Qantas Introducing No Jab - No Fly Policy

SlavOz on 24/11/2020 - 19:17
Last edited 24/11/2020 - 19:51 by 1 other user

Is there a legal precedent to this? How is a major airline allowed to take it upon themselves to mandate medical decisions on behalf of the public?

By comparison, would it be acceptable for insurance companies, telcos, or energy providers to deny their products/services to a large part of the country based on similar criteria?

Eg - anyone who's ever had an abortion is not eligible for this power plan. Too bad for you, guessing you'll have to learn to start a fire or freeze to death.

This is truly absurd.

Qantas will ban travellers who don't have the COVID vaccine — can other businesses follow suit?

Travel

Related Stores

Qantas
Qantas

Comments

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 13:25
              -2

              @SydStrand:

              Because that's not how it works. Herd immunity is the basis for every successful vaccination programme and requires large-scale uptake in vaccination, but it effectively protects everyone, even those who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons

              Ah, so you're cool with some people not being vaccinated then, as long as you say it's OK for them?

              How do I get on your good side and become one of the people you approve to be exempt from the rules? Pretty please?

              • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 13:35
                +4

                @SlavOz: Really, it's not that friggin hard. I'm 'cool' with people who can't get vaccinated because they've had an anaphylactic reaction to a prior vaccine, or they have significant co-morbidities. You'll notice 'I don't wanna!' isn't on the list.

                • 91rs on 26/11/2020 - 15:18
                  +1

                  @SydStrand: Not to mention most of those who are older or in a situation where they are higher risk are already trying to avoid catching it, you he just wants it to be harder for those people because F them right?

          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 13:44
            +1

            @SlavOz: Do you even believe COVID-19 is real?

      • no not me on 26/11/2020 - 15:06
        +1

        a flu

        Do you actually realise that COVID, apart from being a virus is very different to influenza? This lazy equivalence is pushed by people who generally have no clue what they're talking about.

        Your argument is just so perplexing. You have major worries about the effects of a vaccine that is undergoing human trials, to prevent the spread of a highly contagious, deadly virus. The virus has long term effects. Yet, somehow you think that COVID itself is less of a concern.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 15:15
          -1

          "The virus has long term effects."

          Has that been proven in all?

          • no not me on 26/11/2020 - 15:21

            @[Deactivated]: Proven in what sense? The CDC, which is a reputable source, makes such claims. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.…

            • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 15:24

              @no not me: From your own link:

              "While most persons with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients can have symptoms that can last for weeks or even months after recovery from acute illness."

              Not all. Not even close. Your earlier blanket statement "The virus has long term effects." is false. From your own link, most people have no long term effects. Asymptomatics don't even have short term effects.

              • no not me on 27/11/2020 - 11:30

                @[Deactivated]: So, my claim that virus has long term effects, according to the CDC is false?

                The link I provided to the CDC's page titled "Long-Term Effects of COVID-19" (emphasis, mine) seems to indicate that there are in fact, long term effects. Whether or not they are indefinitely lasting effects is still unclear and is not a matter I've touched on. Since certain effects persist for a period of time, beyond when the virus is active in a host, said effects may be classified as "long term".

                • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 12:05

                  @no not me: What are the long term effects on an asymptomatic person? List them. The majority of people have no long term effects. What are the long term effects on Dustin Johnson, who had Covid just weeks ago? Winning the US$2 million Masters, that's what.

                  • no not me on 27/11/2020 - 12:29

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    What are the long term effects on an asymptomatic person? List them.

                    Not sure why you're strung up on asymptomatic people. I've made no mention of them at all, you introduced them into the discussion. I directed you to a source stating that COVID has long term effects, since you asked for proof of such claims in a previous comment.

                    The majority of people have no long term effects.

                    I never stated they did. I said it has long term effects and pointed to the source where I got this information from.

                    • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 12:33

                      @no not me: Maybe I'm strung up on it because you can't name a single long term effect in that large group. The name itself is a hint.

                      • no not me on 27/11/2020 - 12:40

                        @[Deactivated]: Not sure what you're getting at to be honest. I never said asymptomatic people had long term effects, that's an oxymoron anyway.

                        • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 12:46

                          @no not me: I'm getting at the fact that there are large portions of society, the majority, that you forgot about in your careless and false blanket statement.

  • RefusdClassification on 26/11/2020 - 11:59

    There is a word for this, discrimination.

