Coronavirus/Covid-19 Discussion Thread (6 Viewers)

[Jojofelyx]

it would be over if we got vaxxed

thanks to skynews, I don't think that'll be anytime soon :\

 

[hatterene]

i think that COVID will eventually become like the seasonal flu, requiring a yearly vaccination.

 

[cosmo 2]

who the fuk gets flu shots every year

 

[Luke322]

who the fuk gets flu shots every year

A lot of people do lol

 

[cosmo 2]

retarded

 

[cosmo 2]

LMFAO LOCKDOWN NUMBER FUCKING 6

VICTORIA LOCKDOWN NUMBER 6


HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[cosmo 2]

this country is an absolute fucking joke

take your green and gold and stick it up your ass motherfuckers

 

[Great Southern Land]

LMFAO LOCKDOWN NUMBER FUCKING 6

VICTORIA LOCKDOWN NUMBER 6


HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA

It sounds like you are going down the path of insanity.

Anyway, what is everybody's opinion on HSC students having to get the jab if they live in a LGA?

 

[Luke322]

It sounds like you are going down the path of insanity.

Anyway, what is everybody's opinion on HSC students having to get the jab if they live in a LGA?

I think that they shouldn't have to get the jab if they don't want to. They should seperate unvaccinated and vaccinated students for the HSC in different classrooms and have everyone be tested etc. Anyway most people do want to get vaccinated so the amount unvaccinated wouldn't make it hard to make sure they sit the HSC in a covid-safe way.

 

[Great Southern Land]

I think that they shouldn't have to get the jab if they don't want to. They should seperate unvaccinated and vaccinated students for the HSC in different classrooms and have everyone be tested etc. Anyway most people do want to get vaccinated so the amount unvaccinated wouldn't make it hard to make sure they sit the HSC in a covid-safe way.

Exactly my view on this.

 

[dighead]

Once there's enough doses for everyone to get jabbed, my guess is that the gov would eventually implement a similar policy to the no jab no play policy like they did in 2018 (link below). It's also likely they'll implement vaccine passports. So if u don't get jabbed, say goodbye to international travel. Really hope they implement all this - unless u have a legitimate reason to not get jabbed, you'll be sitting in same boat as antivaxxers. Also hope the gov bans them from going to school and claiming gov benefits such as Medicare.

Anti-vax welfare cut leads to increase in vaccinations

Vaccination rates appear to have increased following the Federal Government's decision to reduce welfare payments for unvaccinated children.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Luke322]

Once there's enough doses for everyone to get jabbed, my guess is that the gov would eventually implement a similar policy to the no jab no play policy like they did in 2018 (link below). It's also likely they'll implement vaccine passports. So if u don't get jabbed, say goodbye to international travel. Really hope they implement all this - unless u have a legitimate reason to not get jabbed, you'll be sitting in same boat as antivaxxers. Also hope the gov bans them from going to school and claiming gov benefits such as Medicare.

Anti-vax welfare cut leads to increase in vaccinations

Vaccination rates appear to have increased following the Federal Government's decision to reduce welfare payments for unvaccinated children.

www.abc.net.au

I think there's a distinction between anti-vaxx and vaccine-hesitant. A lot of people seem to conflate the two into the same category and that in itself is counterproductive; some are vaccine hesitant because of how quickly it was produced and the relative lack of tests to other vaccinations. But yes, I think that those who don't get the vaccine should not be allowed to internationally travel initially- eventually they would have to be able to obviously. I think banning people from claiming government benefits such as medicare is a bit extreme and oppressive; I believe it is a human right to have medicare no matter your opinion or views. Oppressing people based on their views is not a good way to deal with the future of the global Covid-19 situation

 

[dighead]

I think there's a distinction between anti-vaxx and vaccine-hesitant. A lot of people seem to conflate the two into the same category and that in itself is counterproductive; some are vaccine hesitant because of how quickly it was produced and the relative lack of tests to other vaccinations. But yes, I think that those who don't get the vaccine should not be allowed to internationally travel initially- eventually they would have to be able to obviously. I think banning people from claiming government benefits from medicare is a bit extreme and oppressive; I believe it is a human right to have medicare no matter your opinion or views. Oppressing people based on their views in this way is not a good way to deal with the future of the global Covid-19 situation

Those are fair points, and I agree with them to some degree. However, once sufficient time has passed and more research has been conducted into them, there is no reason to not get the vaccine, so if they're still hesitant, then it's far to call them antivaxxers. Herd immunity protects those who are medically unable to receive the vaccine, so those who are able to get vaccinated but choose not become a risk to those who could not get vaccinated. This well-known fact applies to all vaccines, not just covid. It's why I would support antivaxxers (which vaccine-hesitant people would eventually be classified as as described above) not qualifying for medicare. It's extreme, but it's fair - why should they be able to claim gov medicare benefits and burden the taxpayer when they themselves are not doing the bare minimum by protecting themselves, let alone the community? It's like complaining that you can't get home insurance because you deliberately built your house on the edge of an unstable cliff. Individuals have the right to make their own choice, but choices should have consequences. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Luke322]

