Coronavirus/Covid-19 Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Would you take a coronavirus vaccine if it was available to you, and if so which would you prefer?

  • No

    Votes: 18 11.8%
  • Any vaccine

    Votes: 19 12.4%
  • Pfizer

    Votes: 47 30.7%
  • Astra Zeneca

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Already vaccinated with AZ

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Already vaccinated with Pfizer

    Votes: 60 39.2%
  • Moderna

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Sputnik

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Janssen

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Novavax

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    153

Luke322

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
522
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
86
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2022
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

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
44
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2000
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-Known Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
522
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
2,025
Location
a VM
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2023
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.
 

Etho_x

Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
824
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Don’t know if this is the kind of comment to put here but anyone get the feeling Kerry Chant is actually a bloke? I mean the jaw line and the very faded moustache is a bit revealing… wouldn’t be too sure though.
 

enoilgam

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,876
Location
Mare Crisium
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
imagine being lectured on tv every day about personal health by obese police commissioners who look like chief wiggum from simpsons
I hate the lecturing, like these morons screwed up by letting an unvaccinated limo driver pick up high risk travellers and now they are lecturing us about doing the right thing. They should be coming to us on their hands and knees begging for us to forgive them for a screwup that has cost us epically. I also think that whilst we are in lockdown, they shouldnt be paid. Im not one of those "Politicians/Bureaucrats are overpaid", in fact the opposite I dont think they are paid well at all. But in this case they should be taking a hit, it's only fair when their screwup is the cause of this issue.

In terms of vaccines, Im getting mine done and Ive encouraged lots of people to do so. However I strongly suspect we wont get our freedom back - there will be another excuse as to why we cant. If that does happen, it will be a disaster as it will fundamentally undermine people's trust in the system and vaccines (handing anti-vaxxers a wholly undeserved victory).

I think there has to come a point as a country where we have a frank conversation about what will actually happen when we open up - people will die and fill ICUs in higher numbers, but unfortunately staying locked up long term will cause far worse damage.
 

BLIT2014

The pessimistic optimist.
Moderator
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
11,592
Location
l'appel du vide
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
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.
Are you getting AZ?
 

brent012

Webmaster
Webmaster
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
5,284
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Nope Pfizer as soon as possible really. Some of my friends have gotten it already, and only one of them got AZ.
Pfizer for the majority of people aged between 18-29 is like 6+ weeks off at the current rate. Bookings for 30-39 is meant to be opening up at the end of the month.

I also wouldn't be surprised if 18-29 get access to Moderna instead at that point given that Pfizer is the only approved vaccine for under 18s.
 

Drdusk

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
2,025
Location
a VM
Gender
Male
HSC
2018
Uni Grad
2023
Pfizer for the majority of people aged between 18-29 is like 6+ weeks off at the current rate. Bookings for 30-39 is meant to be opening up at the end of the month.

I also wouldn't be surprised if 18-29 get access to Moderna instead at that point given that Pfizer is the only approved vaccine for under 18s.
Yeah I hear Moderna is an MRNA vaccine like pfizer, and that they're quite similar.
 

dighead

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
44
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2000
I hate the lecturing, like these morons screwed up by letting an unvaccinated limo driver pick up high risk travellers and now they are lecturing us about doing the right thing. They should be coming to us on their hands and knees begging for us to forgive them for a screwup that has cost us epically. I also think that whilst we are in lockdown, they shouldnt be paid. Im not one of those "Politicians/Bureaucrats are overpaid", in fact the opposite I dont think they are paid well at all. But in this case they should be taking a hit, it's only fair when their screwup is the cause of this issue.

In terms of vaccines, Im getting mine done and Ive encouraged lots of people to do so. However I strongly suspect we wont get our freedom back - there will be another excuse as to why we cant. If that does happen, it will be a disaster as it will fundamentally undermine people's trust in the system and vaccines (handing anti-vaxxers a wholly undeserved victory).

I think there has to come a point as a country where we have a frank conversation about what will actually happen when we open up - people will die and fill ICUs in higher numbers, but unfortunately staying locked up long term will cause far worse damage.
It's fair to blame the start of the outbreak on the gov, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But for the current situation, the continual spread of the virus is mostly due to idiots being stupid. E.g. this lad: Police charge Sydney man who sparked COVID-19 lockdown in Byron Bay - ABC News. Not to mention the lockdown protestors.
 

brent012

Webmaster
Webmaster
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
5,284
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Yeah I hear Moderna is an MRNA vaccine like pfizer, and that they're very similar.
Yeah, they are both mRNA vaccines. I believe Moderna has a much higher dosage of vaccine though (100mcg vs 30mcg), so more people report side effects but it might have a higher efficacy.

Note that "side effects" is generally feeling lethargic or sore, nothing too bad usually.
 

blyatman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
539
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
The side effects generally vary quite a bit depending on each person. For AZ vaccine, people most commonly get knocked out for a few days after the first dose, and were fine for the second. For Pfizer, it's the other way around. A lot of my friends who got Pfizer got knocked out for a few days after the second dose - they were feverish and completely bed-ridden, etc.

I had my second shot of Pfizer 2 weeks ago, and didn't have any side effects for either dose, so it really depends.
 

BLIT2014

The pessimistic optimist.
Moderator
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
11,592
Location
l'appel du vide
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
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?

Pfizer for the majority of people aged between 18-29 is like 6+ weeks off at the current rate. Bookings for 30-39 is meant to be opening up at the end of the month.



I also wouldn't be surprised if 18-29 get access to Moderna instead at that point given that Pfizer is the only approved vaccine for under 18s.
I've heard some parents have already booked their under 18s in for late September/early October in the hope they'd be eligible by then.

Moderna is pretty good, so wouldn't mind that if that was the option given to us.
 

BLIT2014

The pessimistic optimist.
Moderator
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
11,592
Location
l'appel du vide
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
The side effects generally vary quite a bit depending on each person. For AZ vaccine, people most commonly get knocked out for a few days after the first dose, and were fine for the second. For Pfizer, it's the other way around. A lot of my friends who got Pfizer got knocked out for a few days after the second dose - they were feverish and completely bed-ridden, etc.

I had my second shot of Pfizer 2 weeks ago, and didn't have any side effects for either dose, so it really depends.
Have to say the people who I've spoken to, the under 30s seem to have a worse profile in terms of reactions to the jabs.

Especially after the AZ shot.

Over 50s seemed fine with either shot with minimal side effects.
 

BLIT2014

The pessimistic optimist.
Moderator
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
11,592
Location
l'appel du vide
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
Potentially controversial thought.

Does seem like the majority of complications for AZ seem to be for females.

Should we be having 40s to 60s men group getting AZ, whilst offering Pfizer for women only in this age group? Unless medical reasons apply.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top