QANTAS will only allow vaccinated people fly

[ScarfaceClaw]

Alright Novak Djokovic or Pete Evans, whatever your name is. Calm down.

[Grandpa]

Anti-vaxers can take a driving holiday in their own country next year.

This.

Good move by Qantas imho. Who would be selfish enough to not get a safe available vaccine but then expect to fly in a plane full of other people who did get it?

I don’t understand this .... if they have been vaccinated then they are protected from the unvaccinated no ?

What’s the point in getting the jab if it does fuck all ?

What about young children that can't be vaccinated, but can fly?

Only takes one non-vaccinated adult to ruin it for everyone...

[bok_viking]

In the end of the day, as soon as the vaccines is available for use around the world, i expect that most countries will most likely have a requirement for a vaccination certificate to travel. So if you hate vaccines, tough luck, you most likely will have to stay at home for quite a while or only go to places that allows you to drive there.

I really do not see an issue with this at all, there are still countries that require vaccination certificates for all kinds of diseases. and I have had to do my fair share of shots over the years to visit several countries around the world. That list of countries have become much shorter over the years, so a lot of people seem to forget that such rules/;laws exist. In my opinion this complaint about getting vaccinated before you travel internationally is a modern first world "problem" People creating mountains out of ant hills come to mind.

[Steve]

This.

Good move by Qantas imho. Who would be selfish enough to not get a safe available vaccine but then expect to fly in a plane full of other people who did get it?

I don’t understand this .... if they have been vaccinated then they are protected from the unvaccinated no ?

What’s the point in getting the jab if it does fuck all ?

What about young children that can't be vaccinated, but can fly?

Only takes one non-vaccinated adult to ruin it for everyone...

Surely the policy applies to them kids also? They could transmit the virus? They wont be allowed on the flight.

[Saint]

I don’t understand this .... if they have been vaccinated then they are protected from the unvaccinated no ?

What’s the point in getting the jab if it does fuck all ?

What about young children that can't be vaccinated, but can fly?

Only takes one non-vaccinated adult to ruin it for everyone...

Surely the policy applies to them kids also? They could transmit the virus? They wont be allowed on the flight.

None of the vaccines have been tested o children yet. That's a whole different round of studies to determine safety and dose levels. Children's immune systems work differently in a lot of cases

[Steve]

What about young children that can't be vaccinated, but can fly?

Only takes one non-vaccinated adult to ruin it for everyone...

Surely the policy applies to them kids also? They could transmit the virus? They wont be allowed on the flight.

None of the vaccines have been tested o children yet. That's a whole different round of studies to determine safety and dose levels. Children's immune systems work differently in a lot of cases

Im not disputing that. But if the policy is to be consistent then the kids cant board the flight. "anti vaxxers" and unvaccinated children carry the same risk to others no?

[Hal Jordan]

Child free flights. A return to more civilised times.

[Thor Sedan]

But this isn't a new thing. All airlines have restrictions on boarding if vaccinations aren't up to date?

You can't fly to numerous destinations unless you have a Yellow Fever vaccination - you don't get to be anti-vax......sorry - pro choice about that?

So what is the difference?

[Steve]

But this isn't a new thing. All airlines have restrictions on boarding if vaccinations aren't up to date?

You can't fly to numerous destinations unless you have a Yellow Fever vaccination - you don't get to be anti-vax......sorry - pro choice about that?

So what is the difference?

is that the policy of the destination or the airline?

In this instance the airline has pre-imposed this before the government has ( im sure they will)

And If so, what of 5th freedom rights? If QANTAS operate their old LAX-JFK leg they will be imposing aussie preferences on a US leg of a flight.

Or Air New Zealand's old London to LA leg.

Whats legal in one jurisdiction can be a can of worms in another.

[Steve]

Will Australia make it mandatory to have received the vaccine to be allowed enter the country? A previous issue with Kuwait airlines was that the country didn't recognise the existence of Israel, and as such staff could not accept Israeli passports. This was fine on flights to or from Kuwait itself because that was the law of Kuwait. Where they got caught was on the 5th freedom flights between LHR-JFK, where both countries recognised the State of Israel and therefore KAC were ruled to be discriminating. This is allegedly one of the reasons KAC moved the LHR stopover to Shannon. If say the UAE and UK do not bring in any rules about mandatory vaccination then pax will have a leg to stand on for Qantas 5th freedom flights between the 2, but not on flights to or from Oz if the country brings in vaccination requirements.

If the country of origin of the airline brings in legislation around vaccination, the airline employees will be obliged to follow it or potentially be in breach of contract.

