breaking covid rules

[GraemeCook]

So the first rule is to discard all the nonsense about privacy. After that it becomes much easier - a central database records the vaccination status of an individual, together with a mug shot. That individual has a QR code, or a badge, or simply a number. The "inspector" has a scanner, into which the QR code (or whatever) is entered, the central database is queried and the mugshot is displayed together with vaccination status. No forgery is possible, short of hacking the central database or plastic surgery to change the appearance to match someone else. I believe the health of the population in general, whether an entire country or the other customers in a restaurant, outweighs any claims to "privacy" either relating to vaccination status or wearing a mask on religious grounds.

As you say, any paper or "image" based system will be forged, as will anything that is stored on a device. However there is no requirement for any of that, because I doubt many airport security installations, restaurants or any other venues don't have internet connections available. Live queries with a mug shot avoids all those issues!


The simple little yellow "Immunisation Booklets" that all international travellers carried in the 1960's worked well, and no debate about privacy.

[woodPixel]

The simple little yellow "Immunisation Booklets" that all international travellers carried in the 1960's worked well, and no debate about privacy.

This.

I had to take one to South America (after 960 different shots) and was told "to not come back" if I lost it.

It was REQUIRED to get back in. I could lose the passport, but not that card!

[doug3030]

The simple little yellow "Immunisation Booklets" that all international travellers carried in the 1960's worked well, and no debate about privacy.

It only worked in the 1960's because back then virtually no household and very few businesses had the facilities to make a credible copy of the document. Now, there are few households which do not have access to a computer and printer.

[Warb]

The simple little yellow "Immunisation Booklets" that all international travellers carried in the 1960's worked well, and no debate about privacy.


I had to take one to South America (after 960 different shots) and was told "to not come back" if I lost it. It was REQUIRED to get back in. I could lose the passport, but not that card!


It only worked in the 1960's because back then virtually no household and very few businesses had the facilities to make a credible copy of the document. Now, there are few households which do not have access to a computer and printer.

Doug is almost entirely correct, in those days no ordinary person could forge such a document. There is also the point that perhaps far fewer people would actually want to. In the 60's, the majority of adults had lived in wartime. Many had also lived through the Spanish 'flu epidemics after WWI. I suspect there was quite possibly a greater degree of "act for the good of the masses", and certainly more experience of genuine hardship and the community spirit which such hardship brings. Perhaps these days such things are less important, and have been replaced with "I want it now". We are comparing people who slept every night in gas masks with people who refuse to wear a modern "surgical" mask for 10 minutes while they walk round a supermarket!

It could be that not only were people unable to easily forge documents like the "Immunisation Booklet" in the 1960's, but they also understood the intention of the Booklet and were far more likely to abide by it, rather than seeing it as an attack on their "personal freedom". Just a thought!

[woodhutt]

As you say, any paper or "image" based system will be forged, as will anything that is stored on a device. However there is no requirement for any of that, because I doubt many airport security installations, restaurants or any other venues don't have internet connections available. Live queries with a mug shot avoids all those issues!

As most modern passports are furnished with a 'chip' I can't see why it couldn't be utilized to store info on vaccination/testing status and avoid the need for separate additional proof. I'm thinking only of international travel here as I realize you wouldn't want to be waving your passport to get into your local for a beer.
Pete

[Warb]

As most modern passports are furnished with a 'chip' I can't see why it couldn't be utilized to store info on vaccination/testing status and avoid the need for separate additional proof. I'm thinking only of international travel here as I realize you wouldn't want to be waving your passport to get into your local for a beer.
Pete

Very true, but if (for once) we had an international system, you could give your code and get checked whether you wanted a beer at your local or a beer while you were on holiday domestically or abroad...... Remember that once you have put your seat upright and fastened your seat belt for landing, the next venue you go to after the airport will still want to check your vaccination status!

[GraemeCook]

It only worked in the 1960's because back then virtually no household and very few businesses had the facilities to make a credible copy of the document. Now, there are few households which do not have access to a computer and printer.

With respect, Doug, I do not think that it would be easy to forge those little yellow booklets. Where, for example, would you get the correct type of cardboad for the cover - texture, weight, colour, etc.

One the other hand, the average twelve year old nerd will probably probably replicate any electronic passport quite quickly, or find out how to do so.

[doug3030]

With respect, Doug, I do not think that it would be easy to forge those little yellow booklets. Where, for example, would you get the correct type of cardboad for the cover - texture, weight, colour, etc.

As a former Warrant Officer in the Army, I was, on a few occasions, responsible for preparations for taking large numbers of soldiers overseas. One of my responsibilities was to ensure that all passports were in order and their International Health Certificates (the little yellow books) were current and everyone had the necessary vaccinations for our destination.

I can assure you that when you have 100+ IHC's sitting on your desk it soon becomes apparent that there is a wide range of different batches of stationery stock used over the years to make the covers and the internal pages. If one does not look like the other ones it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fake - It might just mean that it came from a different batch, sometimes years apart.

[woodPixel]

Too good a fake can catch one out. Isn't there a story that the Soviets caught out the Yanks faking their spies passports because their staples didn't promptly rust? :)


On faking a vaccination document, its crazy. Firstly, one would need to acknowledge that the disease is real, hence the real need for such a documents existence. Second, one would want to avoid a simple vaccination and instead spend a fortune on such a fake. Thirdly, one is really putting themselves at the greatest risk!

Host: "Would Sir like to sleep in this elbow-to-jowl Lepper colony for a week?"
AnitVaxer: "Yes! Here is my current vaccination record!"

Another concept - Why aren't the cops fabricating these documents and attempting to sell them? Catch these people out at the purchase stage. Charge them with uttering, or such.

My thoughts are simple. If people actively reject vaccination. Fine. Record that fact. If they turn up at the hospital diseased, not only are they last in line, but they pay full price - Every Cent, film industry accounting style.... Bugger them!

[doug3030]

Too good a fake can catch one out. Isn't there a story that the Soviets caught out the Yanks faking their spies passports because their staples didn't promptly rust? :)

When I was in Indonesia in the 1990's a counterfeiting ring was exposed because their "money" was better than the real thing. :rolleyes:

[justonething]

Non issues really. Digital certificates accompanied by block chain identifiers have been around and used widely. It's however an entirely different story that the Morrison govt are somehow capable to implement it.

[Warb]

Non issues really. Digital certificates accompanied by block chain identifiers have been around and used widely. It's however an entirely different story that the Morrison govt are somehow capable to implement it.

I think you might be oversimplifying the issue by reducing it to its underlying technology. Nobody would dispute that there are encryption systems that are very hard, if not completely impossible (US government allowing) to break. The issues are the next level up from that - the "user interface".

1/ The certificate has to include a mug shot to identify the individual. For international travel this may not be such an issue, because the traveller will also have a passport. But at the local pub or football ground the certificate must be able to be easily matched to the individual.

2/ The certificate must be verifiable by a second "reader" device. The screen of the individual own phone is in no way acceptable - we have many people locally who have screen shots of the check-in app (as an example) that they flash at staff to "prove" they have checked in. These are fairly easily spotted because the time and date are wrong, but it would take 2 minutes to write an "app" that also updated the time on the fake image. We have some very noisy people locally screaming about the "New World Order" (thank you, Kerry Chant!) and I have no doubt that they will use any option available to stay outside the law. However, an encrypted file with an image that can be displayed/verified on a second reader device would fulfil this criteria.

3/ Not require a mobile phone. What? Who has no phone? Well, in our area actually a great many people don't have mobile phones. Many old people, and by "old" I'm talking >60 don't have phones. Many rural areas (such as my farm) don't have coverage, so there's little point - once you give out a mobile number it's the only number people will use, so you are effectively out of contact until you go to town and get a mass of missed calls! Also, to work internationally, not requiring a phone would be a good thing. Many people have second phones and/or SIM cards for use overseas, so removing dependence on a phone would be useful in those situations, or when you want a coffee on the beach!

Given the above, a suitable QR code (or other such identification) that can be put on a phone, or a card, or (NWO!) tattooed on the arm, could be scanned and referenced to a central database that displays an image of the individual and their vaccination status. Easy. But guaranteed to cause noise from the "privacy people"!

By the way, the current governments' "ability to do this" is irrelevant. It should be international, and therefore outside the ability of individual countries to b*gger up. Also, of course, the "government" is only the very top level, the rest of the "civil service" doesn't change when the government changes. And, to be honest, I would very much rest assured that the "civil service" is entirely unable to develop a working system. Let's face it, if they did succeed it would be the first time ever*.

*Multiple iterations and complete replacements of unnecessarily complex systems for paying income tax, superannuation, medical systems, "self service" systems at Service NSW that are so poor that they require a full time staff member to assist people to "serve themselves", right down to the covid check-in QR code where they sent companies (including me) the QR code for the wrong businesses (I kid u not!). They don't have an inspiring track record!

[GraemeCook]

Nice summation, Warb.

May I add two further qualifiers:

Robust - it will have a lot of wear and tear, every time it must be presented, and
Credit Card Sized - like drivers licenses - it must easily fit the wallet compartments like so many essential identifiers.

[Aussiephil]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller

Substitute any group you want to into that, many have.

My better half quotes it quite regularly and the various comments about privacy above make me quote it here.

No one has a right to view my private personal medical record including vaccination status EXCEPT were it is a LEGAL requirement such as an international requirement to enter a country.
Certainly not the staff at a local store and i'm glad to live in a jurisdiction where it would be considered a discrimination and in violation of rights.

I 100% support the call to get vaccinated and urge others to do the same and i'm just waiting time to get my own second jab.

Everyone has their own choices to make and i wish them the best.

[woodPixel]

I don't get attitudes like this.

If I had a highly communicable disease, such as TB or a haemorrhagic fever (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_hemorrhagic_fever) such as Ebola or Marburgs, how would it feel to know I went to the shops, the chemist, the local McDonalds, Bunnings, then sat in a movie theatre deliberately infecting as many as I could?

Lets say your children caught this and died. (https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/)

Freedom!!! At all costs!!!


We already have dreadful epidemics burnt into our collective consciousness - polio, rubella, measles, small pox - where these caused untold misery.


On those writings, I've read them, I utterly fail to equate a rapidly escalating need for public health to the writings of an anti-semite Nazi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) supporter and sympathiser who was only sorry because he was caught and the system didn't work out for him.


Gassing and Shooting Jews and shovelling them into ovens is a far cry from flashing a phone with a green badge to show one has a had a vaccination.

If you want a REAL GLIMPSE into the minds of these evil bastards, take the time to read The Nuremberg Diary - Gilbert, G. M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary)

It is a dreadfully illumining read. I can email the scanned PDF of the book (https://b-ok.global/book/5240549/0f481e) to those who wish it. It is a diary from a Psychologist who spent time with them during the Nuremberg trials. It is both fascinating and deeply disturbing.

People who sprout this poem have absolutely and utterly no idea what they are talking about.


edit - added a link to the PDF.

[Aussiephil]

I don't get attitudes like this.

