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

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


  • +10

    Medical staff need vaccinations for -

    hepatitis A
    hepatitis B
    influenza (flu)
    measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
    whooping cough (pertussis)

    There is no hospital that would employ doctors or nurses without proof of immunisation, it is a ongoing requirement for employment.

    Anti-vaxxers keep peddling the same study (debunked & widely criticised by the medical community) that there is a link between vaccines & autism. No there is not, however there is a link between anti-vaxxers & the resurgence of some preventable diseases - once wiped out in Australia…

    So a coronaviris vaccine will likely be just another necessary requirement for my employment.

    Everyone should be immunised for coronaviris, trying to reopen the country to international tourism, international students, international arts & film, etc. etc without having adequate community vaccination would just lead to another wave, avoidable hospitalisations, deaths & huge ongoing economic devastation as the virus surges leading to ongoing restrictions & recurrent lockdowns.

    It is a blessing to live in this country, as a citizen/visa holder or tourist the least you can do is roll up your sleeve & get a simple jab. It ain’t torture it’s preventing unnecessary suffering through community-minded responsible action.

    • -1

      We don't lockdown for the flu. 750mil estimated to have had covid with a fatality rate similar to the flu.

      Why not just let people who want it, take it?

      • +3

        We don't lockdown for the flu.

        There's a damn vaccine for the flu.

        • And yet every year hundreds of millions of people get influenza every year while several hundred thousand die.

          Why do people think a vaccine will just be some miracle cure and Covid will just go away? Here to stay IMO.

          • @Nebargains: It won't be a miracle cure, but it will be a low enough rate that you don't have to worry about a country's medical system collapsing. Like you said, lots of people get the flu but our hospitals can easily cope every year.

            • +1

              @Quantumcat: Generally I agree with your comment but if you do some Google searches you will find news articles about Australian hospitals being under serious pressure during flu season. Similar story in the UK and other European countries. Not saying it wouldn't be worse with no vaccine, it would, but it still places massive strain on hospitals despite the vaccine.

              • @Nebargains: Good point, imagine how bad it would be if there was no vaccine!

          • +1

            @Nebargains: Over 1.4 million people have died of COVID-19 despite countries taking measures like lockdowns and mandating masks. Imagine if they treated it like they treat the flu. I mean if you think you’ll recover after catching it that’s fine, you might spread it to someone else who may die. But who cares right, life goes on.

            • @smartazz104: Spanish Flu
              It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world's population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.

              Probably something similar to this, only we have more people now.

              • @try2bhelpful: And masks were mandated back then too; guess what happened to people who wouldn’t wear a mask due to an imaginary condition?

            • @smartazz104: That wasn't my point. Of course it's going to spread like wildfire, no one has had it, no vaccines etc.

              My point was even with vaccines, which could take years to full roll out, the virus will continue to exist and probably circulate every flu season. Influenza vaccines have existed for 70 years and yet it spreads like wildfire every year, less deadly, but spreads like crazy.

              So why would a Covid19 vaccine be different? It will help but it's not going to disappear from circulation.

              • +1

                @Nebargains: It won't but it will be a hundred times worse with no vaccine

    • Medical staff or other workers being vaccinated when working in facilities where they treat at-risk patients is reasonable. John and Jane working at Bunnings or Woolies should have the choice if they want to roll up their sleeve or not.

      Medical staff need vaccinations for:
      hepatitis A
      hepatitis B
      influenza (flu)
      measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)
      whooping cough (pertussis)

      Do non-medical staff (cleaners, reception, security, etc,) have to get vaccinated?

      • The point is when you have a significant portion of the population opting out of vaccination, this allows for the communication & spread of preventable diseases.

        If 50% of the population are selfish & opt out how will the country prevent ongoing covid waves & the unnecessary hospitalisations/ deaths & the economic costs to the country.

        ICU beds/hospital beds are expensive treatment options. Many businesses are hitting the wall in hospitality, tourism, etc - due to this virus’s economic implications.

      • +5

        Your argument was that there is no precedent or legal basis for "discrimination" based on vaccination status.

        Well there is.

        Where do you draw the line on ethics? What makes medical staff different? The amount of elderly and infirm people they meet everyday? Would you say the limit is 2? Or maybe 3 before vaccinations are required? What if old mate greeter at bunnings comes into contact with 200+ people a day? How many of those would be medically compromised? Or does Bunnings provide natural immunity.

