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

  • drfuzzy on 26/11/2020 - 23:13
    +2

    Good on them.

  • drfuzzy on 26/11/2020 - 23:14
    +4

    Pete Evans, is that you?

  • Bargainz on 26/11/2020 - 23:35

    Lets exercise some logic here. If youve taken the vaccine and are protected why do u need others to inject themselves against their will?

    • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 23:50
      +6

      There are some - young children, the immuno-compromised - who are unable to take vaccines. Selfish people who refuse vaccines become massive disease vectors, endangering the lives of the unvaccinated.

      Vaccines aren't merely about saving idiots from their own stupidity. They also protect the innocent.

      • dizzle on 27/11/2020 - 08:36
        +2

        An example of that is the current plan to rollout the vaccine. From my understanding there won't initially be enough doses for everyone.

        So are they planning to vaccinate the elderly first? Not from what I've heard. The current science says they should vaccinate the carers and nurses that may transmit the virus between locations. Vaccinating those that move around and interact with the general public more (ie built up area, rather than rural) gives you more protection.

        So by making sure the travelers on the aircraft are vaccinated, it protects the people living in the destinations (including returning to Australia. It's not about protecting the individual but the majority.

      • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:33
        -4

        So basically the rationale is to force people (by cutting them off to services and economically) to have the vaccine because of OTHER people. Vaccines have caused all sorts of adverse reactions and even deaths. No one should be forced to take it to "save" the life of someone else because they cant take it for some reason. If you said there is absolutely no risk to the vaccine etc then its a different story, but you cant as history has shown there are always adverse reactions. There are multiple job ads going up now to develop AI to monitor "adverse reactions".

        At the end of the day the immuno compromised need to make their own choices just like everyone else.

        • dizzle on 27/11/2020 - 15:12
          +1

          It will be a job requirement for many, just as some jobs require background checks, drug tests, blue cards, etc that some would say violates privacy/human rights.

          Just as some jobs already require vaccinations.
          You want to work as a nurse? in elderly care? or dealing with the vulnerable? work closely with animals? work in a lab? Then you may already be required to vaccinate against certain things (That list comes straight from dept of health as jobs that may require proof of vaccination). I can even see this list expanded to transport and service industries in the future.

          On the flipside I can just imagine the first lawsuit filed against the retail store owners that "allow" an infected staff member to infect a member of the public and the uproar that they didn't do anything to stop it if they don't make this hardline.
          Or to keep it on topic, suing Qantas for a passenger death after flying with them. Even if they are not doing this for public safety, they are doing it to sell more tickets (allowing passengers to feel safe), keeping their staff safe, and protecting themselves and their shareholders. I don't have a problem with that either.

          • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 15:25

            @dizzle: Or conversely the first employer or government sued by a family when a loved on dies from the vaccine.

            • john71 on 27/11/2020 - 23:32
              +1

              @Bargainz: Yeah - good luck with that

              Try getting your head out of social media for a little while and experience the real world.

              Health science is far more than imbecilic conspiracy memes.

  • drfuzzy on 27/11/2020 - 01:14
    +4

    Let them fly sitting on the wing.
    Those in the cabin will be protected.
    It will help them to get a grip.

  • Commander Shepard on 27/11/2020 - 01:32
    +4

    My Brother has recently become passionate Anti-Vaxxer and claims that he knows someone that died from a Severe Adverse event. He has shown me a lot of their videos. E.g the movie 'Vaxxed". I am the complete opposite to him and am very pro-vaccination. While I do feel horrible for the person, especially if its true, deaths are extremely rare when you look at the data. You talking maybe 1 death a year on average since the 2000s. With about 5 Serious Adverse reactions per 100,000 people.

    https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Cont…

    There is a conversation to be had here about Vaccine Safety and Education overall and what the Government and Companies can do to build more trust with the Anti-Vax Community (majority who appear are unemployed, low education, blue collar, use alternative medicine).

    I understand that even if there is a low risk of something, its still scary when its your child no matter how small the risk.Especially if you have met someone that was one of the unlucky few.
    However unfortunately the people driving the anti-vax movement rarely share both sides of the data. They always deliberately leave out critical information to prove their points.
    Because of this Anti-Vaxxers will continually be treated like idiots.
    But if the Anti-Vax movement were more transparent, there would likely be no Anti-Vax movement at all.

