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

    • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:54

      Required. Not forced.

  • Capo93 on 26/11/2020 - 15:13
    +4

    No hat, no play at school. Same context basically.

  • Kmartsecurityguard on 26/11/2020 - 15:31
    +1

    I have no issues with vaccines, I’m vaccinated by vaccines that took years to develop, studied, tested and have a massively high success rate. What I have a problem with is a vaccine that has magically appeared in less than a year, few test subjects and is only “claimed” to be “up to” 90-95% effective with no mass population testing essentially making us all guinea pigs for these massive corporate businesses that make this magical wonder vaccine.

    I will take it once I see the Alan Joice, Scomo, and the CEO’s of massive corporations plus the manufacturers of these vaccines take it either live on TV or hardcore proof that they’ve taken it. Because in my lowly wisdom of all things medical one thing I’m fairly positive of is there will be some issues so I’ll happily wait for the beta testers to take it first and skip flying until I see the results in another years time.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 15:36
      -3

      The mega elites have their own vaccine. Did you ever find it strange how so many famous eldery people got the virus (Trump, Tom Hanks, etc) and all of them recovered within a week without any problems, while the rest of us mere working class people are supposedly suffocating in hospital and dropping dead by the day.

      Amazing how not a single celebrity was affected.

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 15:39
        +3

        Nick Cordero, Kenzo Takada, Tommy Devito, etc.. i guess they are not famous enough for you.

      • Kmartsecurityguard on 26/11/2020 - 15:40
        +1

        There’s a lot I could say, but just to stay on topic I’m happy for the rest of the world to test this wonder vaccine first and report back,I’m good not flying for a year

      • SydStrand on 26/11/2020 - 16:24
        +7

        The mega elites have their own vaccine

        SlavOz graduating from merely a hateful right wing crank to Pete Evans. I love how you shit all over vaccines, and how drug companies couldn't possibly develop a safe vaccine in under a year, then turn around and spout an unfounded conspiracy theory that the elite have their own magic bullet… which is a fictional vaccine. Make up your mind.

        How about the rich and powerful do well because they can afford the best supportive care and bleeding edge treatment including monoclonal antibodies (which isn't a vaccine). Also, plenty of rich people have died.

        • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 23:56

          I just looked at his post history.

          What an awful person. I can't believe I've just wasted 20 minutes of my life arguing with him.

      • Cluster on 26/11/2020 - 23:30
        +1

        Famous elderly people don't die of COVID? Easy to debunk.

        https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/comedy-legend-dies…

        British performer Tim Brooke-Taylor, a member of comedy trio The Goodies, has died after contracting coronavirus. He was 79.

        Any other conspiracy theories you wish to see debunked?

      • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 23:58

        Don't you have a prescription to pick up?

        I just checked your post history. For sure you're that shaggy weirdo with the cardboard sign who shouts at people outside Flinders St Station.

  • ImpulseMan on 26/11/2020 - 15:45

    Have your vote here guys:

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/584980

    Quite a few people not willing to take the jab for employment purposes.

    • CheeryCheapskate on 26/11/2020 - 16:15

      It does make me wonder (and I'm just nit-picking hypothetically) that some won't take a jab just to stay working from home.

    • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 17:42

      Poorly framed question. I would not take a jab for employment purposes. I would take the jab because it’s the right thing to do.

  • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:35
    +1

    AMA, im a chemist who can attempt to answer any science related questions Anti – vaccers are welcome.

    • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 16:49

      Thanks. My question, can PCR tests be misused to give the tester almost any answer they like?

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:56

        Real time PCR tests work by attaching specific fluorescent marker onto the target( whether that is a portion of your DNA or an antigen from a bacteria). The machine then reads the amount of fluorescence and compares it to negative and positive controls.

        All clinical tests have a degree of accuracy. Whilst i dont work in this field specifically (thus cannot advise on accuracy numbers), i would imagine that the likelihood of false results generated by the operator, will be low.

    • brendanm on 26/11/2020 - 16:57

      What's a vaccer?

