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

[Marc26]

9 minutes ago, AdamX said:

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

Of course it's right, it's their right as a private company 

Reasonable is subjective 

 

It's funny that the anti-vaxxers constantly bring up "rights " when it only suits their agenda but ignore or complain about them when it doesn't 

I truly believe it is everyone's choice to get the vaccine and I actually can understand some of the sane reasoning why not to.

I don't agree with them, but can see their reasoning

But I also understand that all comes with understanding others have rights to put in policies they want to 

[JohninDublin]

28 minutes ago, AdamX said:

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.

Are they mandatory? Can you not refuse? Of course, refusals as with all choices have consequences.

[AdamX]

2 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Are they mandatory? Can you not refuse? Of course, refusals as with all choices have consequences.

The consequence you mention are exactly what Pharma and Government are using to make them mandatory through the back door, but that's another debate.

The first thing we have to do to resist this is to get people to accept that its a personal choice.

This make the subsequent arguments a lot easier, as I don't believe that most companies or businesses have any desire to do this, or police it.  

[Bob20]

11 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Are they mandatory? Can you not refuse? Of course, refusals as with all choices have consequences.

 

16 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

Of course it's right, it's their right as a private company 

Reasonable is subjective 

It's funny that the anti-vaxxers constantly bring up "rights " when it only suits their agenda but ignore or complain about them when it doesn't 

I truly believe it is everyone's choice to get the vaccine and I actually can understand some of the sane reasoning why not to.

I don't agree with them, but can see their reasoning

But I also understand that all comes with understanding others have rights to put in policies they want to 

You know who you are arguing with/trying to educate, right?

AdamX doesn't mind traffic lights. He knows they work to regulate traffic and prevent accidents.

But he doesn't want to obey the signal and hopes there's no camera or policeman nearby to enforce the rules when he ignores red and causes an accident.

This is someone who puts himself outside or above society and whatever you say will go on deaf ears.

[JohninDublin]

5 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

You know who you are arguing with/trying to educate, right?

AdamX doesn't mind traffic lights. He knows they work to regulate traffic and prevent accidents.

But he doesn't want to obey the signal and hopes there's no camera or policeman nearby to enforce the rules when he ignores red and causes an accident.

This is someone who puts himself outside or above society and whatever you say will go on deaf ears.

I did suggest that what he really wanted is choices without consequences.

[Bob20]

Just now, JohninDubin said:

I did suggest that what he really wanted is choices without consequences.

I would suggest re-education. Although the re- part is probably superfluous.

[JackIsAGoodBoy]

Funny how you vaxter zealots only became active when Biden's regime came along and they started enforcing the vaccinations forcefully. When Trump was advertising it (as a free choice, up to you) you guys thought it was dangerous. 

Even CNN wrote an article about how 18 months is too short and dangerous. Now it is "OBEY, OBEY, TAKE IT, TAKE IT!".

Edited September 15, 2021 by JackIsAGoodBoy

[JohninDublin]

30 minutes ago, AdamX said:

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

That appears to me to be a reasonable justification for not taking the vax.  However, before you became symptomatic. how long were you asymptomatic and how many people might you have infected in that time? 

Your suggestion about testing first also seems reasonable, but I suspect that many anti-vaxxers will use that in the hope of nit needing a vax, and if they don't get the result they want, will find other reasons to avoid taking the vax. I genuinely believe that a lot of those who are on the anti-vax side have been propagandised into that position. 

I think in due course, the likes of Andrew Wakefield will be regarded in the same way that we regard Eugenicists today.

[JohninDublin]

8 minutes ago, JackIsAGoodBoy said:

Funny how you vaxter zealots only became active when Biden's regime came along and they started enforcing the vaccinations forcefully. When Trump was advertising it (as a free choice, up to you) you guys thought it was dangerous. 

Even CNN wrote an article about how 18 months is too short and dangerous. Now it is "OBEY, OBEY, TAKE IT, TAKE IT!".

