QF mandates Vaccine
Fantastic! Love it!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently, irrespective of whether you are vaccinated or not, If you catch covid, and become very sick at home, and call your GP, there is no allowable treatment for the disease. GPs are not allowed to treat the disease. You will only be provided treatments upon admission to a hospital.
You need to call your Vet, silly!
Currently, irrespective of whether you are vaccinated or not, If you catch covid, and become very sick at home, and call your GP, there is no allowable treatment for the disease.
Like the flu and other viral diseases there are symptom management drugs that can be prescribed for pain, fever and rest. If you are suffering covid in a mild case just take Panadol (paracetamol) to reduce fever and ache, or get a prescription for stronger stuff. So like cold and flu you just ride it out and take symptom alleviating drugs for that purpose. If the symptoms progress beyond that and you are feeling particularly bad, you go to hospital, you don't take a course of horse wormers. At hospital they will administer a variety of drugs such as steroids, tocilizumub, remdisivir, barticitinib various anti coagulants and other drugs to treat whatever symptomology you present with. Budesonide an asthma drug has proven to assist lung function recovery post covid.
There are a variety of drugs approved for the purpose of treating covid symptoms.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were administered en-masse in India up to about 3 months ago as part of hospital treatment. It was found they had little to no effect so they were taken off the list and removed from treatment schedules, along with a few other drugs that offered little to no value. I used the word schedules as I reiterate at what stage you administer some of these drugs is vital to maximise their effect and reduce dangerous side effects. Hence no one should be trying to self administer any of them, please don't go and buy horse steroids to treat yourself...
The India situation was sad as a number of people died due to the drugs they were given rather than the disease itself, ie black fungus from incorrect steroid treatment.
So to repeat what I have said before - Natural immunity seems to be better than getting vaccinated, but getting one jab after natural immunity is better again.
Good luck going against a Univeristy of Sydney actual study on the subject;
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opini...variants-.html
“What this work has shown us is that current observations about vaccines show they offer a much broader protection against COVID-19 and its variants than the body’s natural immune response following infection, which is usually only protective against the variant of the virus that the person was infected with. We, therefore, should not rely on the body’s natural immune response to control this pandemic, but rather the broadly protective vaccines that are available.”
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Sep 2021 at 01:06.
I can see it now. Australia will be so useless in opening up by the time we do everyone's vaccination will expire and the country will be lockdown again with all the borders shut out of "abundance of caution" from over zealous State Premiers. They then get to roll over their Emergency Powers and carry on running their little authoritarian States as Canberra watches from the sidelines.
Putting aside the arguments regarding the vaccines themselves, NSW has preducted that up to 92% of eligible residents will get vaccinated.
That leaves 8% or less in the categaory of ppl who may be impacted by various vaccine mandates (such as QF) or restirctions on movements/freedoms.
Note that in 2019, adult smoking rates were around 11.5% (although in decline year on year). One could argue that now in 2021, the percentage of adults who smoke would be similar to the percentage of adults who decline the opportunity for a vaccine.
Do those questioning the reasonableness of vaccine mandates have a similar view on the wide range of restrictions on smokers? Is it time to bring smoking back to restaurants, playgrounds and aircraft?
Obviously the vaccine mandates are far more "forever" than a "temporary" ban on smoking when in certain locations, but the similarities are there.
Smokers also make a choice to do so against what most would consider sufficient evidence of the health risks.
The smoke from a smoker can impact on the health of others.
They represent a small minority of the overall population.
Essentially smoking is banned in any environment where it would be considered a potential hazard to others. Vaccine mandates do exactly the same.
Just like you wouldn't want to sit next to someone smoking for 10 hours, I'm suspect most vaccinated people would feel that same when vaccine choices are considered. Particularly when we get to the stage that a lack of vaccination is a deliberate choice, rather than as a result of the poor rollout.
That leaves 8% or less in the categaory of ppl who may be impacted by various vaccine mandates (such as QF) or restirctions on movements/freedoms.
Note that in 2019, adult smoking rates were around 11.5% (although in decline year on year). One could argue that now in 2021, the percentage of adults who smoke would be similar to the percentage of adults who decline the opportunity for a vaccine.
Do those questioning the reasonableness of vaccine mandates have a similar view on the wide range of restrictions on smokers? Is it time to bring smoking back to restaurants, playgrounds and aircraft?
Obviously the vaccine mandates are far more "forever" than a "temporary" ban on smoking when in certain locations, but the similarities are there.
Smokers also make a choice to do so against what most would consider sufficient evidence of the health risks.
The smoke from a smoker can impact on the health of others.
They represent a small minority of the overall population.
Essentially smoking is banned in any environment where it would be considered a potential hazard to others. Vaccine mandates do exactly the same.