[Biffer]

Smarmy cunt.

He's right though.

plenty of people have posted their own views without resorting to being a smart arse. its one thing to differ in opinion. its another to be a supercilious prick.

He could be right but there is no need for the associated condescension.

Is there a valid opinion in favour of being a dick about covid?

[Steve]

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

Theres also the fact that a huge % of the population in most countries is saying it won't take the vaccine:

In the US - only 38% would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available. - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/20...-take-it-15103

In France - A recent Ipos study found that just 54 percent of French people say they would get a Covid-19 vaccine -- https://www.france24.com/en/france/2...ine-scepticism

In the UK - 36% of people in the UK said they were either uncertain (27%) or very unlikely (9%) to be vaccinated against the virus -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-covid-19-jab

etc. I'd question how many airlines will rule out 30-50% of potential customers.



The debate is definitely more nuanced than virtuous vaxxers vs "being a dick anti vaxxers".

[PornDog]

Stopped reading the thread halfway down the first page as, you know, stupid people! But my thoughts for the record

Your body your choice.

Your airline - your choice.

They're not taking this action just to be pricks - they're taking it both to protect people but also their own bottom line. If they don't, will passengers have faith in travelling? Many wont. If someone catches it on a flight and QANTAS haven't taken every reasonable measure (especially if other airlines have) are they open to litigation? Probably, which even if they win will cost them hugely in negative publicity and lost faith in flying. This is a no brainer for anyone with a brain.

You have the choice to not get vaccinated - just as you have the choice to not wear clothes. But if you make contrarian prima donna choices just because you are a massive bell end then you are going to be limited in what you can do - be that flying or leaving the house!

[Thor Sedan]

Will Australia make it mandatory to have received the vaccine to be allowed enter the country? A previous issue with Kuwait airlines was that the country didn't recognise the existence of Israel, and as such staff could not accept Israeli passports. This was fine on flights to or from Kuwait itself because that was the law of Kuwait. Where they got caught was on the 5th freedom flights between LHR-JFK, where both countries recognised the State of Israel and therefore KAC were ruled to be discriminating. This is allegedly one of the reasons KAC moved the LHR stopover to Shannon. If say the UAE and UK do not bring in any rules about mandatory vaccination then pax will have a leg to stand on for Qantas 5th freedom flights between the 2, but not on flights to or from Oz if the country brings in vaccination requirements.

If the country of origin of the airline brings in legislation around vaccination, the airline employees will be obliged to follow it or potentially be in breach of contract.

You're over thinking it. Just take the tested vaccine. If you want to wait to see some stats regarding the safety - then wait until you are satisfied and then travel.

Some airlines will impose this rule - others may not. There will be exemptions available.

Amazingly this world as a whole actually doesn't give a flying toss about your feelings or your 'pro-choice' stance. Decisions are made for the majority, not the vocal minority. This is a pandemic - whether you believe it or not. The vaccines are tested to be safe - whether you believe it or not. Airlines are allowed to protect their passengers - whether you think they are doing it correctly or not.

Boycott the airline, start up a facebook page, contact your local politician, write a letter to the Prime Minister or President or whoever....your opinion means nothing.....nothing at all except to you and a couple of other people that might agree with you.

If the rule is you need to travel with vaccine proof - then that is what you will have to do. The end.

Other than that - you are just yelling at clouds dude.

[Steve]

Will Australia make it mandatory to have received the vaccine to be allowed enter the country? A previous issue with Kuwait airlines was that the country didn't recognise the existence of Israel, and as such staff could not accept Israeli passports. This was fine on flights to or from Kuwait itself because that was the law of Kuwait. Where they got caught was on the 5th freedom flights between LHR-JFK, where both countries recognised the State of Israel and therefore KAC were ruled to be discriminating. This is allegedly one of the reasons KAC moved the LHR stopover to Shannon. If say the UAE and UK do not bring in any rules about mandatory vaccination then pax will have a leg to stand on for Qantas 5th freedom flights between the 2, but not on flights to or from Oz if the country brings in vaccination requirements.

If the country of origin of the airline brings in legislation around vaccination, the airline employees will be obliged to follow it or potentially be in breach of contract.

You're over thinking it. Just take the tested vaccine. If you want to wait to see some stats regarding the safety - then wait until you are satisfied and then travel.

Some airlines will impose this rule - others may not. There will be exemptions available.

