• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

COVID-19 Stuff Here

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
You can be unvaccinated but you can't work in certain fields - it's a personal choice.

People choosing to not vaccinate during a pandemic risk both their lives and the lives of others. It is a public health/safety measure to prevent people from potentially hurting themselves and others. Governments make laws to protect the many from the few. Take away the anti-vaxxers who believe that the vaccine will control their mind, is unsafe, do their own research etc, what you are left with are the selfish who dont understand that their rights also come with a responsbility to the rest of society. In this case the responsbility is to pitch in by preventing the hospitals being clogged up with un-necessary, unvaccinated covid patients.
Exactly. It's literally the purpose of government.
 

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)
I work with vulnerable people and there are many who are vaccine resistant, thanks in no small part to the online grifters and kooks pushing conspiracist nonsense and amplifying fears about vaccinations.

I get fatprop's position and think he makes very valid points, but make no mistake, coherent political positions like his are not in the majority. Instead we've got unreliable narrators on youtube and telegram publishing dangerous material that's unfortunately being consumed and absorbed by people who are arguably most at risk.

The risk is two-fold; catch a potentially life altering virus and/or pass it to someone else, or stay unvaccinated and cop the social exclusion that follows.

For example, I spoke to the mum of a young man with a disability. He's done well for himself; loves animals and has a small farm in Victoria, works locally to pay the mortgage. He's convinced that the covid vaccine will cause brain damage (linked to his disability), and is incredibly resistant and anxious about the situation, won't get vaccinated and can't be talked around. His employer is mandating vaccinations, so he faces losing his work, his farm and his animals as a result. Devastating consequences.

I get the attraction of hardline positions on this issue and have found myself holding them fairly regularly, but the fallout is going to be real and felt disproportionately by those who have been led down a dark and suspicious path, not by those who have decided that government mandates on bodily autonomy are inappropriate.
 

Dctarget

Steve Williams (59)
I wonder if it's becoming harder & harder for the vaccine hesitant. Victoria's case numbers are impressively high and it's nearly all contained with the unvaccinated. Yesterday, vaccinated Victorians recorded approx. 200 cases. When all your anti-vax friends are getting it and a few going to hospital, do you start asking questions?
 

fatprop

Jason Little (69)
Staff member
By traditional definitions rule by law is explicitly not rule by coercion or force.
Nah, the end result of non compliance with any law is the removal of the miscreant from society ie jail

It is in essence force
 

fatprop

Jason Little (69)
Staff member
You can be unvaccinated but you can't work in certain fields - it's a personal choice.

People choosing to not vaccinate during a pandemic risk both their lives and the lives of others. It is a public health/safety measure to prevent people from potentially hurting themselves and others. Governments make laws to protect the many from the few. Take away the anti-vaxxers who believe that the vaccine will control their mind, is unsafe, do their own research etc, what you are left with are the selfish who dont understand that their rights also come with a responsbility to the rest of society. In this case the responsbility is to pitch in by preventing the hospitals being clogged up with un-necessary, unvaccinated covid patients.

I see the coercion as a failure of government to provide a reasonable responses and an admission that their arguments has been inadequate.

Instead of making better arguments, they use the stick, it is the easier option when they hold the stick
 

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
Nah, the end result of non compliance with any law is the removal of the miscreant from society ie jail

It is in essence force
Either way it seems justifiable to me. They aren't being allowed into scenarios where their personal choice puts others a risk. It's a common government policy. Particularly in Australia where we tend to be more collectivist and risk averse.

It might be less palatable in a US electorate, though.
 

stoff

Cyril Towers (30)
I see the coercion as a failure of government to provide a reasonable responses and an admission that their arguments has been inadequate.

Instead of making better arguments, they use the stick, it is the easier option when they hold the stick
There is a degree of that, but there are a percentage of people for whom the argument will never be good enough. That's why we have laws. You could apply the same logic to every major law - why ban drink-driving - the argument against is compelling and millions of dollars have been spent over decades promoting it, but people still do it, so you need a law.

Is the issue here the imposition of a law, or is it the sudden need for it making it seem more controversial?
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
Nah, the end result of non compliance with any law is the removal of the miscreant from society ie jail

It is in essence force

You are certainly drawing a long bow here.

The risk for people is to lose employment, not to get put in jail.

People have a choice.

Vaccinations have long been required at various ages and for various industries.

I agree with Tex that plenty of the people who are going to get hurt by this are those who have gone down a rabbit hole of misinformation but I likewise don't think that outweighs the need to make vaccinations in certain industries mandatory.

