News Forum - Cathay Pacific crew fired after refusing to get vaccinated

[AdamX]

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

No I’m not saying that at all. The data shows some people have had these problems.  As with any vaccine, some people suffer severe and even fatal reactions. My point is that the risk of dying from such issues are very very small compared with the risk of dying from Covid. You don’t have to wait 18 months. It’s already a fact and an acknowledged fact that this is a risk versus reward decision. I would take my chances with the vaccine any day than take it with Covid. 
 

As was said the other day by the U.K. chief medical officer. People who discourage vaccination and attempt to spread information to discourage should be ashamed. Many many people die every day because they failed to take the vaccine. He went on to say that there is no more sad a sight, than a vaccine hesitant person being wheeled to an ICU crying and saying they wish they had taken the vaccine. 
 

That is my point and that is what I’m saying. 

We agree it should be personal choice, right?

Cool, so moving on..

One mans disinformation is another mans truth. We have every right to challenge but no right to discourage or censor.

Fauci has a right to his point of view—aka lie—and the vaccine skeptics do also. The difference is that the skeptics are being heavily censored.

And from what I am seeing, most Chief Medical Officers are simply echo chambers for Fauci, and don't have an independent thought amounts them

[AdamX]

4 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

The ones refusing the vaccines are taking a much larger non-zero risk of getting Covid with associate consequences.

You make an irrational choice to willingly take a larger risk. And if that's okay, then surely another party can distance itself from you.

You may claim free choice to jump from a building. But I claim free choice not to have to walk on the pavement below.

The point you make is perfectly valid, but the implementation of what you are saying is as follows.

You distance yourself from me to your hearts content, but don't force anything on me, as I simply don't share your fear. I wont be rushing  towards you any time.

You think lockdowns work, great, lock youself down. Then it does not matter what anyone else does, you are safe

Just leave the rest of us be

[JamesR]

20 minutes ago, AdamX said:

The point you make is perfectly valid, but the implementation of what you are saying is as follows.

You distance yourself from me to your hearts content, but don't force anything on me, as I simply don't share your fear. I wont be rushing  towards you any time.

You think lockdowns work, great, lock youself down. Then it does not matter what anyone else does, you are safe

Just leave the rest of us be

So I should have the right to ignore speed limits while driving past a school for example.

What we do has consequences on others, you don't seem to think the government should have rules and laws for the benefit of society as a whole, then what is democracy? We elect our governments to do their job so let them do it?

Should I personally be allowed to rob a bank as I do not believe the law should be there?

So our democratically elected government (UK) set our rules and laws for this pandemic guided by scientists and we should follow them for the benefit of all.

 

[Chaimai]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

Perhaps, but as low as it may be—which is another debate—its not acceptable to fire people for not wishing to take the non zero chance of death.

Employers set the terms of employment, employees accept those terms - or not.

 

Similar to reports of Bangkok opening up for vaccinated travelers……..those are the terms that the authorities offer.

 

I support the right not to vaccinate, but if that comes at a price versus others, the vast majority,  who are following international medical advice - so be it. Principles, especially when in the minority, carry a cost.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

We agree it should be personal choice, right?

Cool, so moving on..

One mans disinformation is another mans truth. We have every right to challenge but no right to discourage or censor.

Fauci has a right to his point of view—aka lie—and the vaccine skeptics do also. The difference is that the skeptics are being heavily censored.

And from what I am seeing, most Chief Medical Officers are simply echo chambers for Fauci, and don't have an independent thought amounts them

Yes I can agree with nearly all that. My only caveat would be on the assertion that skeptics are being heavily censored. I think the only censorship is when claims are made without data to support it. Or emotive terms like “Frankenstein vaccines” or “DNA altering vaccines”  are used. I’ve had two jabs of AZ and I’m happy about that. I would have had Pfizer or Moderna, but they use what I understand to be an innovative approach to vaccines and hence I’m slightly more concerned. I guess I put my trust in the authorities who do the clinical trials. I see on television vastly knowledgable people who have little to gain by getting wrong (NOT the Big Pharma companies or governments), reassuring me. 

[birdman]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

Perhaps, but as low as it may be—which is another debate—its not acceptable to fire people for not wishing to take the non zero chance of death.

