Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

HC Poll - Do you believe it is right to allow people to discriminate on the basis of vaccination status?, page-250

First 250 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
acorn

38,075 Posts.

4

25/11/21

18:35

Post #: 57860888
Share

Originally posted by Treefern: ↑

The nuts and bolts of my aversion to this governmental overreach are contained in your answer. The State can't justify invading the sanctity of one's person when the apparent dangers/risks/deaths/spread/contagion etc can be contained in something as low-tech as a Woolworths or IGA using nothing more than masks and some basic hygiene. Remember, no outbreaks to any sort despite hundreds of millions of visitors to supermarket with a roughly 50:50 vaxxed:unvaxxed spread.

Secondly, sadly some people definitely are more susceptible to Covid than others, and almost all of that cohort are extremely old. Equally sadly, they can die just as easily from infection by an asymptomatic carrier (or otherwise) who has been vaccinated. Vaccination of others does not protect this cohort from the illness or death.

So given that:

1) Vaccination does not prevent transmission.
2) a case of Covid can kill a susceptible citizen just as easily from an unvaxxed individual as a vaxxed one.
3) In areas where the most basic attention to hygiene and masks are worn - supermarkets - hundreds of millions of vaxxed-unvaxxed mingling has taken place with literally zero transmission. Even unknowing asymptomatic carriers of Covid haven't transmitted Covid within the confines of a Supermarket, butcher or Pharmacy.
4) there have been a very large number of adverse reactions to the vaccines, in fact very few people suffer no reaction at all. The severity of the reactions moves through the spectrum up to and including (in rare cases) death.

.....I can't see anything remotely close to justification for forced vaccination across the population, economically coerced or otherwise.

If the vaccines were this, or the vaccines were that, or the vaccines were both this and that and a bit of something else, I could possibly entertain it. But vaccination is not the answer. Take Gibraltar, a small but statistically significant locale that (I think) was the first place to be fully vaccinated. 100% coverage, and 14,000 boosters have been given since the beginning of October, and they have shot up to 50 cases a day. Full vaccination coverage does not prevent the dangers to our vulnerable.

Add to that a recent paper published in Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext#

....that the Pfizer vaccine was only 88% effective in preventing infection (in a retrospective study) for the first month after a second jab, but only 47% effective at preventing infection after five months. That's in Lancet, take it or leave it, but these people who are (decaying over time, but still counted as vaccinated) 47% covered can still kill swathes of old and comorbid people if they come into close contact with them. Do you know any old, rickkety people who would balk at unvaccinated person coming to visit them, but would think that a 47% covered vaxxer would be just swell?

But literally millions of unvaccinated people wafting through supermarkets haven't infected a single customer to date. Not one.

The new normal is masks, the new normal is personal hygiene, the new normal is being personally responsible for your behaviour. That is the best defense against Covid. If someone wants to take the vaccine, go ahead, but mandates are just beyond the pale.

Expand

" a case of Covid can kill a susceptible citizen just as easily from an unvaxxed individual as a vaxxed one. "

A general statement that has no evidence to back it up.

Vaccination reduces the spread considerably. Therefore, it reduces the chances of the particularly vulnerable from getting it. That's the point.

" there have been a very large number of adverse reactions to the vaccines, "

I felt a bit flat for 24 hours after the first injection. Is that an " adverse reaction " ? How do the number of reactions compare to the number of deaths ?

Full vaccination doesn't cover a virus that mutates. That is nothing new. That's why we have a new flu vaccine every year.

What would be your view if we were stubbornly less than 50% vacc rate ?

Supermarkets. As I said previously, I'm sure we'll find that some of the original restrictions may not have been required. However, having to wear a mask and sanitize your hands in a super market isn't the end of the world is it ? Eventually we'll achieve 90+% vacc rates and the mask rule will go. Then we'll be able to gauge what is effective and what isn't rather than just guess like we are now.
3 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

3DA

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

PRS

Prospech finds dynamite heavy REE grades from historic core in Finland

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

PR1

Nanocap Pure Resources acquires Reedy Creek garnet project, WA

There are more pages in this discussion • 136 more messages in this thread...

First 250 Last

SPONSORED BY