Coronavirus Outbreak

[tigger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense.

I think a worker who was double vaxxed would have a case against an employer who was failing to check vaccine passports, if that worker was to contract covid.

However the common law rights of workers have been severely curtailed by most Workers Compensation legislation, so it's likely that the worker would only receive reasonable loss of income and medical costs.

Assuming that the vaccine is as effective as we all hope, you would think those costs would be minimal.

 

[mike]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

And so vaccine Apartheid begins.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

employees have to be vaccinated to work in retail etc

 

[tigger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

employees have to be vaccinated to work in retail etc

I hadn't heard that but I'm in Victoria, so I'm assuming that's only in NSW.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense.

I think a worker who was double vaxxed would have a case against an employer who was failing to check vaccine passports, if that worker was to contract covid.

However the common law rights of workers have been severely curtailed by most Workers Compensation legislation, so it's likely that the worker would only receive reasonable loss of income and medical costs.

Assuming that the vaccine is as effective as we all hope, you would think those costs would be minimal.

in relation to workers compensation in nsw any covid related claim or illness caused by a covid vaccine will not affect employers workers compensation premiums.
Basically all workers comp claims relating to covid if can be provided you caught it at work would be covered by the nominal insurer

 

[cochise]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

employees have to be vaccinated to work in retail etc

I hadn't heard that but I'm in Victoria, so I'm assuming that's only in NSW.

Was stated in NSW presser today.

 

[tigger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense.

I think a worker who was double vaxxed would have a case against an employer who was failing to check vaccine passports, if that worker was to contract covid.

However the common law rights of workers have been severely curtailed by most Workers Compensation legislation, so it's likely that the worker would only receive reasonable loss of income and medical costs.

Assuming that the vaccine is as effective as we all hope, you would think those costs would be minimal.

in relation to workers compensation in nsw any covid related claim or illness caused by a covid vaccine will not affect employers workers compensation premiums.
Basically all workers comp claims relating to covid if can be provided you caught it at work would be covered by the nominal insurer

That's interesting. Thanks for that.
IN NSW the government is the insurer for all workers compensation. The insurance companies involved only act as agents for the government. But premiums are calculated for individual employers taking into account the cost of claims lodged against that employer.
Sounds like the government has removed that claims component in respect of Covid from future premium calculations.
That makes sense.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense.

I think a worker who was double vaxxed would have a case against an employer who was failing to check vaccine passports, if that worker was to contract covid.

However the common law rights of workers have been severely curtailed by most Workers Compensation legislation, so it's likely that the worker would only receive reasonable loss of income and medical costs.

Assuming that the vaccine is as effective as we all hope, you would think those costs would be minimal.

in relation to workers compensation in nsw any covid related claim or illness caused by a covid vaccine will not affect employers workers compensation premiums.
Basically all workers comp claims relating to covid if can be provided you caught it at work would be covered by the nominal insurer

That's interesting. Thanks for that.
IN NSW the government is the insurer for all workers compensation. The insurance companies involved only act as agents for the government. But premiums are calculated for individual employers taking into account the cost of claims lodged against that employer.
Sounds like the government has removed that claims component in respect of Covid from future premium calculations.
That makes sense.

Yes ICARE (nsw government) are governed by SIRA and they manage premium and tha tis either conventional premium or a LPR (burner) basically all claim costs for covid will not affect employers which is a good thing as in some cases it will be out of employers control

 

[BZN]

Sorry avout the politics of this but given the last two days I got a laugh I greatly needed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLTGXblgUoc
And I got to book my Pfizer today (needed a doctor's note).

I love this , can’t tell you how many times I have watched it and still get a chuckle .

Thanks for posting this @Rugba
Very Clever and Very Funny.

 

[hank37w]

I don't agree with individual details being broadcast daily.

The bigger conversion though should be the FOI request confirmation that our government was approached by Pfizer in June last bloody year.

We should have all had the opportunity to be vaccinated months ago and not been in lockdown because of this failure and that of quarantine, so a ministry head needs to roll.

FG I know you never miss a chance to stick it into the Feds but last year they had the chance to buy from Pfizer or manufacture our own here. It made a lot of sense at the time to do what they did. The clotting issue wasnt known at the time.

It made sense, unfortunately It fell to bits.

