QF mandates Vaccine
I'm not saying it's new or dangerous, I'm saying that under the current privacy laws there has to be a serious legal discussion as to why the CCTV is being recorded in the first place vs why it is being reviewed. Just because footage exists or a camera is pointing in a certain direction, does not mean a company can use whatever it sees for whatever purpose it wants. Being on notice has been proven to not be worth the sign it's printed on.
The pictures can be used for any legal purpose, from catching your hand in the till to watching the little old lady slip on a grape, it also might be used for sales and marketing purposes (not advertising, but seeing which products attract attention). Sorry to say the privacy act does not cover workplace monitoring such as CCTV and email/phone. The organisation just has to have a policy that workers know they are being monitored, and any data stored must relate to the employees employment (images, emails and phone conversations). Like I said you are monitored for all sorts of things during a shop, as long as the shop displays signage that cameras are in use the pictures can be used for that stores puposes (not just security) and destroyed when not required. Your image is captured, your spending habits are sold to marketing companies, FF programs and shopper loyalty programs only made this worse. Obviously there are rules like can not be in toilets, showers etc. With regard to private cameras, they are not covered by the privacy act at all.
Last edited by 43Inches; 22nd Nov 2021 at 05:43.
My point is why the CCTV system is in place in the workplace in the first place. If it is purely to monitor the staff, and an agreed to policy is in place, then fine. But if the system is installed for another reason, and happens to capture employees, then that's a whole other thing.
There's the whole 'implied knowledge/consent' thing, (ie we all are aware these days shops have cameras, so do they need to make it obvious, it's implied we know its a condition of entry now) but in general the employee has to be made aware they are being monitored, this would normally be inside your contract somewhere or some ancillary rule that's common to all workers for a site or signage as a minimum. If there's a sign at the building/site entrance that indicates CCTV is in use, then that's pretty much it as advice to both workers or customers that they are under surveillance. If you got caught with your hand in the till and were not aware of CCTV on premises, good luck fighting it.
Most times that CCTV is not used is if it's not in the businesses favor, it's their system, their footage, they will generally only use it to prove their own case.
Most times that CCTV is not used is if it's not in the businesses favor, it's their system, their footage, they will generally only use it to prove their own case.
I heard an interview with Australia post boss. They wear bracelets that record proximity to other workers. If anyone tests positive then it can track the contacts.
Maybe Qantas could somehow “activate” the “until we all belong” rings? Most office dwellers were sporting them 
When I worked in a QF call centre all calls were recorded for dispute resolution and security issues.
We would have a "call evaluation" session with our team leader during which 4 calls would be critiqued and we would be "counselled" on what we did right or wrong.
Some supervisors would spend their whole shifts listening to calls and if we were really naughty the "counselling" would be immediate.
There is no such thing as privacy in the airline industry
We would have a "call evaluation" session with our team leader during which 4 calls would be critiqued and we would be "counselled" on what we did right or wrong.
Some supervisors would spend their whole shifts listening to calls and if we were really naughty the "counselling" would be immediate.
There is no such thing as privacy in the airline industry
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, for deadsh!ts.
Some of you guys have had your heads in the echo chamber for so long you've lost sight of reality.
Yes you can sue someone now for blowing smoke on you, especially if in a non smoking area.
Un-vaccinated populations have the following effect on a community;
1. They aid the spread of the disease, being like rats in the bubonic plague, you are 80% more likely to spread covid un-vaccnated than vaccinated.
2. Any spread leads to chance of mutation, since un-vaccinated spread at significantly higher rates they are also a massive threat to the whole system should a strong mutation occur.
3. Un-vaccinated occupy the health system unecessarily. Through choice they clog up the health infrastructure from ambulance call outs to hospital beds and staff.
So yes an un-vaccinated individual is a significantly higher risk to the community than the vaccinated equivalent.
With regard to the law system, in civil court I just have to prove that you were lax in taking precautions to prevent the spread of (insert virus here). If you couldn't even get your self vaccinated to protect yourself and those around you then you are walking the fine line of becoming liable for who you infect. The vaccinated person following public health guidelines will be protected by having followed best available information.
Same way it works on the road, kill someone while following all the rules, no fault. Be found to be speeding, drunk, drugged, or just driving dangerously for the conditions (even within the rules) and a court can find you liable for the death anywhere from manslaughter to paying compensation to the family.
It all comes down to were you complying with public guidance available or were you willingly outside that guidance for personal reasoning.
PS get a dash cam, it's like vaccination for good drivers to avoid getting pinged for other peoples mistakes/judgement.
Un-vaccinated populations have the following effect on a community;
1. They aid the spread of the disease, being like rats in the bubonic plague, you are 80% more likely to spread covid un-vaccnated than vaccinated.
2. Any spread leads to chance of mutation, since un-vaccinated spread at significantly higher rates they are also a massive threat to the whole system should a strong mutation occur.