If I had a highly communicable disease, such as TB or a haemorrhagic fever (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_hemorrhagic_fever) such as Ebola or Marburgs, how would it feel to know I went to the shops, the chemist, the local McDonalds, Bunnings, then sat in a movie theatre deliberately infecting as many as I could?

Lets say your children caught this and died. (https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-survival/covid-19/)

Freedom!!! At all costs!!!


We already have dreadful epidemics burnt into our collective consciousness - polio, rubella, measles, small pox - where these caused untold misery.


On those writings, I've read them, I utterly fail to equate a rapidly escalating need for public health to the writings of an anti-semite Nazi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) supporter and sympathiser who was only sorry because he was caught and the system didn't work out for him.


Gassing and Shooting Jews and shovelling them into ovens is a far cry from flashing a phone with a green badge to show one has a had a vaccination.

If you want a REAL GLIMPSE into the minds of these evil bastards, take the time to read The Nuremberg Diary - Gilbert, G. M (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary)

It is a dreadfully illumining read. I can email the scanned PDF of the book (https://b-ok.global/book/5240549/0f481e) to those who wish it. It is a diary from a Psychologist who spent time with them during the Nuremberg trials. It is both fascinating and deeply disturbing.

People who sprout this poem have absolutely and utterly no idea what they are talking about.


edit - added a link to the PDF.

I attributed the quote to the originator regardless of the past as it itself is so valid in todays society. We seem prepared to give things away without speaking up and even those that should speak up like unions seem to be giving things away by not doing so.

Your "freedom at all costs" hardly rings true or fair when you also want to impose the compulsory viewing of my own private health data to non authorised people. I have said I have had one jab.... but some of the attitudes displayed here and your comments mean I will not be telling you when i have got fully vaccinated.... it's none of your business nor as i said nor is it the business of the local shop keeper.

If you DELIBERATELY went and frequented public venues knowing you had a highly transmittable virus then you should be charged/fined whatever but that is not the same as not wanting to show your vaccination status.

A % of delta infected people world wide are double vaccinated, this is even the case in australia and from memory the ACT, so those people thinking they are safe and dismissing the symptoms as a cold have themselves infected people in the community.

I say it again GET A DAMN JAB.......

[Warb]

It is, of course, an individual's choice as to whether they want their vaccination status to be public knowledge. Personally I don't care whether people know I'm vaccinated or not, I can't really see what the big deal is. If the medical detail was embarrassing, maybe I'd care. If I was attempting to defraud my life insurance by claiming to be healthy when I'm not, or applying for a job and trying to cover up a pre-existing condition, then I'd probably care (but would also have demonstrated a lack of adherence to the rules of society, so all bets would be off). But a vaccination? They stand in queues in school to get vaccinated for all kinds of things and nobody cares or tries to keep it "private". I really can't see what the issue is.

However as someone whose area is currently suffering a covid outbreak because an infected family arrived from a metro area, lied about having covid tests and visited half the businesses in town, and finally were "discovered" only when they had got so sick they needed medical attention, I fully support the notion that vaccination certificates and RAT negatives be required to leave your house. There is a wonderful device called a breath alcohol ignition interlock device that requires the operator of a vehicle to blow through a breathalyser before they can start the vehicle's engine (used for example in repeat offenders who drive trucks for a living). Right at this point in time I'd support a covid version being developed and linked to peoples door locks!!

As always, if people did they right thing then we wouldn't need rules. Sadly people can't seem to understand that, so they do the wrong thing (or more accurately "whatever suits them").

[Lappa]

In my younger days I had to show my drivers license to get into a club or pub. Even now, when playing in darts competitions I have to show my drivers license to get into clubs as a temporary member. I can’t see any difference in showing my Vaccination certificate to get into a pub or club in the future.

[Mr Brush]

How NOT to do it.....

Mitchell & Webb - Counterfeit Money - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG6oCrtef5A)

[Aussiephil]

I fully support the notion that vaccination certificates and RAT negatives be required to leave your house.

Just speechless.... well not really but any response would likely see me get banned.



As always, if people did they right thing then we wouldn't need rules. Sadly people can't seem to understand that, so they do the wrong thing (or more accurately "whatever suits them").

I don't disagree.... it' seriously disappointing that people just can't do the right thing, a vaccine certificate though isn't the answer though as ultimately it gives a completely flase sense of security when it's already known and clear that vaccinated people can catch and transmit the virus.

[Aussiephil]

In my younger days I had to show my drivers license to get into a club or pub. Even now, when playing in darts competitions I have to show my drivers license to get into clubs as a temporary member. I can’t see any difference in showing my Vaccination certificate to get into a pub or club in the future.

This is not even in the same league and actually whilst a drivers license is commonly used a proof of identity issued by the relevant authority is fine as not everyone has a drivers license.

Just listening to the news and there are genuine questions about if the certificate can even be policed.

[Lappa]

This is not even in the same league and actually whilst a drivers license is commonly used a proof of identity issued by the relevant authority is fine as not everyone has a drivers license.

Just listening to the news and there are genuine questions about if the certificate can even be policed.

Why isn’t it in the same league? In NSW if you didn’t have a drivers license you go to Service NSW and get a proof of age card. Same to me as a Vaccination Cert. Its just a card!!

[GraemeCook]

Why isn’t it in the same league? In NSW if you didn’t have a drivers license you go to Service NSW and get a proof of age card. Same to me as a Vaccination Cert. Its just a card!!



Reminds me of when I was living in Boston, Massachusetts in the early 1980's. Drinking age of 21 and you needed a "good identifier with photo" every time that you used a credit card. The drivers license was the default - It had yur mugshot, age, signature and was issued by a respected agency.

Everyone used one, even non-drivers. You just went along to the Govt offices and got a "Category 0" drivers license. Read as category zero; it entitled you to drive zero vehicles, but it got you into the bar or club.

Perhaps the drivers license could be extended to include vax status.

[Warb]

Just speechless.... well not really but any response would likely see me get banned.Given the complete disregard that so many people are showing to the wellbeing of society as a whole, how do we address it? I made a tongue in cheek suggestion about needing a negative RAT to leave the house, but in all seriousness what do we do? If a person in supermarket queue started waving a knife around they'd "face the full wrath of Johnny Law", but the same person in the supermarket queue with covid could potentially do far more harm to an entire community. And if, like our local cases, they dosed themselves up with 'flu meds to hide the symptoms, are they not acting in the same premeditated way as the person with a knife?
I don't disagree.... it' seriously disappointing that people just can't do the right thing, a vaccine certificate though isn't the answer though as ultimately it gives a completely flase sense of security when it's already known and clear that vaccinated people can catch and transmit the virus.No, not a false sense of security. A very real understanding that vaccinations significantly reduce the chance of catching the disease, the impact of the disease on the individual and the chance of passing it to other people. Yes the protection is not 100%, but the fact remains that a group of vaccinated people gathering in, say, a Mens Shed, have a far lower chance of leaving with covid than a group of unvaccinated people - there is a far lower chance that a vaccinated person will bring the disease in, a far lower chance that they will give it to anyone else, and a far lower chance that anyone who did catch it would be hospitalised.

[doug3030]

If a person in supermarket queue started waving a knife around they'd "face the full wrath of Johnny Law", but the same person in the supermarket queue with covid could potentially do far more harm to an entire community. And if, like our local cases, they dosed themselves up with 'flu meds to hide the symptoms, are they not acting in the same premeditated way as the person with a knife?

Not quite. Carrying a knife as an action in itself does not kill anyone. You have to use the knife to kill, not just wave it around. I carried a knife on me from the age of 14 right through til I moved to Melbourne in 2010 and found out that it was illegal to have a pocket knife on you in public. Nobody died because I carried a knife all those years but there is one person in this world who is alive today because I had that pocket knife on me to cut her seatbelt and get her out of a burning car. The next person who I see in a burning car will probably die because I have been "disarmed" by a stupid law.

Now wandering around with COVID and just breathing is enough to kill others. There are not necessarily any signs that you have it. It kills with no readily apparent threat or risk at the time it is inflicted on the innocent person just going about their daily activities.it is not an act of violence. It is a purely random chance as to who they come in contact with will become infected and which of these will die.

Yes the COVID is potentially more deadly than the knife but the infected person does not have to commit a violent act to effectively make the kill so they do not feel the same degree of responsibility, if they feel any responsibility at all. They would argue that it is not their fault they have it and spread it so they should not be penalised for their actions.

For all the people in lockdown or even under orders to isolate due to a tier 1 or 2 exposure who eventually test positive, there are literally tens of thousands of people who test negative. So many people, knowing this, see that the risk is small that they will test positive and be a danger to others if they just go down to the shops and get out of the house for a while, or whatever. If this was not true, even with Delta, we should be getting on top of it by now. How can people in general be convinced to take this seriously?

Singapore has reached 80% of their TOTAL (not just over 16's like they are counting in Australia) population fully vaccinated, then eased restrictions and now case numbers are jumping. This should be a warning to Australia about what will happen here if they go ahead with the current plans for opening up.

[Warb]

Now wandering around with COVID and just breathing is enough to kill others. There are not necessarily any signs that you have it. It kills with no readily apparent threat or risk at the time it is inflicted on the innocent person just going about their daily activities.it is not an act of violence. It is a purely random chance as to who they come in contact with will become infected and which of these will die.

Interesting, and that leads me to wonder where we draw the lines between intent to cause harm, failure to take reasonable care to prevent harm, and a pure accident? If a pedestrian is killed by a motorist who was taking all possible care, that is very different to a pedestrian killed by a drunk motorist in an unregistered, unsafe vehicle, even though neither motorist "intended" to cause harm. In our covid situation, "patient zero" came directly out of a very closely contained group of people who were known to be suffering a covid outbreak. He brought his family to the area and very quickly they all started to become sick, at which point one of them came in to town to buy medication. As is standard practice they were asked if they had been tested for covid, to which they replied "yes" (a lie). They subsequently used the flu meds to cover their symptoms and continued to visit the town to shop, until one or more of them became so sick that they had to get medical help.

So, an act of violence? Not by the "bash stab" definition, certainly. But given their full knowledge that they had been in an outbreak in a very restricted community, so there was every chance that they had been infected, to then cover the symptoms, lie about testing and continue to mix with other people.......?

[AndyJ]

I don't get attitudes like this.

...

On those writings, I've read them, I utterly fail to equate a rapidly escalating need for public health to the writings of an anti-semite Nazi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller) supporter and sympathiser who was only sorry because he was caught and the system didn't work out for him.


Gassing and Shooting Jews and shovelling them into ovens is a far cry from flashing a phone with a green badge to show one has a had a vaccination.
...

edit - added a link to the PDF.

The police started to compile lists of homosexuals right after the introduction of photography around 1870 to 1900 the German Kaiserreich). The reason was to easier detect banned activities, like sexual encounters between males. Fast forward to 1933 - the Nazis took over and discovered the lists. They started to put all people they found on the lists into concentration camps, they shoot them and gassed them. The victims got marked with a pink sign, hence the name "pink lists".

It seems far fetched for most Australians that anything like that could happen in Australia ever. I just like to remind everyone that the same applied to Germans in 1890. No one expected something like that to happen ever...