    As for a legal precedent. I don't know. A lawyer may know. But I reckon your facing an uphill battle against 93-95% people that do Vaccinate here.
    It makes sense for the general public to be a bit weary/on the fence about a COVID Vaccine, especially with the broad impact its going to have and how the internet explodes from absolutely anything. But there is no point freaking people out about it when we don't even know if the successful vaccine will be Protein, Viral or mRNA based Vaccine. Save the discussion for another time, once a Vaccine is actually ready to go.

    • onesandtwos on 27/11/2020 - 10:35
      +1

      Some good points, but there are more high socioeconomic 'conscientious objectors' than low - "The proportion [of vaccination objectors] was lower among children living in areas in the lowest decile of socio-economic status (1.1%) than in areas in the highest socio-economic decile (1.9%)." https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2016/204/7/trends-and-pattern…

      I honestly can't see it being mandated in a widespread way. The results have been robust, but still so many unknowns. There are a number of reasons why it's probably too difficult and problematic to actually mandate:
      - It's a numbers game. If whole populations are administered, there will be those tragic stories, and it will be hugely damaging to whoever imposes the mandate if it's seen as too needlessly broad. For example, parents may want teachers to get the jab first for their own 'peace of mind', even if there's no evidence to support the fact that kids need any extra protection (in fact they seem to be okay with less)
      - Adverse events will vary between vaccines. As safety data gets released, it may be that there are some vaccines which seem to be 'safer' which will really put pressure on supply.
      - Effectiveness is not 100% so if inbound travellers are vaccinated, we will still need some social distancing measures, for example widespread mask wearing still encouraged as it costs very little to business/government but still provides some protection.
      - Australia is very close to elimination, the biggest risk is of those incoming travellers, in which case, there's not much benefit to attempting mandatory vaccination whilst not appropriately considering the potential risks.
      - Vaccine rollout has to be phased anyway due to issues with supply/distribution. How they get phased out will likely be dependent on the success of the previous phase (not just in terms of benefit but lack of serious adverse events). Similar to how glacial it feels loosening closed borders/restrictions.
      - Slow rollout allows time to evaluate any additionals risks associated as well as the continuing to monitor long-term effects with the original trial participants.

  • Black Brown Blue on 27/11/2020 - 05:51

    Same thing for flu shot that employers demand for us to get. You get it or lose job. Simple.

  • RocketSwitch on 27/11/2020 - 08:45

    I'm fine with vaccinations, even with the limited research they get for some hope they save you. But, isn't it irresponsible for us to make this jab mandatory like this? Where's the due diligence? How can something that has been ultimately rushed (money at the forefront), have such confidence it's safe?

    Especially when laws were rush to protect these companies if we "had" adverse reactions.

    • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:50
      +1

      No one is forcing you to get the vaccine at gun point. There are plenty of ways to get overseas without Qantas…. Do you swim?

      • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 10:39
        +3

        You are a bit naive here. Alan Joyce is trying to influence and pressure the government for all travel. Alan doesn't want to carry the significant cost if he doesn't have to. Coercion is force.

        • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 10:43
          +1

          That is up to the government to decide. I do not believe they will enforce mandatory vaccinations for incoming passengers… they will just have to go into quarantine. Why would I be naive? No other airlines have announced the same policy. Qantas is well within their rights as private entity to bring policies in place to safeguard other passengers.

          Whether they go at it alone in the future, only time will tell.

          • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 10:55
            +1

            @Duckie2hh: Alan Joyce is a bean counting mathematician, not a social justice warrior or a public health advocate. When he made a fuss about Champions of Change diversity, it was to smokescreen the thousands of staff he fired days later. Alan is the one who wanted to fire ground flight engineers who perform pre-flight safety checks and have the pilots do them. Do you think he puts safety first? No, he is answerable to shareholders. He made huge efforts to shift safety maintenance offshore to cut costs even though the safety knowingly went down. Have a look at the staples they used for electrical wiring. Alan can restructure, drop unprofitable routes, ground A380 mistakes under the health banner. It's even a convenient form of redundancy. Taking Alan on face value is a mistake. If he opens his mouth publicly, there's a good chance there are staff cuts coming or he wants more handouts from the government.