        • Exactly, how we draw this line will be interesting.

          Because if it is broad across all employment where you interact with multiple people it become a political football - NO JAB = NO JOB.

          And i think most people accept vaccination rates need to be high for them to work as intended.

          Will we have to mandate and cut a portion of Australians away from the economy? There are lots of reasonable people out there that are just concerned about taking the 'first' batch of the vaccine - whether their viewpoint is medical valid or not. I think that is a fair concern….

  • +7

    Tested vaccines? Yes.

    Stuff that's been given exemptions from protocol testing? No.

    • +1

      I have seen no indication that any coronavirus vaccine would be except from protocol testing, do you have any evidence to support that claim or is this supposition?

      • +7

        Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.


      • +3

        From the timeline alone, it cannot possibly have gone through the typical clinical trials.

        Like cooking two minute noodles in a minute.

  • +3

    It happened during COVID already, the government made it compulsory for anyone working in or around a Nursing home to have a current Flue shot, details including the variant of the shot and doctors name needed to be supplied as proof:

    Mandatory flu vaccination program
    Annual vaccination is the most effective way to reduce the impact of the flu in the community, especially in aged care homes.

    To help prevent and stop the spread of flu in aged care, you must have processes in place. This is a requirement to comply with the Aged Care Quality Standards.


    • But what if you worked at school as a teacher or as a hairdresser? Should the same rule apply?

      Considering a large amount of the population would have to get vaccinated to stamp out the virus?

      Where do we draw the line? It is an interesting debate, i am not to sure what the answer is. It is a tricky one when you consider the broader industry and population.

      • +4

        We have under 100 cases in the entire country. How much more stamped out do you need to feel safe?

        • +5

          It only took one slip in Victoria to send them into lockdown for months. It doesn't matter how many cases there are, it can increase very quickly before you have a chance to react.

          • +1

            @Quantumcat: What was the slip? People from overseas not quarantined properly?

          • +2

            @Quantumcat: A slip would be someone doing something absent mindedly.

            Our figure head turned away qualified help in favour of shady private arrangements.

            That's like calling rape a slip up.

            • +1

              @DisabledUser88699: Whatever you want to call it, it can happen and then an instant later you are back where you started.

              • +3

                @Quantumcat: It sure can just as murder can just happen.

                Just because it can happen doesn't mean it will. We take measured risks.

                To take a vaccine that's just been dubiously fast tracked just to prevent an outbreak that was easily avoidable at it's inception is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette for safety.

                • @DisabledUser88699: Murder just happening doesn't lead to thousands of people getting sick each day, growing exponentially, leading to either widespread lockdown and associated economic pain or the country's medical system collapsing. Not the same thing.

                  • +1

                    @Quantumcat: Tell that to those who died because of the murder of a certain Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

                    The point is, someone heading government doing something obviously dubious is not a "little slip up".

                    • @DisabledUser88699: In this case it was the government but it could happen for any other reason, which we can't know in advance until it is too late. We fix the issue afterwards but we already get the lockdown.

                      In regards to it being worth the risk to not have the vaccine (or not worth the risk in taking it) - when you take risks you need to look at the associated possible downsides and upsides. If you were told you could ring up a number to get a million dollars, and the only risk is a sudden thunderstorm with lightning hitting your house and getting you through the phone line, you'd probably do it. If you were told you could attempt to cross a ten lane highway blindfolded on a busy day to win $1, you probably would not do it. Maybe this lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, maybe you are the one that gets the incredibly rare side effect that hasn't been found in the tens of thousands of participants it has been tested on. But equally you might get covid and be more likely to be left with respiratory and heart problems for the rest of your life 🤷‍♀️
                      As long as the disease exists in the country OR dozens of Australians are still coming back to the country from overseas every day (at the moment both are true) the risk of covid appearing in your community is not zero. And by getting the vaccine you are helping to make sure that if it does appear in your community, you are helping it to not take off into a massive outbreak where a lockdown is required. Even if you don't care about your own health as to what happens if you come across it, don't you care about avoiding painful lockdowns? They suck.

                      • +1


                        the risk of covid appearing in your community is not zero. And by getting the vaccine you are helping to make sure that if it does appear in your community, you are helping it to not take off into a massive outbreak where a lockdown is required.