Just like you wouldn't want to sit next to someone smoking for 10 hours, I'm suspect most vaccinated people would feel that same when vaccine choices are considered. Particularly when we get to the stage that a lack of vaccination is a deliberate choice, rather than as a result of the poor rollout.
It is not me bending facts. These in the last week or so.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-v...dc-11632151556
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital
And a fact checker.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital
So to repeat what I have said before - Natural immunity seems to be better than getting vaccinated, but getting one jab after natural immunity is better again. This is on recent data from the last wave in Israel (so not old data as suggested by someone).
Some have links to the raw numbers you can check for yourself.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-v...dc-11632151556
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....24.21262415v1
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital
And a fact checker.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...-remains-vital
So to repeat what I have said before - Natural immunity seems to be better than getting vaccinated, but getting one jab after natural immunity is better again. This is on recent data from the last wave in Israel (so not old data as suggested by someone).
Some have links to the raw numbers you can check for yourself.
Quoting directly from your linked science.org article:
Still, Thålin and other researchers stress that deliberate infection among unvaccinated people would put them at significant risk of severe disease and death, or the lingering, significant symptoms of what has been dubbed Long Covid. The study shows the benefits of natural immunity, but “doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point,” says Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. COVID-19 has already killed more than 4 million people worldwide and there are concerns that Delta and other SARS-CoV-2 variants are deadlier than the original virus.
Just like you wouldn't want to sit next to someone smoking for 10 hours, I'm suspect most vaccinated people would feel that same when vaccine choices are considered. Particularly when we get to the stage that a lack of vaccination is a deliberate choice, rather than as a result of the poor rollout.
A non-smoker is a non-smoker and can't inadvertently blow cigarette smoke in my face.
But a vaccinated person may still be carrying the virus. The vaccinated person poses a greater risk to the unvaccinated person than vice versa.
A non-smoker is a non-smoker and can't inadvertently blow cigarette smoke in my face.
A non-smoker is a non-smoker and can't inadvertently blow cigarette smoke in my face.
1. The unvaccinated person (in the overwhelmingly vast majority) has CHOSEN to retain that status.
2. A vaccinated person is less likely to both contract COVID and then spread it compared to unvax. So I suspect going forward the majority of COVID transmissions will originate from unvaccinated individuals.
3. If two people were sitting next to each other in 2022 and one was vaccinated and one wasn't, I know who I'd be betting on to have COVID.
I understand that smoking is not contagious (unless peer group pressure counts) so the comparison isn't perfect. Perhaps it would be like sitting in a restaurant overseas next to a smoker and a non smoker, neither of whom are smoking at the time. One is far more likely to pick up a cigarette and ruin your dinner than the other.
Plus the whole point of the mandate (whether on pax or staff) is to avoid having these issues in the first place.
My main point, which may have been lost in my attempt at comparison, is that mandates are in line with the beliefs and choices of up to 92% of the adult population. Thus in a democracy, that doesn't seem heavy handed. That's without even considering the rules of overseas governments as well.
Your main point is that a person who's chosen not to be vaccinated should alone bear the consequences of that choice. I agree in principle. But it doesn't work that way as a matter of practicality. You and I might not like that, but we all get mugged by reality every now and then.
I can't read the Wall Street Journal article, as it's behind a paywall, and the two links to science.org are duplicates of the same article. That said, from what they show, having natural immunity from a prior infection, followed by a vaccination, looks to provide very good protection at least against the same variants. The link by 43Inches seems to show that it's not quite as straightforward as it first appears though. The important point though is that immunity is present among the survivors. The dead don't have or require that immune response, and there's a human and societal cost involved in getting that exposure-linked immunity. The natural immunity may be "better" in terms of antibody response or whatever other factors they are measuring in those studies you refer to, but worse by other measures such as the rates of death in acquiring that immunity or cost to society, so it's important to look at what is being measured and its context before making a blanket statement about what is better.
Quoting directly from your linked science.org article:
Given the rate of dying, or long covid symptoms that will keep you off work or cost you your Class 1 medical is not trivial, gaining that immunity through natural infection is a lot riskier than getting vaccinated. So a better way to look at it would be "survivors appear to have a good immune response to covid". Which is fine as long as you're in the survivor group that doesn't experience long term symptoms, and the disease doesn't spread at a rate that requires widespread hospitalisation and you can't get a bed for an unrelated issue that requires hospitalisation. Most people assume they will be in the survivor group right up until the doctor starts asking about end-of-life care and powers of attorney.
