Would You Take the Jab as Part of Your Employment Conditions or Trading Conditions to Run Your Business?

LImpulseMan on 26/11/2020 - 12:37
Last edited 26/11/2020 - 12:37

After reading all the debate on Qantas jab policy, though it would be interesting to get everyone's take from a different perspective.

While you have a choice to travel or not, earning an income is a different matter one would assume. Can you treat employment under the same 'NO JAB, NO PLAY' policy?

Would you take a jab as part of your employment conditions or trading conditions?

As an interesting point of discussion - One step further removed, could or should a restaurant lawfully refuse patrons not vaccinated?

Poll Options expired

  • 474
    Yes - i would take the jab as part of my employment conditions or business trading conditions
  • 140
    No - i would NOT take the jab as part of my employment conditions or business trading conditions
Education & Work

Comments

    • jetblack on 27/11/2020 - 07:54

      LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

    • stringbean402 on 28/11/2020 - 08:45

      We require our staff to have a current flu shot as it is a requirement to make deliveries to both aged are and hospital sites. I don't see how this will be any different.

    • sauce2k on 28/11/2020 - 12:46

      Lol ignorant

    • BookerDeWitt on 29/11/2020 - 10:52
      -2

      People are down voting this comment!!? Why? He's absolutely right.

      Influenza is significantly more lethal and that isn't a "forced" vaccination in work places. Why should a pathetic little Chinese variation of Influenza be a cause for castrating someone's ability to earn an income to feed themselves and their family.

      If you down voted his comment, you are, objectively speaking, a bad person. Fact.

    • pandamninator on 29/11/2020 - 19:35

      Oooh, an internet lawyer, always delightful.

      Please v-log your experiences if you ever try to try this. It's always worth a hearty chuckle.

    • abb on 26/11/2020 - 13:00
      +17

      Citation please.

      People lose jobs because they're medically unfit all the time.

      You probably can't be an interior designer if you're colourblind. You can't be a pilot if you have bad vision. You can't work on a remote oil rig if you need dialysis every second day. You can't be an arborist if you develop a sudden phobia of heights. etc etc.

      • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 13:04
        -7

        Article 23.
        (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
        (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
        (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
        (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

        • abb on 26/11/2020 - 15:29
          +11

          Thanks for the quote, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt as being accurate.

          I note that it very definitely does not say "any person should be given any job they want, regardless of medical incompatibility".

          Do you think a surgeon with shaky hands and poor motor skills should be allowed to do your brain surgery?

          • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 15:40
            -3

            @abb:

            Do you think a surgeon with shaky hands and poor motor skills should be allowed to do your brain surgery?

            A surgeon that can't perform a job can be given other work like consulting within the same company. The topic here is that the cleaner or admin that can still do their job be sacked because they're exercising their rights.

            • abb on 26/11/2020 - 15:50
              +1

              @whooah1979: If they are willing and able to properly wear a P2 mask and follow other infection control procedures, I'd be OK with them being unvaccinated.

              • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 15:55

                @abb: The current controls NSW have now works.

                https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7029651/nsw-records-1…
                NSW records 19 COVID-19 free days

                • try2bhelpful on 26/11/2020 - 16:12

                  @whooah1979: And if a breakout occurs in NSW and the rules have to change? Would you be happy to wear PPE, every day, for an indefinite period so you don’t infect others on the company who can’t be inoculated? They have a right to a safe workplace as well.

                  • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 16:24

                    @try2bhelpful: NSW will put in place controls if that happens. These controls could be a bill mandating compulsory vaccinations when entering government buildings, Courts and private buildings that are open to the public e.g. Westfield.

      • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 13:10
        +2

        All those are completely different from a vaccine. The employee would still be perfectly healthy and capable of doing the job.

        • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 13:21
          +1

          It's a good thing that employers can't sack workers that are sick.

        • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 14:17
          +1

          You're not capable of doing the job if you are a OH&S risk.

          • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 14:22
            +6

            @Quantumcat: I don't have the vaccine and yet I'm doing my job.

            • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 14:45
              +1

              @ozhunter: Because the risk can't be mitigated fully yet. When it can, you'll be expected to not be a risk, otherwise you're opening the employer up for legal and insurance problems.

          • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 14:45
            +1

            @Quantumcat: Workers that aren't vaccinated can still use a keyboard, lift boxes, drive a forklift, preparing food, mop floors, rebuild an engine, etc.

            • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 14:55
              +5

              @whooah1979: And they can still pass it onto other workers who work front of house, or pass it to/from their family and create a hotspot/outbreak. Contact tracing would put the business as an epicentre and shut it down and make everyone who worked there self isolate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is insurance against this for businesses in future and claiming is refused if all your staff are not vaccinated.

              • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 15:17
                -3

                @Quantumcat: How many active cases do we have I'm the entire country at the moment?

          • TheMindsetTraveller on 26/11/2020 - 14:57
            -6

            @Quantumcat: Hi Quantumcat

            I am working in the office today , caught the bus into the office, might catch the light rail home.

            Have not been jabbed with the "miracle" Covid19 vaccine yet.

            Have a nice day.

