The COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Australia has begun

Pom-DownUnder

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
575
Points
360
I appreciate your concerns.Australians rejected the Australia card on privacy concerns and the vaccine passports seem a bigger invasion of privacy and will be used to divide us.It also is getting the anti vaxxers more ammunition.
On the other hand as a physician I would like to see everyone vaccinated.
100% Agree that i would like to see everyone vaccinated, I have taken it, all my family have taken it, I encourage everyone i speak to about it to take it.

But I cannot sign up to 'take it or suffer the consequences' i mean labelling it a "Freedom Pass" could it be more Orwellian ?

 

N860CR

Established Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,513
Points
715
NSW has reached 90.3% first dose for 50+ (the first state to reach 90% for this) and 66.73% (over 2/3) fully vaccinated for the same age group.

And this is the critical one. For all the fear mongering, covid is far less serious in those under 50 so we are looking at well over 90% of the vulnerable protected.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
317
Points
290
I dont consider myself at risk from the unvaccinated, thats why i took the vaccine.
To be honest i am mostly offended by your use of the term ‘Apartheid’, this is not discriminating and persecuting people based on their race or ethnicity. This is preventing people from buying a pint because they are too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective step to protect themselves and other people.
 

Pom-DownUnder

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
575
Points
360
To be honest i am mostly offended by your use of the term ‘Apartheid’, this is not discriminating and persecuting people based on their race or ethnicity. This is preventing people from buying a pint because they are too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective step to protect themselves and other people.
as is your right to be offended in a free country :)
 

N860CR

Established Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,513
Points
715
To be honest i am mostly offended by your use of the term ‘Apartheid’, this is not discriminating and persecuting people based on their race or ethnicity. This is preventing people from buying a pint because they are too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective step to protect themselves and other people.

Apartheid is simply a word that roughly translates in English to separation. I assume your taking “offense” based on your association with system of governance in South Africa under the former National party. The crux of that system of government was to separate people based on race, yes. Did you mean prosecute? Because yes, that did occur when the rules of the separation were broken. While a dirty comparison, it’s not too far off the mark.
 

Pom-DownUnder

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
575
Points
360
To be honest i am mostly offended by your use of the term ‘Apartheid’, this is not discriminating and persecuting people based on their race or ethnicity. This is preventing people from buying a pint because they are too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective step to protect themselves and other people.
Feel free to go frown at the people at Cambridge also by the way:

1631786977285.png
Post automatically merged:

1631787032714.png
 

justinbrett

Established Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
3,462
Points
845
Qantas
Platinum
To be honest i am mostly offended by your use of the term ‘Apartheid’, this is not discriminating and persecuting people based on their race or ethnicity. This is preventing people from buying a pint because they are too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective step to protect themselves and other people.

A quick google news search of "Vaccine Apartheid" shows that is being used by many journalists from around the world. Both in the context of giving wealthy countries better access to vaccines - or in the vaccine passport context as used here.

You're certainly entitled to be offended by that term but I don't think OP is wrong to use it.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
317
Points
290
Apartheid is simply a word that roughly translates in English to separation. I assume your taking “offense” based on your association with system of governance in South Africa under the former National party. The crux of that system of government was to separate people based on race, yes. Did you mean prosecute? Because yes, that did occur when the rules of the separation were broken. While a dirty comparison, it’s not too far off the mark.
<off topic discussion removed>

Anyway back on topic. Freedom is not absolute, freedom is a negotiation within society and should benefit the most people. Vaccination is imperfect (for some more than others), not everyone can be vaccinated (children, some medical conditions); so for the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people (and the greatest level of freedom) we should circumscribe the freedoms of those too selfish to take a safe, cheap and effective precaution against a disease that has killed millions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
317
Points
290
It just astounds me how selfish people are, especially about the minor inconvenience of having to show a green tick on their phone. There are still plenty of people for whom even a breakthrough infection post vaccination would be bad news. I might be one of them, history of pneumonia, respiratory infections hit me pretty hard, my sister in law is another and in a much riskier position than me. Neither of us would like to find out.

the vaccine passport would be an issue if we got to the very highest levels of coverage - if the truly selfish did the decent thing and got vaxxed.

<removed off topic content>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pom-DownUnder

Active Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
575
Points
360
If i had said just apartheid that would be one thing but i specified medical apartheid, as in a variance due to medical reasons, specified by the use of the word, curiously enough, medical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pushka

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
27,953
Solutions
4
Points
3,350
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Red
If i had said just apartheid that would be one thing but i specified medical apartheid, as in a variance due to medical reasons, specified by the use of the word, curiously enough, medical.
Is it medical apartheid to stop people with various medical conditions from taking part in various activities? Because that rider is on many activities that people might enjoy doing and no one squeaks a complaint about that because those conditions don't apply to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
4,416
Points
815
VIC has gone past 70% first dose as expected yesterday (numbers are reported each day for what occurred the previous day):
covidlive is predicting it will take 9 weeks to reach 70% fully vaccinated based on the 7 day average of second doses. With state hubs doing a 6 week gap for both AZ and Pfizer surely that will speed up.
 
Last edited:

HappyFlyerFamily

Established Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
4,331
Solutions
1
Points
690
Is it medical apartheid to stop people with various medical conditions from taking part in various activities? Because that rider is on many activities that people might enjoy doing and no one squeaks a complaint about that because those conditions don't apply to them.
It depends on your viewpoint.

In one example there is a "do not" or "recommend" not to go on a rollercoaster if say you have high blood pressure (but they don't ask for a green tick), the operator does that to remove liability of death.

In the other example, it is a "do not enter" a cafe because you are not fully vaccinated or exempted (green tick), the operator may be reducing chances of covid spread, risk of deep clean/shut down, etc
 

Pushka

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
27,953
Solutions
4
Points
3,350
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Red
It depends on your viewpoint.

In one example there is a "do not" or "recommend" not to go on a rollercoaster if say you have high blood pressure (but they don't ask for a green tick), the operator does that to remove liability of death.

In the other example, it is a "do not enter" a cafe because you are not fully vaccinated or exempted (green tick), the operator may be reducing chances of covid spread, risk of deep clean/shut down, etc
Agree. It just seems to me that there are many health limitations placed on people that we accept and don't comment on, yet with the Covid vaccination it has suddenly become an issue for many who until now never gave restrictions on others, any consideration. And it does ignore that fact that for years now, people can't access certain childcare etc benefits of their children haven't been vaccinated. And flu vaccinations have been mandated for a long time for those entering nursing homes in particular situations. And proof of that vaccination is required. Again, that is ignored by most until it impacts them.
 
Transform your lounge room (or any indoor space) into your own private movie theatre in just a few seconds.

Our Mini Pocket Projector is small, light and easily transportable. A must have!

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Top