The fact that the so called zealotry only occurred after Biden came to power is really disingenuous, because the vax only came on-stream weeks earlier while Trump was a lame duck POTUS. Do you think that if Trump saw it as a way to win the election, he would have been so ambivalent.

Public health emergencies require leadership. Ambivalence is not leadership.

[Bob20]

18 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

That appears to me to be a reasonable justification for not taking the vax.  However, before you became symptomatic. how long were you asymptomatic and how many people might you have infected in that time? 

Your suggestion about testing first also seems reasonable, but I suspect that many anti-vaxxers will use that in the hope of nit needing a vax, and if they don't get the result they want, will find other reasons to avoid taking the vax. I genuinely believe that a lot of those who are on the anti-vax side have been propagandised into that position. 

I think in due course, the likes of Andrew Wakefield will be regarded in the same way that we regard Eugenicists today.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I do not really believe friend Adam here.

You or I would have sent our first post setting out "I've been infected, have recovered and have natural immunity, so I'm not going to take the vaccine for now. Maybe later when there's a vaccine I approve of". That still leaves the matter of waning natural immunity, so you can spend another few days on that...

I think all your time was wasted by fighting frankly completely useless arguments first. I don't think unintentional.

And that's why he is blocked.

[JohninDublin]

1 minute ago, Bob20 said:

Maybe I'm cynical, but I do not really believe friend Adam here.

You or I would have sent our first post setting out "I've been infected, have recovered and have natural immunity, so I'm not going to take the vaccine until a proven vaccine is available". That still leaves the matter of waning natural immunity, so you can spend another few days on that...

I think all your time was wasted by fighting frankly completely useless arguments first. I don't think unintentional.

And that's why he is blocked.

WADR, I do not say I necessarily believe him, but I try to assume good faith from posters. There are a couple I suspect have an agenda against me, but I find myself generally impressed at the mods foresight in spotting this. I assume that there are others who have received such treatment from the mods, and consequently I feel the vibe on this site is far from fractious.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

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

It was a hypothetical example @AdamX    Ok, the grab driver passed it to his girlfriend who is a nurse who I had to see following a fall in my room. Heavens sake! 

[JamesR]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

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.

They have not be ineffective in the UK, we are open and free now, that was a combination of strict restrictions and mass vaccination, the people who did not get vaccinated are having a free ride now on the backs of the majority who did have the vaccines but they exists it seems in every country. 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

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.

Well I agree about being open minded and skepticism. But I’m afraid I can’t distrust established expert bodies, some of which have histories going back hundreds of years. How does society ever move forward if we just distrust the very experts we have spent generations building up. 

[JamesR]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

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.

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

And the rest of us do the same and then do something about it like following the rules and getting vaccinated so the freeloaders can carry on being skeptical but do nothing about it and end getting a free ride. 

[Soidog]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

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.

I agree. It must be a very strange world for such people. In perpetual cynic mode about everything most people hair accept as normal. Each to their own I guess. 

[JamesR]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

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

And they do, they stay in lockdown so we can all be free as is the case in the UK and many other like minded countries. 

[JamesR]

8 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I agree. It must be a very strange world for such people. In perpetual cynic mode about everything most people hair accept as normal. Each to their own I guess. 

And they get a free ride as the majority of us do what is right for society. 

[JohninDublin]

5 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.  

Your mention of a taxi driver reminded me of my own experiences when I was a cabbie for 21 years in an earlier life.

About three times a year once mobile phones became prevalent, I'd hear the passenger saying something along the lines of, "You don't want to come anywhere near me. I've got a terrible dose of the flu". When he ended the call, I would ask, "Why is it OK to warn your friends about your having the flu, but not me before you got in my cab"? The most common response was, "Your a cab driver. It's your job to take me where I want to go". Hmmm? It might seem a bit crude as an analogy, but that seems to be the equivalent of tellig a "working girl", "So what if I have the pox? it's your job to service my needs".

A couple of days later, I would be infected and needed three or four days off. I wonder how many people I might have infected in that time? 

[Soidog]

22 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Your mention of a taxi driver reminded me of my own experiences when I was a cabbie for 21 years in an earlier life.

