VK3AUU,

No. You can't brush it off that easily. Nobody who tells another that it's "about time you grew up and got a brain" believes that other people have a right to an opinion; nor do they have any respect for other people. 'Gauche' is the mildest description that could be applied to you. Shame on you.

Best to ignore VK3AUU, he’s mad.

Dan.

I can't see much sense in the anti-vax stance. My perspective is of antigenic challenge being something the immune system is always dealing with and vaccination a means of developing acquired immunity to dangerous pathogens without the need for exposure to them. I also think vaccination mandates draconian.

Dan,

Good diagnosis.

Fester,

You don't need to understand. People's personal choices are their business.

I am double vaxed and am having a booster in January. That's all I can do, and all I have to worry about. The non-vaccinated are not putting me at risk - that's why I got vaccinated - and I respect their right to make their own decisions about their health. I'm more concerned about what the hysterical political class and the "experts" come up with next. Wear a clove of garlic around our necks? Hop on one leg and and avoid the cracks in the footpath? These people don't have clue. Scaremongering and crossed fingers is all they are good at.

Cyclone

<< Secondly, the churches [and I am a Catholic], allows un-vaccinated people to attend Masses- which disproves the author's assertion of discrimination against the un-vaccinated. >>

Did you not read the article that you claim to disagree with? Graham specifically made that very point ... that the unvaccinated were still able to attend church. His 'assertion of discrimination' applied to the unvaccinated who work in churches and who are soon to be banned from doing so. His 'assertion of discrimination' stands.

ateday

<< You may have every right to protest and do what you think is right for you but you DO NOT have the right to endanger anyone else by your actions. >>

People who choose not to vaccinate are only endangering others if they also refuse to take other precautionary measures. Injections are only one of several ways to minimize Covid risk. Wearing masks and avoiding crowds and travel are other sensible precautions, as is strengthening ones own natural immunity. These precautions all require much more discipline and a much more sustained investment of time and money than merely baring ones arm for a pharmaceutical quick-fix. You have no right to claim that the unvaccinated are endangering others. You have no idea what other precautions they might be taking.

>Now, they are infecting the Christian churches even though they are illogical, ineffective, and un-Christian

Religion itself is illogical.

>The Work Health and Safety Act requires businesses to take reasonable steps to keep their premises healthy.

You seem to have fallen for the fallacy of whats required by law vs what you think is "logical" ? You can argue that in front of a Judge all day and lose, there's a reason Aristotle said law is mind without reason.

>If infectiousness is the critical factor, there is nothing to be achieved by excluding the unvaccinated

What ? That's an actual nonsense. Infection rates are much higher in the unvaccinated, hospitalisation rates are much higher and death rates are much higher at each stage an unvaccinate person puts their friends, family neighbors and the public at large in more danger. So if an unvaccinated person does catch Covid, they have a MUCH higher chance of giving it to someone else, perhaps a child or grandchild and killing them! Like in the case of Whooping Cough https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/baby-dies-of-whooping-cough-in-perth/6329244

I don't feel that unconformable with mandates, we've been having them since governance was invested. I can't go do electrical work at your church, for the same reason the electrician needs to be vaccinated, so they lower the risk of hurting others. Ensuring electricians are licensed won't stop people dying from electrical faults, it does however lower the risk.

Perhaps if this was a piece on organ recitals your opinion would carry some weight but unless you have a PhD in virology or a related field, overwhelmingly the experts hold a different view to yours. So you're going to need extraordinary evidence to refute the claims of most experts and none is presented here.

I don't think any of this has been argued in good faith, I can accept people feel uncomfortable with mandates, I do as well but then I did when they introduced compulsory seat belt laws, drink driving laws, gun legislation etc. The argument against mandates was lost the minute the country was colonised by the British.