16,922
21,451
AFL Club
Essendon
regardless of Aus law, which country did you expect to travel to and think you won’t require a vaccine ? And how did you expect to get there?
I believe you might be able to swim somewhere, or paddle a kayak - if they allow you to rent one without being vaccinated.

Might take some time but you'll find some kind of deserted coral reef island to visit.
 

Jibroni

Club Legend
Jun 14, 2017
2,072
2,740
Adelaide
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
that last half of sentence is confusing - double negative means vaccine should be mandatory?
Sorry the point I was trying to make is we cannot possibly know the long-term effects of vaccines, whether mRNA or adenovirus. I think its irresponsible to have an entire population take a new medicine who's long-term effects cannot be known until a long period of time has passed. It I cant understand why a government or business can make this mandatory for their staff or client base.

What if there is an unknowable side effect as with these or develops into something completely unforeseen?
 

Opine

Premium Gold
Aug 30, 2018
6,162
11,715
AFL Club
Carlton
That's not at all specific.



I think when Andrews said that common sense applies - what he actually meant was that he's done a rapid back-pedal on this and excluded all Commonwealth employees from the Mandatory Vaccination Directions.

Employers and workers
(8) For the purpose of these directions:​
(a) employer in relation to a worker means:​
(i) the person who employs or engages the worker; or​
(ii) if the worker is self-employed—the worker.​
(b) worker means a person identified in Column 1 of Schedule 1, whether paid or unpaid, but does not include:
(i) a Commonwealth employee;
(ii) a worker who works in connection with proceedings in a court, where that work cannot be done from the person's ordinary place of residence; or​
(iii) a person under 12 years of age.​

Nonsense, it was adequately specific for the purpose of this conversation.
The point was that the fatalistic scenario promoted, in which a fed minster was supposedly going to be sidelined, was never a realistic option.

I think common sense dictates you handle the stuff that has propensity to do most damage if a real risk was to eventuate, then deal with the lesser significant details later when risk subsides. It seems that’s what was done; but you can call it a ‘backflip’ if you believe politics was the real objective.

.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
16,922
21,451
AFL Club
Essendon
Due to their " constitutional and other legal protections " Sutton said
I'm reading the Public Health Order as we speak. Looks like it applies to Victoria Police.

COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccination (Workers) Directions (No 3).docx (dhhs.vic.gov.au)

Emergency service worker
(10) For the purposes of these directions:
(a) emergency service worker means a person who works in connection
with emergency services including but not limited to:
(i) the Victoria State Emergency Services;
(ii) Fire Rescue Victoria, the Country Fire Authority or any other
firefighting services;
(iii) the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority;
(iv) aquatic safety services, including life saving services and marine
search and rescue services;
(v) paramedical services;
(vi) ambulance and paramedics services;
(vii) air ambulance and medical retrieval services (including Royal
Flying Doctor Service);
(viii) Victoria Police, protective services and police custody services;
or
(ix) essential infrastructure and essential services that are required
to maintain or protect human health, safety and wellbeing
(whether provided by a public or private undertaking), and
including maintenance and repair of such infrastructure.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
20,146
14,686
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I do appreciate you've taken it, applied no context, and run with it with absolutely 0 further research or investigation as to why that's the case.
those groups should in practical terms not enjoy those protections due to bulltish from federal vs state responsibility. It is irresponsible leadership by persons who are in those industries, they are putting themselves as some sort of special.
I would force them to be vaccinated or lose their jobs
stuff constitution, it is a dead ******* document.
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
16,922
21,451
AFL Club
Essendon
those groups should in practical terms not enjoy those protections due to bulltish from federal vs state responsibility. It is irresponsible leadership by persons who are in those industries, they are putting themselves as some sort of special.
I would force them to be vaccinated or lose their jobs
stuff constitution, it is a dead ******* document.
Well yes, for example;

Vaccination in courts - Message from the Chief Justice | The Supreme Court of Victoria

Court Services Victoria (CSV), as the employer of court staff, is considering measures that will require staff who attend onsite to be vaccinated on the same basis as other authorised workers in Victoria. These will be subject to a process of consultation with staff.
Some employee awards require the consultation to occur prior to mandates being made.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,820
14,349
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
You did quote correctly off the site just the site was confusing in itself.
I agree it's confusing. All the deaths relate to a positive Sars-cov-2 test then they have extrapolated the mortality rate to per 100,000. Divide these numbers below by 1,000 to get the percent (per 100) mortality rate.

1634604445263.png
 

T2B_

The Avo King
Feb 13, 2011
38,314
55,221
Bathing in avocados
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Dragons FFC
Sorry the point I was trying to make is we cannot possibly know the long-term effects of vaccines, whether mRNA or adenovirus. I think its irresponsible to have an entire population take a new medicine who's long-term effects cannot be known until a long period of time has passed. It I cant understand why a government or business can make this mandatory for their staff or client base.

What if there is an unknowable side effect as with these or develops into something completely unforeseen?
Certainly a possibility.

I guess the logic is we can only fight the here and now and that's what everyone is concentrating on, but the risk must be there. Anyone that says otherwise, I'd like to ask them for lotto numbers.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
20,146
14,686
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I agree it's confusing. All the deaths relate to a positive Sars-cov-2 test then they have extrapolated the mortality rate to per 100,000. Divide these numbers below by 1,000 to get the percent (per 100) mortality rate.

View attachment 1263455
What this chart is showing is that for every 100,000 people in the country aged 80+, that 1513 died with a laboratory positive COVID 19 diagnosis within 60 days of their death.
This is not the same as saying "if 100,000 people over age of 80 get covid then 1513 will die within 60 days"
Otherwise it makes the data from the various world meters of covid deaths/ covid cases for UK statistically impossible (cumulative cases to 31/12/2020 2,488,780 and deaths 73,512 which by my maths is 3% case fatality rate across all age groups)
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,820
14,349
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Nonsense, it was adequately specific for the purpose of this conversation.
The point was that the fatalistic scenario promoted, in which a fed minster was supposedly going to be sidelined, was never a realistic option.

I think common sense dictates you handle the stuff that has propensity to do most damage if a real risk was to eventuate, then deal with the lesser significant details later when risk subsides. It seems that’s what was done; but you can call it a ‘backflip’ if you believe politics was the real objective.
If you claim to be specific about legal matters you need to cite the legislation.

It would be awesome if the Vic government released the health advice about the 'real risk' of various measures. But it never happens.

How is a commonwealth employee less of a risk to health than a state employee? Or a private employee? Because this is what the Victorian legislation implies.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,820
14,349
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
What this chart is showing is that for every 100,000 people in the country aged 80+, that 1513 died with a laboratory positive COVID 19 diagnosis within 60 days of their death.
Mortality rate for aged 80+ is 1,513 per 100,000 = 1.5%. The other age groups are significantly lower as below.

Then you have the caveats I mentioned on 'Covid deaths'.

1634607453244.png
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad