Back in lockdown again.

[4liters]

I guess the other way to look at it is that the voluntarily unvaccinated are already segregating themselves from society. Vaccination is as much about the greater good of the community as it is a self interested action. There are plenty of people who the vaccines will not protect due to compromised immune systems or because they are not eligible to receive them (i.e. young children). It also helps reduce the likelihood of new strains emerging. The more people who are vaccinated the better off we all are.

If the voluntarily unvaccinated don’t want to be part of the community effort that helps those people should they be given equal access to other aspects of the community, like healthcare?

I feel like you are sort of shifting the point of discussion now to be more us/them - and the perspective you are providing is not really accurate as what is happening is not voluntary segregation, it's coercion and manipulation.

If everyone had a truly free choice, which Scott Morrison has advised that the Australian people have (as well as subsequently owning liability for any adverse effects from the choice) - then state governments wouldn't be stripping away previously held freedoms and only offering them back with conditions attached. Further to this, we see constant gaslighting, double talk, media driven bombardment of fear mongering and hollow threats with barely any transparent data or evidence that what we are being subjected to is the best way for us to be dealing with the circumstances of covid.

All "following the science" means nowadays is only being allowed to listen to cherry picked facts from an echo-chamber of government approved and lobbyist supported medical professionals - no questions allowed to be asked or other independent sources consulted or debated. Not proper science - if it was fair, honest and in our best intentions there would be no need for AHPRA gag orders on medical professionals nor the need for big tech to be actively censoring ordinary people who have taken the vaccine in good faith and under their own choice from sharing their experiences afterwards.

If you support the introduction of medical apartheid on the purpose of reducing the amount of avoidable strain on healthcare systems - then you should be looking at the biggest contributors to unnecessary strain. By far and away this is related to personal life choices people make that drive obesity, diabetes and cancer related health problems. The data is barely there to indicate certain demo-graphical groups are excessively contributing to the strain on hospitals for severe COVID infections - especially when you compare it to the volume of people that are taking up resources due to medical conditions that are accelerated by poor personal health choices (whether it leads to morbidity or a long term ongoing strain on health resources). Further to this, these people with poor health choices are putting themselves at higher risk when catching any type of disease.

Other factors impacting hospitals right now is the overwhelming surge of self-harm and mental health related issues that have been in lockstep with lockdowns. Federal and especially state governments have also been almost criminally silent and playing down (e.g. blatantly lying) about any increases in self-harm related events that are making their way into the system - but a dribble of recent articles have finally come out in MSM (backed by many people in medical fields who are sharing their stories anonymously for much longer over social medial because they are gagged and scared by AHPRA compliance orders) that there has been significant increases in these events over 2020 and 2021 which are essentially taking up ICU beds and professionals time.

Why would they feel the need to hide this from the public and ignore it when making decisions on what actions they need to take to maintain the health and safety of its people along with the capacity integrity of our health systems?

It's voluntary in the sense that people have the choice whether or not to get the vaccine. The choice is not without consequences, both for the community and the individual. The consequences for the individual are in large part due to the consequences for the broader community.

For example, when people refuse to take the MMR vaccine we get measles outbreaks which can kill or cause permanent disability to children who have no say in the matter. This is an example of the choices of the individual harming the broader community, and in response the government has introduced a number of measures such as the 'No Jab, No Play'.

Similarly, there will be people who suffer as a result of the choice some people make not to get vaccinated for covid. That might be a child who is not able to get the vaccine or an immune-compromised person, or it might be someone who gets injured in a car crash and can't get adequate medical care because ICUs are full of covid patients. It's an individual choice with community consequences, which is why there is broad support for what you're calling 'medical apartheid'. For what it's worth, apartheid was discrimination on the basis of race - something which the individual has zero control over so the comparison isn't really appropriate.

I'm interested in seeing the wording of those AHPRA gag orders and so on that you refer to. The only example I could find was this:
"Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available
scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via
social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and
subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. "


That clearly relates to anti vax stuff and not any specific criticisms of the covid vaccines themselves. The doctor I saw about the AZ vaccine was very clear about the risks, and when I got the pfizer jab there's a big list of side effects to read through before they inject you so they're being very upfront about the side effects.

[DougieK]

Can anyone link me to an AHPRA gag order?

[4liters]

There’s been a few posts mentioning the new South African variant. This summary in The Conversation gives a really good overview of where things stand right now: https://theconversation.com/theres-no-n ... ist-167105

The Conversation is a great resource and I highly recommend following it. The articles are written by actual scientists so you read things from their point of view rather than the typically sensationalist click bait you see a lot of when the mainstream media reports on scientific research.
Compare the way the virologist who wrote that article describes the situation to how it gets reported on in the Herald Sun or something.

