|
Are you able to provide a link to that Fonz? sounds interesting.
I found a French theory. https://www.connexionfrance.com/Fren...aZeneca-issues |
I can’t find the original paper but this article contains a bit more info.
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronaviru...416-2021-07-03 |
Originally Posted by Fonz121
(Post 11082266)
Whilst on the subject of AZ I thought this was interesting.
Data released last week from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that 35 per cent of unvaccinated people aged 50 to 69 and 26 per cent aged 70 and over cited “wanting a different vaccine” as a factor in their “ability to get a Covid-19 vaccination”. This compares with 7 and 9 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 and 35 to 49. But what if the problems plaguing the AZ vaccine were breathtakingly simple all along? On June 29, scientists from Germany authored a paper that was published in pre-print form on the biology server hosted by the world-leading Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. It provided compelling evidence that the clotting syndrome associated with the AZ vaccine is caused by accidental intravenous injection. The paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, showed in animal tests that the clotting can be induced when the injection site nicks a blood vessel instead of hitting the deltoid muscle. It could be avoided with a harmless procedure known as aspirating the syringe, which is standard in some countries around the world. Simply, the health professional draws back on the syringe at the injection site to check for blood before delivering the inoculation. In March, Denmark changed its guidelines to account for this as a precautionary measure. The theory had been circulating for months. The Saturday Paper can reveal the TGA is aware of the paper and is considering its implications. “If the TGA determines that further regulatory action is required on the basis of emerging evidence,” a spokesperson said, “we will make this information available promptly.” |
Originally Posted by Fonz121
(Post 11082342)
I can’t find the original paper but this article contains a bit more info.
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronaviru...416-2021-07-03 |
AJ’s focus is clearly emulating this big airline CEO
I know most have seen it before but thought with what’s going on right now with QF and AJ, this was quite pertinent...
|
Originally Posted by stillcallozhome
(Post 11083150)
I know most have seen it before but thought with what’s going on right now with QF and AJ, this was quite pertinent...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=858t44psmww |
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
Qantas has settled a case brought against the airline by Captain Andrew Hewitt, who had alleged he was the victim of age discrimination. The son of former Qantas chairman Sir Lenox Hewitt was offered early retirement rather than redundancy when the Covid-19 pandemic struck last year, because he was over 63. Qantas’s reasoning was that pilots like Captain Hewitt would reach age 65 before international flying was able to resume, which would rule them out of operating overseas commercial flights. Under international civil aviation laws, a pilot cannot operate international airline flights after reaching 65. Captain Hewitt argued that an early retirement package was worth considerably less than redundancy, at the equivalent of four months pay as opposed to 12 months. |
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11085451)
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...7fda7f5bff3304 |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11083401)
Havent seen it before but a few in this country could & need to take note.
|
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11085451)
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
|
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 11085520)
How is that? Are you suggesting that QF should have paid him 12 months VR package even though he only had 11 months until retirement age? Where do you draw the line on that? What about someone who had (say) 9 months until retirement? 3 months?
|
The VR offer was not ‘legally necessary’. It was an offer. If a pilot had more than a couple of years the offer was 9 months and three months notice. If the pilot had less than two years it was four months pay and less than 12 months the offer was three months.
Qantas didn’t have to make the offer. They could have offered nothing. They could have worked on the principle that some crew were likely to hit 65 before there was much flying back. They could have offered VR to some and not to others. That is the nature of VR. (In fact they did offer it to some and not others. It wasn’t offered to 737 crew). They chose to make an offer of ‘early retirement’ to those over 63. Even the ATO agreed that those within 6 months (I think) of 65 it wasn’t a ‘genuine early retirement’ and their pay out was taxed differently. Would I have liked to see a better offer? Sure. But the offer was what it was. Again, where does one draw the line in all of this? |
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 11085568)
The VR offer was not ‘legally necessary’. It was an offer. If a pilot had more than a couple of years the offer was 9 months and three months notice. If the pilot had less than two years it was four months pay and less than 12 months the offer was three months.
Qantas didn’t have to make the offer. They could have offered nothing. They could have worked on the principle that some crew were likely to hit 65 before there was much flying back. They could have offered VR to some and not to others. That is the nature of VR. (In fact they did offer it to some and not others. It wasn’t offered to 737 crew). They chose to make an offer of ‘early retirement’ to those over 63. Even the ATO agreed that those within 6 months (I think) of 65 it wasn’t a ‘genuine early retirement’ and their pay out was taxed differently. Would I have liked to see a better offer? Sure. But the offer was what it was. Again, where does one draw the line in all of this? |
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
I think P377's post is actually toned down compared to what he has put out in the past. anyway I am very sure Ken that he will spend less than a nano-second worrying about what you think.
|
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. Are you serious? Are you an Qantas Angel? |
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 11086520)
I think P377's post is actually toned down compared to what he has put out in the past. anyway I am very sure Ken that he will spend less than a nano-second worrying about what you think.
|
Keg, the line was drawn by Qf and Captain Hewitt. You, or anyone else’s opinion on where the line should be drawn is irrelevant. It appears that Captain Hewitt had a win over Qf. Qf were the defendant, which means that they likely made an offer to Captain Hewitt, which he accepted. This means that Qf must have believed there was a good chance that the outcome of the case would not suit them if tested in court. I have no idea why Qf were concerned about this matter being decided in court, but I bet you have the answer, or at least an opinion on it that will read like fact.
Keg, you don’t appear to be a lawyer, and therefore you are not qualified to be constantly presenting your legal opinions as fact. Presenting your legal opinions as fact makes your posts misleading. Keg, why do you constantly appear to be defending Qf rather than your fellow pilot’s legal rights? Is it because you think that Qf are so big and powerful that they are able to make the law up as they go? Do you think the law does not apply to Qf? Or is it something else entirely? Whatever it is, to those that know a bit more than you, your opinions appear farcical, and border on appearing to be motivated by something other than defending the rights of your colleagues. Qf have recently lost or settled a few significant legal matters. This means they have been found to have broken the law. They are far from infallible. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.