I mean the low risk option for a company is to mandate the vaccine. It is easier for a company to say, all staff are vaccinated and not worry about the 10% that aren't. I'm not comfortable with the idea of mandates, but that's the decision an organisation will likely make. 

The risk of forcing your 10% out due to the mandate can equally apply to the 90% and possibly greater (i.e. 90% or a portion of those staff may leave if coworkers are unvaccinated). 

Thats a micro approach

How many unvaccinated people are now going to be forced onto Centrelink and immediately ineligible for over 75% of jobs?

How much of NSW' hundreds of millions aimed at legitimate victims of mental health issues due to Covid now has to be extended to people forced into unemployment because they don't want to get vaccinated in a country that said vaccines wont be mandated?

What about the strain on social housing and other welfare services already stretched as they now have to accommodate this artificial demand? Mortgages lost. Kids no longer able to get a proper education. Break downs of families and increase in domestic violence. Social bullying and intimidation as we move to an "us and them" society against yet again another minority group...

There arent many countries that will voluntarily stretch their social and welfare systems post pandemic just to spite the number of people who didnt want to get vaccinated. But thats the problem with a response that was 100% about the impact on the health system with no regard for other sectors

Australia made it clear when it was rolling out its vaccination program that 1/ it would not be mandatory and 2/ if they got 80% it would be safe to open up. Every single regulation or restriction on top of that that is a problem that Australia wouldn't have otherwise had to resource or deal with


And I'm not sure why 90% of staff will leave due to unvaccinated co-workers but I'm pretty sure AJF posted a picture in the other thread theorising why

There's a pretty simple answer to this.

Don't make this the cross you want to martyr your family, your home, your future, your kids' future on for fucks sake and just get the bloody free vaccine.

Christ all mighty people. This is happening for better or worse so make your choice.

This isn't a minority born into a life of oppressions they didn't choose. There is a free healthcare program. Take it or don't. 

I find there is a certain type of person who just refuses to accept that this is happening even if they are copping it. Like they can argue it away. It's like when someone close dies and you feel so hopeless like there's something you should do to fix it and the weight of knowing there's nothing is too much.

This is the world for now. You can squabble over minor differences in approach from city to city, country to country but nobody has it 100% right and nobody will.

We are human and we are living through history probably for the first time in our lives in Australia.

In 5 years we will likely look back on all this as a super weird time but for now this is the world and you gotta figure this is nothing compared to what's to come before we die between rising sea levels, temperatures and future viruses so enjoy the little moments people. The Earth doesn't want us anymore aha

I saw a bloke in his 50s in front of me at a bottle shop yesterday give the young attendant and a security guard an absolute blast after he was politely asked to check in with the QR code.  After whinging and moaning for a solid two minutes about having to do it he clearly faked scanning the code. When he was again politely asked to actually show the check-in he lost his shit and tried to walk out of there with the wine saying he'd paid for it (he hadn't).

Just like how Muz said earlier I'd have no problem in my job if someone like this gave me grief and I'd just tell them to fuck off, but I feel for a lot of young waitresses, bartenders, checkout chicks etc. who are going to cop it.

The goalposts seem to be shifting again. For private businesses, I believe most will mandate it to make it easier for themselves, but it is their choice - many might not (perhaps 25% as you suggested). I just think most are going to take the easier path and mandate.

I don't know what picture from AJF you're suggesting but I think a business would rather keep 90% of its workers happy than focus on the 10%.

I wonder if these people ever complained about having security cameras in store or not. Same concept.

These people are the same guys that make women uncomfortable walking home late at night. 

Exactly. Filmed everywhere he goes, used Google maps to get there and then went on Facebook to tell everyone what a hero he was in the store. 

Yep.. Those people make me laugh. They complain about big brother. Tracking them via 5g chips. Complain about the rotchilds  and bezos  and yet use Facebook and use siri/alexa/google 

It isnt simple

Look at WA for instance. They are lagging behind substantially on vaccine numbers. Are they evil people? Stupid? Ignorant? Rude? Selfish? Brainwashed? No. They are our brothers, sisters, parents, family, friends and work mates

They are simply largely untouched by the virus so their uptake rate was exactly as people expected it to be last year, predicted it to be, and accepted it to be

So what do WA do? Time to take action by threatening 30% of their population with job loss to boost numbers "as seen by the other states" and with claims "the advantages of the larger vaccine uptake outweighs the strain on those who dont want to get vaccinated" (not direct quotes but a good article on it here: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/mandatory-covid-vaccination-for-wa-workers-evokes-both-serious-questions-and-broad-support/ar-AAPL8Yr?li=AAgfLCP )

Now they have significant social problems and strains on things mentioned above that they otherwise wouldnt have, even though they would have reached 80% eventually anyway

The "simple" answer is not not over react with a 100% health response. If our best risk assessment says that opening up at 80% is safe, then our best risk assessment is opening up with 80% is safe. How we get to 80%, there is more than one answer. Not to Australia though. This can only be controlled with stage 4 lockdowns and masks. People can only get vaccinated if you threaten them with job loss

If Australia didnt have the luxury of shutting its shorelines to this thing our situation would have been worse than America (per capita) as 9 radically different responses simply hasnt worked

When people look back on this thing, it wont be the over reaction to vaccination that will be remembered as we still have a myriad of restrictions to endure when we open up. What we will look back on was the panic buying, racial abuse, violence, protests, job loss, financial strain, suicides, mental health, loss of education and wonder was it all worth it over a disease that most of us would have recovered from anyway

I'll look back knowing that I was never part of the angry mob on either side. I hope you will be able to do the same

Have not been here a few weeks. Been in covid hell. 

