Corona virus and other pestilences. Poxes ‘n stuff. Part 6.

[Puddy]

Every Health Care worker you know? What a load of BS.
I know at least a hundred, probably more HCW and not one has said this and they’re all happily vaccinated themselves.

Must be in the minority percentage who got vaccinated before the mandates.

Do you currently work in healthcare?

No, I'm saying you are.

What reason do I have to lie?

 

[sobrave]

Lol we've had legit had left wing Labor LBGT doctors come out and say their requests for research around vaccine effects was denied and they were gagged from speaking about it, but people still utterly refuse to accept that research from pharmaceutical companies making vaccines is anything less than 100% accurate, ethical, and transparent, and complete denial that it's possible to manipulate studies and results to fit a narrative.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Wtf is a legit Labor left wing LGBT doctor?

 

[OneGreatClub]

Must be in the minority percentage who got vaccinated before the mandates.

Do you currently work in healthcare?



What reason do I have to lie?

You have taken a certain stance, you are opposed to mandates on vaccines or on masking to protect the vulnerable.

You only seem to believe that analogies support your extreme claims.

So I hope you will accept mine.

I accept some people would have serious outcomes from vaccine, so let’s get that straight first.
Things such as myocarditis in the young, albeit relatively rare, and certain other syndromes, which can also occur after covid infection itself.
I do not work in HC any more but my friends and acquaintances are in the majority HCW
( and scientists whose knowledge I am sure you would hold in low regard as compared to aged carers)
I catch up with them a lot, mainly RNs and a couple of doctors, plus we chat online.
They are all vaccinated, I can’t think of one reporting any serious side effects apart from occasional sore arm or headache.

I also discussed with my GP your type of claims that covid hasn’t harmed but the vaccines are killing off the elderly (a lot) and he basically sighed and shook his head . I took that to mean he hasn’t seen what you say you are seeing.

I also wonder why you follow this thread if you believe covid is a nothing burger.

So we shall agree to disagree..

If you can find multiple peer reviewed studies to the contrary I would happily read them though.

I personally have no issues with being vaccinated or my elderly father being vaccinated but accept your and your co workers choice not to do so if you feel strongly. Your choice in the end. I also accept that later variants of covid seem less severe, especially in a mainly vaccinated population, but who knows which way future variants will go. I am travelling OS later in year and intend to get a booster prior.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Wtf is a legit Labor left wing LGBT doctor?

He had to put it that way for max leftist effect
I think he means a prominent gay doctor whose partner had severe side effect from the vaccine. Phelps? Ex AMA President.

She is also pro covid mitigations.
States covid infections and long covid are real, serious and demand attention.
Is very concerned about cardiac etc sequelae post covid infections.

 

[edgie]

He had to put it that way for max leftist effect
I think he means a prominent gay doctor whose partner had severe side effect from the vaccine. Phelps? Ex AMA President.

She is also pro covid mitigations.
States covid infections and long covid are real, serious and demand attention.
Is very concerned about cardiac etc sequelae post covid infections.

More about the fact that she was threatened by her oversight bodies to STFU about anything negative regarding the vaccine and her inquires about side effects were all shut down and not followed up because it didn't fit the narrative.

What would there be to lose by addressing her concerns?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[OneGreatClub]

More about the fact that she was threatened by her oversight bodies to STFU about anything negative regarding the vaccine and her inquires about side effects were all shut down and not followed up because it didn't fit the narrative.

What would there be to lose by addressing her concerns?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

You have a point. Was just chuckling at your wording.
My points also stand.
There is too much under the rug stuff about everything covid related. Def need more research on many things and it will likely be years before things are truly clearer. Let’s just hope it’s not like HIV.

 

[Festerz]

Channel 9 pivoting that performance is the main reason for sacking Tredrea and not covid issues, is absolutely a moral win for Warren. We all know that doesn't pass the pub test. Regardless of his performance, his dismissal was at the very least, 90% covid related. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact that channel 9 didn't want to take that to court and instead went with stutter rates, speaks volumes.