3. Un-vaccinated occupy the health system unecessarily. Through choice they clog up the health infrastructure from ambulance call outs to hospital beds and staff.
So yes an un-vaccinated individual is a significantly higher risk to the community than the vaccinated equivalent.
With regard to the law system, in civil court I just have to prove that you were lax in taking precautions to prevent the spread of (insert virus here). If you couldn't even get your self vaccinated to protect yourself and those around you then you are walking the fine line of becoming liable for who you infect. The vaccinated person following public health guidelines will be protected by having followed best available information.
Same way it works on the road, kill someone while following all the rules, no fault. Be found to be speeding, drunk, drugged, or just driving dangerously for the conditions (even within the rules) and a court can find you liable for the death anywhere from manslaughter to paying compensation to the family.
It all comes down to were you complying with public guidance available or were you willingly outside that guidance for personal reasoning.
PS get a dash cam, it's like vaccination for good drivers to avoid getting pinged for other peoples mistakes/judgement.
Last edited by 43Inches; 23rd Nov 2021 at 20:14.
Here's a few from NYC a high covid area.
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/co...akthrough-data
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...tions-vaccines
And the CDC study;
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...cid=mm7034e5_w
So an unvaccinated person is almost 5 times more likely to contract covid than a vaccinated one.
UK data is similar, as well as other nations.
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/co...akthrough-data
Although this effectiveness measure declined through mid-July, this decline then ceased. In the week of October 25, 2021, fully-vaccinated New Yorkers had a 79.4% lower chance of becoming a COVID-19 case, compared to unvaccinated New Yorkers.
And the CDC study;
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...cid=mm7034e5_w
On July 25, infection and hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons were 4.9 and 29.2 times, respectively, those in fully vaccinated persons.
UK data is similar, as well as other nations.
1. They aid the spread of the disease, being like rats in the bubonic plague, you are 80% more likely to spread covid un-vaccnated than vaccinated.
3. Un-vaccinated occupy the health system unecessarily. Through choice they clog up the health infrastructure from ambulance call outs to hospital beds and staff.
In the new study, researchers focused on the transmission of the Delta variant within households, a common setting for coronavirus transmission.
Researchers analyzed data from 204 household contacts of 138 people with a Delta infection.
They found that household contacts who had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to contract an infection with the Delta variant than unvaccinated people.
According to the analysis, 25 percent of vaccinated contacts exposed to a household member with an infection contracted one themselves.
In contrast, 38 percent of unvaccinated contacts got an infection.
Researchers analyzed data from 204 household contacts of 138 people with a Delta infection.
They found that household contacts who had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were less likely to contract an infection with the Delta variant than unvaccinated people.
According to the analysis, 25 percent of vaccinated contacts exposed to a household member with an infection contracted one themselves.
In contrast, 38 percent of unvaccinated contacts got an infection.
However if you do get it, you are just as likely to pass it on.
Although fully vaccinated people were less likely to contract an infection, when they did — what’s known as a breakthrough infection — they can transmit the Delta variant at a similar level as unvaccinated people.
Researchers found that 25 percent of household contacts exposed to a fully vaccinated person in the household contracted an infection themselves.
Of those exposed to an unvaccinated household member, 23 percent contracted an infection.
“Breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people can efficiently transmit infection in the household setting,” wrote the study authors.
Researchers suspect this has to do with the coronavirus replicating similarly in vaccinated and unvaccinated people — at least at the start of the infection.
As part of the study, researchers also measured the viral load — how much virus is in the body — of people who contracted an infection.
The peak viral load was similar for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. It was also similar for people with an infection with different variants.
Researchers found that 25 percent of household contacts exposed to a fully vaccinated person in the household contracted an infection themselves.
Of those exposed to an unvaccinated household member, 23 percent contracted an infection.
“Breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people can efficiently transmit infection in the household setting,” wrote the study authors.
Researchers suspect this has to do with the coronavirus replicating similarly in vaccinated and unvaccinated people — at least at the start of the infection.
As part of the study, researchers also measured the viral load — how much virus is in the body — of people who contracted an infection.
The peak viral load was similar for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. It was also similar for people with an infection with different variants.
I think you need to work on your comprehension of statistics, being 5 times less likely to get something and 30 times less likely to be affected by it is not;
And this;
Most people obey the road rules, but our taxes and medicare as well as regos make us pay for those small minorities that don't. As has been said earlier the choice of this minority costs the tax payer a lot, every one in ICU is costing thousands per day. More minor cases are costing hundreds. As above being vaccinated removes a factor of 30 from the hospital system to being able to just sit at home.
Your so called "new" study is dated 15th January 2021, before mass vaccination had even become a thing. I suggest you read your information before using it in public argument.
So you are safer, but not by much.
SInce the vast majority won't need it, soon it won't matter if the odd unvaxxed is in hospital. Isn't that the whole point of made up targets like 80% and 90%?
