Qantas Introducing No Jab - No Fly Policy

SlavOz on 24/11/2020 - 19:17
Last edited 24/11/2020 - 19:51 by 1 other user

Is there a legal precedent to this? How is a major airline allowed to take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

This is truly absurd.

Qantas will ban travellers who don't have the COVID vaccine — can other businesses follow suit?

Travel

Related Stores

Qantas
Qantas

Comments

          • Icecold5000 on 25/11/2020 - 20:39
            +2

            @SlavOz: That choice is on you. Why should I have to sit next to some covid infected passenger on my next flight to Pattaya who could contaminate my clothes and luggage.

            To hell with your rights. If you think your rights usurp my rights go to hell because this is exactly what you think I my rights so right back at you.

          • gramoras on 25/11/2020 - 23:51
            +2

            @SlavOz: Completely with you on this SlavOz. The indignity of being forced to choose another airline! We should take this to the Hague.

      • floppy on 24/11/2020 - 21:37
        +2

        Keep in mind this is not always an accurate statement when people say other vaccines have taken 5-10+ years to develop and test as a comparison to the current vaccines and that they shouldnt be trusted. The main reason those ones take that long is because majority of the time is spent on gathering funding and finding willing participants to take part in the testing.

        Meanwhile with covid there is practically unlimited money being offered along with large amounts of willing participants available.

        Edit: did notice you mentioned about peer reviewing below. I do agree, this definetly does need to be done first.

    • marieviv on 25/11/2020 - 22:43

      Yes…it could also be a clever marketing decision. Of course anyone with more than half a brain would choose to fly with an airline with vaccinated passengers and crew. Like the rest of the world are now avoiding travel to virus infested Europe and USA, while keen to go to virus free countries - I would like to fly on a 1000% virus free plane

  • mskeggs on 24/11/2020 - 19:32

    And remember, you might prudently decide to skip 6 days and 5 nights in Bali until the vaccine is well proven or no longer a requirement.

    • brendanm on 24/11/2020 - 19:50
      +8

      How are bogans going to get drunk on $2 beer and buy pirated Pixar movies now?

      • No Username on 24/11/2020 - 20:36
        +2

        Exactly. Where else are you going to find Chop Kick Panda, What's Up, Pig Hero 6, Wreck it Rhino and 101.1 Dalmatians.

  • SydStrand on 24/11/2020 - 19:52
    +35

    Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

    What a stupid comparison. What does an abortion have to do with home electricity? Firstly, this isn't just a personal, individual decision like terminating a pregnancy, it's a public health measure. Secondly, you're comparing a utility (electricity, gas) to a luxury (international Qantas flights). Lastly, Qantas is a private company and this measure is to protect travellers (specifically: Australian travellers) from getting infected overseas and possibly shedding it back home.

    • CrowReally on 24/11/2020 - 22:32
      +1

      He's probably referring to that annoying banner ad. I keep forgetting most of us have adblock.

      Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/IL69MtW

    • tinx on 26/11/2020 - 08:57

      his logic in comparing thing lol… 🤐

      Not to mention utilities companies doesn't interact with the customer physically.

      Or is he saying that he is going to take qantas flight virtually? Hmmm 🤔

    • Amaris on 24/11/2020 - 20:46
      +1

      What sort of ‘proof’ are you expecting to see? Presumably the latest trials of about 40000 participants are not good enough.

      • easylife on 24/11/2020 - 23:12
        +3

        It's been not even a year since they took the vaccine, who knows what long term effects it could have. We need a mandatory 14 day quarantine from international arrivals and stricter policy on who comes into australia. We can't keep shutting down australia domestically.

        There's no vaccine that has been proven successful.. look at china they are injecting anything into millions of people just because they can and make it look like they are ontop of things.

      • whooah1979 on 24/11/2020 - 23:38
        +3

        40000 participants are not good enough.

        No, when we consider the normal process to approve a vaccine takes years (10 to 15 years) of trials and data collecting. All the covid vaccines are rushed to the market for government contracts.

      • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 07:50
        +3

        Just an odd thing called long-term trials. You know…the backbone of virtually every drug that's ever been developed.