We all love Tredders. But facts and contracts decide legal judgements, not emotions.

But probably best to read the full judgement to understand why he lost. Helps if you have a basic understanding on Australian contract and employment law but not essential.

At the heart of the Judgement is Clause 4 of the Service Agreement between Channel 9, the Warren Tredrea Trust (of which Tredders Investments is the Trustee), and Tredrea (defined as “the Key Person”).

In particular Channel 9's rights under that contract relating to “Protection of Nine’s business” . Within this section, clause 4.1 required Tredrea not to work for or supply services to any other company, engage in any commercial discussions, accept any offer of employment or engage in dealings involving personal endorsement without the permission of Channel 9. Clause 4.2 required him not to have discussions with any journalists or media representatives other than as approved by Channel 9 or in the course of maintaining personal relationships.

The Judgement makes reference to the manner in which Tredrea engaged publicly with FiveAA in attacking Nine's business policy around covid-19 entry policies which seems to me to be a clear breach of his services contract with Nine and therefore a breach of contract. That contract also also outlines Nine's clear right to terminate the Services Agreement under clause 9.1 of the Agreement. There was no breach or repudiation of the Services Agreement so Tredders was never entitled to a cent for the termination of the agreement.

In relation to the likelihood of Nine renewing their contract with Treadrea the Judgement makes the following points:


(a) Mr Tredrea had not complied with the direction to inform Channel 9 of his vaccination status, at least up to 4 January 2022. There is no evidence to indicate that he would have remedied this non-compliance, unless he was vaccinated for COVID-19 with a Provisionally Approved Vaccine (which seems very unlikely) or obtained a recognised form of medical exemption (which he had not managed to do, despite insisting that he was making efforts to do so, between October 2021 and January 2022).

(b) Mr Tredrea had taken a public position on the issue of vaccination that was at odds with Channel 9’s public position and its internal policies.

(c) In the aftermath of the Radio 5AA comments, Mr Tredrea was being described (and to some extent ridiculed) as an “anti-vaxxer”. Some viewers thought that his position was reprehensible and thought less of Channel 9 for employing him.

(d) It was at least complicated and expensive, and arguably impossible, for Mr Tredrea to perform his role as a sports news presenter to Channel 9’s satisfaction from a location outside the studio or in a fully “socially distanced” way. His services and his value to Channel 9 were thus severely compromised, if not lost altogether, so long as (i) he remained unvaccinated and (ii) the Channel 9 group continued to require vaccination as a condition of entry to its members’ premises. (The evidence did not show when, if at all, the Channel 9 group relaxed this policy.)

(e) Mr Pudney’s (Channel Nine's Adelaide news director) evidence also canvassed his appreciation at the time of the risks associated with Mr Tredrea returning to the newsroom in 2022. It is not clear whether that was a serious prospect in the light of Channel 9’s Condition of Entry Policy. In Mr Pudney’s estimation, Mr Tredrea was more likely to contract COVID-19 than an unvaccinated person (and therefore more likely to infect colleagues and more likely to be away from work). That had the potential to disrupt the operations of the newsroom as well as having an impact on other staff and morale.

(f) There had also been occasions when Mr Tredrea was directed to present news items from other locations, such as sporting venues, in and around Adelaide. Mr Pudney regarded this as a significant aspect of his role. Each of those venues had its own rules and practices relating to access during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was at least scope for doubt as to whether, not being vaccinated against COVID-19, Mr Tredrea would be able to broadcast from these venues.

Slam dunk contract breach imho.

Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 3) [2024] FCA 233

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

 

[edgie]

We all love Tredders. But facts and contracts decide legal judgements, not emotions.

But probably best to read the full judgement to understand why he lost. Helps if you have a basic understanding on Australian contract and employment law but not essential.

At the heart of the Judgement is Clause 4 of the Service Agreement between Channel 9, the Warren Tredrea Trust (of which Tredders Investments is the Trustee), and Tredrea (defined as “the Key Person”).