About three times a year once mobile phones became prevalent, I'd hear the passenger saying something along the lines of, "You don't want to come anywhere near me. I've got a terrible dose of the flu". When he ended the call, I would ask, "Why is it OK to warn your friends about your having the flu, but not me before you got in my cab"? The most common response was, "Your a cab driver. It's your job to take me where I want to go". Hmmm? It might seem a bit crude as an analogy, but that seems to be the equivalent of tellig a "working girl", "So what if I have the pox? it's your job to service my needs".

A couple of days later, I would be infected and needed three or four days off. I wonder how many people I might have infected in that time? 

Sorry, but do you mean with flu or the pox? . Only joking ! 

[Bob20]

26 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Your mention of a taxi driver reminded me of my own experiences when I was a cabbie for 21 years in an earlier life.

About three times a year once mobile phones became prevalent, I'd hear the passenger saying something along the lines of, "You don't want to come anywhere near me. I've got a terrible dose of the flu". When he ended the call, I would ask, "Why is it OK to warn your friends about your having the flu, but not me before you got in my cab"? The most common response was, "Your a cab driver. It's your job to take me where I want to go". Hmmm? It might seem a bit crude as an analogy, but that seems to be the equivalent of tellig a "working girl", "So what if I have the pox? it's your job to service my needs".

A couple of days later, I would be infected and needed three or four days off. I wonder how many people I might have infected in that time? 

You contemplate that after all those years. I doubt your conversation partner will give it a second thought after 21 seconds... 

[JamesE]

3 hours ago, AdamX said:

The question is, whether it is right or reasonable

It's business.

[AussieBob]

14 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. 

I wonder if that poster against the vaccines (and others) drives a car or rides a motorbike. Now there is something that kills hundreds of thousands and injures millions every year. On the same logic of people dying from being in cars and on bikes, then the poster should be refusing to ever get in one of those either . And I hope they dont think riding an 'eco friendly' push bike will save him/her or the planet - that will get you killed too !!  So many things will get you killed - because - that is what happens - we all die one day. 

[BlueSphinx]

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

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 ...

@Stonker& @Soidog > I am sure PublicHealth England will be very interested in your opinion that they are publishing meaningless statistics.  The FACT remains that in the age category 50-79 there were in the 4-week August period 128.041 confirmed infections in the vaccinated population, vs only 11.212 in the unvaccinated population.  When taking the percentage of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in those age categories into consideration (which PHE did in the Rate per 100.000 column) there is no denying that that there were proportionally MORE vaccinated that were infected than unvaccinated, which means NEGATIVE vaccine effectiveness.

The authors of the PHE-report (attached for your convenience) did also put these data in a bar-graph.

And they 'explain' this fact as follows "In individuals aged 40 to 79, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns".  Which doesn't explain anything, because it would mean that in different populations the difference would be even larger...

Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

@Stonker& @Soidog > I am sure PublicHealth England will be very interested in your opinion that they are publishing meaningless statistics.  The FACT remains that in the age category 50-79 there were in the 4-week August period 128.041 confirmed infections in the vaccinated population, vs only 11.212 in the unvaccinated population.  When taking the percentage of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in those age categories into consideration (which PHE did in the Rate per 100.000 column) there is no denying that that there were proportionally MORE vaccinated that were infected than unvaccinated, which means NEGATIVE vaccine effectiveness.

The authors of the PHE-report (attached for your convenience) did also put these data in a bar-graph.

And they 'explain' this fact as follows "In individuals aged 40 to 79, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns".  Which doesn't explain anything, because it would mean that in different populations the difference would be even larger...

Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf 1.21 MB · 0 downloads

Since PHE very clearly state "In individuals aged 40 to 79, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns" their view of what it "means" is very different to yours.

Now who do I believe?  PHE's clear  view of their own statistics, or someone on a forum who's consistently distorted, misinterpreted, misquoted and edited his "sources" and taken them out of context to match his twisted agenda, frequently to the point where what the source actually says is the polar opposite to what he says?

On balance, I think I'll go for PHE's view of their own stats.