        But hey only a racist anti-vaxxer would be concerned about science. The TV said it was safe so that settles it!

        • Amaris on 27/11/2020 - 09:02

          So if everyone wanted to hold out for the 'long-term' trial results….

    • dizzle on 24/11/2020 - 21:29

      If there are extensions to this epidemic that come from relaxed flying conditions then they will go bankrupt.

      In spite of online meetings there will always be people that need to fly - Business travel, work requirements, expats visiting family, overseas grand parents. There will be plenty of people willing to take a vaccine.

      Tourism itself will be struggling for a number of years, but by airlines reducing flights/capacity and introducing preventative measures, they will be able to survive. However I think it's just a preemptive suggestion as countries are likely to initiate that themselves, at least for the foreseeable future.

      You want to travel now? get the vaccine or pay for quarantine in every country you pass through (unless they are in a bubble). Don't want to get a vaccine? stay in Australia and be thankful we have fared better than many other countries.

      • easylife on 24/11/2020 - 23:16
        +2

        Get vaccinated with what? It's still in trial process and isn't successful yet.

  • thatonethere on 24/11/2020 - 19:55
    +1

    Presumably Qantas will guarantee that their staff and contractors are suitably vaccinated to the satisfaction to consumers as well.

    More seriously what will likely happen is that customs and immigration will send back unvaccinated passengers at the airlines expense. Just like they do when the airline does not sufficiently check passports and visa.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/11/2020 - 20:00
    +38

    mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

    Airlines aren't "mandating" anything at all. They are simply voicing a proposed policy to not allow unvaccinated passengers on their flights. Airlines are responsible for the safety of their staff, crew and other passengers. Airports and airplanes are cesspools of infection.

    If you think this entire idea is absurd then it says more about you than the airlines.

    • bmerigan on 24/11/2020 - 21:03
      +3

      Well said

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/11/2020 - 23:21
        +6

        Get my facts straight?

        There's three separate independent entities with viable vaccines. Distribution is a separate issue.

        Free rights? Link a single constitutional document that grants you a "right" to air travel…

          • wittyusername on 25/11/2020 - 13:27
            +5

            @easylife: I'm pretty sure that consumer law states they can refuse service for any reason, unless it's discriminating against a protected class.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 07:46
          -3

          Something about anti discrimination and all that.

          And the fastest vaccine to date took 4 years to develop. We're being told to listen to science by people who have decided to roll out a vaccine in record time while completely ignoring past scientific testing methods.

          But hey the TV said it was safe to get jabbed so it must be true! In fact I'd like 3 vaccines please. Can't be too safe these days.

          • slewis69au on 25/11/2020 - 14:05
            +3

            @SlavOz: Is it 4 years or 10-15 years? Are we talking about drug approval or vaccination approval? You're mixing the crap out of your messages and not making much sense.

            Nothing will be approved in Australia without going through trials and peer review.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/11/2020 - 18:36
            +2

            @SlavOz: You might want to research how often Flu vaccines are developed and change. It might open your eyes a little to reality.

            If you haven't studied medical science and don't know how to research, why do you doubt sound science and peer reviewed evidence based research?

          • easylife on 25/11/2020 - 22:21
            +1

            @SlavOz: Imagine people listening to what the tv says instead of what scientists who actually know whats going on.

            Hey if someone says jump off a building on the news, i guess i have to do it!

            • Cheshire Cat on 26/11/2020 - 18:19
              +1

              @easylife: arent the scientists the once making the vaccine…so are we listening to them or not….im so confused :P

        • jmsu on 25/11/2020 - 08:20
          +6

          What seems to be confusing people is that they have a right to do whatever they want and organisations need to be willing accomplices, unconditionally.

          While we and other countries have anti discrimination legislation limiting this, fact of the matter is that organisations are not obligated to provide you service under all conditions.

          No shoes? Maybe you can't get into the local RSL. Too drunk? Probably can't get another drink. No driver's licence? Guess you can't drive.

          • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:26
            -2

            @jmsu: There's a difference between not being allowed into your local RSL and having your freedom of movement or other fundamental human rights taken away by government-sanctioned monopolies.

