-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan @Old-Samurai-Jack I raised this a while ago.
It's even worse than portrayed in the article.
When the MoH finally tendered out saliva testing they decided to go with an offshore multi-national despite Grice having been banging on their door for months. Now said multi-national can't deliver. So Ministry want to effectively steal Grice's IP and give it to the supplier who can't supply.
Yet another example of a Ministry who are incompetent and unwilling to accept help from outside their cosy little clique.
I hope he fights it and wins
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan @Old-Samurai-Jack I raised this a while ago.
It's even worse than portrayed in the article.
When the MoH finally tendered out saliva testing they decided to go with an offshore multi-national despite Grice having been banging on their door for months. Now said multi-national can't deliver. So Ministry want to effectively steal Grice's IP and give it to the supplier who can't supply.
Yet another example of a Ministry who are incompetent and unwilling to accept help from outside their cosy little clique.
I hope he fights it and wins
Unless he can convince enough politicians, that would seem unlikely. Just like here in Oz, it seems there's no end of powers the govt can't give itself.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan @Old-Samurai-Jack I raised this a while ago.
It's even worse than portrayed in the article.
When the MoH finally tendered out saliva testing they decided to go with an offshore multi-national despite Grice having been banging on their door for months. Now said multi-national can't deliver. So Ministry want to effectively steal Grice's IP and give it to the supplier who can't supply.
Yet another example of a Ministry who are incompetent and unwilling to accept help from outside their cosy little clique.
I hope he fights it and wins
Unless he can convince enough politicians, that would seem unlikely. Just like here in Oz, it seems there's no end of powers the govt can't give itself.
It sounds like something the old Soviets would have done
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Itβs not analogous. If you work on that building site you get to take off your hard hat at the end of the day. But the vaccine still stays in your body even when youβre not at work. Now I donβt think thatβs that big a deal where my body is concerned, but I accept that others have bodily autonomy and they might not have the same views about the risks that I have.
I understand why vaccination is important, and in some cases essential and on balance I can see that some roles should be mandated. But letβs not pretend that doing so isnβt a very big deal, because it is.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Coercion is force by any other name.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Said consequences being losing your job and livelihood.
Luckily those teachers typically have huge savings nest eggs so they should be sweet.
Nothing to see here
-
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Coercion is force by any other name.
Force is a type of coercion not the other way around. Hence the point that the language used was emotive.
Oblige is probably the better term.
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Coercion is force by any other name.
Force is a type of coercion not the other way around. Hence the point that the language used was emotive.
Oblige is probably the better term.
When the government requires you oblige, it is force. Force with consequences you can't reasonably negate. Force that removes your ability to continue in public life based on your experience and education. Force that can ultimately remove your ability to exercise freedom of movement and thought.
And this is before the government can reasonably demonstrate a need to exercise such draconian powers.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
I don't get the fuss over mrna, it's been around for decades and the Pfizer vaccine is not the first mrna vax
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines
Mrs CF said Ashley came out and said that soon the Astra Zenica vax, which is not as good as Pfizer but is not mrna, will be made available to all who want it soon. So the mrna excuse will be gone
-
@billy-tell said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Um, well, get vaccinated.
Itβs not rocket science.
So, presumably, the rationale for this is that she is a greater risk to others by not being vaxxed. However, the evidence for this seems very unclear or conflicting.
For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
If this is basically true, that there is little difference, then this vaccine mandate is plain wrong.
-
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Said consequences being losing your job and livelihood.
Luckily those teachers typically have huge savings nest eggs so they should be sweet.
Nothing to see here
Said teachers have a choice. Their situation has changed and they need to adjust.
Covid has changed the way we all live and until we have a decent treatment then prevention (or lessening of effect) is our best tool.
It's fine by me if they want to pay a supplementary health tax to cover what is avoidable and keep their jobs.At present Health Insurance isn't affected if you aren't vaccinated because it isn't impacted at all with the govt picking up all the tab for treatment. IF the govt was to provide health services for Covid in a manner where people wanted/needed private care or treatment it would be interesting to see if insurance companies put exclusions or premiums that in turn 'coerce' decisions
-
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Said consequences being losing your job and livelihood.
Luckily those teachers typically have huge savings nest eggs so they should be sweet.
Nothing to see here
Said teachers have a choice. Their situation has changed and they need to adjust.
Covid has changed the way we all live and until we have a decent treatment then prevention (or lessening of effect) is our best tool.
It's fine by me if they want to pay a supplementary health tax to cover what is avoidable and keep their jobs.At present Health Insurance isn't affected if you aren't vaccinated because it isn't impacted at all with the govt picking up all the tab for treatment. IF the govt was to provide health services for Covid in a manner where people wanted/needed private care or treatment it would be interesting to see if insurance companies put exclusions or premiums that in turn 'coerce' decisions
Knowing how health insurers are, I am sure if they will trundle out a list of exceptions to treatments covered on policies if you aren't vaccinated. They don't like giving up money
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@jc said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ever tried going onto a building site to work without PPE?