    • bawdygeorge on 27/11/2020 - 07:21

      What’s the medical condition in this case? Refusal to be vaccinated is not a medical condition…

  • Fredfloresjr on 26/11/2020 - 12:53
    +26

    We are required to have flu vaccine to work in medical field especially in aged and kids sector. No vaccine, no work unless you can prove that you are allergic into it.

    • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 13:02
      -2

      Getting vaccinated when working in age care or other facilities where they treat at-risk patients is reasonable. Forcing someone working at 7/11 or a bank to get vaccinated isn't.

      • orangetrain on 26/11/2020 - 13:21

        If employees are forced, then the vaccination is free.

        Otherwise, concerned employees have to fund their own.

      • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 13:46
        +14

        Forcing someone working at 7/11 or a bank to get vaccinated isn't.

        Suppose you own a 7/11 (or any small business). You know that if there is an outbreak which is traced back to your 7/11, you'll have to do craploads of paperwork, you could potentially be shut down causing lost revenue and sales, you could potentially be investigated and your other employees may well find themselves sick and unable to work. Not to mention that it could have a lasting impact your store's image, you might even end up requiring police guard to stop people from vandalising (see the pizza place in Adelaide in the news recently).

        Now given all those risks, would you hire someone who is not vaccinated or who refuses to be vaccinated? Even if you would personally, do you think a regular business owner would?

        • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 13:55
          -1

          Now given all those risks, would you hire someone who is not vaccinated or who refuses to be vaccinated? Even if you would personally, do you think a regular business owner would?

          What IF the owner isn't vaccinated and only employ unvaccinated workers?

          One of the things that make Australia great is that we have the right to choose what we put in our body.

          • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 14:05
            +11

            @whooah1979:

            What IF the owner isn't vaccinated and only employ unvaccinated workers?

            Then that's the owner's choice, but they should probably put a big sign out the front saying they only hire unvaccinated workers warning the general public of the health risks involved in entering their premises.

            One of the things that make Australia great is that we have the right to choose what we put in our body.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
            Last I heard you can still be fined for smoking some pot and popping some pills.

          • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:42
            -1

            @whooah1979: Its not worth arguing with people that are illogical. This whole "pandemic" has really shown why the country has been a mess for decades and "progressively" getting worse year on year.

      • goraygo on 26/11/2020 - 21:46
        +3

        I don’t want to work with you at 7-11 if you aren’t vaccinated.

        Same logic applies to employees not requiring employers to be vaccinated means talented people will move elsewhere to ensure their safeties (and their families).

        If businesses want to attract good talented employees, they have to put health and safety first or risk losing all their good employees. Simple as that.

        Majority of people want vaccination and the minority anti-vaxxers can continue to get JobSeeker if that’s the case.

        • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:43
          +3

          LOL interesting assumption that the "good" employees are the ones lining up to get an untested vaccine.

      • bawdygeorge on 27/11/2020 - 07:23

        So the UDHR you keep referring to only applies if it’s ‘reasonable’?

  • Bid Sniper on 26/11/2020 - 12:53
    +23

    Yes, people have the right to be tin foil hat a$$holes by spreading a pandemic disease as much as business have a right to refuse these idiots.

      • Jolakot on 26/11/2020 - 13:45
        +26

        "ALL of the senior members of the WHO and Bill Gates who controls them should be in jail for massive corruption and the mass murder of millions."

        Buddy I'd look elsewhere for factual sources.

      • Bid Sniper on 26/11/2020 - 13:54
        +17

        Covid US deaths are currently double WW1 deaths, and closing on on total WW2 US death
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/11/19/ranking-co…

        "Nah just a cold, fakes news, Facebook told me….."

        • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 13:57

          Don't look at how many people die each year to different causes.

        • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 14:23
          -2

          Died with ≠ died due to

          • sakurashu on 27/11/2020 - 11:54
            +1

            @brendanm: Sure then take your stats as the difference in deaths before Covid per year and since?

      • Bjingo on 26/11/2020 - 14:30
        +1

        It is much more mild than originally estimated, but that statement has been clarified by WHO as being taken out of context. Dr Michael Ryan came out saying that based on the 150 studies used there was an average of 10% or less people infected. Clarifying the vast majority were less and some, namely high risk areas such as slums or health workers were 20/25% the point in saying this was to illustrate that most people are susceptible to the illness. The actual fatality rate based on the total estimated cases is 0.6%. This includes all age groups.

        it was discussed in a press conference on the 12th of October, which means the article you linked is a touch out of date an no longer reliable.

        Link to the transcript of the conference where the figures were clarified;

        https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-pre…

      • Burnsy on 28/11/2020 - 03:01

        @ozhunter
        This article is full of accusational - and not cited - opinions.
        It's also taking estimates or speculation "possible 750 mil cases", and paring it with facts (at the time) "1 mil deaths", then using them both in the same formula?!
        This is a fairly up to date confirmed cases site: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h…
        This shows (at time of posting) Confirmed ~61mil cases, and Confirmed ~1.4mil deaths equaling ~2.3% fatality rate

        You then might say "but if they're speculating that there are 750 mil cases, why aren't there more deaths?!"
        To that, there is no clear answer, because it's hard to quantify when some countries reporting is either non-existent or sub par.
        It might be more clear when the next census rolls around, and we can look at the total deaths.
        However, dying from COVID can look like other things, as it is similar to SARS, which can result in failure in a number of major organs.
        Let me ask you this, would a poor country test an already dead person, or would they prioritise the currently alive people?
        It's hard to say right?
        It's speculation right?

