Australian vaccine rollout in crisis as vaccinated now deemed unvaccinated after boosters arrive

EZFKA’s much maligned vaccine rollout is now in turmoil yet again, after all those deemed fully vaccinated are now considered unvaccinated after the announcement of booster shots.

After the announcement that EZFKA Prime Minister Scott Morrison had imported enough jabs to vaccinate the entire population multiple times over, some Australians expressed outrage over being forced to line up yet again.

Morrison defended accusations that this was descending into a farce.

“I’ve been honest about this from day one. It’s specifically stated in the Pfizer contract,” Morrison said.

“We’ve been seeing how effective this vaccine is in Israel and they’re up to their 4th jab already. So, Australians need to line up and take a third dose of something that didn’t work the first two times.”

Morrison said he was looking at introducing more incentives and access to mortgage credit for those deemed vaccine hesitant. Morrison said he also would look at delaying the inevitable booster shots until “a much more politically palatable time, such as after the next election.”

3.3 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ramjet

Remember DLS and loony left were demanding Pfizer. Pfizer is the one with the biggest decay in efficacy. Imagine if we ordered a vaccine with a lower efficacy decay.
I am actually surprised that Pfizer’s share price has not gone through the roof.

stagmal

i used to be a stockholder in it, it’s a go-nowhere stock, liquidated my positions in it about 3 years ago.

Peachy

i think Davi’s position on the Pfizer (along with the rest of the loony left) was mainly motivated by the fact that that was the one that Scotty didn’t order.

he jsut wanted to bitch about Scotty.

oretty much the same playbook as the fires and the droughts. And presumably the recent earthquake. All scottys fault.

speaking of Davo – has anyone visited MB to see what they’re saying about the latest MPLOL? I’d go, but a bit afraid that I might slip on the jizz-covered floor….😂

Ramjet

Nothing as yet on EmBee about MPLOL. But rest assured, the MPLOL will be pretty weak and have negative consequences. Let’s say a 6x debt to income ratio, it will affect first home buyers the most. In any case, once it is announced, be prepared for the ‘Power of EmBee’ articles.

The90kwbeast

I saw that announcement also and chuckled in response to Frydenburgs tough talk.

Surely this is all just managing perceptions of being a responsible government as a warm up toward the election. Then, after the election, nothing will actually happen or if something does happen, it will achieve very little by design.

Peachy

Yep. The LOL will be very firmly glued onto any MP.

that much is basically guaranteed!

Reus's Large MEMBER

Yeah I did see that, APRA must have put in a order of wet lettuce leaves ….

LSWCHP

Well, in Israel if your second Pfizzler jab was more than 6 months ago you’re officially considered unvaxxed and your Vax passport is invalid. One could reasonably conclude that the Vax isn’t worth two knobs of goat shit.

And for a state founded in reaction to Nazism, the gummint there is acting awful Nazi like.

Peachy

And for a state founded in reaction to Nazism, the gummint there is acting awful Nazi like.

I think that with the death of all those who were there for ww2 and had a real lived experience and understanding of what it was like, the state of Israel has wandered from whatever the original intent/philosophy/values might have been.

with the dissipation of that initial inertia, it has lost that particular identity and has become, mostly, just another state on a planet of many many states.

reminds me of the themes of this article that someone shared some months ago:
https://1729.com/founding-vs-inheriting/

LSWCHP

Another thought.

What happens when (not if) an unvaxxed person receives a blood transfusion and immediately has a stroke or heart attack, or heart inflammation or whatever?

Are we going to end up with vaxxed and unvaxxed blood supplies? If it turns out down the track that the vaxes have some sort of long term negative effect the inintended consequences will be huge.

LSWCHP

Two senior vaccine officials in the USA resign, and then co-publish an article in the Lancet explaining that Vax booster shots seem like a bad idea.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext

Suck on that, Israelis.

Peachy

To be fair, that lancet article is pretty sedate.

they’re just saying that perhaps using the stuff as boosters isn’t as good as giving people first doses….

bjw678

The reality is at this point there is no way they will say the first doses may not have been a good idea. That just leads to far too many problems,

Peachy

I guess that’s true as well, as far as the US & similar countries are concerned. For them the question of whether the first dose was a good idea or not is essentially academic, unless time machines are invented.

but there are other countries where, I think, this remains a live question. Like Kenya, say. Or even India.

bjw678

True, but the US regulators absolutely categorically will not say “The first vax doses were a bad idea” unless something completely unhideable happens. It opens up all sorts of liability when they have been mandated for various groups.
Pfizer has been granted immunity from consequences but the employers and governments that mandated people have it haven’t.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Too true, they will maintain that it was good till the zombies have taken over, but on the other hand, the Dems / follow the politics Fauci,, flip flop on these matters like a fish out of water so expect them to flip and blame the FDA or Trump or anyone else to deflect blame from themselves.

