Will the vaccine passport actually be used

[Sttew]

The indemnity scheme? Has that come to pass yet?

Yes

 

[HTT]

Vastly different. Employers have no jurisdiction over their employees bodies.

No, but they don’t have to employ you

 

[jle101]

Yes

Good to see it exists I suppose. Hopefully the payout is worth it to the patient for being poked around by government doctors & is a little bit more effective than the TAC. On the other hand the govt is currently putting the mandates squarely in the hands of business owner, who after losing out on so much money are now being expected to turn their own customers away & deal with any potential boycotts. If they sign & enforce the jab on their workers, then they are liable at any time for any side-effects/deaths linked to the jab.

 

[jle101]

No, but they don’t have to employ you

And no-one has to work for them, or spend money on their goods. This goes beyond "stopping the spread".

If I'm unvaxxed with no covid, I am unable to work, but if I am double-vax'd & have covid, I am free to go to work.

 

[jle101]

Don't bother, I asked that question like 20 times in the other thread and could never get a straight answer (apart from standard 'forcing TOXINS into your body!' anti-vax talking points)

And to be fair Goosecat came back with great points that you ended up dodging. If we're gonna criticise each other as posters, it should go both ways.

 

[Some Idiot]

Vastly different. Employers have no jurisdiction over their employees bodies.

Since when? Plenty of employers have an illicit drugs policy with random testing.

 

[HTT]

And no-one has to work for them, or spend money on their goods. This goes beyond "stopping the spread".

If I'm unvaxxed with no covid, I am unable to work, but if I am double-vax'd & have covid, I am free to go to work.

?

 

[jle101]

Since when? Plenty of employers have an illicit drugs policy with random testing.

Why are you comparing vaccine status with recreational drug testing? False equivalence. Compare apples with apples.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The Australian public not so long ago railed against the notion of an Australian ID Card you could be forced to show anywhere you went and without which you could be banned from accessing areas. It was massive amongst the populace and the people quashed it.
Isn't it astounding how the same people fail to realise that is exactly what they are accepting now.

It's astounding that you find that astounding.


It's like when people were terrified of the boat people because Howard told them they were throwing their children overboard.
Or people happily giving up their privacy because Dutton tells them that the world is being overrun by baddies and we need to let him look at our internet traffic.


Why would it astound you that people give something up when they see what they perceive to be a valid reason to do so?

 

[Some Idiot]

Why are you comparing vaccine status with recreational drug testing? False equivalence. Compare apples with apples.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm responding to the claim that "employers have no jurisdiction over their employee's bodies".

 

[Goosecat]

I'm not comparing anything. I'm responding to the claim that "employers have no jurisdiction over their employee's bodies".

Up until recently, not in perpetuity, until your death, forever, even when you don't work for them at all. It's as Orwellian as you can get.

 

[jle101]

I'm not comparing anything. I'm responding to the claim that "employers have no jurisdiction over their employee's bodies".

And you responded with a comparison to illicit drug testing?...

Since when? Plenty of employers have an illicit drugs policy with random testing.

Anyway, for your comparison to work, it would be like a guitar shop owner mandating their employees received an injection of brown sugar, or providing paperwork proving they have done so, before working at the shop. Sound dumb? Well, that's what happens when you compare vaccine mandates with illicit drug testing.

Enjoy the footy tomorrow night mate, from one Footscray lad to another.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Lol at The 747 and MisterMarcus who have been reduced to passive support roles here. Too scared to jump in for themselves. Can't blame them really after the towelings I've dished out in recent times.

Hypothetically, let's say you were dishing out towellings on the internet in relation to this topic.

What do you think you have actually achieved?

Wouldn't the ideal scenario for someone who's clearly hell bent in convincing people to change their opinions - to get them to change their opinions?

 

[Goosecat]

Hypothetically, let's say you were dishing out towellings on the internet in relation to this topic.

What do you think you have actually achieved?

Wouldn't the ideal scenario for someone who's clearly hell bent in convincing people to change their opinions - to get them to change their opinions?

The individual has to at least want to learn otherwise it's more successful just making it obvious to others their view is a crock and then others can learn from the truth.

 

[jle101]

Hypothetically, let's say you were dishing out towellings on the internet in relation to this topic.

What do you think you have actually achieved?

Wouldn't the ideal scenario for someone who's clearly hell bent in convincing people to change their opinions - to get them to change their opinions?

Dunno where you got the notion that I care about people's opinions from. I mean, has anyone who actually posted in this section actually changed their minds from all of this?