        I just skimmed the article, and couldn't be bothered looking into more of their arguments, and even just focusing on the "grabby" headline, which seems like a ploy to get more clicks and ad revenue, or could just be to convert people to their opinions by trying to use "facts" to sway people, there is a huge hole.

        Countries that are on top of reporting and are - I personally think - more trustworthy, would be the "western" ones, Aus, UK, US and maybe some well off European Countries.
        Perhaps look into the fatality rates in those countries?

        — edit, didn't reply properly… https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/584980#comment-9691272

  • abb on 26/11/2020 - 12:57
    +4

    If it was reasonably appropriate to the job, I think it's OK to require it. e.g. if you interact with the public.

    If you can work from home, you should be allowed to do that without the vaccine.

    Restaurants I think should continue keeping tables spaced apart until everyone has had the opportunity to get the vaccine. (I'd prefer they spaced apart forever, the flu is still not a fun thing to get, but I understand that many people care more about profit than others' wellbeing)

  • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 13:11
    -6

    Seems to be a lot of sheep answering this poll

    • Phlume on 26/11/2020 - 13:27
      +20

      I hear that term thrown around a lot but vaccines have been backed up by decades of scientific research by people and institutions with credible research and resources. Anti-vaccinators call others 'sheep' yet can't provide credible evidence against vaccines and instead blindly follow word of mouth and anti-science rhetoric.

      • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 13:32
        +3

        I have never been an anti-vaxxer, no problem with my kid getting vaccinations but this is different. Are you telling me that there is absolutely no chance of these vaccines having any sort of undocumented side-affects in the long run, 1, 2, 5 years from now? Especially when they have "fast-tracked" a process which normally takes years not months to produce. Just look at the mortality statistics and make your own mind up

        • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 13:38

          Many people who seem to be specifically against this vaccine are fine with other ones. But they really seem to be wanting to push this one to everyone.

          https://principia-scientific.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-covid19…

          Saw this link on twitter.

          • stirlo on 26/11/2020 - 13:40
            +6

            @ozhunter: First comment on that post says: "Is there a virus? The answer should be no, or at least no one has been able to verify its existence."

            What planet are these people on?

          • NatoTomato on 26/11/2020 - 14:54
            +9

            @ozhunter: Just an FYI to anyone who clicks on the article
            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-internat…

            They're rated as strongly for pseudo-science, and strongly conspiratorial.
            They've previously published that Carbon Dioxide is not a greenhouse gas! I wouldn't be taking their word for much.

        • stirlo on 26/11/2020 - 13:39
          +3

          Just look at the mortality statistics

          As in 1.5 million dead so far and documented damage to the hearts and lungs of a significant percentage of the tens of millions who've been infected?

          Or you know maybe the vaccine that's been tested on 10's of thousands using known science where previous vaccines have not had these 1, 2, 5 year undocumented side effects?

          • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 13:46
            +1

            @stirlo: Raw number by itself isn't very useful, look at the percentages to see how "deadly" this virus is. Notice how mainstream media keep updating us with the raw number of deaths seemingly everyday? But they don't mention the %s much do they - keeping you in a state of fear

            • stirlo on 26/11/2020 - 13:51
              +12

              @krazek: Worldwide Total cases
              60.3M

              Deaths
              1.42M

              1.42/60.3 = 2.3%

              So a better than 1/50 chance you die if you get it. That percentage doesn't sound great to me.

              And sure it will probably be your grandma that dies rather than yourself, but she's your nanna you heartless bastard.

              There is an argument to be made around the cost of lockdowns and restrictions on the economy but the mortality rate itself is not what the debate is about.

              • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 13:53
                +2

                @stirlo: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/who-official-admits-the-…

                So a better than 1/50 chance you die if you get it

                LOL. That number drops significantly if you're under 70.

                • stirlo on 26/11/2020 - 13:54
                  +13

                  @ozhunter: I addressed that "you heartless bastard"

                  • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 13:59
                    +2

                    @stirlo: Need to add that a large majority of the deaths affect those that already had underlying conditions. A huge portion of the deaths come from nursing / old people's homes. You could argue that if they caught the old regular flu, it probably would kill a lot of them as well

                    • smartazz104 on 27/11/2020 - 12:31
                      +4

                      @krazek: Good thing there's a flu vaccine to stop that spreading…

        • Phlume on 26/11/2020 - 13:43

          There is an understandable fear and anxiety over the side effects of vaccines. However looking at it from a risk to reward perspective, the possibility of serious harmful side effects are so miniscule that the risk of vaccines is completely outweighed by the benefits vaccines have for the individual and the community. A 'fast-tracked' vaccine is indeed a genuine safety concern and should be addressed and considered by each family. As for the mortality statistic, it is plain to see the numbers of COVID death is far more devastating then the few made by unintended side effects of vaccines.

          • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 13:47
            +2

            @Phlume: I'm not at all saying there would or could more deaths due to the vaccine than the virus itself. When I mention side-affects I am talking about possible non-fatal ill effects

        • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 14:02
          +13

          I have never been an anti-vaxxer, no problem with my kid getting vaccinations but this is different.

          One of my closest friends works in a vaccine lab at a major Australian university. He tells me that the technologies that are being used in this vaccine are well understood and have been researched for many years. In fact, the vaccines that are proposed by Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, which are actually safer than many other vaccines which inject variants or inactivated microbial proteins. These mRNA vaccines only inject the genetic code of the protein.

          Are you telling me that there is absolutely no chance of these vaccines having any sort of undocumented side-affects in the long run, 1, 2, 5 years from now?

          There is never no chance of anything - there is a chance you could walk onto the street and be run over by a truck.

          You need to compare the risks of the vaccine with getting the disease itself. COVID-19, even for young, healthy people still has a significant mortality rate, perhaps around 1/1000. That's just death - there are long term side-effects we don't know about yet too. This is also not to mention that it's actually a horribly unpleasant disease to have. I personally know people in Europe and the US who have gotten it. They say that it's worse than the flu and whilst they didn't have to be admitted to hospital, they were confined to bed for over a week.

          Rather than asking if vaccines have any undocumented side-effects in the long run, you should be asking whether getting COVID-19 has any undocumented side-effects in the long run. Your blindness to this point seems astounding to me.

          Especially when they have "fast-tracked" a process which normally takes years not months to produce.

          I think you misunderstand how the process works. The reason why producing a vaccine takes a long time is generally because of a lack of funding and a lack of drive. Coronaviruses are generally well understood, this is not something that is particularly new or different. Much of the fast-tracking has to do with things like production, having distribution channels in place, manufacturing enough syringes, glass vials, making sure we have the infrastructure to be able to transport vaccines that need to be kept near freezing temperatures…etc. The fast tracking isn't pushing the scientists on the ground to get their results more quickly.

          Just look at the mortality statistics and make your own mind up

          Yes, you should do exactly just that. The mortality rates of COVID-19 (which are, as you admit, quite low) are still far, far higher than any vaccine, so your whole argument is moot. It's not even close.

          • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 14:10

            @p1 ama:

            Rather than asking if vaccines have any undocumented side-effects in the long run, you should be asking whether getting COVID-19 has any undocumented side-effects in the long run

            Why?

            https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241

            • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 14:30
              +4

              @ozhunter: The problem with that approach is that if everyone thought that way, then nobody would ever get vaccinated against anything.

              • ozhunter on 26/11/2020 - 19:05
                -2

                @p1 ama: Probably better that way. WHO's own estimates say the fatality rate is the same as the flu. Why you think people are against this specific vaccine?

                • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 22:25
                  +3

                  @ozhunter:

                  Probably better that way. WHO's own estimates say the fatality rate is the same as the flu. Why you think people are against this specific vaccine?

                  For healthy young adults, yes, but not everyone is a healthy young adult. The uptake of the flu vaccine is also really high, especially amongst those who are most vulnerable.

                  At the end of the day, what it comes down to for me is that I don't want to contribute to someone else's death. If I were to unknowingly get it and touch something in public or come into contact with someone who is genuinely in a high risk group, I could be adding to their risks. That's just irresponsible in my opinion.

                  I get it that many people just don't care, it's probably some form of cognitive dissonance. Next time you speak with someone in public, ask yourself what you would think if that person died because they spoke to you.

                  • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 13:00
                    -2

                    @p1 ama: I wouldn't feel bad if I unknowingly had a disease. Everyone right now could unknowingly have a contagious disease. Almost 10% estimated to have had covid. The mortality rate is insanely low.

                    If others are that scared even after seeing the stats, then they should stay home. You don't think any germophobes are unreasonable? When going to the gym or shops right now, many people don't use the free hand sanitizer provide or wipe down the equipment/trolleys(iN a PaNdEmIC)

                    The strong push for this vaccine while blocking cheap/free medicine that seemingly helps with covid is a little sus. https://hcqmeta.com/

                    Not like I'm 100% opposed to taking it. I rather wait a while.

                    • p1 ama on 27/11/2020 - 15:24
                      +2

                      @ozhunter:

                      I wouldn't feel bad if I unknowingly had a disease.

                      Would you feel bad if you accidentally ran over someone with your car? It's the same concept right? Just an unintentional accident.

                      The mortality rate is insanely low.

                      We should be glad that the mortality rate is low, not be complacent in it.

                      If others are that scared even after seeing the stats, then they should stay home. You don't think any germophobes are unreasonable? When going to the gym or shops right now, many people don't use the free hand sanitizer provide or wipe down the equipment/trolleys(iN a PaNdEmIC)

                      I don't even get your argument. Nobody is forcing you to take a vaccine, this is about people employed in certain industries. If you're happy being an asymptomatic carrier who can spread it to others who could potentially be high risk, then so be it. That's all.

                      The strong push for this vaccine while blocking cheap/free medicine that seemingly helps with covid is a little sus. https://hcqmeta.com/

                      Yes, let's all trust ozhunter on OzBargain.