Amazingly this world as a whole actually doesn't give a flying toss about your feelings or your 'pro-choice' stance. Decisions are made for the majority, not the vocal minority. This is a pandemic - whether you believe it or not. The vaccines are tested to be safe - whether you believe it or not. Airlines are allowed to protect their passengers - whether you think they are doing it correctly or not.

Boycott the airline, start up a facebook page, contact your local politician, write a letter to the Prime Minister or President or whoever....your opinion means nothing.....nothing at all except to you and a couple of other people that might agree with you.

If the rule is you need to travel with vaccine proof - then that is what you will have to do. The end.

Other than that - you are just yelling at clouds dude.

I appreciate your civil response but I have a question/critique.

Contradictory to your claim......is'nt this decision being made for the minority ?

It's not dangerous to the majority of people as borne out by the data.

[Saint]

Surely the policy applies to them kids also? They could transmit the virus? They wont be allowed on the flight.

None of the vaccines have been tested o children yet. That's a whole different round of studies to determine safety and dose levels. Children's immune systems work differently in a lot of cases

Im not disputing that. But if the policy is to be consistent then the kids cant board the flight. "anti vaxxers" and unvaccinated children carry the same risk to others no?

You're drawing a false comparison. By that standard, Quantas shouldn;t bee carrying anyone at all today - because they're not vaccinated. That's because a vaccine isn't available to them. There isn;t an option for children to be vaccinated, so they can;t enforce that restriction on them. But if a vaccine is available to you and you choose not to take it, they choose not to fly you.

It's all irrelevant really as, as I've already pointed out, the chances of this not being a government condition for entry are pretty much 0

[Grandpa]

What if you test positive for Covid.. and then get the vaccine the day after?

[Steve]

None of the vaccines have been tested o children yet. That's a whole different round of studies to determine safety and dose levels. Children's immune systems work differently in a lot of cases

Im not disputing that. But if the policy is to be consistent then the kids cant board the flight. "anti vaxxers" and unvaccinated children carry the same risk to others no?

You're drawing a false comparison. By that standard, Quantas shouldn;t bee carrying anyone at all today - because they're not vaccinated. That's because a vaccine isn't available to them. There isn;t an option for children to be vaccinated, so they can;t enforce that restriction on them. But if a vaccine is available to you and you choose not to take it, they choose not to fly you.

It's all irrelevant really as, as I've already pointed out, the chances of this not being a government condition for entry are pretty much 0

fair point . i suppose that would cover them .

What age are the vaccines legal for ? over 18's?

[Saint]

Theres also the issue of what if you've already had covid. If someone can prove that through having had a positive covid test, or positive antibody test, why should they be forced to pay for (and take) a vaccine to fly?

Given almost 60million people have had confirmed covid now, and plenty more have done positive antibody tests on top of that, I'd be curious to see how that argument would go against Qantas.

Theres also the fact that a huge % of the population in most countries is saying it won't take the vaccine:

In the US - only 38% would get a coronavirus vaccine if one became available. - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/20...-take-it-15103

In France - A recent Ipos study found that just 54 percent of French people say they would get a Covid-19 vaccine -- https://www.france24.com/en/france/2...ine-scepticism

In the UK - 36% of people in the UK said they were either uncertain (27%) or very unlikely (9%) to be vaccinated against the virus -- https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-covid-19-jab

etc. I'd question how many airlines will rule out 30-50% of potential customers.



The debate is definitely more nuanced than virtuous vaxxers vs "being a dick anti vaxxers".

If that means that the remaining 50%-70% are more likely to feel safe travelling then they would bite their arms off.

[Biffer]

What if you test positive for Covid.. and then get the vaccine the day after?

Then you've got covid. Vaccines don't treat disease.

[Saint]

Im not disputing that. But if the policy is to be consistent then the kids cant board the flight. "anti vaxxers" and unvaccinated children carry the same risk to others no?

You're drawing a false comparison. By that standard, Quantas shouldn;t bee carrying anyone at all today - because they're not vaccinated. That's because a vaccine isn't available to them. There isn;t an option for children to be vaccinated, so they can;t enforce that restriction on them. But if a vaccine is available to you and you choose not to take it, they choose not to fly you.

It's all irrelevant really as, as I've already pointed out, the chances of this not being a government condition for entry are pretty much 0

fair point . i suppose that would cover them .

What age are the vaccines legal for ? over 18's?