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 16:59

        Sorry, its a name i use for people to are against vaccines .

    • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 18:30
      -1

      How many people do you estimate will die from the Covid vaccine?

      Could we use numbers similar to the swine flu vaccine?

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 22:53

        No idea since i dont have a copy of the vaccine study report.

        • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:56

          From Wikipedia:

          "How many died from swine flu vaccine?

          The number of lab-confirmed deaths reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) is 18,449, though the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic is estimated to have actually caused about 284,000 deaths. A follow-up study done in September 2010 showed that the risk of serious illness resulting from the 2009 H1N1 flu was no higher than that of the yearly seasonal flu. For comparison, the WHO estimates that 250,000 to 500,000 people die of seasonal flu annually."

          Not sure how accurate that death count is, as we don't know how many people died outside of the lab, 2-3 years down the track (or had other serious injuries/disabilities for that matter)

          Can't find how many people took the vaccine globally, but 3.9M took it in Australia, so the 20k dead is probably a small %

          • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:59

            @MementoMori: Agreed the % is higher for H1N1.

            • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 10:02

              @Duckie2hh: Well… I wasn't saying that… it's too early to tell, given it hasn't been 'made yet' let alone mass distributed

              As far as I (not a Chemist) knows it could be much higher, lower, same - anything

              All we know are the results of the last time we rushed a vaccine

    • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 19:52

      Is there anything inside the vaccine that concerns you?

      • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 22:54

        Not really. Just hope im not allergic to one of the ingredients used.

        • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:33

          How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRC-5 ?

          '…developed from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus'

          It's used in the development/manufacturing of the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])

          • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:47

            @MementoMori: What's wrong with that? I am a firm believer in medical research for the advancement of science. It is a great honour and sacrifice for the parents of the aborted foetus to provide the permission.

    • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:09
      -1

      Is it against your Hippocratic oath to wish that people die, as you did in an above post?

      • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:18

        Nope, because I never took that oath. I am merely the maker of instruments of salvation/death (depending on the dosage).

        • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:41

          Ahhh OK, when you said Chemist I thought Pharmacist (i.e. Chemist Warehouse), rather than lab technician type.

          I understand, thank you.

    • MementoMori on 27/11/2020 - 09:44

      Do you think the Covid-19 vaccine will be about as effective as the flu vaccine or less so (given the flu vaccine has been under development for decades)?

      e.g. 29% effective in 2018-2019 - https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.…

      (I understand it would just be a guess)

      • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:49

        The new covid-19 vaccine (from my understanding) uses a new MRNA type delivery system that has not been used before/ not commonly used (for a vaccine purposes). This new MRNA type delivery is more accurate and hence would explain the higher efficacy rates.

        This new exciting technology will also allow new treatment options for a variety of diseases.

  • beade on 26/11/2020 - 17:01
    +2

    Not gonna lie I thought this was an awesome choice by Qantas. Of course they will have exceptions for people who aren't able to receive vaccinations due to health reasons (immunocompromised people etc…not sure why you would want to be travelling overseas if you fell into this category unless you are truly terminal and want to see someone) but in general stopping people from going overseas and then bringing covid back here because they weren't immunised is an amazing strategy by Qantas and I applaud them for their public health decision.

  • nikey2k27 on 26/11/2020 - 17:34

    Gay were zero right for year so it ok if Qantas want to do that.

  • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 17:39

    I’m sure OzBargain members have watched SlavOz slag off ‘entitled’ minorities so many times that perhaps he has now become that which he despises…

  • altitudinous on 26/11/2020 - 17:47
    +2

    They're a private company, they can choose customers as they want.

    You believe there is quite the opportunity in vaccine free flying. I recommend that you start an airline and profit.

    • Lichen6420 on 26/11/2020 - 18:00
      +2

      Antivaxx express.. fly your own way !

      Soooo many Karen's in one small confined space.

      • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 19:01
        +1

        I can just see 45 Karens who bought a $17 airfare screaming “I’m calling tracey grimahaw… how dare you not give free snacks and allow my 49kg luggage for free - this is unastrayan”

      • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 19:54
        -1

        You're misusing Karen… Karens (or more correctly, Corona-Karens) are the middle aged white women who attack you for NOT wearing a mask and NOT wanting to be injected with mystery juice

        The don't have a name for this group you're referring to yet, nothing has stuck. They tried 'right wing element of the wellness movement' but obviously that's grasping at straws.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/11/2020 - 20:09

          Nah, look up 'Karen from Brighton'.

    • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 18:05

      I think there are one or two barriers to entry

      • altitudinous on 26/11/2020 - 19:12

        I think Richard Branson started out by chartering an existing plane when him and his mates got stranded - they all agreed to split the costs. Sounds pretty feasible in this situation!

      • john71 on 27/11/2020 - 00:02

        Being an anti-vax nutter does suggest little earning potential. You're right about that.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/11/2020 - 14:32
          +1

          Isn't the richest person in the world with public opinions on the matter a skeptic?

  • OzzyOzbourne on 26/11/2020 - 18:04
    +1

    Good, but it won't matter anyway, most governments will require it for arrivals, either that or 2 weeks quarantine

  • justme66 on 26/11/2020 - 18:09

    Can anyone tell me how long is the 96% guarantee for? 1 day, 2 days, 1 week,a month?

    • whooah1979 on 26/11/2020 - 18:11

      It will be an annual boost. Every pharma will fight over government contracts to ensure they get a steady revenue stream for the next 20 years.

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

    This is great news. Hopefully it goes much further - all airlines, schools, shopping centres and workplaces.

    Ideally, they wouldn't make it mandatory but they'd at least stop people using say, Mastercard, Visa or AMEX if they don't take the injection. They're private companies so it's fine for them to do this. Together with the ban on cash, this should make sure at least 80% of Australia gets it.

    If somebody doesn't like it - it's their choice, they can choose to stop using credit cards.

    • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 18:15
      +1

      I think the easiest pressure points are airline travel, passports, Medicare cards, public transport use, school enrolments, Centrelink payments and driver's licences.

      Put all of those off-limits to anti-vax cretins and I think you'll find 90% of them will suddenly come to their senses.

      • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 18:17

        Great ideas!

        How else can we 'force' them (without forcing them, if you know what I mean)?

        • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 18:19

          Ultimately cutting off their income or food would be best, but maybe food is too far…?

      • haemolysis on 26/11/2020 - 21:21
        +1

        I’d remove Medicare; anti-vax people are very likely to need medical care and we want to ensure they get it and have their diseases treated and not spread further. Much as they asked to suffer, we can’t let them not get diagnosed and treated and become super spreaders if the health system can prevent that. They should get Medicare, at least.

        However, whilst I’d remove Medicare - I would add tax return.

        • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 22:03
          +1

          You make a good point about Medicare. And I do feel for anti-vaxxers' children - those poor brainwashed kids who didn't ask to be raised in a weird cult.

          I don't think it'd be too hard to link everyone's Medicare vaccination record (already accessible online) to ATO records. Likewise passport applications, Centrelink and so forth. It's easy, low-hanging fruit.

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

          Taking away access to medical treatment - great idea

        • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 15:17

          Should we do the same with obese people, smokers, drug addicts? How about a surfer who gets bitten by a shark? They should have stayed on the beach.

          • haemolysis on 28/11/2020 - 17:58

            @brendanm: Don’t try to make this a “slippery slope” debate. There’s no slope.

            There’s a cheap, harmless intervention that can save not only your own life, but countless others, and has no impact on your lifestyle choices. If you were a rational person you wouldn’t need to be forced - but if you’re not then you SHOULD be.

            And none of your examples have such an intervention.

            (Besides, I already said we shouldn’t withhold Medicare.)

            • brendanm on 28/11/2020 - 18:04

              @haemolysis: All of my samples have that intervention.

              Stop smoking - no downside, you save money and get healthy.

              Exercise and eat healthily - no downside

              Stop taking drugs - save money, don't be a scumbag and get healthy, no downside.