In particular Channel 9's rights under that contract relating to “Protection of Nine’s business” . Within this section, clause 4.1 required Tredrea not to work for or supply services to any other company, engage in any commercial discussions, accept any offer of employment or engage in dealings involving personal endorsement without the permission of Channel 9. Clause 4.2 required him not to have discussions with any journalists or media representatives other than as approved by Channel 9 or in the course of maintaining personal relationships.

The Judgement makes reference to the manner in which Tredrea engaged publicly with FiveAA in attacking Nine's business policy representing what seems to me to be a clear breach of his services contract with Nine and therefore breached his contract. That contract also also outlines Nine's clear right to terminate the Services Agreement under clause 9.1 of the Agreement. There was no breach or repudiation of the Services Agreement so Tredders was never entitled to a cent for the termination of the agreement.

Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 3) [2024] FCA 233

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

Nothing to do with anything I posted.

The original reason for standing him down was covid related. I'm not disputing the result of the case. It's clear channel 9 changed tact to a better defence. I am simply questioning why the covid part of it was pushed to the back, when it was not the case. They've retconned the situation.

They most know that that would have been a weaker defence, they read the room with everything else going on with the recent ruling that mandates are unlawful in Queensland.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Wtf is a legit Labor left wing LGBT doctor?

 

[Festerz]

Nothing to do with anything I posted.

It has everything to do with what you posted because it explains the reason for the judgement under contract law and debunks everything you are claiming. The action was brought for the termination of contract - by Tredrea. Can't blame Nine for defending the action as brought to court.

I can understand your angst that it doesn't suit the narrative around covid mandates but that's irrelevant to the case that was bought by Tredrea. (the judgement does discuss the mandates and the reasonableness of Nine insisting on them as part of their entry policy btw)

I know that you won't but pls. take the time to read the judgement in full and you might get a better grasp of the issues here.

 

[Puddy]

You have taken a certain stance, you are opposed to mandates on vaccines or on masking to protect the vulnerable.

You only seem to believe that analogies support your extreme claims.

So I hope you will accept mine.

I accept some people would have serious outcomes from vaccine, so let’s get that straight first.
Things such as myocarditis in the young, albeit relatively rare, and certain other syndromes, which can also occur after covid infection itself.
I do not work in HC any more but my friends and acquaintances are in the majority HCW
( and scientists whose knowledge I am sure you would hold in low regard as compared to aged carers)
I catch up with them a lot, mainly RNs and a couple of doctors, plus we chat online.
They are all vaccinated, I can’t think of one reporting any serious side effects apart from occasional sore arm or headache.

I also discussed with my GP your type of claims that covid hasn’t harmed but the vaccines are killing off the elderly (a lot) and he basically sighed and shook his head . I took that to mean he hasn’t seen what you say you are seeing.

I also wonder why you follow this thread if you believe covid is a nothing burger.

So we shall agree to disagree..

If you can find multiple peer reviewed studies to the contrary I would happily read them though.

I personally have no issues with being vaccinated or my elderly father being vaccinated but accept your and your co workers choice not to do so if you feel strongly. Your choice in the end. I also accept that later variants of covid seem less severe, especially in a mainly vaccinated population, but who knows which way future variants will go. I am travelling OS later in year and intend to get a booster prior.

I wouldn't say I'm anti vaccination. I'm of the opinion that we had the government by the balls on the issue and should have leveraged it into six figure incomes for all of ourselves.
Because I'm in a industry dependant on new Australians who's visa status depends on their employment, the workers blinked, and the government saw the workers weakness the push for other employers to do the same was on.

The delusion that they were happy to have it to help a bunch of old people is just that, a delusion. We are taught to put our own health first, the mandates were a big step against that.

Does your GP moonlight in Aged Care? Keeping tabs on vaccinated patients and their death rates in the short aftermath of their vaccination?

It has everything to do with what you posted because it explains the reason for the judgement under contract law and debunks everything you are claiming. The action was brought for the termination of contract - by Tredrea. Can't blame Nine for defending the action as brought to court.