  • YourMum69 on 26/11/2020 - 12:08
    +4

    Don't see it as a bad thing at all. If anything, it will remove all the whinging anti-vaxxers and Karens who would normally kick up a fuss and make everyone's life a misery anyway. These people would usually end up costing the airline more. Kills two birds with one stone, in my opinion.

  • haemolysis on 26/11/2020 - 12:15

    If there’s no legal precedent for this, then one should be made. We need to be tough on vaccines, not have a PM who says “it will be as mandatory as we can make it” and in the next breath says “but we wont make it mandatory.”

    You should need a complete vaccination record in your immunisation history statement before being able to do a tax return, get a licence, apply for jobseeker, obtain a passport, or enter the country.

    It should include annual influenza vaccination too.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:18
      +1

      TL;DR

      Anyone who doesn't agree with the media and the government should be a 2nd class citizen.

      • haemolysis on 26/11/2020 - 12:20
        +3

        Whatever. As long as you can’t run around society without a jab, you can fashion your tinfoil hat however you like.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:22
          +2

          Replace "without a jab" with "as a Jew" and were in 1940s Germany all over again.

          "Whatever" he says. History is blind

          • Crow K on 26/11/2020 - 14:09
            +1

            @SlavOz: Someone else who liked false equivalence was Adolf Hitler.

            Why, SlavOz, are you admitting, here in front of everyone, to being the literal equivalent to Hitler?

            Why are you so desperate to push your New World Order on all of us, just like your bestie Hitler attempted all those years back?

            If you change the phrase "second class citizens" to "I, SlavOz, think Splice is the best Streets ice cream", you have, on this forum, multiple times pushed the Splice agenda., which i remind you, is demonstrably false.

            Stop getting all your ideas from the tElEviSIOn Hitler and have a goddamn Paddle Pop like a normal, healthy human being, you disgusting wretch.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 18:20
              -1

              @Crow K: Bro you're literally cheerleading the creation of 2nd class citizens and you have the gall to play the compassion card.

              Truly staggering. Creating an oppressed class has never worked well before. I'm glad you think things will be different now but they won't. One day you'll end up on the wrong side of history and say "yeah, it totally wasn't me who supported separate bathrooms for Black peop…I mean Jews…I mean anti-vaxxers"

              • Crow K on 26/11/2020 - 18:59
                +4

                @SlavOz: I don't know what you get out of deliberately rubbing people the wrong way (conflating the repercussions of personal choices with the inhumanities behind the racial divide of the 60's in America and the tragedy that was the Holocaust, for instance), and frankly I don't want to.

                I won't pretend I haven't enjoyed playing whack-a-mole with your terrible takes, but sh-tposting is like soft drink - it's a some of the time treat, not an all of the time thing. I'm done on this, and leave you a little mini Choose Your Own Adventure story for you to follow.

                If you actually are that concerned about these issues: Take some time to actually read up on them, from actual history, and use that to inform your discussion. Using comparisons to how the science was wrong on DDT would be a better comparison (for instance) than 'wat if Energy Australia blocked abortion users huh?'. Opinions are hard enough to change anyway before setting yourself the hurdle of 'let's play pretend in a situation I just invented'.

                If you actually aren't that concerned about these issues: Enjoy your troll posting. One day you'll emotionally develop enough to look back on these posts and I hope, like your brony phase and revenge porn collection, it turns out to be a moment of self-revulsion and improvement.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 12:20

    As if there are no doctors around the world that would 'miss' for a small fee.

    • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:50

      Highly highly doubt it. The recipient would have them over a barrel for the rest of their career. One report to AHPRA and their registration is toast.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 19:56

        Happened with Dr John Piesse with child vaccinations, let alone internationally.

        https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/three-doctors-inves…

        • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 21:06

          Which was reported to AHPRA. Single cases are hardly going to get a groundswell of false vaccinations.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 21:33

            @MessyG: You said originally you highly highly doubt it, but now admit it happened. Action was only taken after a year, despite doing it pretty openly.

            • MessyG on 27/11/2020 - 15:18

              @[Deactivated]: I was referring to the covid vaccine. I highly highly doubt any clinician would fake giving a covid vaccine, (especially since this one was caught.) And frankly if they did, they would get caught, they would be struck off and good riddance.

              (And AHPRA are horribly slow, doesn't mean they don't get there).

  • ImpulseMan on 26/11/2020 - 12:26

    I wonder how this will effect the workforce though - that's where it gets interesting!