We are talking an international flight crew?If other countries will not let un vaccinated people

in the country it gets a little more complicated.No shot,no entry,no job.

 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

The point you make is perfectly valid, but the implementation of what you are saying is as follows.

You distance yourself from me to your hearts content, but don't force anything on me, as I simply don't share your fear. I wont be rushing  towards you any time.

You think lockdowns work, great, lock youself down. Then it does not matter what anyone else does, you are safe

Just leave the rest of us be

But viruses don’t obey the rules you suggest. If i or others isolate as best we can and you keep your distance but still move around unvaccinated, you then pass it on to a taxi driver. He passes it on to his friend. His friend is a delivery driver working for Grab. I order food delivery as I stay in. Grab driver passes it to me. That’s your fault I’m afraid. 
 

This is the responsibility for all. You can’t segment society in this way. Either you lockdown or you don’t. The way out is the vaccines. This has been the way out of viral epidemics and pandemics for over 200 years. Get the vaccine and protect yourself and those around you.  

[JamesR]

19 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes I can agree with nearly all that. My only caveat would be on the assertion that skeptics are being heavily censored. I think the only censorship is when claims are made without data to support it. Or emotive terms like “Frankenstein vaccines” or “DNA altering vaccines”  are used. I’ve had two jabs of AZ and I’m happy about that. I would have had Pfizer or Moderna, but they use what I understand to be an innovative approach to vaccines and hence I’m slightly more concerned. I guess I put my trust in the authorities who do the clinical trials. I see on television vastly knowledgable people who have little to gain by getting wrong (NOT the Big Pharma companies or governments), reassuring me. 

It has been stated, "My only caveat would be on the assertion that skeptics are being heavily censored.".

I would change that in my opinion, the skeptics are being heavily ignored and the rubbish they come out with is filtered for facts as most of what they say is based on gossip which is based on gossip and so it goes on.

I believe the scientists as a community are coming up with the facts based on a collective experience of skill and knowledge  and are advising the government on the best way forward.

I wouldn't go to see a specialist doctor and ignore their professional opinion based on my Mate Fred in the pub who's wife's, uncle's cousin knows otherwise. 

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by JamesR
typo

[Stonker]

On 9/14/2021 at 7:16 PM, BlueSphinx said:

Still quoting the 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' LIE.  That 97% of NEW cases (I presume you areg to the delta-variant) are in the unvaccinated, is absolutely bollocks.

How about looking at the deaths in the UK instead?

Not "97%" amongst the unvaccinated, but 99%

On 9/14/2021 at 7:16 PM, BlueSphinx said:

Note that the effectiveness of the covid-vaccine in the high risk 50-79 age category is even NEGATIVE, meaning that you are MORE likely to catch covid when you are vaccinated than those that did not take the jab. 

Umm ... no.

It would only mean that if the numbers who are vaccinated and unvaccinated in England are the same, but as over 95% over 50 have been vaccinated that's ... ummm ... "absolutely bollocks"

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

Perhaps, but as low as it may be—which is another debate—its not acceptable to fire people for not wishing to take the non zero chance of death.

But they haven't been fired for that!

They've been fired for not wishing to be allowed to go to other countries, which is a bit of a problem if you're flight or cabin crew

[Marc26]

2 hours ago, AdamX said:

We agree it should be personal choice, right?

Cool, so moving on..

One mans disinformation is another mans truth. We have every right to challenge but no right to discourage or censor.

Fauci has a right to his point of view—aka lie—and the vaccine skeptics do also. The difference is that the skeptics are being heavily censored.

And from what I am seeing, most Chief Medical Officers are simply echo chambers for Fauci, and don't have an independent thought amounts them

I agree it should be personal choice 

 

But you keep ignoring the fact a private company can also make the choice to not employ unvaccinated people 

[JohninDublin]

On 9/14/2021 at 6:39 AM, AdamX said:

The medical justification is that there are thousands of cases of people dying from blood clots and other complications, and all around us we see a suspicious unheard of hysteria to push a gene replacement therapy. 

Is it any wonder people don't want to take them.

To correct you, there have been CLAIMS of thousands of cases....

On the other side of the equation  is that nearly 4.7 million deaths have arisen from Covid, and 225 mill cases of Covid, of which about  one third will suffer Long Covid. The wonder is why anyone who understands stats and chance, will refuse vaxxing in the absence of  their being specific contraindications in their own cases.