      • RocketSwitch on 27/11/2020 - 10:42

        Swimming might work for you

        • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 10:44

          Wouldn't need to since I will be vaccinated.

          • RocketSwitch on 27/11/2020 - 11:40

            @Duckie2hh: I wish you good health then. Thanks for being the test subject for this, we'll quack and ruffle our feathers for you.

    • onesandtwos on 01/12/2020 - 17:09

      I think this is a fair point about due diligence. Although I am all for vaccines, it would be one thing for an established or even fully registered vaccine to be made mandatory, compared one that has only emergency authorisation even with encouraging interim results.

      But I honestly think that this is still early days, Joyce is just exploring this as a policy idea, he is only trying to think about the implications from the POV of maximising customers per flight. He might think again as there could be a potential lawsuit esp if there actual long term effects with some customers and if Qantas rules are not in step with government policy and medical recommendations.

  • Spamazon on 27/11/2020 - 09:37
    +1

    baa

  • BargainKen on 27/11/2020 - 13:19

    Dont mind the jab myself but want to see some clean runs on the board (i.e. it actually works) before I take it.

  • coupeborgward on 27/11/2020 - 13:58

    Can't comment if this is right or not but this should have been announced by the government and not Qantas.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 14:00
    +1

    "AstraZeneca is likely to conduct an additional global trial to assess the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine, according to the company's chief executive officer, after current studies raised questions over its level of protection.

    The new trial would be run instead of adding an arm to an ongoing US trial and would evaluate a lower dosage that performed better than a full amount in AstraZeneca's studies. The company's acknowledgment that the lower level was given in error fuelled concerns."

    Gotta love kneejerk additional trials that hope lower doses meet the advertised efficacy when the full dose didn't! And in other news, Australia has secured 30 million+ doses of the Astrazeneca vaccine. There are also formal concerns that the AstraZeneca vaccine only achieves the quoted 90% efficacy in under 55s…the group in least danger.

    • RocketSwitch on 27/11/2020 - 14:37

      Duckie2hh's body is ready for all testing!

    • Dr Ginger on 27/11/2020 - 15:37

      Gotta love kneejerk additional trials that hope lower doses meet the advertised efficacy when the full dose didn't!

      While I am not saying this will work and everything will be fine….
      It's the dose that makes the poison. It may be possible to get all the desired effects of a vaccine with less side effects with a lower dose.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 16:23

        They have been busy producing and stockpiling large quantities in advance of trial results. They have tremendous commercial pressures competing with Pfizer over efficacy rates and are stuck with millions of doses already made. If you had a lot of doses and a lower than Pfizer efficacy rate trial, you'd do what you can with what you've got. This is a bit of a clutch.

  • bman20 on 27/11/2020 - 15:53
    +8

    It is with great shame that i am biting.

    Is there a legal precedent to this - absolutely, many. A retail store is legally allowed to take your temperature and decline you access should it be off. Airlines will not take you to certain parts of the world if you do not have a yellow fever vaccine. Day cares are legally allowed to turn away unvaccinated (by choice) children. Hospital, healthcare and childcare workers are often not allowed to work unless they have received the flu vaccine.

    Congratulations on one of the finest displays of repeated false equivalency I have ever seen. The wokeness is palpable.

    Abortion = unvaccinated. I know this came later on in your ramblings but it is too good to leave until the end. You compared qantas allowing travel for unvaccinated people and people who have had an abortion. As you may have seen, the sole purpose of this rule is to provide a safer environment to staff who cannot vaccinate. So, in what way does someone who has had an abortion pose a health risk to an staff member on an airline?

    Slavery = Refusing service to non-vaccinated people in an environment where if someone is ill they put every other customer at risk? As you can tell in the comments, the broader public very much supports the at risk and elderly being able to travel over your desire to travel unvaccinated. Also as you can tell, Qantas prefers to protect their staff and customers, who may not be able to vaccinate for health reasons, against this particular virus more than they care to serve you.

    You replied to a poster who said that Qantas is a private enterprise that can do as they wish so long as the rules are within anti-discrimination laws - "Using laws as a basis for morality is probably the worst mistake humans have ever made. Signed, some dude from 1940s Germany." The irony is that if a private enterprise cannot make decisions as to how they wish to protect their customers and, and they are forced to not have any rules which is in fact a rule in and of itself, they are subject to totalitarian rule - something the dude you cited is quite familiar with.