              There’s a cheap, harmless intervention

              You'd have to show me where it's proven to have no long term effects?

              • haemolysis on 29/11/2020 - 09:35

                @brendanm: I also said “no impact on your lifestyle choices” which you conveniently ignored.

                Dieting, quitting alcohol, drugs and smoking, are all pretty intense regimes for people to follow. Not saying we shouldn’t encourage all that - but a vaccine is a 2 minute procedure… got no impact on someone’s lifestyle.

                Indeed, even anti-vaxxers can be forced to get their jab and STILL continue to go out into the world and post conspiracy theories online about what it did to them.

                It does not impact their lifestyle. At all.

                The comparison to shark attacks, obesity, etc, is pointless.

                • brendanm on 29/11/2020 - 12:45

                  @haemolysis:

                  got no impact on someone’s lifestyle

                  It will have a massive impact on lifestyle if it's found that there are long term detrimental effects.

                  You are suggesting people should be able to choose to do things that have been proven to be bad for you, and costly for the taxpayer, yet people are terrible for not wanting to take an untested vaccine? That's actually bonkers.

    • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 18:16
      -2

      lol they're missing you back in the day of the slave trade. "Why should Blacks be able to use the same bathroom or sit on the same bus as us…the government needs to stop this now!!"

      It's nice to see how far we've come since then. Creating second class citizens never worked out before. Haply for you to give me an example of how it can be done correctly but just note you're on the wrong side of history.

      Cheers.

      • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 18:20
        +9

        I love how self absorbed you are that you would compare your pathetic sense of entitlement to slavery.

      • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 18:56
        +5

        Creating? We've already got second class citizens. People who can't afford to fly at all. Your privilege is showing and it ain't pretty.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 19:23
          +1

          There's a difference between people who can't fly due to market/economic barriers and people who could afford to fly but are being systemically prevented from doing so.

          Eg there were White people in South Africa during Apartheid who were living in the slums with little to no food available, but that didn't put them in the same boat as Black people who were systemically discriminated against by the government.

          • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 21:05
            +3

            @SlavOz: Skin colour is not a choice. Social disadvantage is not a choice. Choosing not to follow the rules, is a choice. Don't confuse what truly being a second class citizen means, with refusing to follow a business rule by choice.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 21:11
              -1

              @MessyG:

              Choosing not to follow the rules,

              You mean choosing not follow a specific, ideologically-driven set of rules?

              If it's OK to discriminate against people based on malleable behaviour or choices, then I guess you're also fine with discriminating against Jews and Muslims? It's just a choice…right?

              • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 21:22

                @SlavOz: We discriminate against people choosing to drive at 150 km/h down suburban streets. In fact, so strong is this discrimination that we even take their driver's licence.

                If you choose to endanger public health by spreading your diseases, then you must accept the consequences. It's that simple.

                • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 22:47
                  +1

                  @john71:

                  We discriminate against people choosing to drive at 150 km/h down suburban streets.

                  No, we send them a fine, which they can contest in court and plead their case. The prosecution will need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the speeder will be punished accordingly depending on how much guilt can be attributed to malice or intention as opposed to other non-malicious motives. The punishment can and often is lowered for a range of reasons.

                  Eg the driver could be eligible for a good behaviour probationary period. In any case they will likely have their license again in a few months.

                  Now compare that to a blanket rule where you say anyone who doesn't get vaccinated is automatically assumed to be guilty to the full extent possible and are pre-emptively excluded from society with no recourse or individual consideration granted.

                  Not really the same is it?

                  • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 23:11
                    +4

                    @SlavOz: Anti-vaxxers are welcome to plead their case in front of a judge till they're blue in the face. They can argue that vaccinations are all a conspiracy issued from the bowels of Big Gates or Big Pharma or secret alien overlords - and they will most assuredly get exactly what they deserve.

                    Anti-vaxxers make a selfish choice to spread deadly diseases among society. Society makes a choice to impose consequences on them for their selfishness.

              • MessyG on 26/11/2020 - 21:25
                +2

                @SlavOz: It's their business rules, they can set them, you can choose to go elsewhere.