The pandemic will be history in a few years time - the passports, databases, etc. are bound to stay much much longer.

I don't need my vaccination status in a database and a business asking for it will neither get an answer nor my money. I'll go elsewhere. And yes, I'm fully vaccinated and I have it recorded in my yellow booklet.

[GraemeCook]

... Singapore has reached 80% of their TOTAL (not just over 16's like they are counting in Australia) population fully vaccinated, then eased restrictions and now case numbers are jumping. This should be a warning to Australia about what will happen here if they go ahead with the current plans for opening up. ...

Absolutely correct, Doug, and yesterday the ABC highlighted this with a report of over 500 new cases daily in spite of 80% vaccination rates, but it is not the whole story. People who have not been vaccinated are five times more likely to get covid and to get a much more severe infection.

Singapore has a very high rate of testing for covid averaging over 60,000 tests per day - the "average" Singaporean has been tested 3.4 times - and they are detecting many cases where the person has zero symptons and did not suspect that they might have covid, and are then required to quarantine at home. Singaporeans are quite responsible at following rules - its the Singapore Way.

This is reflected in their statistics for yesterday:-

774 people in hospital (less than 2 days new infections),
54 cases requiring oxygen,
8 cases in ICU,
5.4% unvaccinated got covid compared to 1% of vaccinated,
81% fully vaccinated and 84% had first dose,
607 new cases yesterday,
98.2% of cases were asyymptomatic or had mild symptons.

(Source: Singapore Ministry of Health, MOH | News Highlights (http://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/update-on-local-covid-19-situation-(13-sep-2021)))

[Beardy]

Would the high number of asymptomatic cases be because they are healthier in general compared to say the US with a high obesity rate ?

[Lappa]

I don't need my vaccination status in a database.

It already is.

[GraemeCook]

Would the high number of asymptomatic cases be because they are healthier in general compared to say the US with a high obesity rate?

Probably the best single measure of "healthiness" is life expectancy. World Health places Singapore at number 4 and Australia at No 6 behind leader Japan.

Japan - 84.3 years,
Singapore - 83.2 years, and
Australia - 83.0 years.

Very little difference measured.

But covid deaths are disproportionately confined to senior citizens and the remaining life expectancy at age 60 is:-


Japan - 26.3 years,
Singapore - 25.5 years, and
Australia - 25.6 years.

Again, virtually no difference.

USA is a long way down the life expectancy table at No 40 which might reflect many factors including obessity, life style, guns, health services, etc.

[ian]

As a double vaccinated person (2nd jab was received in early July) -- who is currently Covid stranded in Canada -- let me try to answer Warb's question from a Canadian perspective
that leads me to wonder where we draw the lines between intent to cause harm, failure to take reasonable care to prevent harm, and a pure accident? I'm fully vaccinated, but I know I can still catch Covid-19.

I'm fully vaccinated, but I know I can still pass the Covid-19 virus on to a vaccinated person. The risk of transmission is low, but it is nowhere even near close to zero. I don't really care if I pass the virus onto an unvaccinated person -- that is mostly their look out for not being vaccinated. But I will continue to practice "social distancing" and, for the time being at least, I'll continue wearing a mask whilst in enclosed public spaces. Mostly to partially protect those who can't get (what will be for most in NSW) the 3rd jab.

But how can I tell that what I think is just "the sniffles" or a "mild dose of the common flu" is actually a non-severe case of Covid-19? Answer, I have absolutely no way of knowing unless I take a Covid test.
But as a double vaccinated person why should I subject myself to a bodily invasion that has a 30%(?) probability of returning a false negative?
And if I get tested before my viral load is high enough, I understand that a "false negative" result has a probability approaching 1.
But in NSW at least, a false negative is the same as a true negative and means "I can't have the virus, so life can continue as before".

I could also undergo a rapid antigen test. Again, because I'm double vaccinated, I would expect a rapid antigen test to return a "positive" aka I have been exposed to the virus. So what will a rapid antigen test really tell me? Nothing.


The alternative is to assume that I am always potentially infectious. Well, this is what I am doing. Kisses and hugs even among close friends are now rarities.
Unlike the annual flu shot(?), double vaccination against Covid-19 does not confer immunity. And especially under the current NSW "out break control" protocol's shortened interval between doses -- double vaccination only provides 55%(?) protection against a severe Covid-19 outcome. Not the 95%(?) against a severe outcome should your second jab follow the 1st at 10 to 12 weeks.


So what will we -- as a society do -- long term?

As I mentioned in a previous post, we have to accept that Covid-19 is now endemic. Initially Covid-19 may have an outcome that is as bad as, or possibly worse, than influenza. But so far, given the 3 fold increase in the world's population since 1920, Covid-19 seems a less serious illness compared to the "Spanish Flu" pandemic in 1918-1921.

[AndyJ]

It already is.

I know that. I still don't like it.

[Warb]

I could also undergo a rapid antigen test. Again, because I'm double vaccinated, I would expect a rapid antigen test to return a "positive" aka I have been exposed to the virus. So what will a rapid antigen test really tell me? Nothing.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we have to accept that Covid-19 is now endemic. Initially Covid-19 may have an outcome that is as bad as, or possibly worse, than influenza. But so far, given the 3 fold increase in the world's population since 1920, Covid-19 seems a less serious illness compared to the "Spanish Flu" pandemic in 1918-1921.

I agree that we need to learn to live with covid, because it IS now endemic. As I have said, perhaps we also need to change our ideas about how long people will live, and how we view "co-morbidities", especially those that are based on lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, obesity etc.).

I'm not so sure about the statement that a RAT will give a positive result in a double vaccinated person. I have a box of RAT's on my desk (stop laughing!), and so far nobody has given a positive result regardless of vaccination status. We have tested single and double Pfizer, and single and double AZ. We've yet to test Moderna, they don't arrive for a couple of weeks.

[ian]

Absolutely correct, Doug, and yesterday the ABC highlighted this with a report of over 500 new cases daily in spite of 80% vaccination rates, but it is not the whole story. People who have not been vaccinated are five times more likely to get covid and to get a much more severe infection.

Singapore has a very high rate of testing for covid averaging over 60,000 tests per day - the "average" Singaporean has been tested 3.4 times - and they are detecting many cases where the person has zero symptons and did not suspect that they might have covid, and are then required to quarantine at home. Singaporeans are quite responsible at following rules - its the Singapore Way.

This is reflected in [Singapore's] statistics for yesterday:-

774 people in hospital (less than 2 days new infections),
54 cases requiring oxygen,
8 cases in ICU,
5.4% unvaccinated got covid compared to 1% of vaccinated,
81% fully vaccinated and 84% had first dose,
607 new cases yesterday,
98.2% of cases were asyymptomatic or had mild symptons.

(Source: Singapore Ministry of Health, MOH | News Highlights (http://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/update-on-local-covid-19-situation-(13-sep-2021)))
So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days.

81% of Singapore's total population are fully vaccinated, and an additional 3% have had their 1st dose. But 11.4% of Singapore's population is aged under 12 and can't yet be jabbed. (I don't know the "rules" for jabs in Singapore, but if it's a minimum of 14 -- until a few days ago it was 16 in Australia -- the percent who are unvaccinated because they can't be rises to 13.8%).
So if only 1% of the vaccinated are catching the virus, that implies only 34 or so people who were fully vaccinated caught the virus in the past two days. But there were around 1200 new cases across the two days. Which in turn implies almost all of the new "positives" -- 98.2% of which were asymptomatic -- are in the unvaccinated kids.


So apart from trying to get the kids vaccinated -- which for the moment is not an option -- what can one really do?

[ian]

I agree that we need to learn to live with covid, because it IS now endemic. As I have said, perhaps we also need to change our ideas about how long people will live, and how we view "co-morbidities", especially those that are based on lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol, obesity etc.).
On the assumption that fully vaccinating those with "co-morbidities" against Covid-19 will provide a "reasonable" level of protection -- much like an annual flu shots does now -- perhaps the issue of "co-morbidity" risk (regardless of lifestyle choice) largely goes away?

[ian]

I don't need my vaccination status in a database


It already is.


I know that. I still don't like it.
I believe the real issue is who has access to the "vaccination status database"?

I trust Health, sort of -- but I certainly don't trust the Police nor any other authority including Immigration which is part of Home Affairs.

If you have been following the news lately you will have seen that Western Australia had to specifically legislate to prevent their police accessing the Health database. I haven't seen a similar legislative action in Victoria, NSW, or Queensland.
As for the Commonwealth -- let's say I am not holding my breath. The Commonwealth is the very definition of unaccountable overreach.

[Lappa]

To enter some countries you must have been vaccinated against eg. Yellow fever and have evidence of such.

[justonething]

So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days.

81% of Singapore's total population are fully vaccinated, and an additional 3% have had their 1st dose. But 11.4% of Singapore's population is aged under 12 and can't yet be jabbed. (I don't know the "rules" for jabs in Singapore, but if it's a minimum of 14 -- until a few days ago it was 16 in Australia -- the percent who are unvaccinated because they can't be rises to 13.8%).
So if only 1% of the vaccinated are catching the virus, that implies only 34 or so people who were fully vaccinated caught the virus in the past two days. But there were around 1200 new cases across the two days. Which in turn implies almost all of the new "positives" -- 98.2% of which were asymptomatic -- are in the unvaccinated kids.


So apart from trying to get the kids vaccinated -- which for the moment is not an option -- what can one really do?

Not sure of how you got 34 people who were vaccinated and caught the virus, but your conclusion of those in hospital, a large proportion are kids issomewhat uncertain from these numbers because hospitalization rate would be lower in comparison to those who got sick. 81% of total population actually means 91% of the eligible population over 12 - which is a much higher target than our of 64% (of 80% over 16). In Australia, a lot of kids end up in hospital even though they are really that sick (but sick enough) because parents are too sick to look after them. We will continue to encounter this problem if the vaccination rate is at 64%.

[GraemeCook]

So if I can reparse your numbers somewhat ...

Singapore has detected around 1200 new cases in the past two days -- of which 98.2% (1178) were asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms. Which implies that of the 774 in hospital, only 22 were admitted in the past 2 days. Meaning that 752 have been in hospital more than 2 days. ...


I think that you are trying to read in a level of precision that does not exist in the stats, Ian. Apart from the day specific figures that I quoted, the figures were summations or averages over the previous 28 days. An average of 98.2% of cases detected in the previous 28 days were asymtomatic or only had very mild symptons. Reciprocally, on average 1.8% had more severe symptons. This does not mean that precisely 1.8% had severe symptons every day.

You are quite right when you say most were in hospital prior to the two day sample. The figures also include the poor souls with "long covid" who have been in hospital for months, a few for more that a year.

If you haven't already done so, I think you would enjoy ferreting around in the MOH website - a lot of seemingly well collated and well researched material.

[Log Dog]

Been 10 days since my 2nd shot of pfizer
Only slight headache
And it was short lived :wink:
Soooo glad now fully vaccinated
Really feel for all the folk in lockdown though
Has made me more appreciative of my own freedoms
I take nothing for granted anymore
Every day is special...life is good :q
Log Dog :)

[ian]

To enter some countries you must have been vaccinated against eg. Yellow fever and have evidence of such.
Yes, I do now this.