    Somehow you have managed to reference Qantas' arrangement with Brunei airlines multiple times, impressive at how you've looped this in but why stop there? Why no refer to the products sold on the Qantas points store as there are numerous products made in China, quite likely in less than lovely work conditions. No doubt everything you own in your house is ethically sourced.

    You have no innate right to fly on Qantas if they feel you are unsafe. They can refuse you access if you are visibly ill or if you have a knife for example. You are under some illusion that they are obligated to serve you despite presenting a health risk.

    You justified to a commenter that we do not discriminate against people who are speeding as their is a judicial process in place to handle a fair trial and appeal. L-O-L. What a false equivalency! A far more appropriate comparison would be underage drinking. A bar has a legal right and obligation to ask you for ID before purchasing alcohol. If you do not have valid ID, you are denied service until you are able to. You are not guilty of anything, you have not committed a crime. You are being prevented from breaching a rule or law, it is that simple and there is no issue in public or private enterprise doing so.

    My last one (farrrrr too many to get through) is around this quote "NOT having an abortion serves the public interest. It means less people dying and a steady influx of a young population." If there is a problem, is that the 'steady' influx of young people is far from steady and if anything unsustainable. The cost of an unwanted birth is astronomical, not only to the family (financially and otherwise), but also to the economy (health and welfare).

    I will send you some pics from Hawaii next June and i look forward to the 3 words you take out of context to develop yet another outrageous strawman argument. It is like a choose your own path novel, so exciting!

      • bman20 on 27/11/2020 - 17:57
        +6
        1. Some people cannot physically be vaccinated due to an already compromised immune system. Unlike most of what you’re sprouting, there is endless science to support it.
        2. You’re buying products from China? A state that is currently operating concentration camps and ethnically cleansing their population? Supporting Brunei is no different, despite the spin you’ve put on it to help you virtue signal.
        3. No idea what you are saying, you probably don’t either.
        4. Same as 3
        5. Says the person who has been tirelessly responding to as many people as you have? Your ability to apply tunnel vision to any scenario is so strong it’s almost impressive.

        Hurrdurrr Qantas won’t let me travel unvaccinated so the Australian government is becoming Nazi Germany. Get a grip

        • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 21:12
          -7

          Some people cannot physically be vaccinated due to an already compromised immune system

          Ah I see, so the vaccination poses a risk to our immune systems, but not to worry, it's perfectly safe and those who don't feel comfortable putting themselves at that risk must do so!

          You’re buying products from China? A state that is currently operating concentration camps and ethnically cleansing their population?

          The problem isn't buying products from China or abusing gays. It's doing those things but then tweeting the next day about how virtuous you are, or going on Ozbargain and praising the companies that do so.

          Perhaps people would turn a blind eye to their partnership with a homophobic regime if they weren't such insufferable, virtue signalling pricks who target people for expressing their religious beliefs.

          You said you're OK with abortion as long as the life you're killing is too expensive to care for. In other words, kill for convenience. Yet at the same time I'm not even allowed to board a flight or take my kid to daycare because he MIGHT make someone sick and that sickness MIGHT kill them. See the absurdity in that? You have no problem with an action that DEFINITELY ends a human life yet you demonise people who pose a trivial threat to human life. You have no consistency at all because you likely haven't thought through your beliefs in the slightest. How could you, ABC doesn't go into that much detail.

          • bman20 on 30/11/2020 - 11:09

            @SlavOz:

            Ah I see, so the vaccination poses a risk to our immune systems, but not to worry, it's perfectly safe and those who don't feel comfortable putting themselves at that risk must do so!

            Yes, it poses a risk to people who are already immunocompromised.

            The problem isn't buying products from China or abusing gays. It's doing those things but then tweeting the next day about how virtuous you are, or going on Ozbargain and praising the companies that do so.

            Yes, this is exactly what you are doing with your incessant virtue signalling in not supporting Qantas due to their relationship with Brunei. I am glad you are self-aware enough to succintly summise what drives you to act the way you do.

            You said you're OK with abortion as long as the life you're killing is too expensive to care for.

            No, champ. Just like the rest of your responses, you are incoherent to the extent that you cannot even read what is being written. I simply said that it is reasonable for a patron to not feel unsafe or have their health at risk simply because someone has had an abortion in the past. It is also reasonable for a Qantas staff member to feel unsafe serving someone in close proximity who has not taken the vaccine when they can.

      • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 18:12

        You started it mate. Please hust ket this thread die off… Just like how you would have, if your grandparents didnt get the measeles vaccine.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 18:32

          Are you drunk?

      • Ughhh on 27/11/2020 - 19:29
        +1

        Did you really need to waste so much bandwidth on a long form ramble?

        LOL so much irony, my god. Of course you dont see your own flaws. Congratulations

  • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 17:26

    Always hopeful post-exposure prophylaxis from the rabies vaccine.
    It's also worth a try, dagnabbit.

    "Awakened from lockdown slumber and spotted foaming slightly at the mouth, the risk of the now mobile SlavOz forces the decision - a combined covid vaccination and tranquillizer dart in the arse"

  • ImpulseMan on 27/11/2020 - 22:23
    +1

    So far we have 22% against or 78% for taking the vaccine on this poll:

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/584980

    A lot more people happy to take for employment purposes than many would have thought.

  • punk on 27/11/2020 - 23:32

    How will they track it if it's not mandatory. We all have to make our way to the doctors and get a certificate?

    Unless it's government mandated, Qantas will likely backflip if they see a surge of passengers jumping on other airlines

    I could see international travel requiring some sort of measure but domestically that's tough.

    And I'm not against the vaccine either I just think Qantas are trying to look good but ultimately everything will be based on a business decision just like how they went about outsourcing jobs earlier this year

    • john71 on 28/11/2020 - 10:47

      Vaccination records are electronically accessible. It wouldn't be hard to connect that database with requests for airline tickets, passport renewals, driver's licences and so forth.

      I'm looking forward to seeing these anti-vax, flat-earth conspiracy kooks marginalised till their pips squeak.

  • pandaoncoffee on 28/11/2020 - 01:32
    +1

    Choose another airline. Duh.

    If you don't think the jab is essential to you, then flying would be even further from that. Simply do not fly.

    Sticking your head in the sand is not going to make the COVID-19 pandemic go away. I've already seen young people head into the ICU in the most dire of situations. A lot of them might have survived, but they're not going to be the same for the rest of their life. People talk about mortality, but they forget about morbidity. Many have had long term consequences affecting their bodies months after infection. Stop pretending to be smart like you actually understand what is going on.

    What is "truly absurd" is your inability to comprehend how science, including medical sciences, and public health interventions work. Yet somehow, you've drawn wildly irrelevant comparisons to QANTAS and their considerations about one vaccine.

    The irony is that these anti-vax/COVIDIOTS will still turn to medical care, which would share a similar scientific basis in their development as vaccines, when faeces hit the fan.

    • SlavOz on 28/11/2020 - 01:59
      -1

      Any treatment that I receive, whether its Nexium, Panadine, or an appendectecomy, would have gone through the usual scientific testing process, especially long-term human trials.

      Nobody is against medicine here. And no, you don't get to cheerlead vaccine that has been developed in completely unprecedented time with no long term human trials and point the finger at other people for not believing in science/medicine.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 09:43

      pandaoncoffee, do you believe in Darwinism or do you tear that section out in textbooks and burn it? You seem pretty happy promoting anti-Darwinite theory. Why do you fly the flag of science when your actions don't actually support it? Shouldn't your anti-evolution beliefs be filed next to the flat earthers in outdated unscientific nonsense? What part of natural selection do you accept, or do you dispute that as established science?

      If you are going to verbal 'science' repeatedly, you might want to familiarise yourself with it first. You don't have science on tap. Medical interventions run entirely counter to established evolution and gene pool science. You are working on clouded subjectivity and emotion.

      • pandaoncoffee on 28/11/2020 - 11:19

        Frugal Rock

        Where the actual hell did you get anti-Darwinism from my post?

        One could argue that any reliance on technology is anti-Darwinism. This makes you a hypocrite since you're using tech to post on a forum.

        Humans weren't meant to fly on a genetic basis, so I guess going back to the topic of flights, not being able to fly shouldn't be a problem for you or the OP. Or do you think Darwinism is going to change that for you?