                        On one hand, you recognise that there are risks of an outbreak without the vaccine.

                        On the other hand, you assume that the vaccine will definitely work and stop an outbreak.

                        How about the very likely possibility that the vaccine is partially effective (even the manufacturers are not claiming it is sliced bread) and people grow complacent as per the implication from your statement above.

                        Worst still, if the efficiency of the vaccine is nullified by complacency and we find out there are some unforseen side effects of the vaccine later on.

                        On the graph of reward vs risk, we don't know where we are on the reward nor the risk, and we haven't even identified behavioural factors, ie. we are probably missing out an entire axis from the graph.

                        When there are so many variables, why are we pretending that there is enough data to create policy?

                        There is a massive difference between and individual choosing to assess their personal circumstances and make a decision regarding the vaccine vs a mandating the vaccine through policy.

                        On a policy level, it is simply irresponsible to make it mandatory.

                        On an individual level, I think I'll wait til there is a large enough sample data (currently non-existent), a long enough sample data (currently non-existent) and a comparative study to other vaccines (currently non-existent).

        • +1

          I think most of us feel quite safe at the moment, but we all saw how numbers get away quickly.

          This is about ongoing management and getting back to normal, as a nation and globally. If we want to open our boarders, what are policies we will need to have in place.

          From my understanding for a vaccine to be effective anywhere from 80-95% of the population must receive it and achieve 'herd immunity'. We are talking about a permanent stamp out - for this strain anyway.

          If we achieved this then one would think there would be no more border closures to anyone with a vaccine certificate. Domestic travel back to normal permanently - rather than closing on every outbreak.

          The purpose of this poll though is simply about employment - Qantas has already put its policy forward, what if next it is retail & hospitality workers?

          Would you be comfortable as a condition of employment to take the jab?

          • +2

            @ImpulseMan: Absolutely, as I’ve indicated above I had a raft of inoculations as part of my work at State Rivers and Water Supply.

          • +2

            @ImpulseMan: Going off what is being said, to travel internationally will require the vaccine, so people coming in shouldn't be bringing it with them.

            No, I sure wouldn't be comfortable with that, and would refuse. In not an anti vaxxer, I'm an anti "don't know if there are any long term issues" covid vaccine vaxxer.

  • +5

    My job is already a category A vaccination status, it's not done to control me, it's done so I can't get ill from things I may be exposed to whilst at work (covers their liability too!). Personally, I appreciate it, as my real risk is probably a category B, but better to be protected in case!

    If i chose not to follow the companies rules, I guess I chose for them not to employ me.

  • +12

    My job specifically requires I do not get vaccinated (I run a conspiracy theory group on Facebook, if you've seen the memes showing 5G transmission towers and something about barcodes or chemtrails and the NWO, that's some of our stuff).

    I'd just like to thank all the free-thinkers out there who are helping raise awareness about some of our concerns in these threads. Just a reminder - if you're running low on incredibly vague and unlikely hypothetical situations to poorly explain the counterpoint to what you think someone is saying, stop on by. Pete Evans is cooking up a fresh batch, and we have some great flowcharts on the right order to use the phrases "sheeple", "main stream media" and "uNqUesTioning telEVisIon wAtCHeR". This is still the best way to demonstrate our critical thinking.

    I know some people are uncomfortable hearing me say this, but if my words were iron bars keeping some rabid wolves infected with tuberculosis from tearing apart some unborn babies, you'd probably think differently wouldn't you, you liberal hypocrites, yeah exactly.

  • +4

    People place far too much faith in their governments.

    Have a look who has been the biggest killer over the last 100 years.

    Don't think it can't happen again.

    Do you think the Chinese under Mao knew what was coming?

    • Have a look who has been the biggest killer over the last 100 years.

      I give up. Who is it?

      • +1

        It's called DEMOCIDE! And geez those guys are experts…..

    • Wow. Comparing China Communist government CD Australian government? You aren’t comparing Apple with Apple.

      • Government is government, regardless of race.

        Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, China, Cambodia, etc

  • +1

    88 v 22.

    It looks like it’s enough for herd immunity.

  • +2

    Interesting that here on Ozbargain it's 80/20 split with people ok with getting the vaccination. Yet on general open polls I've seen on news sites it's almost the exact opposite.