Regarding blood clots in particular, it was quickly recognised that those cases affected a certain age cohort. The vax supervisory authorities then stopped using "that vax" in that "age group", and the problem very much was resolved. Vaxxing is not the perfect solution towards this virus, but at the moment, it is the best available tool known to us. 

To date, about 1 in every 35 people on the planet has contracted Covid. About 1 in every hundred of the planet have contracted "long-covid syndrome". About 1 in every 1700 have died from Covid. Due to the speed at which vaxxes have come on stream for this virus, this is the most closely monitored vaccine in history and suspected adverse events are reported on swiftly as soon as any pattern starts to emerge with appropriate guidelines being issued.

Given the pace at which this has been rushed out, it seems inevitable that there will be deaths caused by adverse reactions. I sincerely regret these, and pure guesswork based on what stats I've seen so far, leads me to believe that these might be in the range of under 10k, but certainly not above 100k. Even at the top end, this represents just 2% of the death toll from Covid. So the question the vax sceptics and hesitants might want to ask themselves is, "What presents the greatest danger to me, the vax or the virus"? 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, JamesR said:

It has been stated, "My only caveat would be on the assertion that skeptics are being heavily censored.".

I would change that in my opinion, the skeptics are being heavily ignored and the rubbish they come out with is filtered for facts as most of what they say is based on gossip which is based on gossip and so it goes on.

I believe the scientists as a community are coming up with the facts based on a collective experience of skill and knowledge  and are advising the government on the best way forward.

I wouldn't go to see a specialist doctor and ignore their professional opinion based on my Mate Fred in the pub who's wife's, uncle's cousin knows otherwise. 

Well maybe I’m mellowing in my older years @JamesR! But yes, I totally agree with your assessment. I think my less than robust rebuttal was due to the fact that scepticism is not a bad thing. But using unsubstantiated comments and emotive erroneous terms like “DNA altering” is extremely dangerous. In less liberal democracies such behaviour would result in a knock at the door late at night. I think it’s good that authorities and the consensus view is challenged, it is after all how we make progress. Mind you, some of these vaccine sceptics also are fully signed up members or the flat earth and global illuminati clubs (that’s inviting comments!)  

[JamesR]

5 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Well maybe I’m mellowing in my older years @JamesR! But yes, I totally agree with your assessment. I think my less than robust rebuttal was due to the fact that scepticism is not a bad thing. But using unsubstantiated comments and emotive erroneous terms like “DNA altering” is extremely dangerous. In less liberal democracies such behaviour would result in a knock at the door late at night. I think it’s good that authorities and the consensus view is challenged, it is after all how we make progress. Mind you, some of these vaccine sceptics also are fully signed up members or the flat earth and global illuminati clubs (that’s inviting comments!)  

I know, how can the Earth be seen by some people as flat when there are hundreds of thousands of hills and mountains on it? 

[BlueSphinx]

49 minutes ago, Stonker said:

How about looking at the deaths in the UK instead?

Not "97%" amongst the unvaccinated, but 99%

Umm ... no.

It would only mean that if the numbers who are vaccinated and unvaccinated in England are the same, but as over 95% over 50 have been vaccinated that's ... ummm ... "absolutely bollocks"

Do take a look at that table again.  The negative effectiveness is based on the rate vaxxed/unvaxxed per 100.000.  E.g. in the 60-69 category there were 38.119 infections in the fully vaccinated during that 4 week period and 2.650 in the not vacccinated.  That translates to a ratio 672 vs 488 when taking into account the % of vaxxed/unvaxxed in that age-category,  And so proportionally the vaxxed in that age category are MORE likely to be infected than the unvaxxed. 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

Do take a look at that table again.  The negative effectiveness is based on the rate vaxxed/unvaxxed per 100.000.  E.g. in the 60-69 category there were 38.119 infections in the fully vaccinated during that 4 week period and 2.650 in the not vacccinated.  That translates to a ratio 672 vs 488 when taking into account the % of vaxxed/unvaxxed in that age-category,  And so proportionally the vaxxed in that age category are MORE likely to be infected than the unvaxxed. 

You're missing the point. As 95% are vaccinated across that age range you need to look at the differences between the two, for example those who are in care homes vs those at home.