But the critical differences are:
1. Yellow Fever like Dengue Fever, Malaria, and a host of other diseases are mosquito borne. If you are not bitten by a virus carrying mossie you won't get Yellow Fever or any other vector borne disease.
Covid-19, like SARS, MERS and influenza, is a respiratory disease. Meaning there is no transmission vector involved. People pass the virus on to others (and catch it themselves) by the simple act of breathing, or contacting a "breath frosted" surface. (Dare I mention other more viscous forms of "breath", like "runny snot" and "dribbly spittle"?)

2. Vaccination against Yellow Fever is at least 95% effective after 10 days. As far as I can tell, in the Yellow Fever case, "95% effective" means you are 100% protected from reacting to the Yellow Fever virus.
The Covid-19 vaccination is at best 95% effective against severe symptoms of the disease -- if I'm understanding this correctly, 5% of fully vaccinated people will become so sick that they require hospitalisation. A critical difference to a Yellow Fever vaccination where vaccination confers 100% protection.

3. Once fully vaccinated against Covid-19, a person can still pass the virus on to another person, and they can still become infected themselves. Other critical differences to the protection afforded by vaccination against Yellow Fever.

3. WHO say that a single Yellow Fever "shot" is good for a lifetime. However, I note that some countries won't accept a Yellow Fever "passport" more than 10 years old.
Vaccination against Covid-19 is currently still being rolled out. "Big Pharma" suggests that annual booster shots will be required. WHO would prefer if consideration of the advisability of an annual Covid "booster shot" were postponed till most of the world's population is vaccinated.
I'm not sure what will happen in Australia, where under the current "Covid outbreak control protocol" in NSW, the 2nd vaccine shot is being administered 6 to 7 weeks inside the recommended 12 week wait between shots, so the 2nd shot only confers about 55% protection against a severe Covid outcome. Ref: see Warb's comment on a previous page of this thread.


So I don't really see your equivalence between a "Yellow Fever" passport (to enter countries where Yellow Fever is endemic) and a Covid "passport" that could apply to all people moving more than 10 km from their home.
At best a Covid vaccination status passport might be stop-gap measure while we rebalance our expectations around disease's prevalence.
But given the current pace of the vaccine rollout in NSW, by the time a suitable "passport" style document was agreed to and implemented would it still be needed? After all no one (apart from a few health workers) is asked to prove they have had an influenza shot in the past 6 months.


My own view is that Covid is now endemic within the world's population.
Most of Europe, the US and Canada appear to have reached this same conclusion. Australia and New Zealand are more swimming against, rather than with, the tide.

No country will succeed in eliminating the virus. At best a country will be able to protect the majority of its population using vaccines. At worst, no vaccination equals little protection of the population.

Studies from Los Angeles County show that over 50% of the county's 12+M population have been exposed to the disease. That's 1.5M more people exposed to a Covid-19 infection in that one county than have been reported to date (4.5M) for all of California. Across the entire US that equates to 125 MILLION undiagnosed cases of Covid-19.

[doug3030]

After all no one (apart from a few health workers) is asked to prove they have had an influenza shot in the past 6 months.

I am not a health-worker.

My mother has been in aged care for five years. My father is now in there with her for the past year. My partner's mother has been in aged care in a different state for 9 months. Even before Covid and currently, we need to prove our flu vaccination status to get in to see my mother, at least in the flu season. Now we require to prove Covid vaccination status as well - that's if they are taking visitors at all.

[Aussiephil]

I am not a health-worker.

My mother has been in aged care for five years. My father is now in there with her for the past year. My partner's mother has been in aged care in a different state for 9 months. Even before Covid and currently, we need to prove our flu vaccination status to get in to see my mother, at least in the flu season. Now we require to prove Covid vaccination status as well - that's if they are taking visitors at all.

This is certainly an area that I support evidence of current status and there should be multiple ways for that evidence to be provided. For regular visitors or with permission from the visitor the HEALTH institution should be able to access your RELEVANT immunisation record digitally.... if you not comfortable with this then it falls to the visitor to provide the evidence in approved form.

This though is not the same in any way with showing proof to any random person who has no legal right to know such as your local supermarket.

Phil

[LanceC]

Your "freedom at all costs" hardly rings true or fair when you also want to impose the compulsory viewing of my own private health data to non authorised people.

It doesn't concern me who knows if I have been vaccinated for COVID given that I've never hidden it, but that was my choice to release that information. Giving anyone and everyone the right to know however, leaves me feeling ill at ease. I'll try and articulate why, but as it's a mixture of emotion and logic, there are contradictions I'm still trying to grapple with.

1. The danger of these measure are never to the majority, of which most of use belong in this instance. But the legal and community expectation/precedent gets set, and the next time, you or I may not be. This is exactly what Phil's Niemöller quote was talking about. It's the same reason I thought the Anti-Consorting (Bikie) laws were problematic. They solved a need at the time, but have, to my mind, set a terrible precedent.
2. Anyone who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate reasons will become just as much of a pariah as the Anti-Vaxers. So now the bar keep knows that not only are they not vaccinated, but they also have other medical conditions. Will they need to show a medical certificate too? This could be mitigated somewhat by the vax passport simply showing a go/no-go status, with medical exceptions getting a go result, but still, I wonder how they will feel, hoping that people don't find out.
3. Who remembers the Aids paranoia in the early 80s when it was new? If something like that cropped up now, would we want a New-Aids passport too? Only now your transmissible status also confers/assumes you membership of a certain demographic. And if that demographic is considered undesirable by society? Well, it sucks to be you.

I think what irks me the most is my perception that the Federal Government is not being prepared to make a definitive decision regarding mandating vaccinations. Either it is a requirement for community wellbeing, in which case, mandate it. Or it isn't and the OAIC (privacy commissioner) should make clear that requiring this information is unlawful.

A point of interest. We are currently in this weird twilight zone where it is illegal for employers to require your vaccination status (outside of very specific exceptions), or even request it without explaining your rights, and explicitly stating that it is illegal to compel you to provide it. Yet we are heading down a path where pretty soon the bar keep can ask for it, and unfortunately, while as customers we have a choice where we shop or drink, if requiring it becomes the norm, our theoretical choice cannot be practically exercised.

The Federal Government is essentially leaving the management of community health to the masses, with every shop, pub, concert and church choosing their own vaccination strategy and allowance. We are seeing airlines and schools trying to mandate vaccines for staff, but this will need to be challenged in court as it goes against our privacy laws. Buy why is this being left to the business sector, whose motivations justifiably extend far beyond community health to define the path?

I do appreciate that there is no doubt a lot of information and decision making that we're not aware of within the Government. I just need the powers that be to set a course, and not leave something as important and personal health privacy policy to essentially be set by a de-facto crowd-sourced status-quo.

[doug3030]

This is certainly an area that I support evidence of current status and there should be multiple ways for that evidence to be provided. For regular visitors or with permission from the visitor the HEALTH institution should be able to access your RELEVANT immunisation record digitally.... if you not comfortable with this then it falls to the visitor to provide the evidence in approved form.

This though is not the same in any way with showing proof to any random person who has no legal right to know such as your local supermarket.

So, an aged care facility has a duty of care to their employees, customers and visitors but a Supermarket or other businesses don't?

[Aussiephil]

So, an aged care facility has a duty of care to their employees, customers and visitors but a Supermarket or other businesses don't?

Oh this is a muddy slippery slip... an aged care facility has a primary duty of care to it's patients and should enact any legal rules to ensure that can be met, this may include evidence of vaccination. all business (and private citizens having visitors) have a duty of care to employees, customers and visitors but that duty of care needs to balance discriminations practices as well as a bunch of other rules and regulations.

The slippery slope starts to include flu shots etc ...... if most business TRULY cared they would not have staff attending work sick... first level of duty of care to all.

Lance has put it far more eloquently than I can about the lingering question of who has a right to see what is by law personal private health information not even visible to all health workers by default, I have to approve it.

[BobL]

I'm doubly vaccinated and have a raft of health issues. When Covid hit my GP told me to stay at home and put up a large sign on the front door telling everyone to stay away. I usually go out of my way to encourage people to get vaccinated but on the issue of passports for general community use - i'm also not convinced

I look at the vaccine passport issue from the point of view of the small business owners and small community orgs . It's one thing for international travel operators, big businesses, event organisers, or those that that already employ door checkers and bouncers etc, to check vaccine passports etc, but this becomes a huge impost on small businesses and small community groups. The last thing small operations need/want to be doing is having arguments with customers about this.

The use of the "you must get vaccinated" argument because Covid patients are more likely to take up ICU beds thereby blocking access for say a vaccinated heart attack victim is also a slippery slope. While it makes sense on first glance, consider existing non-covid situations where the same argument could then be applied. What about if a 150kg patient with heart probs occupies the last ICU hospital bed do we turf that patient out when a 80kg heart attack patient shows up and then tell 150kg patient "You should have done something about your weight". Medical problems are rarely that simple. Maybe the 80kg patient had a very stressful job? "should changed jobs mate?", or lived near a toxic waste dump, "Should moved houses mate", etc. The 150kg bloke with a raft of medical issues at my diabetes classes had serious mental health issues. Interestingly his mate ,who was in some ways in worse shape diabetes wise, weighed about 50kg also had mental health issues. If conditions like this are not attended to nothing much else will work.

When COVID comes to WA I will do what I already do anyway. I intensely dislike crowds so rarely go to large events, and probably will just stop going to these altogether till the dust settles. I use online shopping, or go shopping at around 5 and 6am in the mornings. Might even move that hospital grade HEPA filter room air cleaner I have in the shed up to the house or maybe move into the shed?

[GraemeCook]

Nicely argued, Lance. Quite a few issues that I think will take a long time to resolve. As ever, the devil is in the detail.


... We are seeing airlines and schools trying to mandate vaccines for staff, but this will need to be challenged in court as it goes against our privacy laws. Buy why is this being left to the business sector, whose motivations justifiably extend far beyond community health to define the path? ...

This seemingly simple scenario has quite a lot of implications.

Undoubtedly, it could be construed that compulsory vaccination infringes both personal freedom and privacy laws. But where does a business stand?

Under common law, bolstered in some areas by statute law, a business owes a duty of care to its employees, customers and the general public. But what precisely does that duty of care entail, the detail hiding the devil?

For example, suppose an unvaccinated employee contracts covid:

Was the covid contracted in the course of his employment, or outside? Evidence and proof? Does it matter?
Will the employer have to finance sick leave? Probably yes, but with credit limits?
Or should it be Compo Leave? Different rules, insurance implications, cost implications?
Was the employer negligent in allowing his employee to be exposed to the covid? Evidence and proof?
Was the employee recklessly irresponsible in exposing himself? Evidence and proof? Does it matter?
Can the employee sue the employer for pain, suffering, etc?
If he dies, what can or will his estate do?
And a host of other unanswered questions?

I certainly do not know the answers to them. Remember the devil and the detail.