I can understand your angst that it doesn't suit the narrative around covid mandates but that's irrelevant to the case that was bought by Tredrea. (the judgement does discuss the mandates and the reasonableness of Nine insisting on them as part of their entry policy btw)

I know that you won't but pls. take the time to read the judgement in full and you might get a better grasp of the issues here.

In the end, how is it reasonable for a employer to mandate a vaccination like this? We saw in Aged Care the low uptake when it was optional, hence the mandates in the first place.

Channel 9 have read the room, covid turned out to be a non event and the public isn't hot on it anymore.
Tredrea absolutely did what was best for his own health.

Given the option, you would be a fool to put someone else's health above your own

 

[theouthouse]

Employment contracts are drawn up by business lawyers to ensure their client, a business, be able to rid themselves of troublesome or outcast workers as they deem fit without legal ramifications.

The real reasoning behind a dismissal will stay behind closed doors but is very obvious as to why 9 chose to act upon dismissing their Employee.

I guarantee you that at least 75% of contracted workers have, and regularly, breach their employment contracts. But there's no need to get rid of them.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Must be in the minority percentage who got vaccinated before the mandates.

Another lie.

What reason do I have to lie?

You tell me mate, you're the one who keeps doing it.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I wouldn't say I'm anti vaccination. I'm of the opinion that we had the government by the balls on the issue and should have leveraged it into six figure incomes for all of ourselves.
Because I'm in a industry dependant on new Australians who's visa status depends on their employment, the workers blinked, and the government saw the workers weakness the push for other employers to do the same was on.

The delusion that they were happy to have it to help a bunch of old people is just that, a delusion. We are taught to put our own health first, the mandates were a big step against that.

Does your GP moonlight in Aged Care? Keeping tabs on vaccinated patients and their death rates in the short aftermath of their vaccination?



In the end, how is it reasonable for a employer to mandate a vaccination like this? We saw in Aged Care the low uptake when it was optional, hence the mandates in the first place.

Channel 9 have read the room, covid turned out to be a non event and the public isn't hot on it anymore.
Tredrea absolutely did what was best for his own health.

Given the option, you would be a fool to put someone else's health above your own

What happened to “First, do no harm?”

 

[Puddy]

Another lie.

You tell me mate, you're the one who keeps doing it.

If the majority got vaccinated then why would it be mandated in the first place?

What happened to “First, do no harm?”

It's "look after yourself first"

 

[edgie]

It was literally ruled that vax mandates for health workers were illegal in Queensland. Why is this still being defended as righteous?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[OneGreatClub]

If the majority got vaccinated then why would it be mandated in the first place?



It's "look after yourself first"

Every man for himself hey

 

[Duckimus Prime]

It was literally ruled that vax mandates for health workers were illegal in Queensland. Why is this still being defended as righteous?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

No it literally wasn't.

It found that the mandate put in place by the Police Commissioner for Police Officers was illegal because the Police Commissioner did not consider the human rights rammifications of the mandates. Now that wasn't a ruling that they were illegal because people's rights were violated, just that the Police Commissioner didn't consider the impact in the process of putting the mandate in place.

Now if the process of putting the mandate in place had include the Police Commissioner looking at the impact and deciding that there wasn't one, then the Vaccine Mandate for Police Officers would've been legal.

And for Queensland Ambulance workers, it found the mandate put on them by the Queensland Health Director-General was illegal because he didn't have the power to make mandates against ambulance workers under employment and contract law.

The judge found that it did limit one human right for Queenslanders, a person’s right not to be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). As the mandates restricted how free that consent is. However he also found that this limitation was “reasonable and demonstrably justified” in the context of the pandemic.

So yeah, maybe not just go with the cookers crowing response that the Queensland court found that vAcCiNe MaNdAtEs ArE bAd. Because it didn't.

 

[Festerz]

It was literally ruled that vax mandates for health workers were illegal in Queensland. Why is this still being defended as righteous?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

That is 'Literally' wrong.