We don't hear construction workers complaining that they should have a choice to wear a hard hat or safety boots.
The consequences of not looking after your own safety in a high risk environment? No job.
Just. Stop.
Why? Because you disagree?
Yes, there is a difference in that it doesn't involve a medical procedure but the rest of the analogy is sound.
Mandates are not for every job they are for jobs considered at a higher risk. Where people come into more risk of contracting the virus and therefore becoming a cost to the rest of us. Just as workplaces with high risk of physical injury take steps to control that risk.
If you aren't willing to participate in reasonable risk control then you can't work in that environment.(and yes, in my opinion vaccination is reasonable risk control)
Because you will blindly follow anything this Government puts forward, it's just painful.
The "rest of the analogy" isn't particularly relevant when you're comparing putting on a yellow hat for 8hrs per day to being forced to inject your body twice with a mRNA vaccine
Just give it a rest
The emotive language of 'forced to inject your body twice' just sounds hysterical to me (and I understand opinions may differ on that).
Emotive language πππ, it's literally just a factual statement of the policy you're supporting
'Forced'?
People still have choices. Some consequences may not be palatable to them but no one is being hogtied and injected.
Coercion is force by any other name.
Force is a type of coercion not the other way around. Hence the point that the language used was emotive.
Oblige is probably the better term.
When the government requires you oblige, it is force. Force with consequences you can't reasonably negate. Force that removes your ability to continue in public life based on your experience and education. Force that can ultimately remove your ability to exercise freedom of movement and thought.
And this is before the government can reasonably demonstrate a need to exercise such draconian powers.
The bold bit is where we differ in opinion.
The govt is asking that people oblige on the basis of the good of the rest of society and have done everything possible to make the obligation safe and provide education and information to help people make that decision. To me that is reasonable. Ball is in their court.
If the govt was insisting on an untried, untested vaccine that held high levels of risk then that would be draconian. So would refusing to treat the non-vaccinated or imposing cost on them. -
@canefan was talking to a mate (teacher) and he was saying for a condition he has, the Novavax is the preferred one for him, cannot have Pfizer as it comes with a high risk of an adverse reaction.
I wonder how many of the currently unvaxxed will get vaccinated if they had a choice of vaccines? <5%?
I suspect those who have been vaccinated may have chosen another if it was available.
Also nothing in the pipelines currently with regard to Health Providers changing benefits or exclusions.
-
@frank said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@billy-tell said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Um, well, get vaccinated.
Itβs not rocket science.
So, presumably, the rationale for this is that she is a greater risk to others by not being vaxxed. However, the evidence for this seems very unclear or conflicting.
For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
If this is basically true, that there is little difference, then this vaccine mandate is plain wrong.
The rationale is that they are at greater risk of being symptomatic, and therefore at a slightly greater risk of spreading, but mainly they work for the govt and their employer doesn't want to place them in a higher risk position where catching COVID at work will affect their health.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan was talking to a mate (teacher) and he was saying for a condition he has, the Novavax is the preferred one for him, cannot have Pfizer as it comes with a high risk of an adverse reaction.
I wonder how many of the currently unvaxxed will get vaccinated if they had a choice of vaccines? <5%?
I suspect those who have been vaccinated may have chosen another if it was available.
It will be interesting when AZ is available too. I also know of a family holding out for Novavax, but in their case I think when push comes to shove, suddenly one of several other reasons not to follow through will reemerge...
-
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan was talking to a mate (teacher) and he was saying for a condition he has, the Novavax is the preferred one for him, cannot have Pfizer as it comes with a high risk of an adverse reaction.
I wonder how many of the currently unvaxxed will get vaccinated if they had a choice of vaccines? <5%?
I suspect those who have been vaccinated may have chosen another if it was available.
Also nothing in the pipelines currently with regard to Health Providers changing benefits or exclusions.
@Duluth if I quote myself, it shows my full post, but above it doesnt show the bottom 2 sentences, and I cant see any formatting that would make it disappear?
-
@donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@canefan was talking to a mate (teacher) and he was saying for a condition he has, the Novavax is the preferred one for him, cannot have Pfizer as it comes with a high risk of an adverse reaction.
I wonder how many of the currently unvaxxed will get vaccinated if they had a choice of vaccines? <5%?
I suspect those who have been vaccinated may have chosen another if it was available.
It will be interesting when AZ is available too. I also know of a family holding out for Novavax, but in their case I think when push comes to shove, suddenly one of several other reasons not to follow through will reemerge...
They may have valid reasons for thinking that one is safer than others for them but I do find it funny that a vaccine with less testing is suddenly the preference let alone one that is a 'nanoparticle' rather than a synthetic organism.
Early data on Novavax is promising in that it reduces risk even further but the current position goes against many of the reasons/excuses for vaxxing full stop.
Coronavirus - New Zealand