Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Anti-vaxxers like to pose this question but the truth is that there are very few people with medical conditions that absolutely preclude vaccination - so the issue will rarely come up:


Who can be immunised? | Australian Government Department of Health

"Most people can be immunised, except for people with certain medical conditions and people who are severely allergic (anaphylactic) to vaccine ingredients."
"The only people who cannot ever be immunised are people who have had severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) to vaccines ingredients which is rare.
In general, people that should not receive live vaccines include:

• people who are significantly immunocompromised , for example people undergoing a treatment that suppresses the immune system, such as chemotherapy
• pregnant women."

FYI, my wife is immunocompromised but her specialist approved her getting vaccinated, so she has been. If she can be vaccinated, pretty much anyone can be.

Edit: In other words, the basic premise of this argument by anti-vaxxers is a straw horse.

Further to this - the adenovirus vaccines such as A-Z have a live virus, which, however, cannot infect humans (so not clear whether these are "live vaccines"), but the mRNA vaccines (Pfitzer, Moderna) do not.

Originally Posted by ChookD2

Fast forward to December 2022.

Scene: Queue to enter the Boxing Day test at the MCG.

A security guard stands about 20m from the entrance yelling through a megaphone. "HAVE YOUR VACCINE PASSPORT READY FOR INSPECTION!" (Papers Please!).

Just near the security guard a small withered looking old man motions to the guard and says, "I don't have a passport, I can't take any vaccines".

Security guard talks into his radio. "Code Red at Gate 12, I say again. Code Red at Gate 12!"

Sirens are then heard approaching the area and a van screeches to a halt near the crowd and 3 large men in bio hazard suits exit the van, grab the small withered looking old man and bundle him into the van before screaming off in to the distance sirens wailing.



Is this what we will become??

Meh, whatever - works for me.

There will be a pandemic of the unvaccinated, who will be the majority of those getting seriously ill or dying, while most vaxed people recover quickly.
The small number who can't be vaxed for medical reasons will get regular tests and carry the negative results on their phones to show.
Those who are unvaccinated by choice will either be afraid to leave home because of Covid, or will be denied entry to so many places that they will be left standing in the street, muttering incoherently.
Under workplace safety laws, employers have to do everything reasonable to provide a safe workplace for their staff.
Allowing unvaccinated people who could be infectious to enter a workplace during a pandemic of the unvaccinated will fail the requirement to take 'reasonable steps' to keep your staff safe. That will stand up in any court of law.
The states could reinforce it by issuing orders under their Public Health Acts, which the courts have upheld.
Customers will demand public places exclude unvaccinated people to avoid putting their lives at risk.
Showing your vaccine record on your phone will become as normal as QR codes. A QR code could easily be added to vax certificates.
It's a funny old world.

The Qantas no jab no / no work plan is being disputed, the T.W,U. has declared the plan unworkable , because Qantas does not directly employ all its ground staff, having outsourced 2,000 in a move that was deemed illegal by the Federal Court . Alan Joyce said the decision was made after a survey of employees, and also said it would consider medical exemptions. Food canner SPC announced a mandatory vaccination plan two weeks ago, and workplace law managing director Athena Koelmeyer said it was still unclear whether either mandate is legal.

The ACTU and Business Council of Australia said Health Orders would have to be issued for workplace jabs to be mandated, just as they were in the Aged Care sector. Mandated vaccines would have to have a basis in law, also Bosses being able to ask the question of workers whether they are vaccinated or not would have to have a basis in law in the Fair Work Act or Privacy Act, but without new laws or public health orders it would still be up to the courts. Leadership from Canberra is needed to sort the issue out.

EDIT Just thought perhaps the Alan Joyce work plan may be an attempt to wedge the Federal gov. into passing a Health Order , or putting the issue into Law in the Fair Work Act or Privacy Act.

