breaking covid rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodhutt

... 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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

... 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".

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).

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ...

---

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 - $$$$$.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

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

---

So true!

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/defaul..._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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

... 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.

Quote:

---

... 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".

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.

Attachment 503248

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

..... 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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.