    How does the discrimination act come into this when looking at it from a religious freedom perspective?

    Will this be legislated like the “No Jab, No Pay” legislation in 2016, where religious or philosophical objection do not apply?

    Travelling overseas is not seen in the same light as earning an income. While it is important for many jobs the world has assumed skype/zoom is the new norm, so basically get use to it. I see no issue with governments and airlines trying to get some new normality going with a jab.

    But there may be legal issues if it is forced as part of employment as it essentially can stop someone's earning capacity, if they have a limited skill set and a religious belief that prevents a jab. It will be a tricky area of law in my opinion as with the no jab no play legislation - they were the rules for childcare services. If you didn't like it look after your kid or get your parents to do it. With employment, it's probably going to vary from industry to industry but you will have issues that are similar to the issues when we were not sure what business to shutdown during the outbreak.

    You would assume for instance a nurse needs to take the jab, for their protection and the patient. But then you also have for instance a hairdresser who is in close proximity to multiple clients daily. Two completely different industries, yes the medical obviously has a higher risk but you would assume there are a lot of similar industries, such as the hairdressing community, that will have to fall in these categories?

    Would you take a jab as part of your employment conditions or trading conditions?

    One step further, could a restaurant lawfully refuse patrons not vaccinated?

    Interesting to see how it all plays out, from a legal perspective anyway.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:56

      If people can't work, they'll be forced to go on welfare.

      If they're on welfare, they become 100% dependant on the government and their payments will be cut off if they disobey in any way.

      But surely the government doesn't want that. If you look at their track record, they've never been a fan of controlling people or suppressing individuality to make their job easier. Never.

  • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 12:32
    +7

    Can we please stop giving any more air time to OP's tinfoil rant? Enough Oxygen and Carbon footprints have been wasted on this thread.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 12:36
      +1

      Can you please explain the UK Government's 'Vaccine Damage Payment' in terms you are happy with:

      https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment

      "If you’re severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you could get a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000. This is called a Vaccine Damage Payment."

      elsewhere:

      "To qualify for the program, a person must be severely disabled as a result of a vaccination, and the disablement must be assessed as at least 60%."

      • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 12:53

        At least they're being transparent across the pond.

        AFAIK Australia is granting total immunity to the vaccine manufacturers for any potential side effects. Presumably any compensation payouts (if we have them) will be funded by the taxpayer too.

        • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 13:40
          +6

          Not sure where you are getting the statement that the AU government is giving immunity? You are well within your right not to take the vaccine. No one is forcing you to get this vaccine. Private businesses (i.e., Qantas, your private kindergarden down the road, etc) are well within their rights to refuse service.

          This is also completely legal, because they are not discriminating you based on factors out of your control (age, sex, race, etc); but serving a public health service by keeping you out of areas that will do harm.

          • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 15:49

            @Duckie2hh: You make good points, but you're trying to argue with a wall. (Or a troll - hard to tell.)

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 13:36
        +2

        It is pretty straight forward. Not sure what you need an explanation with. Shall i translate it for you in French?

        • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 14:10

          You'd probably want to master 'straightforward' first, n'est-ce pas?

        • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 16:24

          Could you do an AMA for us?

      • Aureus on 26/11/2020 - 13:37
        +1

        Because people in incredibly rare situations, can have serious reactions from vaccines, that could lead to permanent disability.

        The risk is tiny and the upside of immunisation is far greater.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 14:15
          +1

          OK, based on 'incredibly rare', how many should participate in the trial to provide accurate results?

          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:58

            @[Deactivated]: 43,000 people not sufficient?

            • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 16:41
              -1

              @Duckie2hh: You don't understand what placebo means, do you?

              • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:43

                @[Deactivated]: I definitely understand what it means. Are you insinuating that having a placebo in any way affects the credibility and safety of the vaccine? Additionally the number of placebo participants were not 43000

                • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 16:48

                  @Duckie2hh: Half of your quoted 43,000 number got saline solution. What conclusions have you drawn about the safety of the vaccine candidate from your quoted half that got saline solution? You quoted 43,000 when half were placebo. Efficacy and safety are not the same. You just blindly quote raw participant numbers without any understanding of what they received.

  • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 12:43
    +2

    The number of people supporting enforcement of an annual, experimental injection is saddening

    • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 13:41
      +6

      Hey, no one is enforcing anything on to you. You are well within your rights to stay home, not be vaccinated and be a hermit.

      • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:28
        +2

        hermit

        That's a funny way of spelling second-class citizen

        • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:34

          Hey, i have never used that label. You are the ones classifying second class citizens as hermits.

    • Aureus on 26/11/2020 - 13:43
      +5

      It's not experimental just because facebook tells you it is. All COVID vaccines have to complete the same clinical trials and approvals as any other vaccine.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 14:02

        Can you expand on the Swine Flu Vaccine administered in the UK and the outcome.

        • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 14:32
          +3

          900 people from 31,000,000 vaccinations have been affected by a side affect. No medicine is perfect (as every individual is different); but nevertheless the positive impact that vaccination and medications have on human life, cannot be downplayed.

      • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:31
        -2

        All COVID vaccines have to complete the same clinical trials and approvals as any other vaccine.

        Bullshit. The fastest vaccine ever developed took around 4 years. The average time is even higher. The COVID vaccine is about 7-8 months into development and they're already talking about a major rollout early next year.

        10-13 months is not the same as 4 years +. They're obviously skipping some of the usual steps, such as long-term human trials.

        • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:35

          Ass-sump-tions

        • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:52
          +1

          Yes but no vaccine has ever had the resources and money thrown at it before like this has. The turnaround time of previous vaccines takes into account the lack of resources and money. This is a unicorn scenario where unlimited resources have been thrown at it.

    • AustriaBargain on 26/11/2020 - 15:08
      +1

      Weird thing to say when our entire species and society is currently built on the backs of hundreds of vaccines. Your grandparents would have died as infants without vaccines, so you wouldn't even be here today to complain about them.

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:35

        I wished that was true…

        • Lichen6420 on 26/11/2020 - 17:47

          Dream a little dream…..

  • oO0Dam0Oo on 26/11/2020 - 13:25
    +4

    Love the quote from Dr Vyom Sharma on Twitter …"Einstein’s theory of special relativity makes no sense to me. But I believe the narrative because I know there are people out there who are smarter than me, and know more things. And hence I rely on my GPS when driving".

  • AustriaBargain on 26/11/2020 - 14:22

    No one is going to risk their parents dying just because you are afraid of a needle. People like their own parents more than they like you. Maybe a lot more.

  • Yotta00 on 26/11/2020 - 14:30
    -1

    Yikes.

    Vaccine is still trials, the antivaxxers are starting their evil propaganda machines. If you don't vaccinate, you are literally killing people. End of story. Read about the Anitvaxxer propaganda in Nigeria, the world almost eliminated polio, however there were rumours that the "evil west" was sterilising the local male population with the vaccine and polio continue spread until very recently 15 years later.

    Attitudes likes this is why covid will continue to spread in the foreseeable future.

    • Kmartsecurityguard on 26/11/2020 - 15:37
      +1

      Hey, I’m vaccinated but honestly I will let you take this one for the team first before i do. I have no problem you beta testing this magical vaccine that the corporate machine “claim to be 90-95%” effective.

      Hit me up after you’ve taken it and let me know how it’s going.

      • Lichen6420 on 26/11/2020 - 17:49

        I'd take a dose of the vaccine over a dose of the actual COVID virus any day of the week.

    • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 16:54

      you are literally killing people

      Literally

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2020 - 10:38

      WHO said today that there isn't any data about transmissibility levels or infectivity duration from the vaccine trials, so your statement about 'literally killing people' has no scientific foundation whatsoever. The ONLY data published from trials has pertained to efficacy of the vaccine within the individual, not the transmission to others. Higher individual survival rates may result in higher transmissions. You are being dramatic. Taking the vaccine might just make more super spreaders. In a population with low vaccination rates, that would be a huge problem.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 14:50
    +1

    Yeah, abortion is really as dangerous as a pandemic virus
    What a dumb post

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:24
      -2

      Lolwot abortion kills over a million people a year

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:36
        +1

        So you are against abortions? Typical for an anti-vaccer who also opress womens rights…

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:39
          -1

          Didn't say that. Just said that abortions kill over a million people a year. In fact the mortality rate is around 99.9% - almost every single case leads to a human death.

          So I'm just wondering why you don't have a problem with that but seem to be so fiercely in favour of eradicating a virus with a tiny mortality rate. Do you only care about preserving human life when it's ideologically convenient?

          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:40
            +3

            @SlavOz: I have no issues with Abortions. Its a womens right to have a choice.