                      Not like I'm 100% opposed to taking it. I rather wait a while.

                      Good for you, it's not like anybody's proposing to tie you down and give you a vaccine. Geez.

                      • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 15:35
                        -2

                        @p1 ama:

                        Would you feel bad if you accidentally ran over someone with your car? It's the same concept right? Just an unintentional accident.

                        That doesn't involve getting drugs injected into me? I'd also know that I actually did it.

                        We should be glad that the mortality rate is low, not be complacent in it.

                        We don't panic as much as all the other causes of death?

                        Nobody is forcing you to take a vaccine

                        Like the abortion comment before. If abortion was illegal, no one can force them to not have an aborition(if the woman is trying to get one), they just may be penalized for doing so.

                        I'm not forced to follow the speed limit, but will get in trouble if I don't

                        Yes, let's all trust ozhunter on OzBargain.

                        Don't like what you see? No reason to prevent/hinder use of it if the pandemic is as bad as they try to make it out to be? It's been around a while. Unfortunately, it's cheap. What about the doctors that disagree? Are they just nuts too?

                        Good for you, it's not like anybody's proposing to tie you down and give you a vaccine. Geez.

                        I never said that

                        • p1 ama on 27/11/2020 - 15:50
                          -1

                          @ozhunter:

                          That doesn't involve getting drugs injected into me? I'd also know that I actually did it.

                          Answer the question. Would you feel bad?

                          Like the abortion comment before. If abortion was illegal, no one can force them to not have an aborition(if the woman is trying to get one), they just may be penalized for doing so. I'm not forced to follow the speed limit, but will get in trouble if I don't

                          You are forced to follow the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime. Not taking a vaccine is not a crime. Stop making things up.

                          Don't like what you see? No reason to prevent/hinder use of it if the pandemic is as bad as they try to make it out to be? It's been around a while. Unfortunately, it's cheap. What about the doctors that disagree? Are they just nuts too?

                          This is taking the argument in a different direction, ultimately. I don't know why you'd think I don't like what I see, I have no strong opinions on it. Let researchers and doctors decide if it works. I don't really care either way as I don't have a personal stake in whether it's used or not.

                          • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 16:11
                            -1

                            @p1 ama:

                            Answer the question. Would you feel bad?

                            Yes with the unintentional accident, because I know it was me who caused it. No, if I unknowingly gave someone the flu/covid.

                            You are forced to follow the speed limit. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime. Not taking a vaccine is not a crime. Stop making things up.

                            Never said it was a crime. But I wouldn't support someone being penalised for not taking a vaccine(maybe some exceptions like aged care, hospitals)

                            I have no strong opinions on it

                            Even if you knew nothing about anything, who do you think would care more about society and stopping covid. Those who wanting cheap/free medication(which have been around a long time) that seemingly work to be easy available and obtained or those who want to lockdown and strongly push their fast-tracked vaccine.

                            No reason you couldn't do both.

                            And just by who estimate 750mil people have got covid and the insanely low mortality rate, is why I'm not rushing to take this particular vaccine.

                • smartazz104 on 27/11/2020 - 12:36

                  @ozhunter:

                  Probably better that way. WHO's own estimates say the fatality rate is the same as the flu. Why you think people are against this specific vaccine?

                  Do you not get the flu vaccine every year?

                  • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 12:50
                    +1

                    @smartazz104: No lol. I think I got it once in the last 10 years.

                    And yet, look at how many people die each year, and society isn't in a frenzied panic with others not taking it.

                    • smartazz104 on 27/11/2020 - 13:06
                      +3

                      @ozhunter: I feel like people need to cite some actual figures; for instance, in 2019 approximately 900 people died of influenza linked deaths in Australia. That is with a readily available vaccine and no strict lockdown measures or masks. In 2020 we had 907 deaths to COVID-19, and that's with strict lockdown measures and masks. Now, are you suggesting that if we treated covid the same as we treat the flu, there wouldn't have been more than 907 deaths?

                      In the 2018-2019 flu season, approximately 31K Americans died (out of the 35 million who caught it); COVID-19 has killed over 200K this year (from the 5 million who caught it). I am happy for someone top dispute these numbers of course, but these are the figures I keep coming across.

                      • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 13:22

                        @smartazz104: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hal…

                        Nearly 2-in-5 Australian adults had had a flu shot this season as at mid-June (39%) C1. This is a survey in 2014. You'd think if people were worried, they would have got it before Mid-June

                        https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/newspoll-om…

                        WHO estimates 750mil have had covid.

                        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/10/05/world-h…

                        Now, are you suggesting that if we treated covid the same as we treat the flu, there wouldn't have been more than 907 deaths?

                        I think if you lock people down for longer, you could prevent delay more deaths from a variety of causes. Sweden should be a the top of the list if lockdowns are so effective.

                        COVID-19 has killed over 200K this year

                        Looks like a scary number which people like to use, but what percentage is that? Spain, Italy and the UK mortality rates are higher.

                        And that's all if you believe there isn't any fudging of numbers. Also people dying with covid =/= due to covid.