  • Cartman2530 on 24/11/2020 - 20:00
    +6

    I'm not averse to the idea of getting vaccinated, but the vaccines that are coming out feel rushed to me. I would want a good couple of years of people being vaccinated before I felt comfortable getting it, even if that means staying in Australia, which isn't that bad to begin with. There are plenty of good spots in Australia to see!

    Remember all the other vaccines have had on average 5-10 years testing and research before they were allowed to be used on the general population. None of the vaccines being trialled have even been peer reviewed yet, they are that new. Too many unknowns.

    • thatonethere on 24/11/2020 - 20:02
      +13

      Don’t have one and don’t travel. Simples

      • Cartman2530 on 24/11/2020 - 20:11
        +2

        Going to do just that, I'll stay and support local!

        • dizzle on 24/11/2020 - 21:41
          -1

          We need to hope that international visitors are more open to getting the vaccine. We lose more from not getting international tourism than we can gain from locals supporting locals.

      • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:27
        +1

        Sacred of COVID? Just get vaccinated or stay inside. Simples.

    • brendanm on 24/11/2020 - 20:05
      +1

      It's completely safe, don't question, just consume.

    • this is us on 24/11/2020 - 23:30
      +1

      Certainly there is a process to follow before vaccines are approved for use in the population.

      I don't think we can go back to lockdown and wait for 5-10 years until we are sure the vaccine is effective and without risks… Everyone would have killed themselves and the others by then…

      Vaccine is the only chance we have to start travelling and avoiding new lockdowns in the future.

      • Cartman2530 on 25/11/2020 - 15:21
        +1

        Looking at the schedule for these vaccines they are getting emergency approval to be brought out quicker, and are using a delivery method that was previously considered theoretical and untested on humans, and its medium and long term risks are unknown. These aren't just inactive virus like other proven vaccines.

        Have a read of this and tell me if you want something like this rushed out:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

        I'm just happy to wait until it is proven to be completely safe, I always err on the side of caution with unproven medical treatments that have not even been peer reviewed.

        Australia has mostly eliminated the virus from most areas, the only real concern is arriving international travellers, that's where most of our virus counts are coming from. We are an island that's relatively sparsely populated after all. If everyone takes this seriously and practices good hygiene and isolate themselves when sick we won't need any more lockdowns.
        In the meantime, why can't Australians go and holiday around our great country instead of travelling overseas for a change? It would certainly help the tourism sector.

      • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:30
        -1

        So when Trump suggested, upon discussing with medical advisors, that drinking bleach or injecting lysol might be worth looking into, did you jump on that advice too "because we can't wait!"?

        Or do you perhaps only trust medical experts who have the same opinion as you before you give yourself up to be an unpaid gunea pig?

        • gramoras on 25/11/2020 - 23:59
          +3

          So there was a medical advisor who actually said that drinking bleach and injecting lysol were a good idea?

          Also, Trump actually listened to a medical advisor?

          Not sure which statement is more reality-bending.

        • this is us on 26/11/2020 - 07:31

          I think Donald Trump advice (drinking bleach) and a vaccine that is approved after passing several stages of development are two different things.

          If you wanna wait 10 years, you can wait, but you might have to wait in Australia while everyone else is risking their lives being a Guinea pig so they can travel overseas.

          • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:17
            -2

            @this is us:

            I think Donald Trump advice (drinking bleach) and a vaccine that is approved after passing several stages of development are two different things.

            They both have 1 thing in common - they haven't been tested for long term effects on humans.

        • jellykingdom on 26/11/2020 - 09:06
          +4

          There was literally no medical advisor who suggested that

          OP is a complete moron

          • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 09:16
            -2

            @jellykingdom: Have you seen the footage? He was basically talking to his medical advisors when he made that comment…he even turned towards them away from the crowd and said "I think [the notion of using bleach to kill the virus in the body] that you were exploring sounds cool"

            So yes, it was an idea suggested by medical experts, and according to the masses, we should just unconditionally trust any treatment that gets thrown at us otherwise we'd have to wait too long to be cured from the sniffles! Can't have that.

            • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 12:14
              +5

              @SlavOz:

              So yes, it was an idea suggested by medical experts, and according to the masses, we should just unconditionally trust any treatment that gets thrown at us otherwise we'd have to wait too long to be cured from the sniffles! Can't have that.

