Hopefully the first of many similar rulings

Disappointed to see that, but fingers crossed the Aussies don't get another similar pandemic. It's certainly a reasonable condition of employment for people with a duty to public service who come into contact with vulnerable people.

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 08:48:11 AMDisappointed to see that, but fingers crossed the Aussies don't get another similar pandemic. It's certainly a reasonable condition of employment for people with a duty to public service who come into contact with vulnerable people.

Even if the vaccine does not prevent transmission?

Quote from: David L on February 27, 2024, 09:04:43 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 08:48:11 AMDisappointed to see that, but fingers crossed the Aussies don't get another similar pandemic. It's certainly a reasonable condition of employment for people with a duty to public service who come into contact with vulnerable people.

Even if the vaccine does not prevent transmission?

Interesting hypothetical question. In those circumstances the same principle wouldn't apply, I agree.

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 09:08:51 AM

Quote from: David L on February 27, 2024, 09:04:43 AM

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 08:48:11 AMDisappointed to see that, but fingers crossed the Aussies don't get another similar pandemic. It's certainly a reasonable condition of employment for people with a duty to public service who come into contact with vulnerable people.

Even if the vaccine does not prevent transmission?

Interesting hypothetical question. In those circumstances the same principle wouldn't apply, I agree.

Those were the circumstances

Quote from: David L on February 27, 2024, 10:36:05 AMThose were the circumstances

Nope.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 10:49:49 AM

Quote from: David L on February 27, 2024, 10:36:05 AMThose were the circumstances

Nope.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

Plenty mention of ineffectiveness of prevention of onward transmission in that very article. No reduction in viral load shed between vaxed and un-vaxed. The only mechanism by which transmission could be reduced is if the vaccine prevents infection. Does/did it?

Even the CDC concluded that effect would be "modest and short-lived"

I wonder if it would have affected the public's perception if that finding had been made public before the vaccine rollout?

https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/whats-new/5-things-you-should-know.html

Yes, it does / did. A "modest" effect that saves lives is certainly worth enforcing.

See also : https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103

Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2024, 11:32:26 AMYes, it does / did. A "modest" effect that saves lives is certainly worth enforcing.

See also : https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103

Sponsored by Pfizer

https://www.cochrane.org/MR000033/METHOD_industry-sponsorship-and-research-outcome

The least you can expect from the pharmaceutical industry is that they'll contribute to research on the efficacy and safety of their products, so I'm pleased to hear it. Did they sponsor the first piece I linked, which shows unequivocally that the vaccines reduce transmission? If they did, how exactly did they interfere with the results?

Pharmaceutical interests or patient safety

https://appgpandemic.org/news/mhra-letter-health-select-committee


All party parliamentary group conclude that the MHRA "continues to put patients at serious risk"

Quote from: David L on February 28, 2024, 07:30:23 AMPharmaceutical interests or patient safety

https://appgpandemic.org/news/mhra-letter-health-select-committee


All party parliamentary group conclude that the MHRA "continues to put patients at serious risk"

One minute parliamentarians are almost all incompetent or corrupt, the next minute they're the most authoritative voice on medical matters on the planet.

BTW, where are we up to with serious adverse reactions: 0.001%?

Here, we report on a 62-year-old male hypervaccinated individual from Magdeburg, Germany (HIM), who deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(24)00134-8/fulltext

Not a recommendation, but it appears he suffered no harmful effects either.

RCT trials confirm vitamin D levels crucial to protection fom Covid 19

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/5/679

Quote from: David L on March 13, 2024, 09:14:52 PMRCT trials confirm vitamin D levels crucial to protection fom Covid 19

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/5/679

Get out and get some sun then.