Covid-19 Welcome to Freedom

Remove this Banner Ad

I was told it was required well before this week's mandatory rules hence am unsure. Perhaps that was the specific hospitals rules.

I attempted to clarify using the word much to indicate a large number of people Not a percentage

The percentage is very low. There was the aged care mandate that was in place well before the recent authorised workers mandate. I would guess that the aged care mandate wouldn't have covered a certain percentage of health care workers.
 
I gave up Chief, I wrote my whole rant in capitols and can't be bothered writing it out again, the argument is dead anyway, lots of oldies were dying that why the figures can never be correct what ever you and I think, dying with or of , are two different things. It is true about everything being put down as COVID, when it exploded in the USA I heard it on American news , now we all know that media all over the world are full of it. So not much point any more!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I gave up Chief, I wrote my whole rant in capitols and can't be bothered writing it out again, the argument is dead anyway, lots of oldies were dying that why the figures can never be correct what ever you and I think, dying with or of , are two different things. It is true about everything being put down as COVID, when it exploded in the USA I heard it on American news , now we all know that media all over the world are full of it. So not much point any more!

Some of the comorbidity deaths attributed to corona does sound fishy and experts were saying they will be categorized that was from day 1

1634539013251.png

If you get hit by a bus and have corona it's a corona death right
 
Last edited:
Tom McDonald spoke out against mandatory vax too
 
Many older people dislike them.

Bit of a pain in the ass carrying a hardcopy around everywhere.
Also some people getting fed up with having their every movement tracked by Google etc. Those people probably have feature phones at best.
 
Honestly it seems like a small sacrifice to make to get everyone out and about and support local businesses (at the very least). I'm not sure what the alternative is.
Honestly it is the s**t that I used to rail against, and the government centralised medical data system failure is piggy-backing on the need for vaccination proof. But we’re in it now and I agree there isn’t much alternative. Hopefully the government doesn’t completely * it up.
 
PCR tests and rapid antigen tests are not reliable but they are extensively being used.

A positive rapid antigen result generally needs to be confirmed with a PCR test (like today's Richmond AFLW player), as does as a negative result in a symptomatic patient.

PCR tests show a lot of false positives as they can't differentiate between inert and live vaccine material. There can also be cross contamination as it detects other viruses that are present. Remember Essendon player Conor McKenna testing negative, positive, negative within a couple of days?

Point-of-care serology antibody tests won't tell you if someone is infectious. But within a few minutes they can indicate if someone has antibodies from past exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The TGA is dragging its heels in regards to the implementation of antibody tests.
Point of care tests often poor. Eg point of care troponin I can’t recall any being positive on formal troponin. I would suspect the poc antibody to be n9 better
At our hospital the rapid antigen has 99% positive predictive rate; does get a few false negatives
Your pcr story is just rehashing fights from 2020 no one cares
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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?
 
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.
 
In terms of its impossible what the long term benefit/harm is of the Vaccine, hence it should not never be mandatory.
that last half of sentence is confusing - double negative means vaccine should be mandatory?
 
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?
 
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.

.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top