Peachy

Agree with both of youse.

saying that the first dose was a bad idea isn’t quite my “zombie scenario”, but it is a large part of the way there.

it’s an irreversible regret cost. and it’s been pushed on people’s children. Where there is no way back, there is still revenge….

DjenkA

Something is in development and it may be possible that some PHO’s may be further revised, silently. COmbined with AFL solicitors and other joining the legal battle ground, it may be sonner rather than later. I could be also daydreaming. Being slapped with a suspension for not being fit for duties (inability to comply with hospitals requirement no-jab=no-work) it comes to special focus. I can see and feel how pressure from losing work can have profound effects on people neck deep in loans and mortgages, single parents etc. I am lucky I can afford a few months off work and perhaps stand a chance to get a “no-jab-job”. We will see.

Latest NSW PHO reduces the umbrella of no jab=no work into more exemptions for those whom do not consent to participation in clinical trials.
This is interesting as it occurs on the last day before imaginary 30. Sep deadline to participation for all the health workers and associated industries. Dates coincide the introduction of the same no-jab-no-work in VIC.

The case of Jennifer Kimber v. Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676)
introduces a view on Covid Treatment from a perspective different in most aspects from peddled narrative. Starting with the PART 2 –VACCINE REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO COVID (sentences 101 forwards) it should tickle some brain cells. It also deals with NSW PHO from sentences 147 onward.

I looked for bookings for waxing, one can find a non-Fizzler jab only if digging in deeply. Most will just book the easiest.

The more I dig in, the more it seems that Aus was chosen as a clinical trial grounds for Em Ar En Aye and the insane pressure to comply with non-mandatory-but-you-lose-your-job-if-no-jab treatment is just an attempt to make a better sample group.
I definitely had a better sleep whilst ignorant

There are more points but I have to dash…

Peachy

I read the pho you linked to. Looks pretty wide ranging and only allows a medical contraindication exemption. I guess one of those can be bought cheaply enough??

Further on this theme – I tuned in to the Supreme Court hearing of pleb vs hazzard today.

I must say, the plaintiffs counsel were fucking pitiful.

its early days yet, but based on performance to date I would be quite surprised if plaintiffs got up. And I am rarely surprised.

DjenkA

It is not the correct document i linked to in the original post as it is a link from Fair Work Comission and it is outdated.

Latest NSW PHO <–HERE

The update from the 29. Sep includes following SubClause:

(1A) Subclause (1) [explanation: mandatory waxing] does not apply in relation to work done for a public health organisation, the Health Administration Corporation, the Ambulance Service of NSW or the Ministry of Health under a contract of service or a contract for services if—

(a) the work does not involve the provision of a health service, and

(b) the person doing the work is not physically present, while doing the work, at premises operated by the public health organisation, Health Administration Corporation, Ambulance Service of NSW or Ministry of Health.

Why is this important?
about 3/4 of people that the PHO related to were given an excuse not to be waxed. e.g. those that do not provide health service subclause (a) which includes hospital admin, maintenance, contractors, truckies etc.
I could be wrong but then I don’t see the purpose of the subclause 1A if I am.
The way I see it is that an avenue was left that those whom really want to read the fine print can be excluded from voluntary-mandatory jab, but the pressure will remain highest. The docos I regularly receive from hospitals is straight out a Josef Mengele books of coercion based on we-big-you-small-we-tell-sit-you-sit approach and in normal times would be deemed illegal. This is not new.
The point I am trying to make is that as much as it seems trivial, the clause 1A is a big step away from spiralling coercion and a small but important walk back. Will this be the first of many… I hope. My biggest hope is that Fair Work Commission may be the one that makes the foot in the door of the PHO for others to push open.
Time will tell.

In other news, Novavax, a treatment based on more traditional vessel is still in limbo with hopes for the 2021 release dashing. Chances are that 51mil doses EZFKA has purchased are to be used with Pfizermectin as the final “booster” shot and decades from now pharma embedded doctors will have a chance to see results of the greatest experiment on earth in modern times, probably right next to Guatemala Syphilis blunder in size and ethics .

bjw678

I really don’ t think that provides the exemptions you think it does.
It applies to someone who is both “not present on health property” AND “not providing health services”
That and is critical.
Anyone doing maintenance, deliveries or cleaning or anything ON HEALTH PROPERTY needs to be vaxxed.
Any home care nurses need to be vaxxed even if they never go on health property. (clause a)
An acountant working remotely as a contractor wouldn’t, which seems to be the only class of worker exempted.

Last edited 19 days ago by bjw678
Peachy

It applies to someone who is both “not present on health property” AND “not providing health services”

That and is critical.