                        • p1 ama on 27/11/2020 - 15:35
                          +3

                          @ozhunter:

                          Nearly 2-in-5 Australian adults had had a flu shot this season as at mid-June (39%) C1. This is a survey in 2014. You'd think if people were worried, they would have got it before Mid-June

                          I think you're being dense on purpose. You're worried about getting a vaccine, why not be worried about getting the actual disease. It's not just a matter of what the mortality rate is. The seasonal flu is generally pretty well understood, the vaccine exists for those who are most vulnerable (so they do not die when they come into contact with someone who is not vaccinated) and we largely understand the long term consequences of getting the flu.

                          Personally, I get the flu vax every year because I hate getting the flu, not because I'm scared of dying. If you don't mind getting the flu, that's obviously your choice.

                          The issue with COVID-19 is that it does appear more complex than the flu, it does hit certain groups in the population harder than the flu. Maybe not you personally, but that's because you're lucky. The simple truth is that we do not have hospitals overrun with flu patients every year. That alone should signal strongly why this is a bigger issue.

                          I think if you lock people down for longer, you could prevent delay more deaths from a variety of causes. Sweden should be a the top of the list if lockdowns are so effective.

                          It depends on what you mean by "effective". When you are at risk of running out of hospital beds, running out of ventilators, ICU beds, overloading hospitals and doctors…etc., you need to have some sort of means of trying to slow the spread.

                          And that's all if you believe there isn't any fudging of numbers. Also people dying with covid =/= due to covid.

                          Why would anyone fudge numbers in the direction of more COVID? Literally everyone wishes there were less cases. Governments wish there were less cases because high cases are politically bad, people wish to have less cases because then they have less lockdowns and less health issues…etc.

                          The idea that someone would try to fudge numbers in the direction of more COVID seems insane to me.

                          • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 23:55

                            @p1 ama:

                            You're worried about getting a vaccine, why not be worried about getting the actual disease.

                            Looking at the stats, why should I be worried? I think I linked this to you before https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241

                            Personally, I get the flu vax every year because I hate getting the flu, not because I'm scared of dying

                            I think I've gotten once in the last 10+ years and it was mild. Same goes for taking panadol/ibuprofen

                            it does hit certain groups in the population harder than the flu.

                            Doesn't the flu hit older people harder, as do most diseases? If I'm 70+, I'd generally be more cautious in everything I do

                            Why would anyone fudge numbers in the direction of more COVID?

                            Money??

                            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cdc-director-acknowl…

                            Governments wish there were less cases because high cases are politically bad,

                            Good for those who aren't in power.

                            • p1 ama on 28/11/2020 - 01:23

                              @ozhunter:

                              Looking at the stats, why should I be worried? I think I linked this to you before https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/579947#comment-9590241

                              I think you still misunderstand the point. Let's say that COVID-19 has a death rate of around 1/1000 - 1/10000 for healthy young adults. You're not worried about that risk, neither am I. All vaccines ever, including the ones now are less risky than that, so why would you be afraid of getting the vaccine?

                              Do you see the logical flaw here?

                              Doesn't the flu hit older people harder, as do most diseases? If I'm 70+, I'd generally be more cautious in everything I do

                              Yes, but COVID-19 hits older people harder than the flu hits older people.

                              Money??

                              Even the article you send is full of caveats and hedges, including citing a study which claims that the numbers are actually being undercounted. The idea that somehow there is a systematic conspiracy across multiple hospitals in multiple states in multiple countries to overcount death numbers from COVID-19 is extremely flimsy.

                              • ozhunter on 28/11/2020 - 03:58

                                @p1 ama:

                                All vaccines ever, including the ones now are less risky than that, so why would you be afraid of getting the vaccine?

                                Just because all other vaccines are safe, doesn't necessarily mean this one is safe. This link and tshow comment under it

                                The lockdown, forceful push of the vaccine, the hindrance/prevention of accessing cheap/free medicine already available. The big money to be made to whoever develops a good enough vaccine first.

                                Not like the vaccine will be 100% effective anyway. And just as a general rule, the less drugs I inject into my body the better. That's not to say I absolutely will never want to take it, I just wouldn't be lining up for one.

                                Yes, but COVID-19 hits older people harder than the flu hits older people.

                                Yea, I've said before it's like a super flu, now probably not even that.

                        • smartazz104 on 27/11/2020 - 17:06
                          +3

                          @ozhunter:

                          And that's all if you believe there isn't any fudging of numbers. Also people dying with covid =/= due to covid.

                          Well if you believe the WHO's estimate, then why not believe that more people have died of COVID-19 than has been confirmed.

                          • If you have lung cancer and die in a car crash, what's the cause of death?
                          • If you have AIDS and die in a house fire, what's the cause of death?
                          • If you have tuberculosis and are shot fatally, what's the cause of death?

                          So to say that people dying with covid =/= due to covid is disingenuous at best. If the people that have been living for years with whatever condition they had are suddenly struck down by covid, then they died of covid. No use trying to pretend there is some sort of conspiracy to blame all deaths on covid to make it seem more dangerous than it is. I mean there were people on their death beds who still wouldn't accept it that it's real.