    • +2

      You probably have anti-Vacxxers around the world voting that news site. ;)

      • +1

        That's probably true, doesn't take much to drop a link on a facebook site and get a poll flooded

    • +1

      That's not true, there was some Australian government survey that showed around 75% willing to take it. That was before a lot of the clinical trial data was released, so I suppose it will likely be higher. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a good proportion of the remaining 25% will take it after they see everyone else taking it. The percentage of people who have legitimately drunk the cool-aid is likely very small.

    • It's interesting.

      I was watching a ted talk on the subject of unintentional consequences of AI (Yeah I know it's not the best source of factual information). It had a throwaway comment, but it mentioned Facebooks AI, where the algorithms were given the target of increasing engagement. It found that if users were submitted to conspiracy therories, it'd increase their engagement, thus increasing the bottom lines.

      Makes me wonder if there's a link between those who believe in conspiracy theories and those who are easier to influence with advertising.

  • -1

    Not just people died from COVID-19, the recovered ones also have long term problems. Best to take the bloody vaccine.

    Long term COVID-19 problem

    And to validate this, COVID-19’s cousin SARS that ravaged Hong Kong 10 years ago still get to be on the news for the “recovered patients” who are still living with the side effects.


    Just get the freaking vaccine and keep everyone safe.

    • +3

      How can someone have long term problems from something that hasn't even been around for a year?

      • Heart, lung, kidney damage may be irreversible and can be evaluated early on in the disease process - which is why you can say "long term". Got to feel sorry for US citizens with no health care, and for those with private health care Covid-19 will probably be listed as a "pre-existing" exclusion.

      • Mate, COVID-19 is not SARS that hit Hong Kong 10 years ago. They are similar virus.

    • +2

      On one hand, you're petrified about the unknown long term side effects of a virus.

      On the other hand, you don't mind that nothing long term is know at all about the vaccine. (In fact, nothing is known at all.)

      Just because something is bad doesn't mean the alternative is good.

      • I know family member who work in pharma company doing different drug trials and understand their processes. It is not something government can force thru.

        If you ever worked in a big corporation, they don’t own by government and their decisions are theirs to make.

        Companies like Pfizer, AZ and J&J are all private corporations which care about their brands. They would not release vaccines for the populations without carefully studied their trial data. Because if the vaccines aren’t safe, it will come back and bite their arses. Doesn’t matter how long we are talking about.

        And the method of developing vaccines aren’t that much different from our normal flu vaccines. So we are not talking about big risks like how you have protrayed.

        • +2

          So we are not talking about big risks like how you have protrayed.

          I'm not saying it's a big risk. I'm saying it is an unknown risk.

          There hasn't been enough time for a longitudinal study to be possible. You can't rush time.

          I'm not an anti vaxxer. I am well vaccinated. Heck, I've travelled extensively requiring far more vaccines than the average person. The difference with those vaccines is that I can safely say that the benefit is well worth the potential side effects.

          Yes, there are side effects. Every vaccine has them. They are still worth taking but in this case, we don't know how effective nor what the long term effects are. The benefit to risk and proportionate response considerations are impossible to make.

          The only argument for it is that "covid is so bad so any vaccine must be so good."

          I'm sure the companies above consider brand image but even more certain than a desire to maintain reputation is the desire for current executives to make a truckload of money.

          • -2

            @DisabledUser88699: When I said if their vaccines if not safe, it will come back and bite their arses. that means profit margins. if they get into a law suit due to unsafe vaccines, they will cough out billions more than they raked in. get it?

            you are turning into antivaxxer if you aren't already.

            • +2

              @goraygo: If you are pro vaccine for the same reasons as an anti vaxxer is against, then it isn't going to take much for you to become an anti vaxxer.

              You seem to take a stance that it's all pro or all against.

              I'll look at the vaccine as a specific product and make my judgement on individual merit. In this case, I'm not going to pretend that a product, just because it is developed by a big name, has sufficient data when there hasn't even been enough time for the trials to take place.

              You can't produce longitudinal studies without time. You can't qualify the lack of side effects or long term success without longitudinal studies.

              With the ability of hindsight, we condemn so many past practices but vow to learn from the mistakes - not to rush due process for convenience/urgency. We're doing the exact same thing now.