        This isn't year 7 biology, mate.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 11:56

          As you avoided the question, I'll ask again: "pandaoncoffee, do you believe in Darwinism?". You seem much more in touch with your subjective, emotional side. You shouldn't try to verbal 'science' when you don't represent it. If you want to bandy 'medical science' about in every second sentence, go ahead and I'll shut up, but quit pretending science is on your side. The anthropology of double donut days is more your calling. Your teleology is showing.

          • pandaoncoffee on 28/11/2020 - 12:33

            @[Deactivated]: LOL

            Hi Frugal Rock. Firstly, yes, I do acknowledge the theory of evolution. However, your point was irrelevant to begin with.

            I can count 0 mentions of 'medical science' in my response to you.

            I guess just recently having my genetics work recently accepted for publication in a science journal doesn't mean anything, nor does any of my medical qualifications. But hey, I'm "emotional" according to you.

            Also, I am not "celebrating the anthropology of double donut days." Can you explain why you believe that I would celebrate the scientific study of humanity of "double donut days"? Do you even understand what you are saying? Still trying to be smart, aye?

            Let it be known that Frugal Rock does not know what s/he is talking about.

            • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 12:50

              @pandaoncoffee: "I guess just recently having my genetics work recently accepted for publication in a science journal doesn't mean anything."

              Wow, highfalutin metadata indeed, but I'm more impressed with how many leather bound books you have. What did your proud mum say when you told her the knockout news?

              https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-ho…

              Regarding Double Donut days, you have the scientific presence of ABC reporter Stephanie Ferrier and her Walkley worthy daily Covid updates. If that is too regional, I give you a Joe O'Brien on the scientific scale.

              Where do you rank Sweden's initial approach to Covid purely scientifically?

  • kylarstern on 28/11/2020 - 10:12
    +1

    Why not? Whats absurd is you creating this thread for something that's going to save lives and help bring an end to the pandemic.

    Grow up

  • Happy501 on 28/11/2020 - 11:13
    -4

    You guys must have been living in a warm cosy bubble your whole lives if you think a rushed vaccine for a flu will work.

    • john71 on 28/11/2020 - 13:00
      +2

      Thanks for your input, Karen. It's the best-financed vaccination effort in human history, led by tens of thousands of the world's top scientists, researchers and pharmacists.

      But you know better than them, right?

      • Happy501 on 28/11/2020 - 16:24
        -5

        Mother nature doesn't care about effort in. Way more research has been put into a malaria cure and we are still precisely nowhere with it. Many dead and injured along the way from trials though.

        Sheep

        • john71 on 28/11/2020 - 19:03
          +2

          Good on you, Karen. You keep telling the world's scientists and doctors that they don't have a clue what they're doing.

          Do you reckon there should be a Nobel Prize for healing crystals therapy?

  • Leirith on 28/11/2020 - 13:29

    They're not making medical decisions on your behalf. You're free to make your own decision, they just won't accomodate you if you decide a particular way. You're not entitled to fly and QANTAS is not obliged to carry you if you refuse to agree to their policies.

  • lost in transit on 28/11/2020 - 13:46
    +2

    Fauci mentioned mid year the vaccine would be 40-60% effective at best, now big Pharma are trying to out do each other percentage wise for the lucrative $$$$ , started at 90%, Moderna 94% any other takers for 98% lmao , there also exempt if anything goes wrong with there vaccine, trials have been rushed and there have been issues. If the figures of deaths are to be believed it’s so bad less than 1% of the population have died from it and most recover. and i doubt it’ll be one annual jab at all. I’ve been flying Qantas since 89’ I won’t be flying with them again either.
    Just a personal choice…

    • john71 on 28/11/2020 - 13:57

      I, like many others, am delighted to hear there is no risk I will have to share a Qantas flight with you.

      Enjoy your long, relaxing boat trips around the world.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 14:20

        When was the last time you flew Qantas international?

        • john71 on 28/11/2020 - 15:22
          -1

          I usually fly abroad with Qantas three or four times a year. But nothing since January, alas.

          Once flights resume, I have no desire to expose myself to diseased travellers any more than strictly necessary.

        • lost in transit on 28/11/2020 - 18:17

          Not sure if your asking me, But if so 18 months ago, Dallas Fort Worth Texas, New Orleans…

      • lost in transit on 28/11/2020 - 14:24

        I’m glad you’re having it
        Happy Travels…

      • SlavOz on 28/11/2020 - 17:02
        -7

        Enjoy your shrivelled up balls or dysfunctional bladder when the vaccine goes wrong.