Simpleton nonsense. Straight out of the cooker playbook because facts and taking the time to understand them in their legal context is too bloody hard. Disappointing that you swallowed it as fact.

Edit: DP has covered the facts above.

 

[sobrave]

Edgie taking Ls all over the place

 

[theouthouse]

No it literally wasn't.

It found that the mandate put in place by the Police Commissioner for Police Officers was illegal because the Police Commissioner did not consider the human rights rammifications of the mandates. Now that wasn't a ruling that they were illegal because people's rights were violated, just that the Police Commissioner didn't consider the impact in the process of putting the mandate in place.

Now if the process of putting the mandate in place had include the Police Commissioner looking at the impact and deciding that there wasn't one, then the Vaccine Mandate for Police Officers would've been legal.

And for Queensland Ambulance workers, it found the mandate put on them by the Queensland Health Director-General was illegal because he didn't have the power to make mandates against ambulance workers under employment and contract law.

The judge found that it did limit one human right for Queenslanders, a person’s right not to be subjected to medical treatment without full, free and informed consent (section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)). As the mandates restricted how free that consent is. However he also found that this limitation was “reasonable and demonstrably justified” in the context of the pandemic.

So yeah, maybe not just go with the cookers crowing response that the Queensland court found that vAcCiNe MaNdAtEs ArE bAd. Because it didn't.

Full, free and informed consent is nigh on impossible in the throes of a mass trauma event like covid or a war where fear, stress and psychosis allow a population to be coerced.

History shows that through human behaviour, WW2, Jonestown, that people are able to give consent under duress, but this does not make it legally correct.

This is where awareness and putting yourself first come into play, as the decision making from others can be affected, particularly in crisis.

As for vaccination that doesn't actually prevent a disease in the vaccinated, rather it lessens potential severe symptoms, to me that sounds an awful lot like a placebo effect.

But that's the thing about these vaccines. Scientifically they cannot be tested within the human body, only trialled, due to many uncontrollable variables within a virus, human body, individual interraction, and the natural environment in general, to see if there is any benefit.

Calling for vaccine mandates and lockdowns in the midst of mass hysteria and crisis is unethical when one's own judgement is likely to be fragile.

By the way I'm still only 1/5 of the way through the toilet paper I bought during lockdown.

 

[sobrave]

Full, free and informed consent is nigh on impossible in the throes of a mass trauma event like covid or a war where fear, stress and psychosis allow a population to be coerced.

History shows that through human behaviour, WW2, Jonestown, that people are able to give consent under duress, but this does not make it legally correct.

This is where awareness and putting yourself first come into play, as the decision making from others can be affected, particularly in crisis.

As for vaccination that doesn't actually prevent a disease in the vaccinated, rather it lessens potential severe symptoms, to me that sounds an awful lot like a placebo effect.

But that's the thing about these vaccines. Scientifically they cannot be tested within the human body, only trialled, due to many uncontrollable variables within a virus, human body, individual interraction, and the natural environment in general, to see if there is any benefit.

Calling for vaccine mandates and lockdowns in the midst of mass hysteria and crisis is unethical when one's own judgement is likely to be fragile.

By the way I'm still only 1/5 of the way through the toilet paper I bought during lockdown.

Must be a big outhouse

 

[sobrave]

Long Covid may be nothing unique in the future – but its effects today are still very real | Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz

While the long-term risk from a current infection is 10 times less than it was in 2020-21, a lot of people are still suffering after getting Covid early in the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

Makes sense. I feel like Covid pre-Omicron and post-omicron should almost be more widely considered two seperate things.

It seems omicron is for all intents and purposes basically a nasty flu. Obviously delta was much worse than that. But we still just refer to it all as covid.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Helluva lot of viral illness around these days, and not even seasonal any more.

 

[gbear]

If the majority got vaccinated then why would it be mandated in the first place?



It's "look after yourself first"

So, as a healthcare worker, people should have the right to refuse care if the patient hasn't been vaxed, because what about the healthcare workers' rights? Same argument just a different perspective.