At the risk of bringing in john smith this article shows how things spiralled out of control for Ivermectim as a 'cure'.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-a-false-science-cure-became-australia-s-contribution-to-the-pandemic-20211013-p58zp3.html

But although Dr Rayner agreed at the time that the results were interesting, they were nowhere close to proving ivermectin could treat COVID-19 in real life. For a start, the dose required to kill the virus in a test tube was many multiples higher than the dosage approved for human use.

An Iranian study showed an 80 per cent reduction in mortality. A Lebanese study showed reduced hospitalisation. Both were later found to contain major flaws. An influential Egyptian preprint found a 90 per cent reduction in mortality for patients taking ivermectin. The website later retracted the article amid fraud claims – some patients had died before the study started, among other concerns – but it had been cited by 30 other studies in the interim and included in meta-analyses that amplified its findings. The meta-analyses continue to be quoted as proof of the drug’s efficacy.

Ivermectin was a case in point.

“The preclinical work about ivermectin should never have been published,” Dr Begley said. “The university was aware that there were problems with this research before it was published, but it went ahead anyway. And the truth is that in the fullness of time, Australia will be embarrassed by this story.”

You did the right thing, good on you.

Hope everyone is all well now man

I'm not part of a mob and I'm not angry.
Using colourful language doesn't make me angry, it makes me a poor online communicator aha

If WA wants to stay isolated from the world and the country forever then sure, don't bother. If their state wants and needs to open up asap for the very livelihoods you mention then maybe they need a kick up the arse.

Again, if someone wants to martyr their family's future, their house & their livelihood over a free public health measure then that's up to them. Rightly on wrongly, at this moment in time, I'm sorry but it is. You can write all the paragraphs in the world about your way being better but it's not going to change a single thing. 

The rest of your answer does not address that single solitary point I made. It was just more of the same waffle that I don't necessarily disagree with.

speaking of science, hows this for a BS study, bluebird surprised you havent raised it already

Concerns, debate over Burnet study showing masks turned around second wave

By Liam Mannix

October 21, 2021 — 7.17pm

32View all comments

For our free coronavirus pandemic coverage, learn more here.

Debate has broken out over a Burnet Institute study that concluded mandatory face mask wearing likely helped turn around Victoria’s second wave of the coronavirus pandemic, as some scientists backed the data while others dismissed it as flawed.

At issue is the Burnet study’s conclusion that mask usage rose to around 97 per cent after the mask mandate took effect. To prove that, the study relied on an analysis of images taken by photographers from The Age, as well as survey data.

However, the survey sampled just 104 Victorians and critics argue the photos analysed, taken at locations including Flinders Street and Costco, did not represent Melbourne as a whole.

“That’s not a random selection of the population. It’s quite risky to try to extrapolate from those. That’s not a research method that would be generally accepted,” said Dr Kyle Sheldrick, a medical researcher and PhD candidate at the University of NSW.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/concerns-debate-over-burnet-study-showing-masks-turned-around-second-wave-20211021-p59231.html

Yeah that would have been tough. Glad you're alright.

I'll try again

This was a deliberate, calculated and tactical move by WA (and other states) to boost vaccine numbers. The impacts that I described above were part of that tactical decision as an inevitable outcome (whatever your personal views may be). To put another way, everybody knew that lockdowns will result in shutting down of non essential industries. Is everybody who didnt choose to switch to a job in an essential service a victim of their own choice?

When Australia rolled out its national vaccine plan they chose two very important things:
1/ That it would not be mandatory (for the obvious issues I outlined above). This was understood and agreed on at the time by all 25 million stakeholders. Everybody had their chance for feedback and this was the chosen strategy. Now we see a 180 as states decide with a months notice they are going to mandate vaccines simply because they have the absolute power to do so
2/ That 80% was enough. Yet despite this being stated, voted on, approved and rolled out we see states introduce extreme measures as they chase 85% or 90% or 95%

What states are doing goes against the two most important philosophies of the vaccination program as they continue this 100% health first bullish response. People who are unvaccinated are the victims, not the perpetrators. And now this makes McJule's point about whether or not people have had fair chance to actually get a vaccine given supply issues as states begin their new, unapproved, poorly communicated "take it or leave it" strategy