[happyfriggincamper]

I guess the other way to look at it is that the voluntarily unvaccinated are already segregating themselves from society. Vaccination is as much about the greater good of the community as it is a self interested action. There are plenty of people who the vaccines will not protect due to compromised immune systems or because they are not eligible to receive them (i.e. young children). It also helps reduce the likelihood of new strains emerging. The more people who are vaccinated the better off we all are.

If the voluntarily unvaccinated don’t want to be part of the community effort that helps those people should they be given equal access to other aspects of the community, like healthcare?

I feel like you are sort of shifting the point of discussion now to be more us/them - and the perspective you are providing is not really accurate as what is happening is not voluntary segregation, it's coercion and manipulation.

If everyone had a truly free choice, which Scott Morrison has advised that the Australian people have (as well as subsequently owning liability for any adverse effects from the choice) - then state governments wouldn't be stripping away previously held freedoms and only offering them back with conditions attached. Further to this, we see constant gaslighting, double talk, media driven bombardment of fear mongering and hollow threats with barely any transparent data or evidence that what we are being subjected to is the best way for us to be dealing with the circumstances of covid.

All "following the science" means nowadays is only being allowed to listen to cherry picked facts from an echo-chamber of government approved and lobbyist supported medical professionals - no questions allowed to be asked or other independent sources consulted or debated. Not proper science - if it was fair, honest and in our best intentions there would be no need for AHPRA gag orders on medical professionals nor the need for big tech to be actively censoring ordinary people who have taken the vaccine in good faith and under their own choice from sharing their experiences afterwards.

If you support the introduction of medical apartheid on the purpose of reducing the amount of avoidable strain on healthcare systems - then you should be looking at the biggest contributors to unnecessary strain. By far and away this is related to personal life choices people make that drive obesity, diabetes and cancer related health problems. The data is barely there to indicate certain demo-graphical groups are excessively contributing to the strain on hospitals for severe COVID infections - especially when you compare it to the volume of people that are taking up resources due to medical conditions that are accelerated by poor personal health choices (whether it leads to morbidity or a long term ongoing strain on health resources). Further to this, these people with poor health choices are putting themselves at higher risk when catching any type of disease.

Other factors impacting hospitals right now is the overwhelming surge of self-harm and mental health related issues that have been in lockstep with lockdowns. Federal and especially state governments have also been almost criminally silent and playing down (e.g. blatantly lying) about any increases in self-harm related events that are making their way into the system - but a dribble of recent articles have finally come out in MSM (backed by many people in medical fields who are sharing their stories anonymously for much longer over social medial because they are gagged and scared by AHPRA compliance orders) that there has been significant increases in these events over 2020 and 2021 which are essentially taking up ICU beds and professionals time.

Why would they feel the need to hide this from the public and ignore it when making decisions on what actions they need to take to maintain the health and safety of its people along with the capacity integrity of our health systems?

It's voluntary in the sense that people have the choice whether or not to get the vaccine. The choice is not without consequences, both for the community and the individual. The consequences for the individual are in large part due to the consequences for the broader community.

For example, when people refuse to take the MMR vaccine we get measles outbreaks which can kill or cause permanent disability to children who have no say in the matter. This is an example of the choices of the individual harming the broader community, and in response the government has introduced a number of measures such as the 'No Jab, No Play'.

Similarly, there will be people who suffer as a result of the choice some people make not to get vaccinated for covid. That might be a child who is not able to get the vaccine or an immune-compromised person, or it might be someone who gets injured in a car crash and can't get adequate medical care because ICUs are full of covid patients. It's an individual choice with community consequences, which is why there is broad support for what you're calling 'medical apartheid'. For what it's worth, apartheid was discrimination on the basis of race - something which the individual has zero control over so the comparison isn't really appropriate.

I'm interested in seeing the wording of those AHPRA gag orders and so on that you refer to. The only example I could find was this:
"Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available
scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via
social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and
subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. "


That clearly relates to anti vax stuff and not any specific criticisms of the covid vaccines themselves. The doctor I saw about the AZ vaccine was very clear about the risks, and when I got the pfizer jab there's a big list of side effects to read through before they inject you so they're being very upfront about the side effects.

Re: apartheid wording
Yeah sure it's foundations is in racial division but it's a very minor point to try and pick on since it's commonly used and paired with other defining words to indicate segregation of a group based on a defining feature.

Re: AHPRA
Looks like you grabbed that from the AHPRA Covid-19 Postion Statement? Don't know how there aren't dots that can't be connected there that medical practitioners are not supported (and threatened with loss of licence) in sharing observational and experience based professional opinions that fall outside the "best scientific evidence" aka government health advice. I can get the general premise of this being standard practice - but it's odd when considered there is a ragingly obvious narrowly weaponised pro-GT vaccine MSM narrative, a stringent online censorship campaign across independent professionals and more confusingly for anyone sharing their experience and opinion online and all products are still in a largely unknown clinical trail phase.

Re: No Jab No Play and measles vaccine comparison
I can understand why you would propose that measles vaccine and 'no jab no play' example because on the surface it looks like a fair comparison, but the reality is there is significantly different circumstances and context that makes it an unsuitable point to try and counter with to give justification to the governments pending push for medical mandates of GT vaccinations and subsequent removal of general rights.

Key points of difference is you are comparing a vaccine that works in a completely different manner; was in development for roughly 50 years; has been in use since 1963 (no jab no play introduced 2017 - 50+ years later); long set of data to show 93-97% efficacy in up to 2 doses; long data set for adverse effects; generally good for life after the first dose; definitively stops you from receiving it; definitively stops you from transmitting it; definitively stops you from getting sick; was developed in an entirely different age where relationships between government, media and big corporations (also sans big tech) was extremely different and more separated; developed in an era where the pursuit of science was more open and challengable.

For the coronavirus vaccines and gene-therapy based vaccines - despite however many billions of $$$'s invested since the late 80's and improvement in medical technology and scientific knowledge - neither of these products have never successfully made it to market due to having a known history of factors restricting this - primarily awareness of ADE and blood related complications. Despite this, they have been developed, tested and rolled out in <18m (being generous - video going around talking about the design of AZ being done in a few hours); are in clinical trial status until 2023; study results not available until 2027 (Pfizer at least); unknown and constantly changing efficacy; unknown ongoing booster requirements (Israel and US already going for 3rd shot, Dan Andrews advising today a booster program will be a thing); no long term safety data; doesnt stop you from getting it; doesn't stop you from transmitting it; doesn't stop you from getting sick from it; lockstep of government/media/corporation/big tech and stripping of rights required for public uptake, etc etc etc.

Happy to try again if you can share another example that is circumstantially closer to what we are facing right now.


Re: Efficacy, community responsibility and mandating.
If the GT vaccines work with the same confidence and efficacy as say the measles vaccine, then as others have suggested we should be able to focus on the vulnerable and those who want to make the choice then return to normal from there - seems logical and reasonable. If we are seeing things internationally like in Israel, Cypress, Vietnam, Gibraltar, Iceland and other highly rate of vaccination countries where infection and transmission is still occurring which is driving near and new record highs of cases and hospitalisations - then why the need to mandate? These countries are generally showing that the vaccine is not really doing what it was originally pitched to do and the goalposts on what it will do have moved a number of times. How is this then reasonable to mandate or hold basic freedoms hostage?

Re: Unaddressed points - general government inconsistency, lack of transparency and trust.
To help me, can you please justify (at least some recent ones):

Why is Dan Andrews holding us to "zero or as close to" requirements when there is so much evidence that this is an impossible target (looking at the vaccination/case/hospitalisaton/death numbers of the the afore mentioned countries)?

Why Dan and Gladys said many times recently that there is no evidence that curfews have any impact on case numbers - yet here we are back in curfews?

Why playgrounds were closed despite there being little to no evidence of outdoor transmissions (stated by Dan a week or so ago) but they will be opening up tomorrow for under 12's and despite the cases numbers being higher?

Why ScoMo said lockdowns are an absolute last resort then the science of locking down canberra over 1 case a week later?

Why state and federal governments have lied about mental health statistics, their relation to lockdowns and impacts on the health system?

Why NSW has been in tight lockdowns for 2mths with increased vaccination rates while cases, hospitalisations and deaths continue to go up? Is it the vaccine doesn't work or lockdowns don't work - so what needs to be ended?

Why NSW has recently stated they will be changing how the classify covid deaths to "with" instead of "from" due to admitting they can't really tell if covid was the actual cause of death? And if this is the new science - is this a valid reason for us to continue being in lockdown?

Why do people who have been vaccinated in good faith not have the right to share their experiences online - we are in a clinical trial after all and I would assume sharing and collation of information for informed consent and supporting safety would mean people can share their personal experiences?

Why do you believe that achieving a vaccination rate with a vaccine that is not really effective will mean our government will allow us our general rights and freedoms back?

[happyfriggincamper]

I appreciate your views, but thank Christ you're the minority...hopefully most people get the inconvenient jabs so you dont have to. Odds are good that you'll be fine when you catch it, but please be considerate when you do & try not to spread it to the vulnerable.