Taking them in isolation it's meaningless.

The death stats, though, are across the board -  99:1.

Oops ...

[JamesE]

4 hours ago, AdamX said:

Perhaps, but as low as it may be—which is another debate—its not acceptable to fire people for not wishing to take the non zero chance of death.

Yeah, it is. If their decision can cause somebody else to pay for it, it's completely acceptable. You or I can make a decision and if we encounter a few people a day, no big deal. Statistics says it's going to be okay. But when, in the course of doing your job, you encounter - closely - hundreds or thousands of individuals then the calculus changes completely. If contact tracing were to trace an outbreak back to an unvaccinated employee when preventive measures were available the lawsuits would start flying.

One of the things lost in the discussion is that there are no such things as "rights". It's all a societal construct. You can claim something as your "right", but unless society is willing to agree, your claim is meaningless.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

Do take a look at that table again.  The negative effectiveness is based on the rate vaxxed/unvaxxed per 100.000.  E.g. in the 60-69 category there were 38.119 infections in the fully vaccinated during that 4 week period and 2.650 in the not vacccinated.  That translates to a ratio 672 vs 488 when taking into account the % of vaxxed/unvaxxed in that age-category,  And so proportionally the vaxxed in that age category are MORE likely to be infected than the unvaxxed. 

Perhaps a worked example will help you understand this and show why it looks worse for vaccinated people. 

Let’s  take a group of 100 people aged 60-69 and 90 of them have been vaccinated and 10 haven’t (90% uptake)

Then, some weeks later 10% of people in the unvaccinated group become infected. This translates to 1 person in the unvaccinated group of 10 people. In the fully vaccinated group only 3%  contract the virus (due to vaccination)  get the virus. That equates to 2.7 people, let’s call it 3. So it looks like you have 3 times more people getting the virus who are vaccinated than unvaccinated. These percentage can be a bugger sometimes 

Hope this helps clarify the misunderstanding ? 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

Well maybe I’m mellowing in my older years @JamesR! But yes, I totally agree with your assessment. I think my less than robust rebuttal was due to the fact that scepticism is not a bad thing. But using unsubstantiated comments and emotive erroneous terms like “DNA altering” is extremely dangerous. In less liberal democracies such behaviour would result in a knock at the door late at night. I think it’s good that authorities and the consensus view is challenged, it is after all how we make progress. Mind you, some of these vaccine sceptics also are fully signed up members or the flat earth and global illuminati clubs (that’s inviting comments!)  

That is an extremely fair assessment of the state of play at the moment. I have no problem with the querulous posters, but there is one poster on here who appears to spend his whole life looking for bad news stories about vaxxing, and never queries the source or some of the outrageous claims made in those press clippings that he tenders as evidence. I've yet to see anything posted by him that has withstood more than 3 seconds of critical thinking. 

I've seen him make posts about the CDC VAERS suggestingthe vax has killed 9000 people in the US and this system suffers from 99% under-reporting. Really? So the vax had really killed 900k Americans in nine months whereas the virus killed 600k in 20 months? So the vax is killing 5x faster per capita? Why haven't we heard about this in the media?

This is what passes for evidence for some people. Or more accurately, this is what passes as evidence of the gullibility of some people.

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by JohninDubin

[AdamX]

4 hours ago, JamesR said:

So I should have the right to ignore speed limits while driving past a school for example.

What we do has consequences on others, you don't seem to think the government should have rules and laws for the benefit of society as a whole, then what is democracy? We elect our governments to do their job so let them do it?

Should I personally be allowed to rob a bank as I do not believe the law should be there?

So our democratically elected government (UK) set our rules and laws for this pandemic guided by scientists and we should follow them for the benefit of all.

 

You really are missing the point.

Im pointing out how stupid and ineffective restrictions are, and that I believe that vaccines should not be mandatory.

 

 

[AdamX]

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

Yes I can agree with nearly all that. My only caveat would be on the assertion that skeptics are being heavily censored. I think the only censorship is when claims are made without data to support it. Or emotive terms like “Frankenstein vaccines” or “DNA altering vaccines”  are used. I’ve had two jabs of AZ and I’m happy about that. I would have had Pfizer or Moderna, but they use what I understand to be an innovative approach to vaccines and hence I’m slightly more concerned. I guess I put my trust in the authorities who do the clinical trials. I see on television vastly knowledgable people who have little to gain by getting wrong (NOT the Big Pharma companies or governments), reassuring me. 

