From March 2018 (obviously before Covid), NSW Health has had a policy of ‘Mandatory’ vaccination for Category A healthcare workers. Agree or disagree with the policy, it must be said that at least they apply the policy equally to those who can’t have it, and those who won’t have it. At least on paper.
It’s an irrefutable fact that, regardless of the reason, a person who is unable to have a vaccination represents an equal risk to someone who refuses to have it. Equal application of the policy demonstrates an honest commitment to the stated intent, that of limiting the spread of Influenza within the health system. It demonstrates that the motivation is genuinely preventative in nature.
Compare this with the proposed medical apartheid that is being proposed in various jurisdictions around the country. What is going to be the situation with those who are medically unable to receive a Covid vaccination? Are they going to be given a pass, whilst the Refuseniks are held at arm’s length from mainstream society? I think the answer will be revealing as to the true motivation of the policy.
If it’s genuinely about prevention, everyone not vaccinated will be treated equally. If it’s a punitive measure, some pigs will be more equal than others.
I think I know the answer, but good luck to the Premiers navigating this one.
7 thoughts on “Mater’s Musings #30: Preventative or Punitive?”
We’re in uncharted waters here.
Fuck nose how insane it gets.
I think overseas pressure is the only way out now.
Start applying to the US embassy for asylum.
If it was genuinely about prevention, those who have recovered from Covid are less likely to pass it on than those who have been vaxxed.
Surely we have all those institutions dedicated to protecting our freedoms jumping up and down about this?
Today in Melbourne is a good indication of how this will be managed.
I don’t think there is any political solution to this – they are acting as though there will be no more elections (accountability).
Remember a week or so back you asked for predictions?
Do you think my version is looking more likely now??
I had a bit to do with infection control people back in the day. My honest opinion is it’s box-ticking. The reality is that someone comes through hospital doors and while a bit of history may be known it’s absolutely unknown what infectious or treatment conditions they currently have. So ambulance to bed to another bed to being attached to various pieces of equipment and brushing past curtains and surfaces, to a wheelchair or transfer board, to the toilet, to door handles and taps touched a moment ago by some homeless guy and so on. Many asymptomatic cases and you can’t test for everything so the viruses and bacteria are there just waiting for an opportunity. And do you see your colleagues catching anything or everything when really they should? No.
The actual flu jab is said to be c. 60% effective. What does that even mean? It means the health dept can be seen to be doing something. Plenty of people refuse, I did. Doesn’t change anything but there is/was an insidious creep towards these things being made mandatory. It’s just optics.
Forgot to add that these policies are “evidence based” and that means formal research while completely ignoring the real world of emergency departments, hospital wards and any place where people congregate and breathe. We’re nearly all immune to nearly everything.