But there are a host of ambulance chasing lawyers with cash register eyes lining up to play their role in creating and defining new law. I am wary of lawyers solving policy issues.

[BobL]

For example, suppose an unvaccinated employee contracts covid:

Was the covid contracted in the course of his employment, or outside? Evidence and proof? Does it matter?
Will the employer have to finance sick leave? Probably yes, but with credit limits?
Or should it be Compo Leave? Different rules, insurance implications, cost implications?
Was the employer negligent in allowing his employee to be exposed to the covid? Evidence and proof?
Was the employee recklessly irresponsible in exposing himself? Evidence and proof? Does it matter?
Can the employee sue the employer for pain, suffering, etc?
If he dies, what can or will his estate do?
And a host of other unanswered questions?

I certainly do not know the answers to them. Remember the devil and the detail..

Up until 2019 somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand people across Australia died from the flu each year. - replace Covid with the "flu" in your questions and you may have some of the answers - or "non-answers" .

One way to think about all this is to invoke ways and means to keep total deaths of flu + Covid to 3-4000 per year, a figure we seem to have "tolerated" for some time.

So far there have been no more than about 100 deaths from flu in 2020-21. The total deaths from Covid over about 18 months are currently 1116 so we appear to be well in front.

Of course this doesn't take into account factors such as, a battered economy, mental health issues, long Covid, and fried health workers/systems, but it may be a start.

Instead of a all or nothing "freedom day" some sort of staged transition seems appropriate.

[ian]

So, an aged care facility has a duty of care to their employees, customers and visitors but a Supermarket or other businesses don't?
speaking from a jurisdiction [Canada] where Covid-19 cases are approaching 1.6 million, with over 27,000 deaths, and where the number of cases in the 2nd wave peaked at over 10,000 per day back in January before there was any vaccine, employees in supermarkets, coffee shops and the like were protected from their customers by a combination of wearing a mask and 4'+ high plastic screens, and their customers all wore masks, the "duty of care" you refer to was quite adequately IMO covered. (I know, a bad pun)


Even now, with Alberta running at nearly 1600 new cases per day -- across a population around half that of NSW -- life is proceeding almost like normal.
Yes, indoors everyone is masked.
Yes, around 70% of the eligible population is fully vaccinated.
Yes, there are still capacity limits at many venues and weddings and funerals
Yes, many of the 4'+ high plastic screens are still in place in some workplaces - but not where I had my sit-down coffee today

Most importantly, we are not living our lives in fear.

[woodPixel]

Why did we stop smoking?

Why do we concern ourselves with fine dust?

Why bother with smog and air pollution?


Some of the comments here are troubling.

[GraemeCook]

Up until 2019 somewhere between 3 and 4 thousand people across Australia died from the flu each year. - replace Covid with the "flu" in your questions and you may have some of the answers - or "non-answers". ...

Bob, I essentially agree with what you are saying but I am not sure that it is relevant. Both of us come from very different but very pragmatic professional backgrounds, and neither of us think like lawyers ... The concept of an arguable case is a foreign world.

The "sting in the tail" was in my final paragraph:


... I certainly do not know the answers to them. Remember the devil and the detail.

But there are a host of ambulance chasing lawyers with cash register eyes lining up to play their role in creating and defining new law. I am wary of lawyers solving policy issues. ...

[GraemeCook]

... Of course this doesn't take into account factors such as, a battered economy ...

Innumerate journalists, particularly in the Murdoch press, are repeatedly hammering this point but it is fake news - the economy is not battered. Just quoting from the latest National Accounts release:

Key statistics


The Australian economy rose 0.7% in seasonally adjusted chain volume measures
GDP rose 1.4% in 2020-21
The terms of trade rose 7.0%
Household saving ratio decreased to 9.7% from 11.6%




(Source: Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, June 2021 | Australian Bureau of Statistics (https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/australian-national-accounts-national-income-expenditure-and-product/latest-release))

New Zealand GDP and employment was also up by around 1% in the last twelve months. UK and USA figures were down by roughly 4% for the same period. Dead people and sick people are a cost to the economy.

[AndyJ]

...
The Federal Government is essentially leaving the management of community health to the masses, with every shop, pub, concert and church choosing their own vaccination strategy and allowance. We are seeing airlines and schools trying to mandate vaccines for staff, but this will need to be challenged in court as it goes against our privacy laws. Buy why is this being left to the business sector, whose motivations justifiably extend far beyond community health to define the path?....

There is only one, simple reason: a Prime Minister who does everything to stay in power and that has no interest in Australia's- people at all. That's why Scott Morrison said in August: "We do not have a mandatory vaccination policy in this country. We are not proposing that. That is not changing"
but also "Ultimately, employers need to consider these matters and make their own decisions."

It is clear as day that a mandate to get vaccinated doesn't go down well with everyone. Instead of making the inconvenient decision himself and risking loosing valuable votes, he generously allows businesses to do that. If they cop backlash it's not his problem. I'm actually very surprised that so many employers fell right into that trap.

Somehow Australians seem to have completely lost the plot. This safety first approach (no matter the cost) stifles the country. You can't see your mum in an aged care home because of a missing flu shot? This is insane! Obviously an aged care home is a kind of prison. No one prevents one from entering a hospital unvaccinated though. How does that make sense?

[BobL]

Innumerate journalists, particularly in the Murdoch press, are repeatedly hammering this point but it is fake news - the economy is not battered. Just quoting from the latest National Accounts release:

Key statistics




The Australian economy rose 0.7% in seasonally adjusted chain volume measures
GDP rose 1.4% in 2020-21
The terms of trade rose 7.0%
Household saving ratio decreased to 9.7% from 11.6%


.

Cant help think of how NA are just another form of smoke and mirrors to keep the pollies looking good.

Try telling the famers who cannot harvest their crops, people who work in the arts, , the 40,000 people who have lost university jobs, and the thousands of former workers of the tourism and hospitality industries.

[GraemeCook]

Cant help think of how NA are just another form of smoke and mirrors to keep the pollies looking good.

Try telling the famers who cannot harvest their crops, people who work in the arts, , the 40,000 people who have lost university jobs, and the thousands of former workers of the tourism and hospitality industries.


Never suggested that the pain and benefits were equally or equitably distributed, Bob.

The casualisation of the academic industry was well established long before covid which gave the VC's an opportunity to accelerate the process. Extremely short sighted, in my view.

[GraemeCook]

The optomistic tone of Ian's last posting made me think about whether Australia's vaccination rates were really as dire as the media is reporting. Here are the latest figures from the Australian Immunisation Register:


501009
(Source: www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccination-doses-by-age-and-sex (http://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccination-doses-by-age-and-sex))


From the graph we can see:

70% of all over 70's are fully vaccinated and almost 20% more have received the first shot - on target for 90% coverage,
70% of the over 40's have received at least the first shot,
the tapering in the younger cohorts reflects the phased roll out of vax's.


My analysis is that it could be better, but it is not dire.

[Lappa]

So I don't really see your equivalence between a "Yellow Fever" passport (to enter countries where Yellow Fever is endemic) and a Covid "passport" that could apply to all people moving more than 10 km from their home.



My point/equivalence is they are both vaccine certificates and it appears that you may have to show your Covid passport if you wish to travel to another country. The main difference is that Covid is endemic to just about all countries while yellow fever is only endemic in some.
Where do all people have to show a Covid passport to move more than 10km from home? Certainly not in Australia. Maybe when moving from or into hotspots but isn't that the same as a yellow fever passport when moving to or from countries with yellow fever??
You have to show your children are vaccinated against the usual number of diseases to be able to enrol in childcare so I can’t see you having to show you are Covid vaccinated to enter certain places as any different.

[woodhutt]

I'm puzzled why vaccine uptake is such an issue other than as a race to reduce drastic negative outcomes from the virus for the maximum number of people. If, as we are told, the vaccines will not prevent someone who has been vaccinated from either contracting or spreading the disease but will only mitigate the outcome then, even if a population achieves 100% vaccination, the virus will continue to circulate. So, those who refuse a vaccination are simply putting themselves at risk of a more serious outcome and no-one else.
Presumably those who choose not to have the jab have evaluated this risk to themselves and are prepared to accept it. I avoid what I consider high-risk activities such as para-gliding, sky-diving and rock climbing (although I have been known to disagree with SWMBO - a perilous undertaking) but I am happy to go into my shed each day and use sharp or rapidly rotating tools. It's a risk I have evaluated and accept while taking precautions to try and avoid a bad outcome.
So, I believe a time is fast approaching when we will have vaccinated all those who want it and it will be time to open up. If different countries decide on mandating vaccination "passports" for overseas travelers, then those who choose not to have the jab and wish to travel will have a choice to make.
Pete

[Bushmiller]

I'm puzzled why vaccine uptake is such an issue other than as a race to reduce drastic negative outcomes from the virus for the maximum number of people. If, as we are told, the vaccines will not prevent someone who has been vaccinated from either contracting or spreading the disease but will only mitigate the outcome then, even if a population achieves 100% vaccination, the virus will continue to circulate. So, those who refuse a vaccination are simply putting themselves at risk of a more serious outcome and no-one else.
Presumably those who choose not to have the jab have evaluated this risk to themselves and are prepared to accept it. I avoid what I consider high-risk activities such as para-gliding, sky-diving and rock climbing (although I have been known to disagree with SWMBO - a perilous undertaking) but I am happy to go into my shed each day and use sharp or rapidly rotating tools. It's a risk I have evaluated and accept while taking precautions to try and avoid a bad outcome.
So, I believe a time is fast approaching when we will have vaccinated all those who want it and it will be time to open up. If different countries decide on mandating vaccination "passports" for overseas travelers, then those who choose not to have the jab and wish to travel will have a choice to make.
Pete

Pete

I think you have the crux of the issue there. Unfortunately the vaccines are not 100% effective but they can certainly minimise the effects on individuals, remove the necessity of a hospital visitation and quite likely prevent the unexpected and unwanted premature termination of life: So generally it can be considered a good thing. Of course nothing is entirely simple. There will be people who are medically unable to have a vaccine and those who are too young. Those groups will be placed at increased risk by the selfish or stupid few who refuse vaccination. Nothing is simple, as I said, or perfect.

There is another reason for vaccination, which in the early days was a real concern and that was the overloading of hospital resources. We have started to forget that aspect, but an overloaded hospital now begins to be unable to treat other emergency cases quite apart from Covid-19. As it is, much elective surgery was placed on hold I believe.

On the subject of a " vaccination passport," I don't really see the issue there either. We have a license to drive a car, tickets for various skills in the workplace. I would regard a vaccination passport as an extension of that way of thinking.

Invasion of privacy? Pah!. Forget about that if you have a mobile phone or a computer. That boat sailed a long time ago.

Regards
Paul

[Log Dog]

Cant help think of how NA are just another form of smoke and mirrors to keep the pollies looking good.