Your so called "new" study is dated 15th January 2021, before mass vaccination had even become a thing. I suggest you read your information before using it in public argument.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This lesson is taught in secondary school or possibly even primary, I don't remember. I'm not sure what they teach today aside from critical race theory, the new reality of 57 genders and Bruce Pascoe's Aussie "history" but this method of expressing values is becoming very common as the general population is dumbed down bit by bit. It's always disappointing to see supposedly well-educated professional pilots making these errors.
No offence intended but what I wish people would work on in any branch of mathematics is the basics such as you do not express a lower value by using a multiplication of the original, higher value by a whole number. "5 times" what? Does "5 times" mean one fifth, ie 20% of something else, or one sixth being the five x plus the one, ie 17%? The correct method is to use a fraction.
This lesson is taught in secondary school or possibly even primary, I don't remember. I'm not sure what they teach today aside from critical race theory, the new reality of 57 genders and Bruce Pascoe's Aussie "history" but this method of expressing values is becoming very common as the general population is dumbed down bit by bit. It's always disappointing to see supposedly well-educated professional pilots making these errors.
This lesson is taught in secondary school or possibly even primary, I don't remember. I'm not sure what they teach today aside from critical race theory, the new reality of 57 genders and Bruce Pascoe's Aussie "history" but this method of expressing values is becoming very common as the general population is dumbed down bit by bit. It's always disappointing to see supposedly well-educated professional pilots making these errors.
Maths is poorly understood in the general population and is it really a surprise when knowledge is derided in our society? The other evening I was listening to a popular music radio DJ asking people to phone in with “useless stuff they learnt at school. “Algebra”, “Pythagoras” and other maths areas that I use on a regular basis were mentioned and laughed at. Biology was also cited as being of no use, my wife uses the basics of that subject, along with chemistry, everyday when keeping critically-ill COVID patients alive.
Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ has a chapter dedicated to the misrepresentation of statistics to make things look better or worse. Also has a lot of information that anti-vaxxers should probably read before expressing their opinion in public as “fact”.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m always disappointed by the mistakes and assumptions “well-educated professional pilots” make about the Australian national curriculum.
Maths is poorly understood in the general population and is it really a surprise when knowledge is derided in our society? The other evening I was listening to a popular music radio DJ asking people to phone in with “useless stuff they learnt at school. “Algebra”, “Pythagoras” and other maths areas that I use on a regular basis were mentioned and laughed at. Biology was also cited as being of no use, my wife uses the basics of that subject, along with chemistry, everyday when keeping critically-ill COVID patients alive.
Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ has a chapter dedicated to the misrepresentation of statistics to make things look better or worse. Also has a lot of information that anti-vaxxers should probably read before expressing their opinion in public as “fact”.
Maths is poorly understood in the general population and is it really a surprise when knowledge is derided in our society? The other evening I was listening to a popular music radio DJ asking people to phone in with “useless stuff they learnt at school. “Algebra”, “Pythagoras” and other maths areas that I use on a regular basis were mentioned and laughed at. Biology was also cited as being of no use, my wife uses the basics of that subject, along with chemistry, everyday when keeping critically-ill COVID patients alive.
Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ has a chapter dedicated to the misrepresentation of statistics to make things look better or worse. Also has a lot of information that anti-vaxxers should probably read before expressing their opinion in public as “fact”.
I suspect that if you're looking for intelligent comment from the listeners you might be tuned to the wrong station. Good luck with your debt.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every layman understands what “5 times less” means.
It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.
It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.
The fact that a mathematician would never use the latter terminology is irrelevant. A mathematician insists on precision when converting mathematics to language. The average person doesn’t care.
So, in the context of attempting to persuade anti-vaxxers that the vaccine actually does reduce the chance of infection, the use of the phrase “5 times less likely to be infected” is perfectly valid, and will be understood by the intended audience. Whether it is believed is another story.
It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.
It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.
The fact that a mathematician would never use the latter terminology is irrelevant. A mathematician insists on precision when converting mathematics to language. The average person doesn’t care.
So, in the context of attempting to persuade anti-vaxxers that the vaccine actually does reduce the chance of infection, the use of the phrase “5 times less likely to be infected” is perfectly valid, and will be understood by the intended audience. Whether it is believed is another story.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every layman understands what “5 times less” means.
It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.
It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.
It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.
It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.
According to your message, B is 5x A's value more likely to happen than A is likely to happen.
So B = 5A+A = 60%
But that can't be right because A = 50%.
I think if you said A is 5x as likely as B this would be correct. This sort of concept is helpful when managing your own money so I don't see why people resent being correct. Pilots are meant to be good with numbers but maybe the magenta line breed is undermining the need for understanding of fundamentals.
Then you say B is 5 x something less likely to happen than A is likely to happen. Did you mean 5 x A?
Let's see... B = A-5A = 50-(5x50) = -200. Hmmm. Nope, that doesn't work.
Maybe 5 x B!
B = A-5B = 50 - (5x10) = 0. No, that doesn't make any sense either. Maybe Student can help if s/he has been to school since it all changed.