I want to know what items and amounts he claimed on the invoice.
1 Like
This is the feeling im getting from our resident freedom fighter. Problem is they canât do their work until they get vaccinated, so the might be given the Tijuana brass before then.
1 Like
A few years back, so no, post surgery after an accident, to learn to walk again - It was the rehab one in Royal Park near the juvie. It took patients of all sorts, stroke, wheelchair bound etc. Used to get wheeled down to ground level down from the hill where the wards are, before I could walk again.
Downside was the disgusting food.
1 Like
thatâs got to start tracking on Facebook etc (if it isnât already) that pharmacies are the way to get a third shot⌠with follow up from media
People waiting for Novavax are kidding themselves. Perhaps it may be better, but if it is available - perhaps more likely since their collaboration with the Serum Institute of India - it will serve well as a booster.
COVID is spreading around now, and we need people vaxxed now. Novavax is not available now, and we wonât be seeing it this year.
2 Likes
Exactly. And they wonât have a job.
So itâs a dumb decision
Wife had a prospective client like that today trying to make an appointment.
Sorry, I can only offer a telephone consult was the response.
How do the doses get acquitted and registered on records?
Or does it get put down to spoilage ( and not paid per dose)?
One (1) shirt with a tea towel pattern - $14.75
1 Like
How you guys going before the big 2nd round? Anyone âthrobbinâ? How would you describe your excitement in one word?
4 Likes
Wrong thread 
3 Likes
Lol
1 Like
Quoting for posterity.
I donât know where you have to get jabbed to get that reaction.
3 Likes
Iâm waiting for the covid medicine to come in raspberry flavour.
1 Like
The teacherâs vax legal challenge looks like it is in real trouble (think we kinda knew this already)
âKitchen-sinkâ challenges to vaccine mandates unlikely to hold water
A pair of Victorians have taken the state government to court to challenge vaccine mandates for teachers. The plaintiffs clearly have very strong feelings against COVID-19 vaccination, and this seems to be driving a âkitchen-sinkâ approach to the litigation. They make many claims. Most are not on strong legal ground.
At first blush, there are some potentially legally valid claims made about rights in relation to vaccine mandates. But ultimately rights are almost always subject to balancing. A court that is faced with human rights claims will be aware that COVID-19 has caused untold social upheaval, economic catastrophe and â most of all â widespread death and morbidity.
We have had more than 1000 COVID deaths in Australia and will certainly have more as the pandemic continues. There is clear evidence that vaccines are protective against disease â not absolutely protective, but very significantly so.
True, there are a few unknowns around the health risks of the new vaccines â though so far serious side effects look very rare. However, there are very clear, and far greater, risks from COVID-19. And these risks present their own potential human rights concerns.
Letâs look at some of the more particular claims made by the plaintiffs.
They assert that âSection 51 (23A) of the Commonwealth Constitution prevents the authorisation of any form of civil conscriptionâ. This only applies to Commonwealth laws. It does not affect the powers of the states. And it has been interpreted by the High Court as applying specifically to the âconscriptionâ of doctors into public medical systems. Thatâs not what vaccine mandates are about.
The plaintiffs also say that âThe Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) s.9 refers to a person who imposes or proposes to impose a requirement or condition that is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging persons with an attribute under the Act, such as religious beliefs or valuesâ.
Here the importance of balancing becomes apparent. In Australia, even more than in other countries, we do not generally allow religious convictions to overrun public health and safety regulations.
The plaintiffs also bring in international law and organisations, citing UNESCO, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Nuremberg Code. These are not directly binding on the courts in Australia. International law could be a factor that courts consider, but it is far from a trump card. Again the question will be whether on balance the mandates are justified.
In any case, the plaintiffs may find international law gives more support to the Victorian government than it does to their own position. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that people with disabilities should have access to education.
Thatâs an important point: that kids with disabilities or underlying health concerns must be able to go to school. If there is a risk that they will fall severely ill due to vaccine-hesitant teachers, they will stay home. This raises a strong possibility of discrimination on the basis of disability. That point is already appearing in the US courts.
In the plaintiffsâ claims there are also broad assertions about the rule of law that will not impress the court. Indeed, a court will be annoyed at having to bat back claims that have very little detail and evidence to support them.
For instance, the claim that there is insufficient evidence about vaccination efficacy is almost certainly wrong. There is copious evidence and opinion on that from governments around the world, as well as from the World Health Organisation.
Finally, the plaintiffs make claims about why the Victorian measures are not âleast restrictiveâ â meaning that some alternative measure might have achieved the same effect with less impact on human rights. This kind of argument can be persuasive under some circumstances.
But the particulars of the plaintiffsâ arguments â such as that they have not had sufficient notice to seek alternative employment â strain credulity. Talk of vaccine mandates in Australia has been a constant since at least the start of August.
The plaintiffsâ claims that vaccine mandates will affect teacher âmoraleâ, as well, seem at best vague and unconvincing.
It is important to note that if Victoriaâs measures are found to be inconsistent with any state law, the State Parliament can generally change that law. Even in the very unlikely case of a win for the plaintiffs in this litigation, it would only momentarily delay the Victorian government doing what it wants to do.
The state government wants to protect the population from death and disease, and to end restrictions on movement due to lockdowns â which are significant human rights considerations weighing against the plaintiffsâ position.
Ultimately, the human rights balance to be struck is between the potential lost work of a group of people concerned about vaccines, against the vaccines themselves.
The vaccines are the only clear pathway we have out of lockdowns and widespread death and disease from COVID. This is the balance that will face the court.
It is likely that the court will back the Victorian government, either in whole or in part. Courts particularly tend to defer to governments in times of emergency, much like this one.
8 Likes
Iâd like a scientist explain to me how a kitchen sink cannot hold water.
Fanciful theory.
1 Like
As in kitchen sink drama, compared to the higher more refined aspects of the law?
Are you telling them to put a plug in it?
1 Like
Days of Our Lives producers have decided Gladys is irreplaceable.
Regular pressers scrapped, occasional cameos, news to be released at 9 am.
I will miss Kerry and Jeremy and Dr Gale - hope they can be cast in other roles.
3 Likes