              Of all the dumb things you've said, that's among the dumbest. No 'health professional' suggested anyone drink bleach. It was another of Trump's off-the-cuff, thoughtless briefings and he clearly confused disinfectant with injectable.

              His bleach comment was not owned by any health advisor, it was immediately denounced by the American Medical Association, and he didn't try to throw someone under the bus for it once it became a laughing stock. Love your mental gymnastics trying to convince yourself that this mistake was anyone but Trump's in a vain effort to discredit health professionals.

            • Cheshire Cat on 26/11/2020 - 18:24
              +3

              @SlavOz: oh lordy…you win for today..i dont think i can laugh more heartily than at this one.

              were we wathcing the same thing..the emdical people trump turned to (in any of his press conferences) almost always had a look of 'is this guy a complete moron' whenever he addressed them. there is so much footage of people looking bewildered or annoyed when on stage with trump adn he is spouting nonsense.

              i think ive had enough of this circus for today…theres some real crazies spamming this page.

    • onesandtwos on 25/11/2020 - 22:22
      +7

      I think it's entirely reasonable if people don't feel comfortable getting the vaccine straightaway. But the sped up timeframe shouldn't concern people quite as much.

      The process taking 5-10 years is usually due to lack of funding, lack of participants. Also, the different phases are usually quite discrete, but with COVID, some are being run concurrently. Steps have not been skipped. The ABC does a good write-up of this. https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-08-27/covid-19-coron…

      Also, unlike normal medications, where you are testing for a certain therapeutic effect, with vaccines you are testing whether or not it provides protection from a pathogen. So for example, not only is getting 40,000 volunteers difficult, for trial purposes, it's not much use if there's no virus circulating in the community. If those 40,000 all were in Vietnam where there was relatively low transmission and case numbers in the community, then if hardly any of those volunteers ends up with COVID after 6-12 months, then this is not surprising. So most previous vaccines being tested do not have much of the pathogen circulating in the community to be tested, which is why it often takes many years for credible efficacy/safety results.

      So, this is where the vaccination registration/testing process needs to be allowed to progress, and scientists continue to look really hard at the data to evaluate risk-benefit. There are whole 'pharmacovigilance' departments devoted to assess even the most minor side effects reported in subjects, to evaluate whether or not any 'safety signals' are credible.

      TL;DR The vaccine results released have been interim, and it's positive thus far, and we are still a ways away yet, but the processes being followed whilst not perfect are robust.

      • Cartman2530 on 26/11/2020 - 12:42
        +1

        I understand that, but the other reason for the long timeframes is so that the long term effects of the vaccine can be studied. Remember, the mRNA method the new vaccines are using was previously only theoretical, and never tested before on humans.

        The long term effects cannot be known and getting more volunteers will not accelerate the long term outcome. Only the passage of time can determine a long term outcome.

        Lastly, I'm not planning any trips overseas nor in a risk category, so I'm happy to wait. The vaccine should go to the people at risk and medics first.

        • onesandtwos on 26/11/2020 - 13:12
          +1

          Yep, agreed, this is where reservations are justified, and since it's not like they can roll everything out all at once, there will be a need to strike a balance in between encouraging uptake of those at-risk groups with national compulsory vaccination. So before anything actually gets mandated, risks need to be properly evaluated and clearly communicated to the community so there's a baseline. I'd probably be fine with a protein-based vaccine and less so with an mRNA, as long term effects are far less likely.

          I think sometimes people forget that businesses and governments discuss potential policy all the time. In truth, when the actual implementation is still many months away and contingent on so many assessments and safeguards being put in place, these are for now, just mostly discussion points, I find it hilarious that people like OP already have their proverbial panties in a twist.

      • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 09:20
        -2

        Thanks for the article but that just sounds like a ridiculously convenient justification.

        They're basically saying "oh don't worry we knew this pandemic was coming for a long time so we started testing years early just to make sure"

        I find that hard to believe or suspicious, or both.

  • tsunamisurfer on 24/11/2020 - 20:03
    +4

    I am happy with this policy provided other airlines like Singapore Air, Cathay, Emirates do not have this policy.