                        • Bjingo on 27/11/2020 - 18:36

                          @ozhunter: WHO never estimated 750mil, they came out and clarified that the 10% figure mentioned was misrepresented and they explained that in a press conference, which was held about a week after the USAtoday article.

                          https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-pre…

                          They said the mortality rate based on estimated total cases to be 0.6% so only about 46.8 million people if everyone were to catch Covid-19.

                          To say dying with covid =/= due to covid is a weird statement, firstly they would not attribute someone with covid being hit by a bus to covid. But if someone has an asthma attack while they had covid and died it would probably be due to covid. Much like aids, while they do not die from aids itself, aids was what allowed the other issue to kill them.

                          I will say, like literally everything chances are there were a few bad calls however there is no good evidence on this so no can actually say a number or percentage without it being nothing but hot air.

                          • ozhunter on 27/11/2020 - 23:43

                            @Bjingo: I believe what I said was that many studies had demonstrated that 10% or less of people had been infected although that was very variable with some slum areas, high-risk populations like health workers being much higher.

                            that's from the link at 00:20:43

                            To say dying with covid =/= due to covid is a weird statement, firstly they would not attribute someone with covid being hit by a bus to covid.

                            If they did, it wouldn't seem that hard to do.

                            https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-cdc-confesses-to-lyi…

                            the Centers for Disease Control issued new estimates that showed people under 50 years infected by COVID-19 have nearly a 100% survival rate. It broke down to a 99.997% survival rate for 0-19; 99.98% for ages 20-49; 99.5% for 50-69; and 94.6% for those over 70.

                            Those who died of coronavirus, according to the CDC, had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, meaning more than two chronic diseases along with COVID-19. Overall, the CDC says, just 6% of the people counted as COVID-19 deaths died of COVID-19 alone.

                            https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/4859570/?utm_source=Email&utm_me…

                            In Australia, (surprisingly?) flu deaths have gone down, it's mostly covid deaths.

                            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cdc-director-acknowl…

                            • Bjingo on 01/12/2020 - 14:04

                              @ozhunter: Yes it says 10% or less. If you continue on instead of ctrl+F to the part where it just says 10%, it states

                              The results indicate across all of these 150 studies that, as Mike has said, the vast majority are below 10% with the exception of some high-incidence areas that are above 20/25% and some even higher.

                              So the point is that these studies continue to tell us that the vast majority of the world's population remains susceptible. The way in which we're trying to get a more standardised approach to look at studies and be able to pool these results and combine these results is through what we call the unity studies.

                              and then further goes on to state.

                              In addition to this there are a number of statistical groups, mathematical modelling groups that are looking at the infection fatality ratio which is the number of deaths divided by the number of estimated infections.

                              There are several papers that have come out that are looking at this. Several of these analyses have used published or pre-print seroepidemiologic results and they all converge around a point estimate of around 0.6%.

                              They have come out and given us the best estimation based on the evidence they have now so there is no need to extrapolate information to come up with a fatality ratio as we just have one.

                              According to the information you gave the Fatality ratio is simultaneously 0.13% and 5.45% but given all then articles are outdated that is understandable.

                              Comorbidities are not necessarily chronic diseases, they are any additional conditions
                              co-occurring to the primary condition. This could include, arthritis, a sprained ankle. blindness or pretty much any other condition.

                              The fact the flu deaths have gone down should be very very unsurprising, we have introduced nationwide a series of health based restrictions, i.e. physical distancing, maximum capacities and working form home orders. If the flu rate did not decrease a huge amount that would be cause for a lot of concern.

                              For situations like these you should violently avoid using news articles as evidence and stick to the actual sources themselves. If the news article is quoting another newsarticle that claims to be quoting CDC, just show the CDC article they are quoting.

                              • ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 17:49

                                @Bjingo: So it is, 10% or less…

                                According to the information you gave the Fatality ratio is simultaneously 0.13% and 5.45% but given all then articles are outdated that is understandable.

                                That's for different age groups, as 70+ have a much rate than those under 70.

                                • Bjingo on 01/12/2020 - 18:56

                                  @ozhunter:

                                  That's for different age groups, as 70+ have a much rate than those under 70.

                                  Yes, I see now, in my wall of text I did indeed make that one mistake.

                                  Please comment on the statement from WHO that say the Fatality Ratio being 0.6% based on the estimated 10% or less of the population infected.

                                  I would also like your opinion on the nation wide health initiative to begin physical distancing, reducing maximum capacities and the working from home orders. do you think the reduction in flu cases and deaths could be due to the fact people are unable to be in close contact with each other during the peak flu seasons?

                                  Since you like extrapolated estimates lets do one, if WHO say the fatality ratio is 0.6% and
                                  with the current total deaths sitting at about 1.47 million then the total cases would be;

                                  1,470,000 / 0.006 = 245,000,000

                                  Assuming WHO is right with their estimated fatality ratio thats how many people have gotten Covid-19. working back even more to find the percentage of the world population that has gotten Covid-19

                                  245,000,000 / 7,800,000,000 x 100 = 3.14%

                                  However these figures are extrapolation from information we do not have the full context of so going anywhere beyond what WHO or another international health based organisation directly tells us is a waste of time.

