Mandatory Vaccinations And Medical Exemptions

Are you for or against Mandatory Vaccinations

  • For

    Votes: 292 57.4%
  • Against

    Votes: 221 43.4%

  • Total voters
    509

Remove this Banner Ad

Don't disagree with the aim and intent. The method is just ******* madness though.

Also, I say this while trying desperately to find rapid tests for family who are stuck in home quarantine. Which is impossible due to the gov panicking everyone into buying them all before supply is assured and refusing to provide any additional assistance. Guess where they're going to have to go instead...
And literally an hour after I post this, they change the rules again. No testing after isolation needed, you can just leave without checking whether you even still have the virus or not.

Oh, and I presume this is all based on an honor system right?

This has clearly been implemented only to cover their own asses and their lack of planning, and their ideological perversion to actually providing the community with health services. What a shambles.
 
And literally an hour after I post this, they change the rules again. No testing after isolation needed, you can just leave without checking whether you even still have the virus or not.

Oh, and I presume this is all based on an honor system right?

This has clearly been implemented only to cover their own asses and their lack of planning, and their ideological perversion to actually providing the community with health services. What a shambles.
give it a couple of weeks m8 then the shit will start to stink and they’ll go into ass covering mode all over again. Remember Scumo is the king of announcements & the joker of following through.
 
And literally an hour after I post this, they change the rules again. No testing after isolation needed, you can just leave without checking whether you even still have the virus or not.

Oh, and I presume this is all based on an honor system right?

This has clearly been implemented only to cover their own asses and their lack of planning, and their ideological perversion to actually providing the community with health services. What a shambles.
Let’s not forget how many boosters have been administered after all this week telling us we’re fine if you have a booster

82BF87A3-6D33-4F69-8552-4CC572CCDF10.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

last time there was 619 in hospital there was 71 in icu, so its about 1/3rd. thats the good news i suppose. the bad news is that at that time there was only 300 new cases in a single day, and the single day record to that point was just over 1600.

i still think we're being a bit blase around omicron. no use the virus being only 1/3rd as deadly if its also infecting 10 times more.

depends on whether you think you can avoid ever getting it. So for me, I’ll take the 1/3 as deadly and 10 times more infectious every day of the week. Just means I’m likely to get it earlier.
 
OK so they've now confirmed there is not even the need to get tested if you worked with someone in your office who was positive, went to school with someone who was positive, or met them at a social gathering.

Ie, you could spend hours at a pub with an infected person and thats fine. Take them home, you're f’ed.

This is insanity. Covid doesn't care where you were if you were in a co fined space with an infectious pe6.

I think you just need to trust the science.
 
Yep and then that’s without the people that’s legitimately sick. They’re letting it rip. Its obvious. No1 will pay. If it’s not free they won’t do it. At some stage someone will die at home and the sh*t will hit the fan. And the pollies will go into ass covering mode.

Seems to be a lot of people that were totally supportive of everything the CHOs were doing are now changing their tune when they disagree. Having previously labelled any dissenting opinions as not understanding ‘the science’. This really is an enjoyable phase so far.
 
Seems to be a lot of people that were totally supportive of everything the CHOs were doing are now changing their tune when they disagree. Having previously labelled any dissenting opinions as not understanding ‘the science’. This really is an enjoyable phase so far.
I don't think the CHO makes the calls anymore, do they?
 
depends on whether you think you can avoid ever getting it. So for me, I’ll take the 1/3 as deadly and 10 times more infectious every day of the week. Just means I’m likely to get it earlier.

The health system wouldn't take it, though.

Seems to be a lot of people that were totally supportive of everything the CHOs were doing are now changing their tune when they disagree. Having previously labelled any dissenting opinions as not understanding ‘the science’. This really is an enjoyable phase so far.

As LB stated more eloquently, many of the leaders are now flat out ignoring their own CHOs for their own political interests. Part of the reason for Australia's initial success with pre-delta and omicron COVID was that the leaders were following the advice.
 
depends on whether you think you can avoid ever getting it. So for me, I’ll take the 1/3 as deadly and 10 times more infectious every day of the week. Just means I’m likely to get it earlier.
Nsw now has record numbers of covid patients in hospital and rapidly rising. Victoria will surely follow suit soon. The hospital system is being overwhelmed more that before, as is the testing system.
 
I don't understand that comment. Neither the vaccines nor past infections (from Delta, Alpha or any other strain) seem to provide much protection against Omicron. So how will our relatively low rate of past infections affect how we experience Omicron?

I am generally quite confused about whether the immune protection (to infection and/or serious illness) is stronger from past infections or from vaccines. One minute you'll read an piece confidently stating one as fact, and the next an article stating the other, just as definitively, as fact. (Everything I read is mainstream media - I don't have access to scientific papers.)

The vaccines still provide good protection from Omicron death and serious or critical illness, even if the protection they give against getting infected in the first place is low.

With the insane rates of infection of Omicron, that protection is one of the biggest protections we have against hospitals getting smashed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The vaccines still provide good protection from Omicron death and serious or critical illness, even if the protection they give against getting infected in the first place is low.

With the insane rates of infection of Omicron, that protection is one of the biggest protections we have against hospitals getting smashed.
I get that our relatively high levels of vaccination will provide significant protection (particularly to our health systems). I was particularly curious (read: sceptical) about the relevance of our low levels of prior infection.
 
I get that our relatively high levels of vaccination will provide significant protection (particularly to our health systems). I was particularly curious (read: sceptical) about the relevance of our low levels of prior infection.

It was clear that the vaccines provided good protection against Delta infection. Numbers citied were at around 70 percent protection from getting infected at all over the first few months post vaccination.

Thats why we saw a drastic reduction in Delta infections once vaccination numbers got up.

Rules changed with Omicron though. The vaccines dont do much to stop the infection (but they do still provide good protection against death or serious illness) which is borne out by the numbers we're seeing at the moment.
 
Again, that response addresses the value of vaccines (to which I think there is no doubt) rather than the relevance of prior infection rates.

Not relevant to Omicron.

Prior Delta infections don't protect against Omicron infection apparently.

The good news is that Omicron infections do protect against subsequent Delta infections.

Omicron Variant May Help Beat Delta, Study Suggests - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

As for the question of 'natural immunity' vs 'vaccine immunity' there are conflicting science about which is better. The fact does remain that in order to get 'natural' immunity, you first have to survive the actual initial infection unvaccinated, and that's something that at least 5.44 million people (and likely closer to 20 million people, going by excess death figures) failed to do, dying in the process.

So that risk (confronting the disease with zero protection) needs to be weighed against any slight immune benefit you might have going forwards, even should such a benefit be proven.
 
Again, that response addresses the value of vaccines (to which I think there is no doubt) rather than the relevance of prior infection rates.
The protection from prior covid is about 19%.
If a vast majority of a population has had covid (like SA) that 19% protection is relevant.
 
The protection from prior covid is about 19%.
If a vast majority of a population has had covid (like SA) that 19% protection is relevant.
I find this fascinating how this can be done (prior covid). Not doubting the numbers are reasonable (+/- a couple of % points).

From my background in Operation Research, I can only create (in my head) modelling that is inherently biased one way or the other.

Can this kind of statistical modelling be done in a Petri dish?

If you explain it to me how it is done in a paragraph or 2, I would appreciate it. If you need to educate me to a BioMed Bach degree, don't bother. I am asking way too much of you.

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Match Mr Djokovic wins three sets to one

6-7 , 6-0 , 6-0 , 6-0


images
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mandatory Vaccinations And Medical Exemptions

Back
Top