jakeseven7
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Posts
- 11,258
Agreed, plus I do like to travel.So fortunate to be in Australia. But I feel looking for a zero risk treatment to a high risk disease is simply fantasy.
At some point they will have to think harder at providing incentives for people to get vaccinated other than reopening the international borders. For many closed international borders is not an issue that has a big effect on them individually.
In SA Marshall was talking about making vaccinations mandatory for entrance to hotels, restaurants, pubs etc but that seems to have gone quiet.I was thinking more along the lines of having some things within Australia only open to the vaccinated.
Say, for example once everyone in 1A and 1B has had ample opportunity to get vaccinated should those over 70 unless medically exempt from vaccination be allowed to attend a 100,000 strong crowd at the footy?
That's the one!As referred to is this health alert?
HAN Archive - 00442 | Health Alert Network (HAN)
Health Alert Network (HAN). Provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).emergency.cdc.gov
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
In SA Marshall was talking about making vaccinations mandatory for entrance to hotels, restaurants, pubs etc but that seems to have gone quiet.
There would be uproar if that were the case whilst such a large proportion of the population are simply *unable* to be vaccinated. As I mentioned in another thread, three months ago the timetable had me six months away from being vaccinated. Now I'm at least eight months away from vaccination. I think large slabs of the voting population would be very unforgiving if rules like this were imposed when vaccines were simply not being made available in a timely manner.In SA Marshall was talking about making vaccinations mandatory for entrance to hotels, restaurants, pubs etc but that seems to have gone quiet.
But if everyone over 70 has had plenty of opportunity to get the vaccine (that is phase 1A and 1B complete) what’s to stop only penalising people above 70 who haven’t had it? You have to start somewhere. People need real incentives to get the vaccine to do things that matter to them.The problem with that, or the football crowd idea, is that you will be also penalising people who want the vaccination, but are not yet eligible to gain it. Well at least if implemented within say the next 9-12 months.
But if everyone over 70 has had plenty of opportunity to get the vaccine (that is phase 1A and 1B complete) what’s to stop only penalising people above 70 who haven’t had it? You have to start somewhere. People need real incentives to get the vaccine to do things that matter to them.
Perhaps a modest “economic stimulus”?Don’t stop unvaccinated people from doing anything just give the vaccinated people a bonus/perk/discount so people want to join the club.
How would the under 70s be discriminated against? Under 70, no need to prove you've been vaccinated. Over 70, need to prove vaccination as you should have already had it (at the time that 1A and 1B are complete). Then as 2A is complete the age to need to prove vaccination would be lowered again etc.But that means that things like football attendance or capacity maximums at venues cannot be used for as in your example of the over 70's all the under 70's would be discriminated against. Plus the venue operators would still be discriminated against.
Clubs like RSL where members have to scan in could easily have a ”no vacc, no entry” policy. School events, P&C meetings and parent/teacher mights could also use that rule. Plus domestic flights and travel and hotels where they are checking every guest anyway. Those unable to have a vaccination will have a letter to bypass the requirement, so for many people under 50 I think these could be good incentives.Yes we agree. The benefit should be once everyone has had opportunity to be vaccinated, and it could be per category (ie Over 70's).
But that means that things like football attendance or capacity maximums at venues cannot be used for as in your example of the over 70's all the under 70's would be discriminated against. Plus the venue operators would still be discriminated against.
So it really needs to be some type of "extra" benefit for my way of thinking, rather that a "penalty".
Carrot, not stick.
A solid plan to roll it out doesn't mean a lot if people in too large numbers refuse to take the vaccine. There needs to be incentives there that people value so that they take it up when it's their turn.Do you know what would render all these ideas obsolete? A clearly articulated government plan to roll out vaccines to all Australians in a timely manner and to safely open up the country.
Do you know what would render all these ideas obsolete? A clearly articulated government plan to roll out vaccines to all Australians in a timely manner and to safely open up the country.
It feels like it’s not too much to ask, but unfortunately it appears it’s far too much to expect.
And a carrot and the stick approach should be part of the plan.A solid plan to roll it out doesn't mean a lot if people in too large numbers refuse to take the vaccine. There needs to be incentives there that people value so that they take it up when it's their turn.