They're currently not legal for ANYBODY, to be pendantic. Each vaccine Phase II trial had different age ranges. Astrazeneca was 18+, Pfizer was 12+, Moperna was 20+. The likelihood would be that they take the AstraZeneca age as the boundary, seeing as it will be both the most widely available, cheapest, and the age naturally aligns to many countries definition of a minor vs an adult

[Steve]

You're drawing a false comparison. By that standard, Quantas shouldn;t bee carrying anyone at all today - because they're not vaccinated. That's because a vaccine isn't available to them. There isn;t an option for children to be vaccinated, so they can;t enforce that restriction on them. But if a vaccine is available to you and you choose not to take it, they choose not to fly you.

It's all irrelevant really as, as I've already pointed out, the chances of this not being a government condition for entry are pretty much 0

fair point . i suppose that would cover them .

What age are the vaccines legal for ? over 18's?

They're currently not legal for ANYBODY, to be pendantic. Each vaccine Phase II trial had different age ranges. Astrazeneca was 18+, Pfizer was 12+, Moperna was 20+. The likelihood would be that they take the AstraZeneca age as the boundary, seeing as it will be both the most widely available, cheapest, and the age naturally aligns to many countries definition of a minor vs an adult

would they be open to litigation if they had over 12's onboard unvaccinated and there was an outbreak attributed to the flight as other posters have mentioned as a possible reason for this mitigation strategy?

If there is a pfizer vaccine available for ages 12+ then it should be used. The concession offered earlier was that there was no vax available to kids.

But if pfizer have one made they should be obliged to take it to maintain the integrity of the policy they are trying to implement. in for a penny in for a pound.

[lilyw]

Out of interest, what specifically is the discrimination in this instance.

Covid is not a notifiable disease. So they are forcing you to undertake a medical procedure for which you may have no use (e.g. you might have already had Covid & hence be immune anyway) simply to fly.

When I heard this interview today I immediately thought that this is a step over the line. Airlines don't demand proof of vaccination even when flying into known areas of tropical disease infestation & there is a government requirement - why should Covid be different? I don't normally subscribe to "thin end of the wedge" arguments - however I think that this is definitely one. Private companies should not be making public health policy.

[Insane_Homer]

Child free flights. A return to more civilised times.

Arsehole and child free flights! Where do I pay?

[Steve]

Out of interest, what specifically is the discrimination in this instance.

Covid is not a notifiable disease. So they are forcing you to undertake a medical procedure for which you may have no use (e.g. you might have already had Covid & hence be immune anyway) simply to fly.

When I heard this interview today I immediately thought that this is a step over the line. Airlines don't demand proof of vaccination even when flying into known areas of tropical disease infestation & there is a government requirement - why should Covid be different? I don't normally subscribe to "thin end of the wedge" arguments - however I think that this is definitely one. Private companies should not be making public health policy.

You have articulated it far better than me.

[Saint]

fair point . i suppose that would cover them .

What age are the vaccines legal for ? over 18's?

They're currently not legal for ANYBODY, to be pendantic. Each vaccine Phase II trial had different age ranges. Astrazeneca was 18+, Pfizer was 12+, Moperna was 20+. The likelihood would be that they take the AstraZeneca age as the boundary, seeing as it will be both the most widely available, cheapest, and the age naturally aligns to many countries definition of a minor vs an adult

would they be open to litigation if they had over 12's onboard unvaccinated and there was an outbreak attributed to the flight as other posters have mentioned as a possible reason for this mitigation strategy?

If there is a pfizer vaccine available for ages 12+ then it should be used. The concession offered earlier was that there was no vax available to kids.

But if pfizer have one made they should be obliged to take it to maintain the integrity of the policy they are trying to implement. in for a penny in for a pound.

Pfizer vaccine is never likely to be widely available. If there is limited to no supply then you can't possibly mandate it as a condition of travel

[Grandpa]

What if you test positive for Covid.. and then get the vaccine the day after?

Then you've got covid. Vaccines don't treat disease.

haha... true... but at least you can fly with Qantas!

[Torquemada 1420]

In the end of the day, as soon as the vaccines is available for use around the world, i expect that most countries will most likely have a requirement for a vaccination certificate to travel. So if you hate vaccines, tough luck, you most likely will have to stay at home for quite a while or only go to places that allows you to drive there.

I really do not see an issue with this at all, there are still countries that require vaccination certificates for all kinds of diseases. and I have had to do my fair share of shots over the years to visit several countries around the world. That list of countries have become much shorter over the years, so a lot of people seem to forget that such rules/;laws exist. In my opinion this complaint about getting vaccinated before you travel internationally is a modern first world "problem" People creating mountains out of ant hills come to mind.

That is a different thing i.e. a policy that is enforced nationally is the business of that country and, yeah, it very much is a case of "don't like it, don't go".