    • MrHyde on 24/11/2020 - 20:52
      +5

      The more likely scenario is that countries will mandate that people are not allowed to enter their country without the vaccine. All airlines will be legally required to follow those mandates.

      • Geoffreys on 25/11/2020 - 08:43
        +2

        And so they should. Look at the economic devastation COVID-19 caused around the world. People arguing against this can happily enjoy staying at home where they can’t be a source of new infections.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:31
          +1

          Look at the economic devastation COVID-19 caused around the world

          LOL you're blaming the crippled economies on COVID deniers, the same people who say we should open everything up and let businesses operate as normal?

          Yeah K.

          • Geoffreys on 30/11/2020 - 07:48

            @SlavOz: No, I’m blaming it on COVID. Travel enables spread. Vaccine prevents spread. Hopefully that makes it understandable now.

  • No Username on 24/11/2020 - 20:12
    +16

    Fell free to always start your own private airline. Vaccine don't cause autism you know. This policy is to ensure everyone stays safe.

      • No Username on 24/11/2020 - 20:26
        +27

        Dude. Apples and Oranges.

        • nascent on 24/11/2020 - 21:04
          +5

          Got to love the whataboutism

      • SydStrand on 24/11/2020 - 20:49
        +7

        Another stupid comparison. Driving dangerously is a criminal choice, and we already have flight restrictions regarding past crimes if there's a risk of recidivism. So yes, you might not get into Switzerland. Qantas, despite being the carrier, also has an obligation to protect its staff and business. If someone has COVID, they don't choose to be infectious (vs a guy who chooses to speed), so it's a entirely matter of risk minimisation (quarantine, isolation, vaccination). Try again.

          • SydStrand on 24/11/2020 - 21:02
            +3

            @SlavOz:

            People don't always choose to spend either. That's why we call these events "accidents"

            Speeding without intending to cause an accident still falls under criminal negligence.

            They weren't intentional, just like the guy who caught COVID wasn't intentional.

            Qantas isn't penalising people for catching COVID, and neither has the government, what they're doing is restricting the travel of people who may be at risk (infectious, non-vaccinated). To boil it down: caught COVID? Nothing happens, but stay at home. COVID positive or possibly exposed and still choosing to travel? Big no-no. Which part of this do you still not understand?

              • timthetoolman on 24/11/2020 - 21:43
                +8

                @SlavOz: Not sure abortions are contagious though?

              • SydStrand on 24/11/2020 - 22:02
                +11

                @SlavOz:

                The part where it's OK to travel even though you've had an abortion

                There we go. Thank you for confirming that you're not interested in a good faith discussion about whether travellers should be vaccinated. Abortions and lung cancer aren't contagious and you know it. You're equating these to COVID status because you're upset that people you don't like get to fly, and that a private company is requiring travellers practise common sense as a matter of public health.

                You claim to care about human safety yet it sounds more like you're concerned about keeping the COVID fear monger going

                SlavOz is a COVID denier? Least surprising thing ever. Are you Pete Evans, too? Chalk this up as another of your rotten opinions including: female workplaces are toxic, retail and hospo workers don't deserve protections, worried parents shouldn't go the ED, Jobkeeper recipients are welfare queens, and we should adopt US-style gun laws.

                • SlavOz on 24/11/2020 - 23:10
                  -2

                  @SydStrand:

                  Abortions and lung cancer aren't contagious and you know it.

                  No, but they kill more people than COVID does and you know it.

                  you're upset that people you don't like get to fly

                  And it sounds like you're just celebrating that people you don't like get to be discriminated against.

                  It's one thing to lie other people but do you actually go to bed at night thinking that you're a good person?

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 24/11/2020 - 23:27
                    +6

                    @SlavOz: I hate to break this too you…but heavily pregnant people and smoking cigarettes are banned on public flights.

                    Is that discrimination?

                    Answer that.

                  • SydStrand on 25/11/2020 - 01:45
                    +16

                    @SlavOz:

                    No, but they kill more people than COVID does and you know it.

                    I can't even. What sort of insane goblin logic is this..?