Quoting directly from your linked science.org article:
Given the rate of dying, or long covid symptoms that will keep you off work or cost you your Class 1 medical is not trivial, gaining that immunity through natural infection is a lot riskier than getting vaccinated. So a better way to look at it would be "survivors appear to have a good immune response to covid". Which is fine as long as you're in the survivor group that doesn't experience long term symptoms, and the disease doesn't spread at a rate that requires widespread hospitalisation and you can't get a bed for an unrelated issue that requires hospitalisation. Most people assume they will be in the survivor group right up until the doctor starts asking about end-of-life care and powers of attorney.
Can you please give some detail on this (bolded) group?
If so those that are not High risk prior to a first, second or third infection?
Also the projected break thru infections an Delta & the expected mutant variant?
There are many things not known, and history has a few things that make requirements for questions to be asked and NOT answered by Lawyers with impunity. That is not the ones in courts but the ones in the houses.
Forgive me I rush read but quickly a reply.
Can you please give some detail on this (bolded) group?
If so those that are not High risk prior to a first, second or third infection?
Also the projected break thru infections an Delta & the expected mutant variant?
There are many things not known, and history has a few things that make requirements for questions to be asked and NOT answered by Lawyers with impunity. That is not the ones in courts but the ones in the houses.
Can you please give some detail on this (bolded) group?
If so those that are not High risk prior to a first, second or third infection?
Also the projected break thru infections an Delta & the expected mutant variant?
There are many things not known, and history has a few things that make requirements for questions to be asked and NOT answered by Lawyers with impunity. That is not the ones in courts but the ones in the houses.
Yes and No. (obviously yes to the last line)
1. The unvaccinated person (in the overwhelmingly vast majority) has CHOSEN to retain that status.
2. A vaccinated person is less likely to both contract COVID and then spread it compared to unvax. So I suspect going forward the majority of COVID transmissions will originate from unvaccinated individuals.
3. If two people were sitting next to each other in 2022 and one was vaccinated and one wasn't, I know who I'd be betting on to have COVID.
I understand that smoking is not contagious (unless peer group pressure counts) so the comparison isn't perfect. Perhaps it would be like sitting in a restaurant overseas next to a smoker and a non smoker, neither of whom are smoking at the time. One is far more likely to pick up a cigarette and ruin your dinner than the other.
Plus the whole point of the mandate (whether on pax or staff) is to avoid having these issues in the first place.
My main point, which may have been lost in my attempt at comparison, is that mandates are in line with the beliefs and choices of up to 92% of the adult population. Thus in a democracy, that doesn't seem heavy handed. That's without even considering the rules of overseas governments as well.
1. The unvaccinated person (in the overwhelmingly vast majority) has CHOSEN to retain that status.
2. A vaccinated person is less likely to both contract COVID and then spread it compared to unvax. So I suspect going forward the majority of COVID transmissions will originate from unvaccinated individuals.
3. If two people were sitting next to each other in 2022 and one was vaccinated and one wasn't, I know who I'd be betting on to have COVID.
I understand that smoking is not contagious (unless peer group pressure counts) so the comparison isn't perfect. Perhaps it would be like sitting in a restaurant overseas next to a smoker and a non smoker, neither of whom are smoking at the time. One is far more likely to pick up a cigarette and ruin your dinner than the other.
Plus the whole point of the mandate (whether on pax or staff) is to avoid having these issues in the first place.
My main point, which may have been lost in my attempt at comparison, is that mandates are in line with the beliefs and choices of up to 92% of the adult population. Thus in a democracy, that doesn't seem heavy handed. That's without even considering the rules of overseas governments as well.
Bottom line - unless you have an overwhelming MEDICAL reason for not being vaccinated, you drive or walk when everyone else gets to fly. Your kids if you extend your refusal into child abuse and forcing your kids to go unprotected, you all get sidelined (I say child abuse because an adult is making a decision based on no scientific fact or basis to let their child be exposed to a potentially deadly virus because of their twisted moronic political views).
The vaccinated won't be a threat to the unvaccinated as the latter won't have a job soon and never will the two meet.
Last edited by The Banjo; 28th Sep 2021 at 00:23. Reason: .
What if the vaccinated person's job is in an ICU?
Being a professional pilot network the comment is in the context of the aviation industry. You may wish to join the wet nurse forum if you want to discuss that.
Last edited by The Banjo; 28th Sep 2021 at 00:59. Reason: .
Merely stated a fact. Wasn't expressing an opinion on whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' fact.
As to The Banjo's childish snipe, I confidently predict that a substantial number of posters on the various A&NZ&P Covid-related threads are not pilots and many of pilot-posters are far from "professional".
As to The Banjo's childish snipe, I confidently predict that a substantial number of posters on the various A&NZ&P Covid-related threads are not pilots and many of pilot-posters are far from "professional".