              Ps. I'm not even saying this covid vaccine is bad. I'm just saying I'm not taking it yet. I'm not taking it until there is sufficient data.

              PPs. My understanding of medicine, vaccines, clinical trials and pharmaceuticals isn't just by association to family. I'm a doctor and so is half my family. We also have a pharmacist.

              PPPS. I remember when we were advertising for paid clinical trial participants for a product that was already been in testing for two years. The mega shitload of indemnity paperwork we had to go through. This product has been in testing for a few months and people are willing to waive liability and pay for it. It's actually amusing.

            • +2


              if they get into a law suit due to unsafe vaccines, they will cough out billions more than they raked in. get it?

              The pharma won't pay a single cent. The taxpayers will pay when things go bad.

              had agreed to indemnify the drug companies

              • +2

                @whooah1979: They'll likely only indemnify if it is made mandatory.

                If it's not mandatory, there will likely be a liability limitation clause attached.

        • +2

          Companies like Pfizer, AZ and J&J are all private corporations which care about their brands. They would not release vaccines for the populations without carefully studied their trial data. Because if the vaccines aren’t safe, it will come back and bite their arses.

          These companies have made terrible mistakes in the past and have been drowned in endless lawsuits. There's a reason they spent billions on lobbying and PR. Get your head out of their ass.

          Theres also a very convenient reason for them that they've struck a deal for legal immunity from any side effects of the drug.

          Imagine having this much trust for a greedy mega corporation just because they promise to shield you from the reality that you might get sick. Stop being so fragile. 99% of people on this forum will be dead in the next 40-50 years. You're not buying immortality.

  • +2

    I would get the vaccine personally but i don't think its right to force other employees to get it. Whether that reason is ridiculous or not to you, it should be their choice to get it, especially in this case where the vaccine has not been tested for long term effects.

  • +11

    I'm a science teacher and have a science degree. I'm pro-vaccination.

    I don't think it's unreasonable if someone feels uncomfortable with getting a COVID vaccine, especially considering how quickly they have been produced. It's not like vaccines are 100% safe; even just a few months ago (in August) a new strain of Polio was accidentally created from a faulty vaccine.

    Furthermore, to what right does an employer have to our medical records? Is COVID-19 an exception? Should this only apply to those in the medical profession? I personally have medical history that I would not be comfortable sharing with my employer.

    I don't like the precedence the COVID-19 vaccine sets for privacy and autonomy.

    • -4

      Frankly I don’t like the death toll that Covid sets. Sometimes we do things that are uncomfortable for the good of society. If people don’t want an inoculation then, given what had happened in the world, their not having an inoculation could mean someone is obligated to wear PPE instead.

      • +4

        If you're scared about the red numbers on the TV, why don't you take the injection, wear the mask and stay at home?

        Why should the rest of the world need to do that for you for you to feel comfortable?

        I respect your right to believe everything the media and government tells you, you should respects others right not to.

        • -2

          Honestly. If you jump off a cliff you can choose not to believe in gravity but it will cause you to fall down. I don’t respect the “right” of people to not believe in reality, and science, when their actions have significant negative effects on others. If you decide to stay home, and never venture out, then I’m more than happy for you to never have an inoculation. How about you respect the right of those doing the right thing to go about their business and the people doing the wrong thing to, actually, bear the consequences of their actions. You might to look up what happens, with Pandemics, when their isn’t an inoculation. There is plenty of examples out there. But you seem to be part of the “history is bunk” brigade. The mob who is really “scared” are you guys. OMG, Big business, Government, the media; they are all out to get us. Somebody out there is monetising your fear.

        • +1

          Why should the rest of the world need to do that for you for you to feel comfortable?

          Facts over feelings. I don't give a flying fcuk about how you feel, what you choose to believe and what makes you comfortable. You shouldn't give a flying fcuk about how I feel either, because that's irrelevant to you.

          The fact is that there are people dying and that we should have some common sense policies to lessen that (no, that does not include tying you to a chair and stabbing you with a needle, so forget that idea).

          I respect your right to believe everything the media and government tells you, you should respects others right not to.

          I don't respect people with this view because you're more than happy to take advantage of the benefits provided by society and government, then turn around and scream "big bad government".