                    • thrillhouse on 25/11/2020 - 07:58
                      +5

                      @SydStrand: Upvote for "goblin logic"

                      • parisienne on 25/11/2020 - 21:12

                        @thrillhouse: Can we make this term the "phrase of the week " ? I love it…and it covers so many topics / commenters.
                        Have an upvote Strand0410…you've earned it.

                  • parisienne on 25/11/2020 - 21:23

                    @SlavOz: I would hedge a bet that not only Strand0410,but many more than just him not only think that we are good people…but that we sleep sounder than you and your mate Pete are these days (especially after a hard day celebrating of course).

              • thrillhouse on 25/11/2020 - 07:56
                +6

                @SlavOz: I just had to comment to say that you're completely insufferable. Your initial post was ridiculous enough, but your counter points are some of the most ignorant I've ever read on this forum.

                What does having an abortion or smoking have to do with preventing the spread of a highly infectious and deadly disease? Did I miss the memo where abortions and smoking can be spread through contact?

                Don't like the rule? Don't fly with Qantas.

                • krillho on 26/11/2020 - 18:08
                  +2

                  @thrillhouse: Oath. I don't think I've seen so many shameless logical fallacies come out of one person before. Straight-out claiming that nobody chooses to speed was the kicker for me. OP's given me a chuckle I didn't know I needed.

                  (P.S. I swear I was going to write this comment before I read your username. That was just a happy coincidence.)

              • Vote for Pedro on 25/11/2020 - 17:46
                +3

                @SlavOz: Oh good, another bloke telling women what to do with their bodies.

          • this is us on 24/11/2020 - 23:32
            +2

            @SlavOz: Are you driving an autonomous car that likes to speed up sometimes?

          • gramoras on 26/11/2020 - 00:02
            +1

            @SlavOz: People don't always choose to speed.

            Sorry, are you saying the car makes the decision for them. I am pretty sure Tesla is not that developed yet.

      • Spic3y on 25/11/2020 - 15:09
        +1

        You mean like Australia already does with people from other countries with drug convictions?

  • bmerigan on 24/11/2020 - 21:04
    +21

    Suits me fine. I don't want to get on a flight with someone that has Covid19.

    • tabitha731 on 25/11/2020 - 08:51
      +1

      exactly! I dont want to be stuck in a tin can for a long haul flight with some one who may or may not be carrying the Virus (living in Australia, most flights will be long haul).

      If you dont want to have the vaccine.. your choice…. just as its my choice not to want to be near you for the my safety and that of my family.

      I have travelled to enough places in Australia in younger years so I have no desie to travel here and see the same things again. ioits a big world out ther & i'm keen to see more of it again.

      • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:34
        +2

        exactly! I dont want to be stuck in a tin can for a long haul flight with some one who may or may not be carrying the Virus

        Haven't been on a bus or train in the last year then, I presume?

        Which is kinda funny since the government clearly stated a few months back that it was reasonably safe to catch public transport. And buses and trains are still running with minimal problems.

        Now all of a sudden travelling in a metal object full of people is the new smoking or skydiving without a parachute.

  • Youfah Mizzum on 24/11/2020 - 22:07
    +17

    I'm with Qantas on this.
    If I know they're requiring us to have a Cert of Vaccination, then I'm comfortable with that.

    Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

    This is truly absurd.

    That comparison is absurd.

  • chickentaste on 24/11/2020 - 22:34
    +5

    Great idea, bring it on. Hope other companies introduce similar restrictions.

      • bmerigan on 25/11/2020 - 12:08
        +1

        More like 10 months in, not 6 months. And what is a "test controlled subject"? Is that not a person?

        Given what a vaccine actually is, I don't find them dangerous at all. At worst it could be ineffective if the virus mutates.
        It's not like it's fish-tank cleaner.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 16:07

          My mistake, 4 months seems to be making all the difference…

          And what is a "test controlled subject"? Is that not a person?

          It is but for the purpose of drug testing, subjects need to be monitored over a long period of time. This costs money. It appears the drug companies prefer to eliminate this step by just having the first country dumb enough to force the vaccine onto everyone act like their gunea pigs.

          Ever wonder why they're legally immune from harmful side effects?

          It's not like it's fish-tank cleaner.