                Race, religion, these aren't decision specific things. Deciding you don't want a vaccine is a single decision. Airlines are asking for a single decision here. And fine that's your choice, but best not to conflate how you feel about that with the systematic violence that has happened to whole races and religions over centuries. It might make sense in your mind, but it's not doing your argument or your position any favours at all.

                • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 22:53
                  -2

                  @MessyG:

                  It's their business rules, they can set them, you can choose to go elsewhere.

                  I stopped giving money to QANTAS right around the time they signed a major partnership deal with Brunei, a country that literally stones gays to death…and then had the ego to demand that Folau be fired for Facebook posts that were "harmful to the gay community".

                  They won't see another cent from me so long as they continue to fund oppressive regimes that abuse human rights. My issue is if this policy becomes the new industry standard or even legal requirement, leaving us no choice.

                  • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 07:20

                    @SlavOz: So you support Folou? Thats pretty rich coming from a religious homophobe.

                    • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 09:26
                      -1

                      @Duckie2hh: Not really, don't know him personally, but I believe there should be protections for employees fired for expressing religious beliefs. Thankfully there are, which is why Folau was entitled to a payout.

                      That being said, this isn't about Folau, it's about QANTAS. They smile for the camera and pretend to be outraged at people posting bible verses on Facebook, while at the same time they give some of your money to Brunei who stone gay people to death and are proud of it.

                      If you fly with this company, that's your choice, but you can't hide from the fact that you're giving money to human rights abusers.

                      • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 09:33

                        @SlavOz: I must have missed this, but can you please explain tbis Qantas-Brunei link?

                        Whilst i do think everyone is entitled to religion freedom, i do not believe that you can openly express hatred in thr public, especially when you are in the media attention.

                        I wish Folou well on his beliefs, but he had it coming for being a homophobe. There is enough hatred and violence in the world, caused by religion.

                        • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 11:45

                          @Duckie2hh: QANTAS recently signed a very lucrative partnership with Brunei Airlines, the national (state-owned) carrier for Brunei.

                          Brunei is a country that recently passed a law making it legal to stone homosexuals to death, which applies to foreign tourists as well.

                          Many airlines cancelled their partnership over this, although it seems money prevailed in the end and QANTAS and a bunch of others are happy to co-fund Brunei's government and their human rights violations.

                          https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/virgin-austral…

                          Business is business, but for QANTAS to ignore this yet call out someone posting bible verses on Facebook (which weren't even that bad tbh) is just laughably hypocritical. It's like Hitler pointing the finger and pretending he has morals.

                          • Duckie2hh on 27/11/2020 - 11:59
                            +2

                            @SlavOz: Many other airlines have partnerships with Emirates (owned by the Dubai emirate) that also forbids homosexuality, punishable by the law. I don't see you highlighting this?

                            By your stance, I can assume therefore that you do not fly with Emirates, or any airlines that have partnerships with Emirates or step foot on any Muslim-dominated country (middle east, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc)? I highly doubt that is the case. Bit hypocritical much?

                            • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 15:45
                              -1

                              @Duckie2hh:

                              Many other airlines have partnerships with Emirates (owned by the Dubai emirate) that also forbids homosexuality, punishable by the law. I don't see you highlighting this?

                              My issue isn't solely that they abuse human rights, it's that they abuse human rights while pretending to care about human rights or social integrity.

                              Now granted every company has a PR department but QANTAS has been particularly vocal about their bullshit, which is where the problem lies. From demanding their sponsors terminate Folau's contract, to enforcing a mandatory vaccination program onto anyone who wants to fly, I think their hypocrisy needs to be pointed out because they are the most vocal about it.

                              By your stance, I can assume therefore that you do not fly with Emirates

                              I try to avoid where I can. What I don't do is pretend Emirates or any other company that is complicit in human rights violations cares about me or is some sort of godsend for the NWO to fight COVID. What tough bullshit to swallow.