 

[Some Idiot]

And you responded with a comparison to illicit drug testing?...


Anyway, for your comparison to work, it would be like a guitar shop owner mandating their employees received an injection of brown sugar, or providing paperwork proving they have done so, before working at the shop. Sound dumb? Well, that's what happens when you compare vaccine mandates with illicit drug testing.

Enjoy the footy tomorrow night mate, from one Footscray lad to another.

Not sure I understand the relevance of your analogy to my point. I just wanted to point out that if employers can have a policy that you aren't allowed to put drugs into your body then the claim that they have 'no jurisdiction over your body' seems to be false. I was curious to understand the reasoning behind that particular claim.

Thanks mate, looks like the lads are up against it.

 

[Goosecat]

Dunno where you got the notion that I care about people's opinions from. I mean, has anyone who actually posted in this section actually changed their minds from all of this?

I've had a couple of decent discussions with people around the mandatory and permanent nature of injecting substances into employees for the rest of their lives. Injecting vaccines is a permanent effect, until death, long after they have nothing to do with the former employer. They're not presiding over the workplace anymore, they're presiding over a persons entire lifespan, till they die.
Generally though, it's the more intelligent people who genuinely consider fact as opposed to simple ideological campaigners who would like to argue into eternity for the hell of it.

 

[jle101]

Not sure I understand the relevance of your analogy to my point. I just wanted to point out that if employers can have a policy that you aren't allowed to put drugs into your body then the claim that they have 'no jurisdiction over your body' seems to be false. I was curious to understand the reasoning behind that particular claim.

Thanks mate, looks like the lads are up against it.

It's not an analogy, it's using the same line of thinking you are demonstrating. To be fair, it's easy to make all kinds of comparisons if we take that line of thinking to the nth degree. I could argue that someone washing dishes, for example, has surrendered jurisdiction of their body because their employer is making them move their body. It's stupid & not what I'm talking about. Drug testing can't be compared to vaccine mandates because one is about preventing a substance from entering the body, whilst their other is about inserting a substance into the body, which, mind you, is not safe for everyone.

 

[jle101]

I've had a couple of decent discussions with people around the mandatory and permanent nature of injecting substances into employees for the rest of their lives. Injecting vaccines is a permanent effect, until death, long after they have nothing to do with the former employer. They're not presiding over the workplace anymore, they're presiding over a persons entire lifespan, till they die.
Generally though, it's the more intelligent people who genuinely consider fact as opposed to simple ideological campaigners who would like to argue into eternity for the hell of it.

I think all of the people who post regularly in here are intelligent & if we dropped the baiting/needless contrarianism we could all have a much better discussion here on this insignificant little footy forum.

The way I see it, I'm tired of reading such things as "mandates are here to protect the vulnerable vaccinated". It's an oxy-moron born of an ineffective, illegitimate, ephemeral, at best, vaccine.

 

[Goosecat]

I think all of the people who post regularly in here are intelligent & if we dropped the baiting/needless contrarianism we could all have a much better discussion here on this insignificant little footy forum.

The way I see it, I'm tired of reading such things as "mandates are here to protect the vulnerable vaccinated". It's an oxy-moron born of an ineffective, illegitimate, ephemeral, at best, vaccine.

Can't argue with any of that really. I perhaps have a slightly different view on the intelligence of arguing just for the sake of it though and there are some here definitely fitting that category.
Anyway, C'mon the Demons

 

[sdfc]

Will the vaccine passport have to be re-stamped after the third and fourth shots?

 

[jle101]

Can't argue with any of that really. I perhaps have a slightly different view on the intelligence of arguing just for the sake of it though and there are some here definitely fitting that category.
Anyway, C'mon the Demons

I'm watching this one with my Demons-mad housemate.

 

[Nickoo]

Isn't the Fed Gov bankrolling a compensation scheme for adverse consequence cases?

Its going to be a cheap scheme given the low number of adverse events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nickoo]

The indemnity scheme? Has that come to pass yet?

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nickoo]

Good to see it exists I suppose. Hopefully the payout is worth it to the patient for being poked around by government doctors & is a little bit more effective than the TAC. On the other hand the govt is currently putting the mandates squarely in the hands of business owner, who after losing out on so much money are now being expected to turn their own customers away & deal with any potential boycotts. If they sign & enforce the jab on their workers, then they are liable at any time for any side-effects/deaths linked to the jab.

The vaccinated are rising up to lockup the unvaccinated. We’ve had enough of this crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro