Coronavirus 4 - Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Pies4shaw]

Vaccination also dramatically reduces the extent of transmission. It doesn't just protect you - it protects everyone else.

[stui magpie]

While this government has been very opaque with providing detail or reasons for restrictions other than claiming health advice, all that is about to change.

When they issue new orders under the new Pandemic bill, they will also be obliged to release the health advice which will not be able to justify ongoing restrictions for the unvaccinated.

Restrictions on the unvaxxed cannot be justified as a penalty or an incentive, it can only be justified if there is significant risk in letting back into society and the workplace. Andrews is starting to back track because he knows that he cannot justfy continuing lockout of the unvaccinated once 95% >12 are fully vaccinated. It would just not be proportionate to the risk, I expect him to fall in line with NSW.

[What'sinaname]

^ Be interesting to see if they try to mandate the vaccination for 5-11 year old cohort.

I have no issues with people not wanting to get vaccinated. Especially for a vaccine that has been rushed through, provisionally approved as the TGA continues to review clinical trials on a "rolling basis" rather than at the end of Phase 3 trials.

[stui magpie]

I expect he'll want to, but it will blow up in his face if he does.

[Dave The Man]

I expect he'll want to, but it will blow up in his face if he does.

Doubt he get enough Support IF that he wants to do.

Even in his own Party

[stui magpie]

No one in his own party is game to speak up.

[eddiesmith]

While this government has been very opaque with providing detail or reasons for restrictions other than claiming health advice, all that is about to change.

When they issue new orders under the new Pandemic bill, they will also be obliged to release the health advice which will not be able to justify ongoing restrictions for the unvaccinated.

Restrictions on the unvaxxed cannot be justified as a penalty or an incentive, it can only be justified if there is significant risk in letting back into society and the workplace. Andrews is starting to back track because he knows that he cannot justfy continuing lockout of the unvaccinated once 95% >12 are fully vaccinated. It would just not be proportionate to the risk, I expect him to fall in line with NSW.

I think 95% is a pipedream, it will never be achieved, even in NSW.

[think positive]

We are only 4% off it!

[eddiesmith]

But it's been how many weeks since we hit 90? It's slowed to a crawl and I can't see it ever happening.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^ The language of "rights" is completely inapt. What is actually being asserted here is the "right" to be an idiot, hold an "opinion" that is completely contrary to all known science, catch a dangerous, notifiable disease, give it to other people and kill some of them - and make yhe rest of us pay for the lunacy of that idiot "opinion".

Understood accurately, it's the invocation of a "right" to commit reckless homicide. There is no such right.

[Pies4shaw]

By the way, let's not pretend that this is novel: see this concerning new vaccination requirements from 2016:

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default ... -sheet.pdf

[think positive]

Well said P4S

David, your banging on and on about rights. What about the rights of those your effecting? There is a reason kids have to be vaccinated to go to school, and it’s not for that kids sake, well it is, but it’s also for the others. Youmight want the right to jump in front of a train, but the driver will suffer forever. It’s knock on effects. Not getting vaccinated is a choice, maybe they are wording it wrong, if you have chosen not to vaccinate your kids, then you have chosen to home school them, if you have chosen not to vaccinate you’ve chosen not to receive government handouts, you’ve chosen not to sit in restaurants or theatres, or go to work. Why should others suffer for your choice? Why should someone who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons suffer for your choice?

[David]

By the way, let's not pretend that this is novel: see this concerning new vaccination requirements from 2016:

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default ... -sheet.pdf

I opposed that policy too, for what it’s worth (indeed, you can probably find discussions of it on here from the time where I stated my discomfort with it). Not because I’m some closet anti-vaxx sympathiser, but because I simply don’t believe that the baseline of welfare should ever be conditional. And as much as I’ve been loath to frame this in partisan terms, it’s worth thinking about which political party brought that law in and why a more progressive one probably wouldn’t have.

[stui magpie]

The biggest risk the unvaccinated pose is to themselves.

Fully vaccinated people can catch covid and can infect others, but being vaccinated they are far less likely to die or even get seriously unwell. It's largely the unvaccinated currently in ICU's and dying.

Covid is not going away. Even if we got to 100% vaccinated (which won't happen) it will still be circulating, people will still catch it and some people will die. It will become endemic and eventually most of us will catch it.

Once you achieve a high enough level of vaccination there is just no longer a valid reason to continue restrictions on the unvaccinated. That's not just my opinion, but the professional opinion of experts in the field which I've previously quoted.