Those are fair points, and I agree with them to some degree. However, once sufficient time has passed and more research has been conducted into them, there is no reason to not get the vaccine, so if they're still hesitant, then it's far to call them antivaxxers. Herd immunity protects those who are medically unable to receive the vaccine, so those who are able to get vaccinated but choose not become a risk to those who could not get vaccinated. This well-known fact applies to all vaccines, not just covid. It's why I would support antivaxxers (which vaccine-hesitant people would eventually be classified as as described above) not qualifying for medicare. It's extreme, but it's fair - why should they be able to claim gov medicare benefits and burden the taxpayer when they themselves are not doing the bare minimum by protecting themselves, let alone the community? It's like complaining that you can't get home insurance because you deliberately built your house on the edge of an unstable cliff. Individuals have the right to make their own choice, but choices should have consequences. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I understand your standpoint but medicare is considered a basic human right. Infringing upon human rights is oppressive and in my opinion, taking away the ability to get treated for injuries is morally unjust. I am in no way a supporter of the anti-vaxx movement, I am pro-vaccine. However, by oppressing those who have a different viewpoint to yourself is just wrong.

Eventually the global situation with Covid-19 will become similar to that of the flu whereby most people (in developed counties mostly) will gain immunity to the virus and be vaccinated and a much smaller proportion of people will contract and suffer from its effects. Certainly, the relative severity of the situation will decrease by a significant margin. We will learn to have to live with the virus; we can't keep locking down the country each time we get cases as then we would be in lockdown for an indefinite period of time. When we reach a specific percentage of vaccinated persons, then we can lift the lockdown and then we start living fairly normally again. There will always be people who are anti-vaxx and whilst the vast majority of society may not agree with them, it is not our right to ban them from medicare.

Yes, taxpayers do pay for medicare through the medicare levy. However, relatively to general income tax it is a minimal proportion of their tax and income. Income tax for those who earn greater than $90,000 a year is $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000 whilst the medicare levy is 1%. The current income threshold for medicare levy is $90,000 (for singles) whilst those who earn between $18,201 – $45,000 have an income tax of 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200 which is comparatively much higher. Furthermore, I'm sure most people would support the medicare levy even those who do not support the current tax rates. It is a definite privilege to live in a capitalist advanced society like Australia where we pay none to very little for medical treatment through medicare, depending on the circumstances, and have freedom of speech.

Of course, choices should and do have consequences. Those who are anti-vaxx have a significantly higher chance of contracting Covid-19 than those with the vaccine (unless you have already gotten Covid before- a scientific study has shown you are 7 times more likely to contract Covid if you have the vaccine than if you got it in the 'first wave' i.e. natural immunity). That is a direct consequence of their decision and should be dealt with by them. However, there is a clear distinction between direct consequences burdening solely the individual who made that choice and a consequence decided by the government which infringes upon basic human rights such as banning their access to medicare, a universal health insurance scheme. If an anti-vaxxer is in a situation where they have cut open their leg which has developed a severe infection is it your decision to not allow them to have it treated with medicare? If you ban them from medicare, their leg may be have to be amputated or they may have even die due to not being able to properly afford the required treatment and all of this simply because they are anti-vaccine. I know that is an extreme situation but that is a clear example of where choices such as this should not have consequences that involve violating a person's ability to access a government scheme afforded to the rest of the population.

That, in essence, is oppression and marginalisation and should not be condoned by society. Otherwise, we are like the very societies which we are supposed to be opposed against.

 

[Great Southern Land]

I understand your standpoint but medicare is considered a basic human right. Infringing upon human rights is oppressive and in my opinion, taking away the ability to get treated for injuries is morally unjust. I am in no way a supporter of the anti-vaxx movement, I am pro-vaccine. However, by oppressing those who have a different viewpoint to yourself is just wrong.

Eventually the global situation with Covid-19 will become similar to that of the flu whereby most people (in developed counties mostly) will gain immunity to the virus and be vaccinated and a much smaller proportion of people will contract and suffer from its effects. Certainly, the relative severity of the situation will decrease by a significant margin. We will learn to have to live with the virus; we can't keep locking down the country each time we get cases as then we would be in lockdown for an indefinite period of time. When we reach a specific percentage of vaccinated persons, then we can lift the lockdown and then we start living fairly normally again. There will always be people who are anti-vaxx and whilst the vast majority of society may not agree with them, it is not our right to ban them from medicare.

Yes, taxpayers do pay for medicare through the medicare levy. However, relatively to general income tax it is a minimal proportion of their tax and income. Income tax for those who earn greater than $90,000 a year is $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000 whilst the medicare levy is 1%. The current income threshold for medicare levy is $90,000 (for singles) whilst those who earn between $18,201 – $45,000 have an income tax of 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200 which is comparatively much higher. Furthermore, I'm sure most people would support the medicare levy even those who do not support the current tax rates. It is a definite privilege to live in a capitalist advanced society like in Australia where we pay none to very little for most injuries, depending on the circumstance and we have freedom of speech.