Try telling the famers who cannot harvest their crops, people who work in the arts, , the 40,000 people who have lost university jobs, and the thousands of former workers of the tourism and hospitality industries.:goodpost:

[woodhutt]

Pete

I think you have the crux of the issue there. Unfortunately the vaccines are not 100% effective but they can certainly minimise the effects on individuals, remove the necessity of a hospital visitation and quite likely prevent the unexpected and unwanted premature termination of life: So generally it can be considered a good thing. Of course nothing is entirely simple. There will be people who are medically unable to have a vaccine and those who are too young. Those groups will be placed at increased risk by the selfish or stupid few who refuse vaccination. Nothing is simple, as I said, or perfect.

There is another reason for vaccination, which in the early days was a real concern and that was the overloading of hospital resources. We have started to forget that aspect, but an overloaded hospital now begins to be unable to treat other emergency cases quite apart from Covid-19. As it is, much elective surgery was placed on hold I believe.

On the subject of a " vaccination passport," I don't really see the issue there either. We have a license to drive a car, tickets for various skills in the workplace. I would regard a vaccination passport as an extension of that way of thinking.

Invasion of privacy? Pah!. Forget about that if you have a mobile phone or a computer. That boat sailed a long time ago.

Regards
Paul

Paul. I hadn't forgotten those who are unable to take this (or presumably any other) vaccine for medical reasons. I would imagine they already have strategies in place to minimize their exposure to this and other diseases.
As baby boomers (as most of us on the forum are) born into a post-penicillin world, our expectations have perhaps become too high regarding the ability of science to develop cures for any disease. I feel certain our parents, or certainly our grandparents, had a different mindset when it came to mortality - particularly infant and child mortality. They had no option and perhaps we now have to come to terms with the same reality. I realize this is harsh, and as a parent/grandparent I would be devastated if it happened in my family, but I have to accept the possibility. We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.
Pete

[ian]

We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.
:whs:

[doug3030]

We already have common illnesses such as influenza which we have to live with and protect ourselves against each season. Perhaps Covid is another to add to the list.

Exactly - and we protect ourselves from influenza with an annual vaccine.

Even before Covid I had to show proof of influenza vaccination before being allowed to visit my mother in a nursing home. No jab no visit.

[Aussiephil]

Certainly in Australia Flu has almost disappeared, no doubt it will come roaring back at some point.

Quote from Influenza cases hit an all-time low in Australia in 2021 — that could be a problem when it returns - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/queensland-what-happened-to-the-flu-in-2021/100456616)

Before COVID-19 arrived, the number of influenza cases was reaching some of its highest levels, with 313,033 notifications of laboratory-confirmed influenza across Australia in 2019 — 2.7 times higher than the five-year average — and 953 deaths.
In 2020, there were more than 20,000 notifications to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and 37 deaths.
This year, to August 29, just 484 cases were recorded and zero deaths.

-----------------

[woodhutt]

Certainly in Australia Flu has almost disappeared, no doubt it will come roaring back at some point.

Quote from Influenza cases hit an all-time low in Australia in 2021 — that could be a problem when it returns - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/queensland-what-happened-to-the-flu-in-2021/100456616)

Before COVID-19 arrived, the number of influenza cases was reaching some of its highest levels, with 313,033 notifications of laboratory-confirmed influenza across Australia in 2019 — 2.7 times higher than the five-year average — and 953 deaths.
In 2020, there were more than 20,000 notifications to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and 37 deaths.
This year, to August 29, just 484 cases were recorded and zero deaths.

-----------------




Not just in Australia but worldwide. Hasn't the low incidence of flu been put down to the Covid precautions most of us have been taking (hand-washing, mask wearing and social distancing)? All those things, especially hand-washing, we should be doing as a matter of course each flu season.
Pete

[Aussiephil]

Not just in Australia but worldwide. Hasn't the low incidence of flu been put down to the Covid precautions most of us have been taking (hand-washing, mask wearing and social distancing)? All those things, especially hand-washing, we should be doing as a matter of course each flu season.
Pete
From that article and a couple of others the low incidence comes from the lack of international travel combined with the precautions as you say above.

[Warb]

I've been watching the situation in the UK, post "freedom day" and it's been interesting. The UK is currently running 50,000+ new cases per day, and around 1000 hospitalisations per day. The UK's Office for National Statistics has stated that in the week ending October 16th, 1 in 55 people in the UK had covid, and 1 in 14 "kids" of secondary school age (high school) were infected. This, it must be noted, is in autumn and could perhaps be expected to get worse as they move in to winter. There is pressure on the UK government to reintroduce compulsory mask usage, vaccine passports etc.

It raises interesting questions! In much of mainland Europe masks and isolation etc. never went away. I read that in Germany (and I'm not sure if it's all of Germany or just certain cities) masks are compulsory, and must be medical grade masks not just bits of cloth. Negative tests within 48hours are required for most indoor activities, and this has been enabled by having testing facilities "on every corner" that email results within 15 minutes. The levels of covid in such areas is vastly reduced compared to the "free" UK.

The UK has quite a high vaccination rate, and is now well in to boosters but were a touch slow to start their booster program, and their death toll is reasonably low compared to the infection rate. But the numbers quoted above still suggest that 1 in 55 covid cases end up in hospital, and hospital resources are not limitless. If the numbers increase beyond the hospital capacity in the winter, presumably the death toll might increase?

So we are left with a conundrum! Remove restrictions and watch the case numbers surge? Keep restrictions (forever?) and maintain control? And when does the government get fed up of paying for boosters that look like they will be required at 6 monthly intervals or perhaps even more frequently? And, playing devils advocate again, when do we start to consider whether doing all of this is a worthwhile trade-off to maintain the upward trajectory of average life expectancy?

Interesting times!

In other news, boosters are soon (in the next two weeks according to our latest information) to be made available to pharmacies, as will the Pfizer vaccine which has just been recommended by the FDA (in the US) for approval in 5 to 11 year olds. Unfortunately it is not a given that pharmacies will choose to supply boosters - when done according to the rules vaccination has not been a very profitable exercise, and the vaccinators have received a great deal of grief from some individuals (including attempted bribes to falsify vaccine history). Our local team are exhausted and completely fed up with the whole thing.........

[GraemeCook]

I, too, wonder at efficacy of the the British approach to covid. According to Johns Hopkins, 12.95% of the British population have had or are infected with covid, and 2,046 people per million of population have died. Comparable death rates for Australia and New Zealand are 64 and 6 respectively. The death rate in UK is over 30 times greater than in Australia, and over 300 times that in NZ. Someone has stuffed up big time!

But there is a major debate going on behind the scenes in the medical profession and I think it will soon become public. Many professionals, especially specialists are seathing that they and their patients are being locked out of treatments that may involve intensive care, as intensive care and ventillator spaces are being reserved for existent or predicted covid patients.

Patients are classified into four groups:

Category 0 - Emergency - immediate treatment (eg appendix, road trauma, heart attack, stroke),
Category 1 - Urgent - treatment within 30 days,
Category 2 - Semi-Urgent - treatment within 90 days, and
Category 3 - Non-Urgent - treatment within 1 year.

Although often labelled as "elective surgery", treatments do not necessarily involve surgery; the constrictors are hospital bed spaces, staffing and intensive care spaces. Many urgent cases are deteriorating to become emergency cases and Cat 2 deteriorate to Cat 1. Some waiting have died. "Why are covid patients being given preference over my patients?"

If you look at the stats on Health Vic and NSW websites over 90% of hospitalisations are not vaccinated, and those with vaccinations almost always have serious other complaints.
The figures are even more stark when you look at those in intensive care and on ventillators; the vast majority are not fully vaccinated.

At what point does it become a self inflicted plaint? Why should a covid patient get preferential treatment over a cancer or heart patient? The latter are now being excluded, until they are classified as emergencies, which may be too late.

This is a critical ethical issue. It is also a standard triaging question - asked and answered multiple times a day in every hospital. Some are questioning that the underlying ethics may have been compromised unintentially.

[Warb]

At what point does it become a self inflicted plaint? Why should a covid patient get preferential treatment over a cancer or heart patient? The latter are now being excluded, until they are classified as emergencies, which may be too late.

That is a question that isn't really restricted to covid, but is far more all-encompassing. It relates to everything from smokers with lung cancer through drunk drivers with car crash injuries to sportspeople (skydivers, skiers, climbers, boxers etc.). Interestingly it also relates very strongly to many of the co-morbidities that impact Covid outcomes, things like obesity and diabetes (I'm thinking more type 2 as a result of "lifestyle" more than "born with type 1"). Not being vaccinated is a choice, but so is eating too much, being unfit etc. and they all result in bad health outcomes - with or without covid!

I'm not sure that the situation in the UK is a stuff-up as such. It could be viewed as such based purely on current numbers, but it could also be viewed as a necessary step on the path to a future that incorporates Covid, or as a result of culture and lifestyle. Much of Australia has been "lifestyle restricted" (locked down) to a greater or lesser degree for the last 18 months or so. We also have a far more outdoor oriented lifestyle, and a far lower population density over much of the country. All these things help to reduce the spread of an airborne virus, so it could be argued that our lower numbers are at least partly due to cultural differences. It would also explain why most (?) of our outbreaks have been in areas of higher population density.

In any case, I'm waiting until a few months after our own "freedom day" before I throw too many stones! The problem, as I see it, is that Covid isn't going away and the protection offered by vaccines (or natural immunity after infection) doesn't seem either particularly high or particularly long lived. The result is that without ongoing restrictions, masks and so forth, the UK situation is likely to be repeated everywhere. Which again begs the question "how long do we restrict our lives to keep the vulnerable safe?". My kids have now had nearly two years of minimal social life, mask wearing and remote learning. Viewed in the context of the question about unvaccinated covid patient vs. cancer patients, what about the lifestyles of all those kids (and everyone else!) vs. those who have/will die from covid?

[GraemeCook]

That is a question that isn't really restricted to covid, but is far more all-encompassing. It relates to everything from smokers with lung cancer through drunk drivers with car crash injuries to sportspeople (skydivers, skiers, climbers, boxers etc.). ...

Quite true, and they have all been excluded in preference to covid patients.


... I'm not sure that the situation in the UK is a stuff-up as such. It could be viewed as such based purely on current numbers, but it could also be viewed as a necessary step on the path to a future that incorporates Covid, or as a result of culture and lifestyle. ...

I wonder if the family and friends of 140,000 dead Poms agree with you.



... The problem, as I see it, is that Covid isn't going away and the protection offered by vaccines (or natural immunity after infection) doesn't seem either particularly high or particularly long lived. ...

Boris seemed to place massive reliance on "natural immunity after infection" or herd immunity as he called it, but the evidence seems to be that it does not exist. The available evidence seems to be that vax reduces the incidence of covid by a factor of perhaps 30, and also greatly reduces the severity of the infections that do occur. NSW + Vic Health websites are good sources.

My guess is that we will finish up needing an annual covid vax, just like the flu - after all, flu and covid are both coronaviruses.

[Warb]

I wonder if the family and friends of 140,000 dead Poms agree with you.

Quite possibly they are very upset. But also, possibly, the other 68million Poms are happily going to the pub....


Boris seemed to place massive reliance on "natural immunity after infection" or herd immunity as he called it, but the evidence seems to be that it does not exist.