                                  • ozhunter on 01/12/2020 - 19:28

                                    @Bjingo: The 0.6% ifr was from August while the estimate infected was Oct 5. Maybe they got their maths wrong lol.

                                    initiative to begin physical distancing, reducing maximum capacities and the working from home orders.

                                    I think they're reasonable steps to delay the spread of a contagious virus. Unless they truly isolated(very unlikely), I think more than likely they will catch it too. I don't think those steps would work for the flu, without working for covid.

                                    • Bjingo on 01/12/2020 - 19:58

                                      @ozhunter: The same studies used for the 0.6% were the ones used for the estimated infected on the 5th which is why they clarified the fatality ratio on the 12th of October.

                                      the RACGP attributed the massive drop in Influenza cases to increase practices of good hygiene and social distancing, the numbers even show a direct correlation between when social distancing was implemented and when the number of flu cases decreased. They have in fact dropped a huge amount more than the number of Covid-19 cases

                                      https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/physical-distancin…

                                      to put it in perspective, the total cases of Covid-19 in Australia is less than the drop of flu cases when comparing may 2020 and may 2019. (it went from 30,567 in May 2019 to 208 in May 2020).

                                      Though this is likely due to flu being less contagious than covid-19 and having a vaccine already. In addition it is believed that covid-19 antibodies may last an even shorter period of time than flu antibodies. This is one of the biggest concerns with it. If this more contagious disease were to mutate like swine flu or something alike it could have much more dire consequences. but that is a whole other thing.

                                      • ozhunter on 02/12/2020 - 01:14

                                        @Bjingo: I don't know if they were the same studies, but you think they're just guessing or can't do math? I'd guess only 10% would be a conservative estimate considering it's been a year and cases are still rising(but the mortality rate is seemingly dropping)

                                        https://imgur.com/a/0BAsDwI

                                        This is IFR from the CDC for the USA, one of countries worst affected.

                                        Though this is likely due to flu being less contagious than covid-19 and having a vaccine already.

                                        Wth happened between 2018 and 2019 for the massive increase when by late May there was a 28% increase in those vaccinated? Maybe the flu vaccine is more useless than they are saying.

                                        More than 7.3 million flu vaccines have already been administered by doctors and pharmacists and entered into the Australian Immunisation Register this year. This compares to 4.5 million doses administered and entered for the same period last year, and over double the 3.5 million in 2018.

                                        https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/med…

          • ImpulseMan on 26/11/2020 - 15:15

            @p1 ama: Hi mate,

            Please ask your friend what the threshold is for % vaccinated and herd immunity.

            I have read every virus is different, measles need 95% of the pop to get vaccinated and polio was 80%….

            Interesting to see that so far the poll has 20% of people opposed.

    • Bargainz on 27/11/2020 - 14:45

      Yep, people like to led. Even if it is into the pits of hell, so long as they have their sportsball and 4wd and are "paying" off their over priced mortgage for the rest of their life they are complacent sheep.

  • p1 ama on 26/11/2020 - 13:40
    +3

    I take the common sense approach. No, I don't think there should be a systematic mandate from the government that everyone be vaccinated, but at the same time, I support an employer's decision to choose who they wish to hire based on the nature of the work being done and the risks posed to others in society.

    For example, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that someone who wishes to work in aged care is vaccinated. From the point of view of the clients, this keeps them safe. From the point of view of the employer, this protects them from potential problems - e.g. an outbreak, particularly a deadly one, can have huge consequences on the business. Ultimately, if you don't want to vaccinate, you should look for a different line of work.

    Lastly, I just think getting vaccinated is a social responsibility. I'm a huge supporter of personal freedoms and liberties - I think that we have too many restrictions on what people can and can't do, and we have criminalised way too many generally harmless activities. I also think there is an issue with enforcement that generally lacks the discretion to take into account the risks of an action. However, at the same time, I understand that for society to function and for us to all enjoy the benefits of a working society, we need to think of other people.

    Without a society/community, we would not have people sharing bargains, would not have roads, schools, hospitals, shopping centres, most technologies…etc. I personally have no issue with people being selfish bastards, but then don't be a leech/mooch. Go live in the jungle, don't take advantage of other people and good luck not getting eaten by a dingo.

    • TheBird on 28/11/2020 - 13:42

      good luck not getting eaten by a dingo.

      Don't ya know, Dingos only eat babies?

  • DingoBilly on 26/11/2020 - 13:59
    +2

    I think it should be systematically mandated myself. It's such an obvious benefit to everyone with virtually no risk. It's really only the stupid who don't get it, so forcing those people to get it is only going to help. If it was truly a personal choice that didn't affect others then sure, leave it up to people to make the decision. But because it can literally cause other people to die because of your selfish decisions then no, I think that decision should be taken away from people.

    • krazek on 26/11/2020 - 14:28
      +2

      "Systematically mandated" - you want the a CCP style approach?

      • Quantumcat on 26/11/2020 - 14:51
        +1

        No - should be like they "mandate" children's vaccines. You can choose not to get it but then your choices of schools or child care are quite restricted and you don't get any government family benefits.

        • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 15:01
          +3

          Not me benefits!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join