I get your point that vaccination is free and simple. But despite this we both know 100% vaccination was never going to happen and resistance / refusal was inevitable. I would have thought good risk management was about working with blatantly obvious foreseeable issues instead of arguing against them. Lets not have school crossings when kids can simply not run across the road in front of cars

Whatever your opinion is, whatever my opinion is, both are irrelevant to what was agreed and voted on. To me it would be easier for 8 governing bodies to not overreact with a senseless bullish rule than for 25 million people to make a unified forced choice, possibly for the first time in history, on any planet, for any species

My one sentence response: If what you were saying was so simple and obvious, the opposite wouldn't be the most inevitable outcome

Cheers, better, but still not great.They got pretty sick 

First few days were super stressful, but after my second neg test after about 6 days I was hopeful I could make it all the way through.
Having said that a mate has just tested positive in same situation but day 13. So he has to do almost a month of iso. Is also stressed as he's only had one shot 

I'm picturing the end of the opening scene in Team America where Paris is a smouldering pile of rubble and they say "We did it- we stopped the terrorists!"

Except it'd be Scomo and the different state Premiers, proclaiming "We did it- we stopped the spread!"

Let me try again:

It is what it is now through whatever mismanagement has happened.

SO.....If it's going to cost you your house, your kid's education, your job, your family then just get the jab and don't make this the hill you want to die on.

I don't disagree with the rest (besides the supply point because you won't be fired if you show intent to do it) and I do NOT think it's fair but you gave examples of people losing everything over this.

Well, choose not to lose it all. You won't change the rules with your martyrdom. 

Ha ha yeah and again, I actually agree.

Why do people murder? Why do people rape? Why do people choose to have a gambling problem or become an alcoholic?

Nobody made a choice to get vaccinated a few months ago. Their choice was a product of their being and specific environmental / social / political / cultural circumstances many of which were learnt at a young age, some inherited biologically

The best you can do is put yourself in each of these people's shoes and hear your own logical voice saying "this is what I would do if I was in this person's situation" which is why you have a generalist view on the simplicity of it. The answer from every person is going to be the same voice with the same logic. In order to understand why Bob from West Penrith doesnt want to get vaccinated you have to understand his story. His upbringing, his background, his decision making, and how this one pandemic (which is not the absolute concern of everybody) fits in with his world as a single jigsaw piece

Australia didnt choose to approach this by compiling 25 million life stories and working out the best way to get them all vaccinated. The federal approach was based on not making vaccines mandatory due to the 100% inevitability it wouldnt suit everybody. And target the 80% due to the inevitability we would reach that threshold within the 25 million life stories we are dealing with

The attitude of "I did my part to get vaccinated so Bob should too" is simply an inevitable outcome of the bullish tactics that have been employed to move beyond the initial federal response. The most valid response to "why wont you get vaccinated?" is "why do you care?". As much as you cant work out why somebody wont get vaccinated, they would be as equally puzzled as to why it matters so much to you considering what Australia agreed on

I dont give two hoots about politics but the gap between federal (there for all people) and state (a few additions to common sense principles to please their voters) is obvious. The federal approach to the initial lockdown, vaccination and understanding of the inevitable social / cultural issues shows a clear understanding of a body there to represent people from all walks of life. The state responses have been puzzling at best and targeted towards specific groups. Only Gladys (and arguably the chap from SA) have looked remotely close to matching the federal response

I feel I should reiterate at this point that I am vaccinated. I'm not saying that to distance myself from those who chose not to get vaccinated, but just because of the amount of times you have written the word "you"

This is our issue, not just the issue of those who chose not to get vaccinated. I made my choice to get vaccinated but I respect other people's choice to not be like me. In the same way I chose to piss and moan with whiny paragraph after whiny paragraph instead of doing something more constructive with my time off. Where's the vaccine for that, right guys?

I support the federal framework that everybody agreed on. I will never understand why some people have chosen to lose their house than get a jab in the arm. But that was never the question in the first place

Glad to know you're out but absolutely agree with what you said in bold. The disruption and impact on others is a major concern for me.

It'll probably be like the Y2K bug and a bunch of other things. Potential catastrophe was avoided so many people thinks it was a panic over nothing. Some of the COVID restrictions put on us, just like with the Y2K issue, might have ended up having minimal impact but we might never know. Others only become clear in hindsight. What's important is that we learn from this period and and come out the other side far better prepared.

A) This from the forum king of extrapolating his own views to that of a population. (Sorry)

B) Sure, but in the moment of being fired Bob has a choice. His family's future or his personal  stance on something.

To reiterate, I don't think it's necessarily  "fair" as such.
Personally, as I push 40 years old and become less idealistic, I can't think of one personal conviction I'd gamble my child's future on. I would do so many things I hate for my wife and kid's sake. Please do not ask if I would murder someone for her ha ha

PS if I said "you" in any of the above it was meant as "you plural". I should have said "one" but I'm on a forum and my name isn't Quickflick.

Good analogy.
What are the chances we learn from this and start to adequately fund public health as one example?
Aha I love how tragically idiotic we humans are.
Our entire species is the lazy problem child that never fulfilled their potential.