        And guess who'll be paying your medical bills? It won't be QANTAS or the the manufacturers. It will be me and the rest of us anti-vaxxers who are still healthy enough to get out of bed on our own.

  • hopper on 28/11/2020 - 15:01
    +2

    what's new in this, Any child in Australia should submit their immunization record before they can get admitted into prep.

  • pipe on 28/11/2020 - 22:19

    Wow, so many people here happy to give up their freedoms.

    • gabtug on 29/11/2020 - 01:13

      Define freedoms please. If freedom = do whatever you want, then I guess it will turn into that lovely movie called 'The purge'….I'll sit out thank you very much - people are darker than you think. Rules are good. Prison is bad. Yes, there is a happy middle point somewhere in between.

      • SlavOz on 29/11/2020 - 09:32
        -1

        Define freedoms please.

        Human rights.

        Do you not think a citizen of a country should be free to travel to that country to see their family? Or are you OK with keeping them away from their loved ones forever?

        What about overstayed VISAS who get deported? Don't they have a right to organise a safe and secure passage back home rather than be shipped in a box or made to remain here with no healthcare, drivers license, address, welfare etc?

        What about people who need to travel for religious obligations? Last I checked, expression of religion is a human right too.

        And before you give me this "buT private business!!" crap, note that this isn't just about what QANTAS wants to do as a business since the government is clearly talking about imposing the same rules too. That's a violation of freedoms.

        • Ughhh on 29/11/2020 - 14:12

          You have the right to travel, you're not chained to anything. But you don't have right to make others do what you want. In case you didn't realise, you're not the only one with rights.

        • pandaoncoffee on 29/11/2020 - 16:35
          +2

          Some rights set limits on other rights. E.g. the right to be free from discrimination. Yet you've made some racist posts and I can also see you started a misogynistic thread about you being a male working in a predominantly female workplace. Clearly you are just picking and choosing the parameters that only benefit you.

          Freedoms and rights are not absolute and unrestricted. If you don't like it, don't fly with Qantas. There are multiple similar restrictions put in place for many other jobs and situations. Not tall enough? Can't work as cabin crew. Can't get on certain rides at a theme park. You'd need to be vaccinated for certain agricultural industries.

          SARS-CoV 2 is extremely infectious and flying is a high risk scenario. Spreading it on the plane might not kill those on board, but it could harm them in others. They may also pass it on.. If you want to play Russian Roulette with other people's lives, then that just makes you selfish.

      • pipe on 29/11/2020 - 12:44

        Define do whatever you want please. Is stepping out of my house count as doing whatever I want?

    • john71 on 29/11/2020 - 08:50
      +1

      Wow, so many people here happy to spread diseases and endanger other people's lives for selfish, irrational reasons.

      • SlavOz on 29/11/2020 - 09:34
        -1

        So I'm assuming you haven't ridden on public transport in the last 12 months?

        Because clearly it's so dangerous to sit in a metal tube full of unvacinated people.

        lol imagine being so petrified of the air around you.

      • pipe on 29/11/2020 - 12:44
        -1

        Oh, lots of selfish irrational people out at the shopping malls and restaurants today.

  • Ryk on 30/11/2020 - 11:20
    +1

    It's quite instructive that an airline is pushing this and not the Gubbam'nt. It used to be that Immigration would require vaccine certificates before entry, but Governments have abrogated their responsibilities and services over the past 40 years to such an extent they no longer know what to do, or what is right.

    epic thread.
    /just saying.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/11/2020 - 15:32
    -2

    OK, now the truth comes out with the headline today:

    "Qantas cuts another 2000 jobs as the airlines begins a major shake-up of its luggage handling in a bid to save $100million
    Airline Qantas is retrenching another 2,000 staff in a bid to save $100million
    Ground crew, baggage handling operations will be outsourced at ten airports"

    It is standard procedure for Alan Joyce to stir mischief the week before job cuts and/or restructuring.

    • slewis69au on 01/12/2020 - 13:45
      -1

      Stirring mischief would involve saying something that upsets more than the ever downvoted tinfoil hat brigade.

  • bargain huntress on 17/12/2020 - 19:02

    what of you aren't allowed to have it?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join