          It's a combination of artificial chemicals made in a lab with no long term human testing.

          Not sure what part of that gives you confidence.

      • wittyusername on 25/11/2020 - 13:31
        +3

        I'm curious, what is your education background? Obviously something academic to do with immunobiology right?

      • Duckie2hh on 25/11/2020 - 14:28

        Have more faith in humanity OP. There are many more people smarter than you and me, who work on these vaccines.

        If your excuse that the vaccine is unsafe due to the speed of it coming to market, it comes down to amount of resources that companies throw at it. As an example, if the US government redirects what it spends on military to scientific research, we would have a cure/eradication on malaria.

        10 years ago, it took 5 years to map the genome of the Spanish flu. This year it only took 5 days to map the genome of COVID-19.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 16:10
          +1

          No amount of money can make time move faster or slower. Drugs need long term testing to see how they react with the human body. You can't buy your way out of that.

          And you don't need to be a scientist to understand basic things like the importance of long term trials.

          The way this vaccine is being developed is totally contrary to the established scientific process. And this is actually agreed upon by many within the industry - the experts you take advice from on TV have been carefully screened and told to read from a script.

          • steeevo on 25/11/2020 - 17:28
            +2

            @SlavOz: The irony in all of this is that you have one good point - the lack of visibility and certainty around long term side effects - but you more than offset it with the stupid comparisons to abortion and smoking and all that jazz.

            At the end of the day, Qantas is providing a service which is optional. If you don't trust the vaccine when it initially comes out due to the lack of long term testing, that is fair enough and makes sense. However, if you don't want to get the vaccine then you don't get the fly.

            No different to a store saying you need to wear a face mask in order to be allowed to enter. Your choice if you don't want to wear one, but it is private property so you don't get to enter.

            • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 19:37

              @steeevo: So just to be clear, you don't really have a problem with discrimination…as long as the government says its OK to discriminate?

              • bmerigan on 26/11/2020 - 22:48

                @SlavOz: You can't just label every rule you don't believe in as discrimination.
                No shirt, no shoes, no service… Discrimination?
                No alcohol sales under 18 years old… Discrimination?
                Speed limits… Discrimination against fast cars?

      • jorf on 25/11/2020 - 15:20
        +7

        Try doing your own research into the history of vaccine and draw your own conclusion

        I just rolled my eyes so hard I think I broke something.

        Anti-vaxxers really are something else. Unless you're going to a medical degree and then go work in the field for a number of years, no amount of trawling through home-made conspiracy theory nutbag websites is going to allow you to "do your own research", unless that "research" is just to confirm the stupidly formed theory you already have.

        • SlavOz on 25/11/2020 - 16:16
          -5

          Pro-vaxxers really are something else. No amount of outsourcing your thinking to the government or screened experts is going to allow you to understand the world you live in.

          Hate to break it to you but the TV can't think on your behalf forever. Sooner or later you're going to need to form an independent thought on your own accord, and having some basic information (such as the traditional medical process for testing vaccines) would make all the difference in the world.

          Best of luck.

          • Alderson on 25/11/2020 - 21:22
            +3

            @SlavOz: I sincerely request that you take a look at all of the downvotes you are receiving, and, rather than thinking 'everyone else is stupid', stop and consider…. 'maybe, just maybe, it's me that is being unreasonable'.

            They're not discriminating against anyone in particular - it would apply equally to all of society: If you want to fly, you need to do your part for your fellow human. Based on this comments section, it seems most people agree with that concept. And if you're not willing to do your part for us, then we don't want you to fly.

          • bmerigan on 26/11/2020 - 22:54

            @SlavOz: A thorough medicine test involves tracking over multiple generations.
            E.g., BPA plastic affects your kids not yourself. Vaccines are safer than that though, a vaccine is not "chemicals".

            How long do you think we should wait? Serious question actually. When would you personally feel ok about taking the vaccine for Covid19?

        • pharkurnell on 25/11/2020 - 17:04
          +1

          HCCA - applause!!! well said.

  • whooah1979 on 24/11/2020 - 22:40

    This ban by Qantas could be challenged in Court under the UDHR unless the government pass a bill that makes the vaccine mandatory.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join