I think you are exactly right, bjw.

there is another interesting thing in the wording of the order, right at the front, namely:

(1) The Minister directs that a health care worker must not do work as a health care worker unless—<vaccine requirement>

seems to me like the people who don’t take the shot don’t get fired. They just can’t be required to “do work”.

haven’t seen their employment contracts, but perhaps they are still entitled to get paid, so long as they rock up to their place of usual employment and comply with their employers direction to “not do work”. (Especially those who are employees, not contractors)

would be a fun one to take thru the courts, on the employment law issue.

Last edited 19 days ago by Peachy
bjw678

They are most likely not entitled to get paid or to get termination payments is why it will be worded like that. No shifts no pay until you get vaxxed, but you still technically work for them.
The mcdonalds solution to people reaching higher ages and pay rates…

Another implication I think is true is if a hospital rings up obrien glass to fix a broken window any obrien worker going onto the hospital grounds will need to be vaxxed.
Any worker doing any work at all on any health property will need to be vaxxed, no matter who they actually work for directly.
That hinges on the exact definition of what a  contract of service or a contract for services is but would seem to indicate anything at all to me.

Peachy

They are most likely not entitled to get paid or to get termination payments is why it will be worded like that. No shifts no pay until you get vaxxed, but you still technically work for them.

probably true for many, but not for all. Remember there would be people in there with contracts that are 20 – 30 years old and could be drafted in rather different terms. (Although the ones on the older contracts are probably the cohort who would mostly want to take the shot, because for them it’s a sensible risk-reward)

For the more recent ones, I’m sure some crafty lawyers could argue that showing up ready for work – any work allowed under the HO – should entitle one to salary. Remember that a large majority of NSW health workers are paper-pushers, not nurses/doctors.

Anyway, all this is why it would be fun to see this taken through the courts.

bjw678

I imagine it falls under the same category as if you lose your licence while requiring it for your job. You don’t have to get sacked but they don’t have to pay you if you are unable to do your job for whatever reason.
Nobody will be working on even 10 year old contracts. They will be working under an award or collective bargaining agreement or on 6-12 month contracts that get continually renewed.

I’m sure some crafty lawyers could argue that showing up ready for work – any work allowed under the HO

That’s the thing, no work is allowed under that order if you are on health property or probably even a full time employee(not shown in the bit I’ve looked at) not on property.

I imagine this specific clause exists primarily because without an exemption like this anyone working on an invoice to the hospital system from obriens glass would also be required to be vaccinated, theoretically possibly every single person working for any company with any dealings with health at all and the unintended consequences of that would be a little catastrophic.
Could they buy electricity if a single worker in the electricity generation and supply industry wasn’t vaccinated?

This is based on the presumption that there is a clause somewhere else that says all permanent employees and people providing work under the contract types are required to be vaxxed. The guy at the power station is providing electricity to the hospital under a contract of service to provide electricity and would fall under this clause without the specific exclusions added here.

Peachy

👍🏿

DjenkA

I imagine it falls under the same category as if you lose your licence while requiring it for your job. 

this is a grey area. When I signed up for work, they said “must have” police clearance, pedo clearance, driver’s licence, physically fit. Jabs were never compulsory, actually it was suggested to get Hep B or sumtin like that for my own protection as I mostly work in hospitals but not required. I confirmed this is now part of the agreement with new employments.
If suddenly hospitals did not allow abos to enter their ground and I was that abo under employment, what did I do to become “unfit”?
Unlike driver’s licence, ban from site for indirect health “providers” is not a product of (wrong) actions of an employee and it is probably more akin to a loss of business, thus employees are entitled to either alternative work arrangements or redundancy. Morrison may just introduce no-pay no-jab and this may create easy grounds for employers to start sacking at free will but somehow I do not think this will hold water for long and the big Q then becomes what happens for those already sacked. I will know more on this next week, as it unfods for me. We are yet to see where this goes and what effect court cases produce.

Coercion goes on, it is obvious that the pressure is not based on science, or rather it is based on selected bits of science.

DjenkA

You’re right, I did not observe the critical “and”.

Further to this, I can confirm it is meant ONLY for remote IT guys or similar mob, those that almost never had to be on site ever (a mate just called me this morning to let me know exactly this has become the news today in QLD health).

As someone under “suspension” for “not being fit for work due to non-compliance with health order”, I am probably going to be sacked so fun times ahead. I still have a few avenues but work has become so toxic, exit feels as a reward.

bjw678

I looked for bookings for waxing, one can find a non-Fizzler jab only if digging in deeply. Most will just book the easiest.

I can literally walk in no booking required at multiple places for AZ. You can literally walk into the chemist and get it on the spot.
Pfizer has bookings due to constrained supply.

Last edited 19 days ago by bjw678
DjenkA

fair point, I looked at the gov booking sites and had to drill down for non-fizzer jab places

32
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x