Actually T5150, I think it would have made more sense to hedge our bets. All vaccines were unproven at that stage, so trying to back a winner was never going to be a great strategy.
It would have been good management to diversify and purchase adequate supplies of multiple vaccine types. The risk of over-purchasing would have been significantly offset by the downside risk of getting it wrong.
The multiple extended lockdowns we have endured have been economically worse than having over-purchased vaccines.
In any event, we were always going to be donating vaccines to pacific island nations and third world economies, so the issue of over-purchasing was always a non-event.
The government just stuffed up. ***It's as simple as that.***

Disagree strongly that it is as simple as that.

Aus Govt purchased 20M doses as part of the initial run, prior to vaccines actually being rolled out which is/was enough for 1/3 of the population. Which is not a completely unreasonable amount of diversity when we are manufacturing the AZ here.

It also has to be factored in that Aus is a bloody big place with big spaces between groups or people. Pfizer has very particular transport and storage requirements (needs to be kept at -30 or something ridiculous) and a significantly shorter use by period. It is not practical to have enormous amounts of it lying around "just in case" because it would have almost certainly been wasted.

Im not arguing that the Govt covered themselves in glory, but it is most certainly not "as simple as that".

It should also be remembered that the Feds also had a tie up with the Queensland University vaccine which ended up being unsuccessful at the time but is not completely dead in the water as further research and development continues.

The point is that they didn't hang their hat on any one vaccine and it made sense to back something that we were developing here in Australia or in the case of AstraZeneca, that we had the capability of manufacturing here under licence.

Come the end of the day, who was to know 18 months ago, which vaccines were actually going to work and for that matter how many people believed that viable vaccines could even be developed in such a short space of time.

Despite stupid statements being made about the vaccine rollout not being a race, in the final wash up we have AstraZeneca in plentiful supply and deals have been done to secure enough Pfizer to vaccinate everyone that wants it over the next couple of months, with Moderna not too far away as well.

Vaccination of the majority of the population could probably have been achieved even faster if even stupider statements and mixed messages were not being released to the community by people and agencies that really should have been much more responsible with their messaging.

 

[Snake]

Icare are the worst workers comp organisation that I have had for 30 yrs … no one seems to talk about the new premiums that an employer will need to pay !
So what will the new policy cover .. Vaccinated and unvaccinated?
And the premium is worked out on total wages paid including all super … plus claims history.
After 30yrs of dealing with workers comp a nightmare is on the horizon do not believe any of it as Icare will be bankrupt in 6 months !

 

[Demps]

Icare are the worst workers comp organisation that I have had for 30 yrs … no one seems to talk about the new premiums that an employer will need to pay !
So what will the new policy cover .. Vaccinated and unvaccinated?
And the premium is worked out on total wages paid including all super … plus claims history.
After 30yrs of dealing with workers comp a nightmare is on the horizon do not believe any of it as Icare will be bankrupt in 6 months !

They exploded on the seen one day eh?
Never heard of of till about a year or a year and a half ago.

Got their hands in a lot of pies by the looks of it.

 

[hank37w]

A man in his 20's is part of the 9 deaths today.

Yeah it was reported that he had underlying conditions though.

We have no right to know his details, nut Im always curious as to what these underlying conditions are though. The co-morbidities for COVID include obese and high blood pressure. A pretty big chunk of the population would technically have "underlying conditions" in that case.

The wording was serious underlying conditions. O think it was Chant that said sometime this week that NSW health isn't recording obesity as a co morbidity

You're right, she did. I also wonder whether elevated blood pressure would be considered a co-morbidity. I have elevated blood pressure (normal for a WT fan) and even though I'm medicated it still averages around 140 / 90. Other than that I'm pretty fit so I'd be surprised if it would be regarded as a co-morbidity.

I would think co-mordibities would be like lung, heart and immune deficiencies.

And having just been bitten by a Black Mamba.

FAstest snake in the world. Dont ask me how I know.

I'm impressed. Can kill an elephant I'm told.

Elephants arent real fast

Trying getting away from one once they get a roll on.

It would be scary as hell, like hearing the footsteps coming as Stefano chases you down.

 

[hank37w]

Thanks Glady's for whole lot of nuthin...

I missed it....

So schools may return Oct 25th?
But we still are lock down till we hit 70% ?

No changes?
I can't find any cliffs as it just happened and the sites are delayed.

No fixed Date..No real detail of what will actually happen..

Hospitality, retail and gyms will all open, regional travel will be allowed.

lol...for double dosed supposedly... Good luck with the implementation of that..

You will have to check in and if you don't get a certain image on your app no entry will be allowed

You think the hairdresser will care..

Well they will be breaking the law if they don't, I imagine an employee would have grounds for action if they fall ill because a workplace allows in unvaccinated people.

The owners of the business have Duty of care in NSW they can and will be sued personally and this will include staff there insurance will wipe them .. the clowns will be sorted very quickly !
Occupational health and safety law in this state is very clear ..

So does that mean I should have sued work every time I got the flu from work?

Get on a winner and see Lee.

Need free legal advice?

Brydens Lawyers, NO WIN, NO FEE.

 

[hank37w]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

And so vaccine Apartheid begins.

It works both ways I would imagine.

If you need to be double vaccinated and have to prove it with some sort of documentation or digital certificate before gaining entry to a business/venue/whatever, the business will need to have so many ticks or approvals along side their QR code indicating that all the employees or at least the people you will come in contact with have similar credentials.

If this is not mandated then businesses that cannot provide that assurance may very well suffer as many people may choose to use a business that can provide that assurance.

 

[tigger]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

And so vaccine Apartheid begins.

It works both ways I would imagine.

If you need to be double vaccinated and have to prove it with some sort of documentation or digital certificate before gaining entry to a business/venue/whatever, the business will need to have so many ticks or approvals along side their QR code indicating that all the employees or at least the people you will come in contact with have similar credentials.

If this is not mandated then businesses that cannot provide that assurance may very well suffer as many people may choose to use a business that can provide that assurance.

Might even get down to, "You show me yours and I'll show you mine". :blush:

 

[Tim Sheens]

What are they doing about compulsory vaccination for employees? Is there any point in restricting access to vaccinated customers only if unvaccinated employees are allowed to turn up for work each day?

Employees in the businesses opening up must be double vaxxed.

And so vaccine Apartheid begins.

Discrimination based on whether you were in certain age groups, lived in particular areas, schooling, technological abilities, lucky and failure of others. Sure, that sounds like a really fair way to decide who can do what, where and when.

I hate the idea that I amongst many other people will be offered advantages over others less fortunate in acquiring their vaccinations. Then of course the separate question of the rights of those that choose not to get vaccinated comes after everyone has had the opportunity to receive both doses.

 

[Tiger5150]

I don't agree with individual details being broadcast daily.

The bigger conversion though should be the FOI request confirmation that our government was approached by Pfizer in June last bloody year.

We should have all had the opportunity to be vaccinated months ago and not been in lockdown because of this failure and that of quarantine, so a ministry head needs to roll.

FG I know you never miss a chance to stick it into the Feds but last year they had the chance to buy from Pfizer or manufacture our own here. It made a lot of sense at the time to do what they did. The clotting issue wasnt known at the time.

It made sense, unfortunately It fell to bits.

Certainly correct on the first bit and partially agree on a bit more. Thing is they were wrong by not hedging on a wide variety of options and particularly because we were always going to be able to utilise ***any potential excess as part of our humanitarian programs.***

$2 billion for more than enough Pfizer to double dose the entire eligible population with plenty left over is less than it is costing our nation each and every week at the moment.

I dont think this is practical as Pfizer has very onerous transport and storage requirements as well as short shelf life. Another part of the overall picture.

 

[Tiger5150]

Prof on 9 just a minute ago believes Sydney will be in lockdown until Christmas, perhaps a bit longer. He said when vaccination rates hit 70%, numbers must be reduced and the Doherty modelling suggested 30 per day was an acceptable figure. It seems someone is not telling the public the truth.

Interesting, the head of Doherty came out a week ago and said you can re-open with more cases but with some trade-offs:

https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/reopening-with-hundreds-of-cases-is-safe-doherty-20210824-p58ld9

But reading the article...

Opening with high vaccination rates and good testing, contact tracing etc: 13 deaths

Opening with 70% coverage and less than ideal contact tracing and testing: 1457 deaths

Personally I find it extremely offensive to effectively tell over 1400 Aussies who are elderly, disabled, unwell, war veterans or Aboriginal that they don't matter as much as opening up so Gerry Harvey making can make a few more bucks from Christmas sales.

Its not about Gerry Harvey at all, that is ridiculous.

Gerry is fine, in fact he is probably loving this lockdown. He has a massive company that is able to sell online with lower labour costs while the government pays his employees. He is relaxing with Katie onhis Hunter Valley property thinking life is good.

Meanwhile the majority of businesses are small businesses, mums and dads and the majority of them are shut down without options whilst rents, mortgages and loans clean them out.