Regarding the studies, these take a lot of money to do, and are almost always funded by the people who have a vested interest.

Opposing studies are very hard to come by, because they cant get funding, and also there is a tremendous pressure inside the scientific community to follow the mainstream.

Science and Scientific Establishments are completely separate things.

Where do you think the money for funding these establishments comes from?

There are already examples of questionable practices by Pfizer, and I surely will never take anything from the manufacturers at face value, but wait till there is independent research. This takes time, months or years, so I would never instantly take a gene therapy treatment

One must always be open minded but skeptical, about everything.

 

[AdamX]

4 hours ago, birdman said:

We are talking an international flight crew?If other countries will not let un vaccinated people

in the country it gets a little more complicated.No shot,no entry,no job.

I believe that most countries allow a negative test and a quarantine. There is no need to fire.

 

[AdamX]

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

But viruses don’t obey the rules you suggest. If i or others isolate as best we can and you keep your distance but still move around unvaccinated, you then pass it on to a taxi driver. He passes it on to his friend. His friend is a delivery driver working for Grab. I order food delivery as I stay in. Grab driver passes it to me. That’s your fault I’m afraid. 
 

This is the responsibility for all. You can’t segment society in this way. Either you lockdown or you don’t. The way out is the vaccines. This has been the way out of viral epidemics and pandemics for over 200 years. Get the vaccine and protect yourself and those around you.  

There is contact less delivery.

You would not get infected

I still propose that those who believe in lockdowns can do so, and not demand that from me

[AdamX]

3 hours ago, Marc26 said:

I agree it should be personal choice 

But you keep ignoring the fact a private company can also make the choice to not employ unvaccinated people 

A private company can fire anyone for anything if they pay the requisite notice period or compensation.

The question is, whether it is right or reasonable

[AdamX]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

To correct you, there have been CLAIMS of thousands of cases....

On the other side of the equation  is that nearly 4.7 million deaths have arisen from Covid, and 225 mill cases of Covid, of which about  one third will suffer Long Covid. The wonder is why anyone who understands stats and chance, will refuse vaxxing in the absence of  their being specific contraindications in their own cases.

Regarding blood clots in particular, it was quickly recognised that those cases affected a certain age cohort. The vax supervisory authorities then stopped using "that vax" in that "age group", and the problem very much was resolved. Vaxxing is not the perfect solution towards this virus, but at the moment, it is the best available tool known to us. 

To date, about 1 in every 35 people on the planet has contracted Covid. About 1 in every hundred of the planet have contracted "long-covid syndrome". About 1 in every 1700 have died from Covid. Due to the speed at which vaxxes have come on stream for this virus, this is the most closely monitored vaccine in history and suspected adverse events are reported on swiftly as soon as any pattern starts to emerge with appropriate guidelines being issued.

Given the pace at which this has been rushed out, it seems inevitable that there will be deaths caused by adverse reactions. I sincerely regret these, and pure guesswork based on what stats I've seen so far, leads me to believe that these might be in the range of under 10k, but certainly not above 100k. Even at the top end, this represents just 2% of the death toll from Covid. So the question the vax sceptics and hesitants might want to ask themselves is, "What presents the greatest danger to me, the vax or the virus"? 

And as we can see, many of them say the vax is more of a risk than the virus, so there is no argument about that.

Here is why I don't see the virus as a big threat to me

Having gone thru 3 days of Covid, it was just like a flu, but without a cough. Extreme tiredness, headaches but no cough. I was back on my feet in around three days and all symptoms gone in seven days.

I did take Ivermectin at the fist sign of issues so perhaps that helped. Therefore, Ill take covid over a vax anyday. If the vax was 5 years old, I'd take the vax, but not now.

My wife also has natural immunity, and she never had any symptoms at all. She only tested out of curiosity and now she has no fear and no desire to take a vax.

Both confirmed by blood test at Bhumrumgrad, and we are going to retest again next week to see what anti body levels are.

I would definitely tell anyone who is considering the vax to get the antibody test first Its around 1200 THB . You can then make your own decision about the vax