                      • MessyG on 27/11/2020 - 15:26
                        +3

                        @SlavOz: Jeez mate, I hope you're not wearing mass produced clothes or on an iphone right now. Or are we just cherrypicking human rights abuses to suit ourselves? Again, you're not helping your position.

                        All you ever need to do is decide where you stand, and stand there. Say "I'm not comfortable getting this vaccine so I wont be flying Qantas, end of story". It's a much much more powerful argument than randomly bringing in huge swathes of systematically marginalised and abused groups and somehow equating yourself with them. I really dislike the term 'virtue signalling' but I'll make an exception. Don't do that to support your position. Just support your position. It's fine to disagree with this business rule for personal reasons. It is NOT the same as centuries of oppression.

                        Personally never been a fan of Qantas I'm not entirely on board with this mandate either because I think they can indemnify themselves in ways other than being so heavy handed and using brute force or conflict is usually a failure of negotiation imho. I'll be getting the vaccine regardless for work so their rule makes no difference to me - it doesn't make me want to fly with them more.

      • gravel on 26/11/2020 - 19:18
        +2

        Slaves, Black's were singled out and persecuted based on their colour and a misguided belief that they were inferior and some argued not human. It was a disgusting chapter in US history and even today it persists in the way blacks are treated compared to whites.
        Black people did not present a health risk ( or any other risk for that matter ) but people who are not vaccinated when a vaccine is available and the disease is prevalent are a risk to others.
        You don't have the right to drive at 200KM in a suburban street does that make you feel that your civil liberties are threatened?
        It would be wonderful if all the anti vaccer's and obsessive civil libertarians could live together in their own space with people of like mind.
        Darwinian theory would then take over.

        • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 19:31
          -1

          a misguided belief that they were inferior and some argued not human

          Couldn't have put it any better myself. Look at the sentiment in this topic and tell me this isn't the way people think about anti-vaxxers.

          Some standout comments include "can't wait for the virus to wipe out you and your family" and "if you want to travel/eat/have shelter then tough luck if you don't vaccinate".

          Black people did not present a health risk ( or any other risk for that matter )

          Actually, they kind of did. Due to their lower class status they could not afford to live as hygienically as the White class, so their clothes often stunk, they had dandruff, etc.

          Now granted, any extra germs they might have been carrying weren't a major health risk, but you don't seem to understand they were seen that way at the time, just like current unvaccinated people are seen as a major health risk.

          We are finding out new information about COVID everyday. One day wearing a mask works, then it doesn't, then you become immune after you catch it, then you can catch it again, then we can achieve herd immunity, then we can't achieve herd immunity, then it can spread in food but then it can't spread it food etc. I wouldn't be surprised in 50-70 years time if we don't look back and realise it probably wasn't as big of a health risk we thought and could easily be prevented just by washing your hands or adopting simple lifestyle changes. But demonising the unvaccinated as unclean pariahs is not the way to go.

          • gravel on 26/11/2020 - 19:53
            +2

            @SlavOz: You'r relying too much on social media for your information. It's a very big health risk. The mortality rate over all is fairly low, but still way above acceptable. However if your compromised or old it skyrockets.
            I don't support base level comments about anti-vaxxers it's childish. However anti-vaxxers ought to be singled out for the danger they represent to overall health.
            Unvaccinated people are a major health risk. Unless of course you fancy Polio Measles Small pox etc etc to gain a foothold again.
            Hygiene amongst Blacks and whites was poor, probably more so in blacks because as you point out they could not afford the basics.
            But be under no illusion blacks were persecuted because of their colour.

            • SlavOz on 26/11/2020 - 21:19
              -6

              @gravel:

              However if your compromised or old it skyrockets.

              Then stay inside, live in a bubble, or get vaccinated if you're old. Why force it onto everyone else's daily lives? There is very little precedent for this - eg people with asthma are very prone to air pollutants like dust, smoke, fumes etc. Is it the responsibility of people to never create pollution in the air or should the person who faces risk be responsible of avoiding it themselves?

              But be under no illusion blacks were persecuted because of their colour.