If you are respectfully agreeing to disagree and not wanting to converse anymore, i am fine with that and you having your opinion. To close out, my opinion is obviously opposite to yours - but you have basically made some bold and definitive statements but not really been able to expand on them or reason them.

I might be reading your posts wrong but i get the general vibe that you notice there isn't a lot of consistency, validation or common sense in whats been going on? If you are feeling that, but are basically just resigned to do whatever you have to in order to get some rights back and you don't really care as to what you have lost, why or what you have to do to get them back - you are just willing to accept and do whatever to move on and get something back no matter how small and without any questioning of accountability and validation....christ that is scary if that's how the majority are thinking and acting and what the next set of rules could bring for our next generations.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program”

[Mattblack]

I appreciate your views, but thank Christ you're the minority...hopefully most people get the inconvenient jabs so you dont have to. Odds are good that you'll be fine when you catch it, but please be considerate when you do & try not to spread it to the vulnerable.

If you are respectfully agreeing to disagree and not wanting to converse anymore, i am fine with that and you having your opinion. To close out, my opinion is obviously opposite to yours - but you have basically made some bold and definitive statements but not really been able to expand on them or reason them.

I might be reading your posts wrong but i get the general vibe that you notice there isn't a lot of consistency, validation or common sense in whats been going on? If you are feeling that, but are basically just resigned to do whatever you have to in order to get some rights back and you don't really care as to what you have lost, why or what you have to do to get them back - you are just willing to accept and do whatever to move on and get something back no matter how small and without any questioning of accountability and validation....christ that is scary if that's how the majority are thinking and acting and what the next set of rules could bring for our next generations.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program”

I absolutely respect your opinion & although it's a complicated issue, I'm just trying to keep my statements short and sweet.
I'm a simple man with no qualifications in medicine or science so I rely on experts to guide me the right direction.
I'm also a firm believer that you are free to make any life choice you like as long as it doesn't affect other people.
I kind of feel like we are all on a leaking life raft and the anti-vaxxers refuse to help bail out the water because it might damage their skin.

[Kenle]

I've had the jab, I feel fine and don't notice anything different at all. My friends and family all had the jabs, they're all fine. I don't think antivaxers will be an issue once the majority of our population is vaccinated. They are right if thier choice is not to take the vaccine, and they shouldn't be rejected from our Medicare support. What they won't be exempted from is the potential long term effects of covid if they contracted it. The whole hospital ICU being overwhelmed will be avoided anyways once the majority of us are vaccinated and it's looking good. I didn't take the vaccine because I was forced into it, I took it because my doctor recommended it, his the guy I go to when I'm messed up so if he thinks it's good then it's good enough for me.

[re-tyred]

I have had both doses of Astra. No issues. As far as people who don't want it, well that's their choice. What currently Ps me off is that our daughter in tassy who is fully vaxed, as she is a nurse, has now had her cancer therapy at Peter Mac, postponed indefinitely because they do not want to fill up the remaining ICU beds.???? The situation we are now in is because a whole lot of people have not been prepared to personally do their best to fight this virus. They have simply decided they are more important than the wider community. There are many reasons for their decisions. Some believe it is a "plandemic" some believe the vax is "big Pharma" trying to make money. Many just think it is their right to go about life normally. All i can say is best of luck to everyone over the next few months. I hope you are still happy with this years decisions this time next year.

[laneends]

The titanic is sinking and still people argue about the safety compliance certificates of the available life rafts. Yes there should have been more life rafts and preferably with thorough testing certificates. Buts that what there is, its not an ideal world.

If the voluntary unvaccinated start clogging up hospital beds when other folks need them for a myriad of other reasons there will be a public back lash.They wont be thanked by the overworked health care professionals who have to not only deal with this but expose themselves to the risks that other people have chosen to take.

[Andrews]

As someone with a degree in Biomedicine and experience working in a hospital, I feel that one of the ways COVID poses a reasonable risk to us in the meanwhile is the hospital systems potentially becoming overwhelmed, but more importantly and realistically the disruption of what would be normal procedures. My heart goes out to everyone who is sitting there on a waiting list for surgeries, treatments or care and are unable to access those services because there is an increased risk, inaccessibility, delays caused by COVID and it's societal effects. We also often forget about those who are immunocompromised, people with an increase risk of seriously being hurt by this virus. I couldn't begin to imagine how they are feeling right now.

This extends to the health struggles we often either don't see - mental health. Now more than ever many Victorians need additional support and often our services are overwhelmed. Best thing we can do is be open these conversations because mental health doesn't discriminate and support each other where we can. We are in this for the long term, so the best we can do right now is take responsible steps to helping protect others.