Of course, choices should and do have consequences. Those who are anti-vaxx have a significantly higher chance of contracting Covid-19 than those with the vaccine (unless you have already gotten Covid before- a scientific study has shown you are 7 times more likely to contract Covid if you have the vaccine than if you got it in the 'first wave' i.e. natural immunity). That is a direct consequence of their decision and should be dealt with by them. However, there is a clear distinction between direct consequences burdening solely the individual who made that choice and a consequence decided by the government which infringes upon basic human rights such as banning their access to medicare, a universal health insurance scheme. If an anti-vaxxer is in a situation where they have cut open their leg which has developed a severe infection is it your decision to not allow them to have it treated with medicare? If you ban them from medicare, their leg may be have to be amputated or they may have even die due to not being able to properly afford the required treatment and all of this simply because they are anti-vaccine. I know that is an extreme situation but that is a clear example of where choices such as this should not have consequences that involve violating a person's ability to access a government scheme afforded to the rest of the population.

That, in essence, is oppression and marginalisation and should not be condoned by society. Otherwise, we are like the very societies which we are supposed to be opposed against.

Well said!

 

[dighead]

I understand your standpoint but medicare is considered a basic human right. Infringing upon human rights is oppressive and in my opinion, taking away the ability to get treated for injuries is morally unjust. I am in no way a supporter of the anti-vaxx movement, I am pro-vaccine. However, by oppressing those who have a different viewpoint to yourself is just wrong.

Eventually the global situation with Covid-19 will become similar to that of the flu whereby most people (in developed counties mostly) will gain immunity to the virus and be vaccinated and a much smaller proportion of people will contract and suffer from its effects. Certainly, the relative severity of the situation will decrease by a significant margin. We will learn to have to live with the virus; we can't keep locking down the country each time we get cases as then we would be in lockdown for an indefinite period of time. When we reach a specific percentage of vaccinated persons, then we can lift the lockdown and then we start living fairly normally again. There will always be people who are anti-vaxx and whilst the vast majority of society may not agree with them, it is not our right to ban them from medicare.

Yes, taxpayers do pay for medicare through the medicare levy. However, relatively to general income tax it is a minimal proportion of their tax and income. Income tax for those who earn greater than $90,000 a year is $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000 whilst the medicare levy is 1%. The current income threshold for medicare levy is $90,000 (for singles) whilst those who earn between $18,201 – $45,000 have an income tax of 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200 which is comparatively much higher. Furthermore, I'm sure most people would support the medicare levy even those who do not support the current tax rates. It is a definite privilege to live in a capitalist advanced society like Australia where we pay none to very little for medical treatment through medicare, depending on the circumstances, and have freedom of speech.

Of course, choices should and do have consequences. Those who are anti-vaxx have a significantly higher chance of contracting Covid-19 than those with the vaccine (unless you have already gotten Covid before- a scientific study has shown you are 7 times more likely to contract Covid if you have the vaccine than if you got it in the 'first wave' i.e. natural immunity). That is a direct consequence of their decision and should be dealt with by them. However, there is a clear distinction between direct consequences burdening solely the individual who made that choice and a consequence decided by the government which infringes upon basic human rights such as banning their access to medicare, a universal health insurance scheme. If an anti-vaxxer is in a situation where they have cut open their leg which has developed a severe infection is it your decision to not allow them to have it treated with medicare? If you ban them from medicare, their leg may be have to be amputated or they may have even die due to not being able to properly afford the required treatment and all of this simply because they are anti-vaccine. I know that is an extreme situation but that is a clear example of where choices such as this should not have consequences that involve violating a person's ability to access a government scheme afforded to the rest of the population.

That, in essence, is oppression and marginalisation and should not be condoned by society. Otherwise, we are like the very societies which we are supposed to be opposed against.

Well put, your reasoning is solid, and I can agree with your points. However, anti-vaxxers don't just harm themselves, they also pose a risk to others who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons. If they only put themselves at risk, then fine, but the problem is that these karens and kyles also pose a risk to society as a whole.

 

[Luke322]

Well put, your reasoning is solid, and I can agree with your points. However, anti-vaxxers don't just harm themselves, they also pose a risk to others who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons. If they only put themselves at risk, then fine, but the problem is that these karens and kyles also pose a risk to society as a whole.

That is true. However, I do not believe that banning them from medicare is the way to solve the issue. In fact, that would be counterproductive and in effect bolster their views. A more feasible option is required in order to make a safe space whilst not infringing upon human rights. I do not pretend to be an expert in medicine and so have no idea what a solution could be but I do believe a different solution is required in order to balance opposing viewpoints whilst maintaining a healthy society.

 

[Drdusk]

I can attest to being a bit hesitant to get it immediately after it came out. I'm a big advocate of science and I trust the scientific process more than any other process, but even I haven't gotten the vaccine yet. Though I will quite soon.

 

[cosmo 2]

this is the human personification of the delta variant talking about australias lockdown policy

 

[cosmo 2]

imagine being lectured on tv every day about personal health by obese police commissioners who look like chief wiggum from simpsons