Originally Posted by Eevo

assuming that the PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2010 - SECT 62is the current legislation, 1 small but important line has been overlooked.

and there is nothing more important than strict adherence to the law


PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2010 - SECT 62
Making of public health orders relating to person with Category 4 or 5 condition or contact order condition

I did 20 years ago serve Director Penalty Notices a few times for the Federal Gov. It required me to put a stamped addressed letter in a mail box then sign a "affidavit" I had. Proof of Service was the affidavit apparently.

We at times get a medical records subpoena on me or the Doctors. I reject the ones on me or business names as Doctors own the medical records not me or the business. They toss it at me or the front desk as they cannot barge in the the Doctors rooms which makes some of them very grumpy. They always leave $10 for some odd reason. I buy the Doctor a cupper and cake with it.



Good luck in your anti rule quest. I hope you do not need to test it legally yourself. Do you think people with Covid19 should wander about spreading it? If so hmmmm


On a really important topic "NSW wants 12-15 age group to be vaccinated 'quickly' to curb community transmission"

I really hate media making flippant statements. Everyone wants 0 to 120 year olds to have a vaccine if they want one. NSW wants that as does every other state.

"Plan for children’s vaccines coming as child COVID cases rise" Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the plan was “well under way” but Labor and the Greens say the country needs it now to prevent Australia from falling behind in the rollout as the number of children and teenagers diagnosed with the coronavirus continues to rise."
There is no possibility any plan can start for 0-12 year olds until the trials in progress are completed in about Feb 2022. It is obfuscation plus to say anything on that topic when failing to set the date for 12- 40 year olds most of who are not all in the eligible groupings yet.

morning grumpy me- New coffee in hand. Have a great day all and keep the f at home if you can and should be.

Everyone appears to be assuming that I am an antivaxer. As I have indicated before, I have been vaccinated for all sorts of stuff and (not that it is anyone’s business) I have had my first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine.

I pose these questions and scenarios to stimulate discussion on what sort of society we are to become. According to some here we will need to wear something that displays our vaccination status so people can decide instantly whether to interact with us or shun us. Maybe a tattoo on our forehead?

The NWO, the Illuminati, the government, the media, call it what you like but they appear to be winning at making us a fearful, complaint and divided society.

It is unclear whether workplace vaccination mandates are legal, simply because they have not been tested in court. Eventually, someone will take one to court, but it should be pointed out that some employers have required various vaccinations for decades, for example, many vaccines for front line hospital staff, Q-fever for meatworkers etc, which makes it seem to me as a non-lawyer, it would be hard for a court to decide against such a requirement. (But the law is an ass!)

And in the event of such a decision, I would expect very rapid legislative changes to make such decisions irrelevant.

It needs to be clear that Australia has no constitutional human rights that could be invoked to support a decision against an employer mandate - any decision would have to be based on a specific bit of legislation, which could (and almost certainly would) be easily amended.

It would be simpler and more sensible to simply legislate immediately to specifically allow it before any cases are brought, but the current governments both state and federal seem very reluctant, despite the fact that forced vaccination has a long history in this country in earlier pandemics, and a wide variety of vaccinations is effectively mandatory for all children, and have been for decades.

Originally Posted by ChookD2

So "no jab, no life", what will happen to those individuals that cannot have any vaccine for whatever medical reason? Or those that want to have the option of deciding what gets put in to their body?

You cannot arbitrarily deny people an existence (i.e. job, shopping, entertainment, family) while allowing those that choose to be vaccinated a better quality of life. When did we become a socialist regime? Or is this the New World Order influence?

I await the supreme court test case.

I expect that it will be exactly the same situation that currently exist. Because we live in a compassionate society, special provision will be made for people with special needs.

There are plenty of public places where people are not allowed to take their dog. However, people whose mobility relies on a seeing eye dog are allowed to take their dog in with them.


Surely the same sort of exceptions could be made for people who can't be vaccinated, just like the people who can't move about without their dog. People who choose not to be vaccinated would be the equivalent of sighted people who are not be allowed to take their dog into a restaurant.

I don't see a problem.

In any case, I would think that people who can't be vaccinated would prefer to be surrounded by people who are less likely to infect them. They would surely want others to be vaccinated, whether in a work place or a public place.