Ultimately restrictions on unvaccinated people will ease and it will only be a few industries where vaccination is mandatory.
 

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's got some sense attached to it!


During an expedition to the Antarctic, Russian surgeon Leonid Rogozov became seriously ill. He needed an operation - and as the only doctor on the team, he realised he would have to do it himself.

As the polar winter rolled in, 27-year-old Leonid Rogozov started to feel tired, weak and nauseous. Later, a strong pain developed down the right side of his abdomen.

"Being a surgeon, he had no difficulty in diagnosing acute appendicitis," says his son, Vladislav. "It was a condition he'd operated on many times, and in the civilised world it's a routine operation. But unfortunately he didn't find himself in the civilised world - instead he was in the middle of a polar wasteland."
 

cyclopath

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Staff member
It's got some sense attached to it!


During an expedition to the Antarctic, Russian surgeon Leonid Rogozov became seriously ill. He needed an operation - and as the only doctor on the team, he realised he would have to do it himself.

As the polar winter rolled in, 27-year-old Leonid Rogozov started to feel tired, weak and nauseous. Later, a strong pain developed down the right side of his abdomen.

"Being a surgeon, he had no difficulty in diagnosing acute appendicitis," says his son, Vladislav. "It was a condition he'd operated on many times, and in the civilised world it's a routine operation. But unfortunately he didn't find himself in the civilised world - instead he was in the middle of a polar wasteland."
Polar wasteland....He'd be used to that coming from Russia.
I know a bloke who did his own vasectomy. Probably best that he would no longer pass on that type of reasoning.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Not according to Dean from the Fair Work Commission. If his opinion gathers any purchase in the debate, mandatory vaccines in the workplace will not occur.
He explicitly states that
Safe Work Australia has publicly stated that “most employers will not need to make vaccinations mandatory to meet their [health and safety] obligations”.
Mandatory COVID vaccinations, however, cannot be justified in almost every workplace in Australia.

ff, best to be spot on with all facts when arguing your legal corner. Read here:

Lyndall Dean appointed to Fair Work Commission - Ministers

 
Last edited:

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
It's got some sense attached to it!


During an expedition to the Antarctic, Russian surgeon Leonid Rogozov became seriously ill. He needed an operation - and as the only doctor on the team, he realised he would have to do it himself.

As the polar winter rolled in, 27-year-old Leonid Rogozov started to feel tired, weak and nauseous. Later, a strong pain developed down the right side of his abdomen.

"Being a surgeon, he had no difficulty in diagnosing acute appendicitis," says his son, Vladislav. "It was a condition he'd operated on many times, and in the civilised world it's a routine operation. But unfortunately he didn't find himself in the civilised world - instead he was in the middle of a polar wasteland."
Yeah, I didn't want to bore everyone with the details haha
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Either way it seems justifiable to me. They aren't being allowed into scenarios where their personal choice puts others a risk. It's a common government policy. Particularly in Australia where we tend to be more collectivist and risk averse.

It might be less palatable in a US electorate, though.
We know that vaccinated people can still catch and transmit Covid 19. So "putting others at risk" is only a matter of degree. Vaccinating people doesn't give full protection to others. Why then allow vaccinated people to spread Covid?
If politicians answered that with "to minimise risk of transmission" we'd be a step closer to an informed public.
 

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
We know that vaccinated people can still catch and transmit Covid 19. So "putting others at risk" is only a matter of degree. Vaccinating people doesn't give full protection to others. Why then allow vaccinated people to spread Covid?
If politicians answered that with "to minimise risk of transmission" we'd be a step closer to an informed public.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. 'Why allow vaccinated people to spread Covid?' seems like a nonsensical question.

Do you mean to ask, why should vaccinated people be subject to lesser restrictions given they have a still existing albeit lower chance of transmission? The answer to that certainly wouldnt be to 'minimise risk of transmission', because it doesn't do that.

The answer is because it's as good as it gets without imposing permanent draconian restrictions on travel and day to day life. Un-vaccinated people aren't meeting legislators half-way by taking the simple step of being vaccinated to reduce the, as you say, 'degree' of risk.
 

cyclopath

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Staff member
We know that vaccinated people can still catch and transmit Covid 19. So "putting others at risk" is only a matter of degree. Vaccinating people doesn't give full protection to others. Why then allow vaccinated people to spread Covid?
If politicians answered that with "to minimise risk of transmission" we'd be a step closer to an informed public.
At a far, far lower rate than unvaccinated people.
 
Top