Herd immunity is the concept that when sufficient members of the population are immune, either by vaccination or naturally after infection, the virus has nowhere to go and dies out. That concept is perfectly sound, but in the case of covid it seems that neither natural immunity nor vaccination gives a sufficient level of protection to cause the virus to run out of hosts. The vaccination may reduce the incidence of the disease, though remember that we don't test asymptomatic people so there is a degree of "no positive results doesn't mean no infections", and also the severity of symptoms (once again potentially causing some people not to bother getting tested), but not sufficiently to allow herd immunity to "remove" the disease as initially suggested.


The available evidence seems to be that vax reduces the incidence of covid by a factor of perhaps 30, and also greatly reduces the severity of the infections that do occur. NSW + Vic Health websites are good sources.

My guess is that we will finish up needing an annual covid vax, just like the flu - after all, flu and covid are both coronaviruses.

I agree, although remember that this is exactly what is happening in the UK. Currently 80% of the UK have had two doses, and they're giving autumn boosters. Yet still they're seeing 50K new cases per day and around 1000 hospitalisations, and rising.

Germany, in contrast, has "only" around 68% fully vaccinated yet their new cases are averaging 5000-10,000 per day, much lower than the UK but also appear to be rising. They are also no longer providing free RATs, but have a double-vax or negative RAT (sometimes both) requirement to do many things - so unvaccinated will have to pay for a RAT every time they want to eat out, get a haircut etc., and they also require medical grade masks to be worn indoors. But it STILL seems that their cases are rising.......

I still have a suspicion that booster or not we'll see a massive increase in covid rates when we start to unlock...

[Log Dog]

I still have a suspicion that booster or not we'll see a massive increase in covid rates when we start to unlock...I believe this will happen too
I find the thought worrisome as well
A lot of communities are still NOT prepared with low vaccination rates
Nth Qld in particular
Must say it has me on edge...and i'm fully vaccinated :C
Log Dog :)

[woodhutt]

The latest thinking is that, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the risk of new variants emerging, variants which could have a more severe impact on those already vaccinated.
This is an argument being put forward by epidemiologists while businesses and workplaces wrestle with the "no jab - no job" issue.
SWMBO, who works for a local authority, has been asked to complete a questionnaire regarding her thoughts on working alongside unvaccinated fellow workers. It's an issue we all face as we don't know who we are interacting with during our everyday life and is driving the continuing exhortation to wear masks.

[Warb]

The latest thinking is that, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the risk of new variants emerging, variants which could have a more severe impact on those already vaccinated.

It is true that the lower the rate of infection, the lower the "breeding ground" for new variants to develop. Unfortunately we are living in an age where numbers are everything, and people have lost track (to some degree) of reality. For example, big pharma employs hordes of statisticians to process their data and establish "statistically significant" differences that they can use to justify a product as being effective. Science has adopted this approach, but does it have any real world significance, or is it just numbers?

For example, this weekend I was reading about a U.K. report in to the effectiveness of the AZ vaccine at preventing the transmission of the delta variant. It considered the transmission of delta in "break-through" cases, i.e. people who contacted delta despite being double vaccinated. The data was that AZ was "very good" at preventing transmission of delta in break-through cases occurring soon (two weeks) after the second dose of vaccine. However that effectiveness dropped to almost negligible by three months after the second dose. So, "very good" transmission prevention - that means that the chance of passing delta to a close contact is fairly low, right? Wrong. The chance of passing delta to a close contact under those conditions is 57%, which I don't consider "very good" protection. If you were told there was a 57% chance of getting a disease, would you consider that to be safe? So what about "almost negligible", what is that in actual numbers? Well it turns out that "almost negligible" means that there is a 67% chance of passing delta to a close contact, which is about the same a with no vaccine at all.......

So the "very good" reduction in transmission of delta, two weeks after the second vaccination, actually means a reduction from 67% to 57% in the chance of passing it on. "Statistically" that's significant, but in real world terms? In either case it means a close contact is more likely to catch it than not!

The numbers for Pfizer, by the way, are 48% after two weeks and 58% after 3 months, so marginally better but still not "protection" that I'd be risking my life on!

Obviously this is looking only at transmission, and the other benefits of reducing the seriousness of the symptoms still remain....

[GraemeCook]

... the "no jab - no job" issue.

SWMBO, who works for a local authority, has been asked to complete a questionnaire regarding her thoughts on working alongside unvaccinated fellow workers. It's an issue we all face as we don't know who we are interacting with during our everyday life and is driving the continuing exhortation to wear masks.


This is a really serious issue challenging employers, large and small, at the moment. Two similar but different issues; consider:

employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
employer allows unvaccinated customers normal accccess to premises.


Employee develops covid, which turns to long covid, which becomes life changing, claims she was infected by an unvaccinated fellow worker. Can the employee sue the boss for negligence for unecessarily exposing them to covid? [It could involve long term support, plus massive legal fees]

I do not know the answer to this question. But I do know that there is an army of lawyers looking for the opportunity to find out.

Next question; if any employer decides to lock out all unvaccinated people, then who is the policeman? What is his authority? Would this breach competition law?

[Cgcc]

Hi Graeme

You are correct. It is very clear law imposed by similar legislation applying in every State and Territory that employers have a duty to ensure that a business is carried out in a way that is safe. It goes beyond the traditional common law duty of care which is merely to take reasonable care.

I think it's actually fairly simple. You have a well-known hazard (Covid-19 infection leading to illness). You therefore have to manage and attempt to eliminate, or sufficiently mitigate that risk, so far as reasonably practicable.

I think when you look at what all the blue-chip organisations and other larger employers are doing you'd get a good clue about what the legal position is being assessed to be.

I don't think it would be a competition law issue in terms of locking people out. If you're talking about the legal right to exclude the unvaccinated, you would ordinarily be the occupier (as owner or lessee) of your business premises with a right to limit access as a matter of property rights.

Chris

[Bushmiller]

I see a distinct legal dilemma here.

The employer is obliged to provide a safe workplace, but at the same time he also has to provide an equal opportunity workplace without discrimination. The larger companies may well be becoming more insistent for vaccination status, but I believe the police have some legal challenge in place at the moment regarding compulsory vaccination. This could well create a precedent, depending on the outcome, either way.

Regards
Paul

Edit: PS. And the winners are the.....lawyers.

[GraemeCook]

... I don't think it would be a competition law issue in terms of locking people out. If you're talking about the legal right to exclude the unvaccinated, you would ordinarily be the occupier (as owner or lessee) of your business premises with a right to limit access as a matter of property rights. ...


Under common law, a business owner had a clear right to exclude virtually anyone he so chose. Very common with publicans "banning" people, but grocers and other retailers also did it.

That right is now much more restricted, more complicated and more ambiguous - the effects of both anti-discrimination law and competition law.

Suppose a retailer banned an unvaccinated person. He immediately screams discrimmination because he is gay, Aboriginal, Jewish, Islamic, whatever. There a many cases of publican who banned people on behavioural issues, and then faced discrimination allegations - and lost.

Similar position under competition law. A business essentially cannot advertise a product for sale and then decline to sell to an specific individual - often refered to as "bait advertising".

[Cgcc]

It's only a dilemma if discriminating based on vaccination status is or involves a type of discrimination prohibited by legislation. It is only discrimination based on particular attributes that are prohibited by legislation, and subject to exceptions - eg race, gender, orientation, religious belief et cetera.

So far, the anti-vaxxers are trying to shoehorn vaccination status into a protected category with no apparent success by trying to argue it is an incident of political or religious belief or similar.

There may of course be other particular regimes and avenues of attack under particular legislative schemes such as whatever pieces of legislative regime govern police administration (for example).

[Cgcc]

Hi Graeme

I agree somewhat. Although I don't think "bait advertising" falls under competition law per se - it's just a prohibited trade practice. (Although consumer protection against trade practices is within a broad Commonwealth Act dealing with both competition and consumer law so the titles can suggest they're linked.)

[GraemeCook]

... It's only a dilemma if discriminating based on vaccination status is or involves a type of discrimination prohibited by legislation. It is only discrimination based on particular attributes that are prohibited by legislation, and subject to exceptions - eg race, gender, orientation, religious belief et cetera. ...

I am not sure that it is that simple, Chris, as may publicans have found out - expensively.

There have been quite a few cases where a publican has "banned" a drinker on the basis of behaviour. The "evictee" has then sued arguing discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or gender preference - and won. Damage payments and lawyers fees against the publican - $$$$$.





Hi Graeme

I agree somewhat. ....

Me, too, Chris, but we are so far into unchartered waters that I think we have to be really careful not to be too dogmatic.

Bait advertising is a very small part of the overall competition policy.




... And the winners are the.....lawyers. ...

So true!

[Cgcc]

Graeme what you're described sounds like someone being found to have actually discriminated based on gender et cetera in the sense of being disbelieved. Of course no-one actually admits to discriminating for prohibited reasons - it's always except in rare cases dressed up as something else.

I would caution against anecdotes when assessing the legal system. They are frequently false, repeated, amplified without being based in reality.

A famous one is the one about how you should never even move someone in a car accident because if you injure them (for example their neck) you will be sued. It is not legal reality. However the stories were passed around so much that eventually every State passed a law protecting "Good Samaritans" from liability for any good faith efforts to assist people at accidents.

The authors of the law reform report that ushered in the changes even noted that their own research and all public submissions had failed to ever identify a single case where anyone had ever even been sued (successfully or not) for such a scenario. See https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/R2002-001_Law_Neg_Final.pdf at 7.21

"The Panel understands that health-care professionals have long expressed a sense of anxiety about the possibility of legal liability for negligence arising from the giving of assistance in emergency situations. However, the Panel is not aware, from its researches or from submissions received by it, of any Australian case in which a good Samaritan (a person who gives assistance in an emergency) has been sued by a person claiming that the actions of the good Samaritan were negligent. Nor are we aware of any insurance-related difficulties in this area."

Despite this, the State laws introduced all included a protection for "Good Samaritans" just because of the easy to believe stories and chain emails.

[GraemeCook]

... I would caution against anecdotes when assessing the legal system. They are frequently false, repeated, amplified without being based in reality....

Totally agree but I was not referencing urban myths - but actual court cases.




... A famous one is the one about how you should never even move someone in a car accident because if you injure them (for example their neck) you will be sued. It is not legal reality. However the stories were passed around so much that eventually every State passed a law protecting "Good Samaritans" from liability for any good faith efforts to assist people at accidents. ...

Good example of a pervasive urban myth; but as you say, even before the legislation, there was never a case, successful or otherwise, against a "good Samaritan".

[woodPixel]

I saw this that resonated with me.

I consider Anti-Vaxxers to be my absolute enemy. They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

Enough of compromises. Enough of tolerance. Anti-scientific stupidity is a disease within itself.

503248

[Warb]

..... They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

This is the bit that gets me. Paying for my diesel this afternoon I watched a guy march in, no check-in, no mask and glaring at everybody, daring people to say anything. Why? Personally I don't find checking in or wearing a mask to be sufficiently onerous that I won't do it (though I do feel for those who have to wear a mask all day!), but to regard refusing as some kind of a statement is something I don't understand. What exactly is the statement? And does that "I don't follow the rules of your society" attitude extend to refusing medical treatment when the worst happens?