              I'm really not a fan of the notion that it's OK to mistreat or discriminate against people based on some things but not others. Sure not getting vaccinated is a choice but then you're just saying it's OK to discriminate against people who think differently to you.

              Someone who supports discrimination of anti-vaxxers so firmly (like many people in this thread) would no doubt have supported discrimination against Blacks back in the day. Once you have the cruel intention in your heart to mistreat one social group it's indicative of a deep rooted problem of hatred and bigotry, no matter how much they try to justify it.

              • gravel on 26/11/2020 - 22:22
                +3

                @SlavOz: Like I said you'r getting way too much information from social media.

                And yes it perfectly fine to discriminate against people who don't vaccinate to the extent that they pose a danger to the health of others. We have been able to rid ourselves of some pretty nasty viruses through vaccinations. There is logic, based on sound science in discriminating against people who don't vaccinate ie. they pose a danger to the people around. Someone's colour does not pose a danger. It's got zero to do with hatred and bigotry, really that's absurd. It's about health. To suggest that people in this thread would have supported discrimination against blacks because they want to discriminate against ant-vaxxers is equally absurd.
                If you want the right to spread disease do it amongst people of like mind, not those that want to stay healthy.

              • Vote for Pedro on 26/11/2020 - 22:45

                @SlavOz: Entitled brat.

              • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 22:55

                @SlavOz: Wow this guy a racist too now.

          • Duckie2hh on 26/11/2020 - 22:58
            +1

            @SlavOz: Dont worry. Darwin's theory of natural selection will play out for OP. I just hope you dont waste too much of taxpayers money, on the way out.

        • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 19:41

          What are you talking about 'blacks singled out'?

          There have been slaves of all colours, races and creeds at one time or another - yes including 'evil' white people.

          The word 'slave' comes from 'slav', as in Slavic peoples.

          In fact, there are still many, many slaves today, especially in India and Africa.

        • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 19:44
          +2

          Normal people, breathing normally and just going about their day does not constitute a 'health risk' to you

  • berry580 on 26/11/2020 - 18:38
    +6

    What's truly absurd is that your personal choice is more important than the rest of the social combined?

    Op and people who agree with op are self individuals indeed.

    • MementoMori on 26/11/2020 - 19:44

      and they would have some words to say about you…

  • Scantu on 26/11/2020 - 20:35
    +2

    Why is it absurd they're a private business they're entitled to do as they please

  • jakka on 26/11/2020 - 21:24
    +4

    You also need to think about Qantas’ staff, and this is a massive win for them. They need to be safe when going to work, it is a small price to pay for them to be safe. Most of us would get a number of vaccines before travelling anyway, what’s one more.

  • annyfication on 26/11/2020 - 21:47
    +2

    They're pioneers in this thought process.

    Other organisations will likely to follow suit soon. Similar how childcare, schools, and certain university degrees wouldn't let you in unless you're vaxxed. Workplaces would follow suit, especially customer-facing, high density workplaces. Countries would also follow suit, especially island nations with a small population.

    Qantas just happens to the first to lead. As a result, I'm happy to fly with them because I intend to continue to travel abroad for work and leisure.

    • john71 on 26/11/2020 - 23:18
      +2

      I'm pretty sure large employers (eg McDonald's, Woolworths) will push hard for mandatory vaccinations among their workers, if only to minimise liability and assuage their customers.

      Qantas is getting the ball rolling. Over the coming years, I don't see any reputable airline allowing the unvaccinated to travel. The government can help by denying passports, Centrelink payments and so forth to them as well.

    • SlavOz on 27/11/2020 - 09:30

      You're happy to give money to QANTAS and their partnership with Brunei, a country that literally passed a law to stone gays to death?

      https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/virgin-austral…

      Such a good person. I'd be proud of myself too

      • no not me on 27/11/2020 - 12:37
        +5

        Qantas partners with Brunei. Guess what, you've probably bought stuff transported by Qantas, powered by fuel refined from oil from a corrupt, oppressive regime, which persecutes homosexuals. Are you also proud?

        Geez, this argument is so pathetic. You're really running out of ideas, huh?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join