            There may be many reasons why abortions are required (financial, medical, etc). The important factor is that it is a choice.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:44
              -1

              @Duckie2hh: Oh, so you support people having control of their own body even if it puts other lives at risk?

              Good on you, guess you have no problem with those of us who choose not to get vaccined then?

              Consistency.

              • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:46
                +2

                @SlavOz: How does it affect other people? You mean babies?

                Yes please do not get vaccinated. It is your choice and i wholeheartedly support you for it.

                I cant wait for natural selection to take care of you and your family.

                • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:49
                  -1

                  @Duckie2hh:

                  How does it affect other people? You mean babies?

                  Yep. Science proves that a 3-week old fetus has a heartbeat and unique DNA. That's a human life no matter how you spin it.

                  So if you support women having boidly autonomy even if it ends a human life, why can't I have boidly autonomy even if it potentially endangers a human life?

                  (Not the difference - my lack of vaccination MAY kill someone. The chances are slim. But a woman's boidly autonomy DEFINITELY kills someone. Isn't that worse?)

                  • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:53
                    +3

                    @SlavOz: Wow.. you are a really special case

                    As i have mentioned multiple times. I support your rights not to vaccinate. I also support private businesses rights to not serve you.

                    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:59
                      -1

                      @Duckie2hh:

                      I support your rights not to vaccinate. I also support private businesses rights to not serve you.

                      Thanks for clarifying. So as per my first post, would you support a private business's decision not to serve any women who've had abortions?

                      Power companies, telcos, insurance agencies, government benefits etc all locked for those who've ever had an abortion?

                      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:01
                        +2

                        @SlavOz: Explain to me how the choice to have an abortion serves the public interest?

                        Also… Last time i checked, the government is not classified as a public company.

                        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 16:04
                          -4

                          @Duckie2hh: NOT having an abortion serves the public interest. It means less people dying and a steady influx of a young population.

                          Therefore you could reasonably argue that those who get an abortion are acting against the public interest and are literally ending human lives.

                          So would you support private businesses and government agencies in denying service to these people?

                          It's the exact same notion as supporting anti-vaxxers being denied service.

                          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:11

                            @SlavOz: I support all businesses that protect the public interest. That includes the choice to refuse service or entry to those who do not wear mask (mandated by the government), and those who do not vaccinate.

                            Not sure if you have any idea on the world. But last i checked, humans have over populated the earth, destroying rainforests/habitats to build more farms, etc. How does increasing the human population serve the public interest?

                            You talk about steady influx of young people… Last i checked, Australian populayion is not declining. It must be magic with all those abortions .

                          • jorf on 26/11/2020 - 17:28
                            +5

                            @SlavOz:

                            NOT having an abortion serves the public interest

                            Wow.. no it does not. Forcing your will on others in this regard is complete garbage.

                            Pro-lifers are not actually pro-life. They are pro-birth. What happens to the child?
                            Born with major disabilities?
                            Born to drug-addict parents who neglect them?
                            Born to parents who can't look after them or didn't want them?

                            Who looks after them? Certainly not the pro-lifer who doesn't give a shit what happens after they're born, but certainly the rest of society is forced to assist in some way, often at the detriment of everyone, including the child themselves.

                            • Ghost47 on 26/11/2020 - 20:40

                              @jorf: Agreed. People who are pro-abortion don't really think about how hard that baby's life could be growing up. It's just so backwards and short term thinking it boggles the mind that with how ubiquitous decent education is these days, people still think in this idiotic stupid fashion.

                • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:07

                  @Duckie2hh: "I hope you and your family die"

                  Go take a look in the mirror

        • cashless on 26/11/2020 - 15:51
          +3

          Prob also a QAnon loving, Trump supporting, gun-toting, white supremacist.
          All goes together

          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:00

            @cashless: Now now… OP might be delusional, but lets not assume he is a mysoginist and those other things you mentioned.

            I would hate to make assumptions and push my opinions on him. After all, we have to treat those who need the most help, with kindness.

          • Ghost47 on 26/11/2020 - 20:42

            @cashless: Most white supremacists also have Asian wives whilst crying out "BuT mY wIfE iS AsIaN I'M nOt rAcIsT!1!!". Prominent alt-right figures in the US have Asian wives.

            That demographic that you described is just so freaking weird, unloved kids growing up probably.

  • Bargainaholic on 26/11/2020 - 14:57
    +1

    It is like being forced to wear a condom when visiting a brothel

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join