The Government is haemorrhaging money and going further and further into debt that can not be paid back by even our childrens generation. The US Government is screwing it economy with insane spending with their debt approaching 97%GDP.

What people dont consider is this. Whats next. Exeryone accepts massive Govt bail outs, business lockdowns etc because THIS (the pandemic) is a very bad thing and we need to get past THIS. What if it gets worse? What if we do get past this and there is a global recession/depression in two years. What if a new virus hits in 5 years. There is zero resilience left in the economy or society because we have thrown everything at this.

People need to accept that we can and should do all we can, vaccinate as high as possible and then get back working.

I'll try and keep my response on topic with diverting to politics.

Economy and health are not mutually exclusive policy outcomes.

That is ridiculous, of course they are and I can prove it. Why are we currently locked down? How about you and I meet at a pub or a cafe and discuss this? Because to achieve the health outcome, we need to exclude the economy. It is the definition of mutually exclusive at the moment.

The two are very connected and plenty of economists have shown this although all you can see it in a simple example:

An entire factory catches a hypothetical infectious disease due to poor workplace health and safety measures. Every staff member needs to stay at home for three weeks and production halts..

Clearly a poor health outcome has led to a very bad economic outcome. I know because this happened to my previous business.

The optimal economic solution is to have low cases and resulting time off work (best health outcome) and economic activity. This is exactly what's happening in QLD while most of NSW has shut down for three months.

The Doherty report actually says lockdowns will be continue if cases are high due to pressure on the hospital system, which is the worst economic and health outcome.


The optimal health outcome approach with 13 deaths means you don't have to lockdown which as you pointed out, hurts business.

Where are you getting this figure of 13 deaths as an optimal health outcome from? How do you achieve the *optimal* health outcome without lockdowns?

It's in the Doherty report.

High vaccination rates and low cases allow you to test, trace and isolate and manage Covid without needing to lockdown.


Additionally, the less than optimal health approach has a massive cost to business in terms of productivity and sick leave payments, with much higher numbers of people needing to take weeks off work sick.

Again I need you to explain to me how the optimal health outcome doesnt include lockdowns that impact business and the economy.


And hypothetically, I couldn't care less if my local kebab shop needs to close their doors if it means a thousand plus battlers are saved.

The kebab shop owners arent battlers? Hairdressers arent battlers?

How do your "battlers" derive an income and feed their kids? Are they self employed? Do they have a boss? Even if they have their hand out to the Govt they are reliant on the economy not tanking and there is no resilience.

People need to get vaxxed and then people will need to get back to work. Genuinely cant understand the argument against it. Where do you think money comes from?

Seems like we both agree on the outcome, but not the details.

I'm not at all convinced that waiting a little bit longer, especially with government financial support, will send the local kebab shop or hairdresser to the point of not being able to feed their kids.

The thing is, if you effectively "let rip" with relatively low vaccination rates and from a high number of cases, (again, this is all in the Doherty report) you get higher deaths, more people taking time off work, massive strain on the hospital system and most likely lockdowns.

Interesting to see the news overnight that Gladys has overruled the health advice, which I suspect said similar to the par above.

I think the difference between our positions is semantics, but important and relevant. You argued for the *optimal* **medical** outcome.

The *optimal* **medical** outcome is zero cases and deaths. To the extent that this is impractical the optimal medical outcome is the absolute medical outcome is the bare minimum cases and deaths. This IS mutually exclusive with societal or economic outcomes because to achieve the optimal medical outcome you must lockdown hard.

I agree with you that the optimal economic outcome isnt the opposite (due to the requirement to keep people at work) but they are different and somewhere in the middle is the "sweet spot".

Where the semantic difference is IMO is when you are stating the optimal medical outcome, you really mean the optimal overall outcome and Im on board with that.

Im not advocating an "open the gates" no matter what strategy, but after 80% vaccination I am suggesting we start in that direction and of course monitor and adjust based on medical cases.

My point isnt "get back to work no matter what" but there is a massive difference in the paradigm of peoples thinking between where we are now and where we need to be IMO.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Icare are the worst workers comp organisation that I have had for 30 yrs … no one seems to talk about the new premiums that an employer will need to pay !
So what will the new policy cover .. Vaccinated and unvaccinated?
And the premium is worked out on total wages paid including all super … plus claims history.
After 30yrs of dealing with workers comp a nightmare is on the horizon do not believe any of it as Icare will be bankrupt in 6 months !

it is SIRA that underwrites it and it depends if you are a conventional premium (which sounds like you are) vs a LPR