[Cgcc]

Graeme do you have the citation / name of the case?

I'm not intending on testing if you don't know - I'd just be interested in this example.

[woodPixel]

I watched a guy march in, no check-in, no mask and glaring at everybody, daring people to say anything..... And does that "I don't follow the rules of your society" attitude extend to refusing medical treatment when the worst happens?

This is EXACTLY what makes them my enemy. They are the enemy of SOCIETY ITSELF.

99% of ALL cases are now of the unvaxinated.

They are costing us ALL money. They are risking ALL of us. They are risking our CHILDREN and the sick, old and helpless.

This defines them as an absolute enemy.

The fact this bloke had to glower at everyone is absolute proof of the very wrongness they are perpetrating. He KNEW he was doing wrong. They should NOT be served, they absolutely MUST be shunned. Dont serve them. Tell them to never come back. They have marked themselves out for exclusion.

Let them die in their own homes, on their own time, at their own cost.

Absolutely and utterly bugger them.



YES... this is provocative, but how is it any LESS SO than these anti-vaxx scumbags? My opinion is the exact opposite of theirs. Their opinion is only an opinion, it isn't science. Its pure wilful ignorance. By them declaring themselves my enemy, I know exactly who to avoid.

[GraemeCook]

Graeme do you have the citation / name of the case?

I'm not intending on testing if you don't know - I'd just be interested in this example.


No; but you can go search a law library if you wish.

Cases that I remember, which were widely reported in the Hobart Mercury include:

Aboriginal person evicted from Moloney's Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
Prominent Aboriginal activist also evicted from Moloney's Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
Gay person evicted from Downtowner Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued,
Lady evicted from a Launceston Hotel, Hobart, for "behaviour" and sued.

All events occurred 10+ years ago. Maloney's, a previously very popular hotel, had extended legal action and was subject to an unofficial boycott; they went bankrupt a couple of years later.

[GraemeCook]

This is EXACTLY what makes them my enemy. They are the enemy of SOCIETY ITSELF.

99% of ALL cases are now of the unvaxinated.

They are costing us ALL money. They are risking ALL of us. They are risking our CHILDREN and the sick, old and helpless.

This defines them as an absolute enemy.
... .


Absolutely.

They are killing people; people who have serious ailments but are being denied beds in hospitals. There is no election for "elective surgery" which frequently does not involve surgery.

[GraemeCook]

This is a really serious issue challenging employers, large and small, at the moment. Two similar but different issues; consider:

employer allows unvaccinated employees to work alongside fully vaccinated people,
employer allows unvaccinated customers normal accccess to premises.


Employee develops covid, which turns to long covid, which becomes life changing, claims she was infected by an unvaccinated fellow worker. Can the employee sue the boss for negligence for unecessarily exposing them to covid? [It could involve long term support, plus massive legal fees]

I do not know the answer to this question. But I do know that there is an army of lawyers looking for the opportunity to find out.

Next question; if any employer decides to lock out all unvaccinated people, then who is the policeman? What is his authority? Would this breach competition law?



First time that I have ever tried quoting myself !!!

Here is an ABC Story that sums up the issues that I raised:
Unvaccinated workers could pose serious legal risks to businesses, lawyer warns - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-02/top-legal-expert-warns-unvaccinated-workers-pose-legal-risk/100585556)

Bottom line is that we will not know for certain what the law is until it goes to court and works its way through the ponderous system, and the Full Bench of the High Court finally decides. This usually takes years.

[LanceC]

I consider Anti-Vaxxers to be my absolute enemy. They are dangerous, malicious, ignorant and deliberately provocative.

Enough of compromises. Enough of tolerance. Anti-scientific stupidity is a disease within itself.

I think we need to be a little kinder and aim for understanding of the anti-vax community. Because I don't have the data on anti-vaxers specifically, I'll go a little broader and consider those with vaccine hesitancy. I'm not advocating agreement, but a respectful attempt at understanding. Much like vegetarians, electric car owners, hermits and those with a religious faith, it would be both inaccurate and unfair to assume they all have the same motivation for the decisions they make. When we make no attempt to understand their position, there is every chance that our repeated dogma is meaningless to them, so we just shout louder and call them names. I'll come back to this later.

Firstly, vaccine hesitancy as of today is sitting at 12% (Vaccine Hesitancy Report Card (2021), Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research. (https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-insights/ttpn/vaccination-report)). So to start off, that's a small proportion of the population.

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.13066), (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.

Let that sink in.

What percentage of our population were actually able to understand official Government communication. This is a complex topic, and it's hard to convey nuanced information simply. So if those who struggle to read are left behind by authoritative sources, where are they left to find their information. No doubt they will continue to sift through results until they find something they understand. But now they're not getting information from trusted sources any more. The online search and content algorithms noted that they went down an anti-vaccination rabbit hole for twenty minutes, and now selects similar results for them in subsequent searches. Newspapers and their nightly TV news and current affairs shows are happy to splash inflammatory headlines which by their very nature are attention grabbing and easy to understand. Couple this with the illusionary Truth effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect), and what do we expect the outcome to be? The fact that we only have 12% hesitancy is, I think, remarkable.

Now back to my first paragraph where we're shouting loudly and calling people names. Every person I know personally who hesitated before getting a vaccination was worried about the health of their kids and/or themselves. They aren't raving nutters or conspiracy theorists, just normal people who felt conflicted by the information they were exposed to. Compassion, understanding and reasoned, patient dialogue are the things that brought them around. When we start yelling at them and calling them names, I imagine it would be far easier and emotionally safer for them to disengage from public discourse, rather than risk a conversation with someone who may be able to broaden their understanding.

The next time you find yourself talking to someone with vaccine hesitancy, switch yourself to input mode only. Don't express your views, just listen, ask questions, and try to understand theirs.

We watched Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure with our kids last night, so I'll sign off with:

"Be excellent to each other."

[Bohdan]

As the restrictions get lifted more people will get Covid and need to be hospitalised. In the majority they will be the unvaxed.

It doesn't matter as to why they did not get vaccinated they just need to understand that if they get sick and start to die they should not expect to move up the hospital admittance list ahead of other equally sick people who did the right thing and got vaxed.

There are lots of other reasons to finish up in hospital but just because you couldn't be bothered to get a shot should not be one of them.

If they have a genuine medical reason to not be vaxed then they should be exempt.

As soon as the gov start to enforce this the problem will go away, just like when Covid started to spread, vaxing took off.

Sorry if this attitude upsets a few but I get really p's'd off by the few b's that think only of themselves and ignore the risk and stress that they expose people like me who are in a medically vulnerable position.

[woodPixel]

LanceC, thank you for your wisdom. I think its good. I'll feed that into the old Noggin and assimilate it :)

[Bushmiller]

Lance

Thank you for your reasoned and considerate approach. You have in fact highlighted what happens when the majority start to become "afraid" of the minority and the consequences it might have on them. Actually terrorism is another example of this. Without knowing actual numbers, I suspect that there are very few genuine terrorists, ( a few more sympathisers of course) but the effect they generate, without going into the ethics, is quite out of proportion.

Coincidentally I have become aware of people not wanting to get the vaccine and this does trouble me more than a little as one is a nurse and the other is a doctor....... Their issues are that the vaccine rollout has been considerably hastened compared to traditional timeframes (arguably understandably, but not to their satisfaction) and the full implications are not completely understood yet. However, these concerns were not enough to prevent me having my two shots. To some extent now the issue is whether the vaccines, which were fundamentally developed to combat the original virus, are going to be effective on the Delta variant or indeed any other mutation that develops and is virulent.

Will time only tell?

Regards
Paul

[Warb]

Let's consider the state of functional literacy in Australia and its potential impact on vaccine hesitancy. In a paper published in January this year (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.13066), (an eye-opening read) the author presents the following:
- Approximately 40% of Australians aged between 16 and 65 have literacy skills below the standard required for broad participation in work, education and training, and society.
- 22 Australian Government websites (Federal and WA state) which Google returned for searches of "coronavirus" and "COVID-19" were analysed.
- All analysed websites required a university reading level to understand.


I made a comment earlier about modern science being based on numbers, and that the numbers might be "statistically significant" but that doesn't always make them relevant to the real world. Another trend of modern science is to link datasets based on numbers without ever proving a causal relationship. This, I suspect, may be an example. I personally know, and through the pharmacy I am exposed to, a number of people who won't get vaccinated. Those people comprise a mix of all socio-economic groups, and people of widely varying intellects and education levels. Whilst it is true that a portion are not capable of understanding (or in some cases even reading) a detailed analysis of the case for vaccination, it is also true that most of that particular group would not even attempt to understand the issues, their views are based on other things entirely - their worldview is skewed away from what many of us consider to be the norm. Equally there are large numbers of people of similar education levels who have happily been vaccinated, so lack of understanding would not seem to be the problem. That would seem to be backed up by the fact that I also know nurses, teachers and one marketing manager (for a pharmaceutical company!) who refuse to be vaccinated - understanding the data surely cannot be the issue for them? None of them, by the way, are objecting on religious grounds or [edit: typo] due to medical conditions.

There are a great many issues involved, from basic belief systems through to outright fear of needles (and for some people it's easier to scoff at a vaccine than admit being worried about a needle!). Lack of reading ability may be a small part of the problem, but realistically you don't need to understand the details to understand that it's the right thing to do. On a daily basis we all use and do things that we don't understand, and we do so on the basis that someone who does understand it has decided that it is the right thing to do. Whether it's using a phone, driving a car or taking a tablet, very few people understand the details of what they are doing. I am unsure why one particular vaccine (and in a lot of cases it is one particular vaccine, many of these people have 'flu shots every year) should require a greater degree of understanding than the myriad of other things that people do on faith!

[woodPixel]

I read a few interesting things about sociopathy and anti-mask wearing, plus anti-vaxxers. (My daughter is a psych and talks of these things)

These people absolutely DO NOT CARE about you.

This makes them genuinely dangerous people.

Sociopathic traits linked to non-compliance with mask guidelines and other COVID-19 containment measures (https://www.psypost.org/2020/08/sociopathic-traits-linked-to-non-compliance-with-mask-guidelines-and-other-covid-19-containment-measures-57773)


In the online study, 1,578 Brazilian adults completed a measure of maladaptive personality traits between May 21 and June 29, 2020. They also completed assessments of empathy and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures.

The researchers found that those who scored higher on measures of callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsivity, manipulativeness, and risk-taking tended to be less compliant with COVID-19 containment measures, such as socially distancing, washing hands frequently, and wearing a facemask in public. Participants with greater empathy, on the other hand, tended to be more compliant with COVID-19 containment measures.

[fiveeyes]

Lance..a most intelligent, and sensible comment. Well said.
For me, I do as the Amish do..shun the anti's.

[Sturdee]

In Victoria it is rather simple, employers, employees and customers for most events are required to be double vaccinated and show the details to the venue.

For those not so vaccinated only little is open, basically food and medical need, but click and collect is available.

All this is legally mandated by the chief health officer and is expected to remain in force until well into 2023.