          Here's an idea, go live out in the middle of the desert somewhere without civilisation and without any government intervention. You won't have to listen to the media, to be annoyed by other people, to be ruled by some tyrannical government. You might get eaten by a dingo, but hey, actions have consequences right?

          Words are cheap, actions are real. You can say all the nonsense you want, it's not worth one ounce of respect until you live your own words.

          • @p1 ama: Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you - pretty simple rule to live by

            Sound like you may be happier in North Korea.

    • The majority of Ozb should take the vaccine so that the minority doesn't have to take it or at the very least see what the side effects are before taking the vaccines themselves. Any time after two or three seasons to be safe. The longer the better.

      The tally is 156 v 41 at time of writing.

    • I'm a science teacher and have a science degree. I'm pro-vaccination.

      Hahahaha, and you're also the guy who voted for the LNP then proceeded to bitch and moan about the NBN that you voted for. You're also the guy who supported defunding the WHO because its leader (who has very little to do with what the WHO does on the ground) happen to be a corrupt ex-politician.

  • +5

    Regardless of what they, say this vaccine has been developed in around 10-15% of the time it normally takes.

    Vaccines take 7 to 15 years to develop properly and even then they have issues.

    There are NO SAFE - QUICK ways to develop a vaccine,

    All I can say is that this vaccine with all the shortcuts taken, promises to deliver more problems than it (possibly) solves.

    Its very HIGH RISK!

    Its all about MONEY and CONTROL.

    Nothing to do with health and safety

    • -1

      It's fine. Don't take the vaccine and let nature take its course for you and your family.

    • That's BS, all of these new vaccines have been fully tested and proven safe and extremely effective. There is no reason anyone should not get vaccinated. Vaccines have been around for many decades and are incredibly safe.

      • +4

        That's BS, all of these new vaccines have been fully tested and proven safe and extremely effective.

        This is serious level brainwashing if you actually believe this. The fastest vaccine ever took around 4-5 years. The COVID vaccine is looking like it will be rolled out after a less than a year of development.

        Keep in mind that it's impossible to do long term human trials in a few weeks or even months. That's not what they mean by long-term.

        • Absolutely CORRECT
          Except I believe 7 years is a fast roll-out.
          Not 4-5 years

    • +3

      Its all about MONEY and CONTROL.

      Yes Bill Gates is out to get you, get ready for a new world order sheeple.

  • JAB…. even you proffer no intelligent information to base a decision upon whether to or not inject a hastily constructed concoction, where even the govt play geo politics with Cold War mentality by denying us avenues to Russian and Chinese vaccines.

  • 53 people want to be unemployment for some reason. Interesting.

    • WFH and sole traders don't need to get vaccinated.

    • More like 53 people are skeptical and value thier health!

  • +7

    Reading through forums discussions such as these, reminds me why we still need warning labels like "do not hold the wrong end of the chain saw" and "contains nuts" on a nut bar.

    • +1

      Reminds me of this I found on a schnitzel pack recently.

      "Real chickens have bones"

  • +7

    Yeah nah. Took them 50+ years to see the side affects from asbestos exposure. Some magical vaccine developed within a matter of months like the space race. These things should take years to be fully tested before mass immunisation is even considered.

    No jab no job? Get fkd…looks like I'll be selling myself on onlyfans

    • +3

      But sir, we get paid less if you don't take the vaccine. It's for your own good.

    • The Great Reset

      • +1

        Yes happening in 2021
        COVID19 vaccine is part of the reset

    • Not sure if you know much about the Spanish Flu but that is effectively what happened back then. People were getting sprayed with toxic chemicals which did FA for the flu but gave the survivors cancer a few years later. I wonder what was in that chemical that China sprayed their citizens with back in March…………

  • Of course I would because I'm not an idiot.

    • +2

      How can you be sure?

  • +4

    Christ, some of the people on here.
    Now I realise why we had to have an outward travel ban and harsh state restrictions because people are more worried about their individual rights being imposed on than the suppression of a deadly virus for the good of all members in society.

    Just answer me this: if vaccinations supposedly are going to give you COVID, and if COVID is a hoax and just a 'common cold', what's it matter?

    • +2

      “But, but, but… Bill Gates is going to inject ya with a little tracking device so Big Brother can track ya.”

      Ya do wonder sometimes, don’t ya?

Login or Join to leave a comment