[Bimbowomxn]

This.

Good move by Qantas imho. Who would be selfish enough to not get a safe available vaccine but then expect to fly in a plane full of other people who did get it?

I don’t understand this .... if they have been vaccinated then they are protected from the unvaccinated no ?

What’s the point in getting the jab if it does fuck all ?

What about young children that can't be vaccinated, but can fly?

Only takes one non-vaccinated adult to ruin it for everyone...

No one under 18 is getting vaccinated in the UK.


They’ll be plenty not able to take the vaccine due to health exemptions.

[lilyw]

In the end of the day, as soon as the vaccines is available for use around the world, i expect that most countries will most likely have a requirement for a vaccination certificate to travel. So if you hate vaccines, tough luck, you most likely will have to stay at home for quite a while or only go to places that allows you to drive there.

I really do not see an issue with this at all, there are still countries that require vaccination certificates for all kinds of diseases. and I have had to do my fair share of shots over the years to visit several countries around the world. That list of countries have become much shorter over the years, so a lot of people seem to forget that such rules/;laws exist. In my opinion this complaint about getting vaccinated before you travel internationally is a modern first world "problem" People creating mountains out of ant hills come to mind.

I'm perfectly fine with that. I simply repeat my point - private companies should not be setting public health policy. That is a matter for governments as they have accountability to match the authority.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm perfectly fine with that. I simply repeat my point - private companies should not be setting public health policy. That is a matter for governments as they have accountability to match the authority.

A point that seems beyond some people's grasp.

[Saint]

In the end of the day, as soon as the vaccines is available for use around the world, i expect that most countries will most likely have a requirement for a vaccination certificate to travel. So if you hate vaccines, tough luck, you most likely will have to stay at home for quite a while or only go to places that allows you to drive there.

I really do not see an issue with this at all, there are still countries that require vaccination certificates for all kinds of diseases. and I have had to do my fair share of shots over the years to visit several countries around the world. That list of countries have become much shorter over the years, so a lot of people seem to forget that such rules/;laws exist. In my opinion this complaint about getting vaccinated before you travel internationally is a modern first world "problem" People creating mountains out of ant hills come to mind.

I'm perfectly fine with that. I simply repeat my point - private companies should not be setting public health policy. That is a matter for governments as they have accountability to match the authority.

They're not setting public health policy. They're setting a policy for their customers that they hope will reassure them about the level of risk involved with purchasing their service

[Lemoentjie]

This is a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. 'Owning the anti-vax' might get you a few Twitter retweets, but this is really not a good idea. To start with, it discriminates against people who are not offered a covid vaccine for free by their country,.

[Guy Smiley]

This is not discrimination, nor is it ‘setting public policy’.

It’s a business outlining the conditions around how it does its business.

No one is forced to do business with them.

No one is actually doing business with them currently on any meaningful scale, by the way. They’re flailing to survive.

[Steve]

This is not discrimination, nor is it ‘setting public policy’.

It’s a business outlining the conditions around how it does its business.

No one is forced to do business with them.

No one is actually doing business with them currently on any meaningful scale, by the way. They’re flailing to survive.

the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket for them......

[Guy Smiley]

This is not discrimination, nor is it ‘setting public policy’.

It’s a business outlining the conditions around how it does its business.

No one is forced to do business with them.

No one is actually doing business with them currently on any meaningful scale, by the way. They’re flailing to survive.

the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket for them......

And the relevance of that comment would be...?

[Steve]

This is not discrimination, nor is it ‘setting public policy’.

It’s a business outlining the conditions around how it does its business.

No one is forced to do business with them.

No one is actually doing business with them currently on any meaningful scale, by the way. They’re flailing to survive.

the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket for them......

And the relevance of that comment would be...?

it is in response to " no one is forced to do business with them"

Unfortunately many were not given the choice. They got their greasy mits on the unvaccinated publics money.

Maybe they should have been left fend for them selves and plough a lonely furrough like people who don't get the jab will have to?

[Saint]

This is not discrimination, nor is it ‘setting public policy’.

It’s a business outlining the conditions around how it does its business.

No one is forced to do business with them.

No one is actually doing business with them currently on any meaningful scale, by the way. They’re flailing to survive.

the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket for them......

Therefore they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to get the business turned around as rapidly as possible. They believe that this is the correct route to do this.

[Enzedder]

Against people who are reticent to take a vaccine that has been produced in a remarkably short space of time .

As the pro abortion women were shouting in Ireland two years ago “ my body my choice “

The same applies no ?

"My body, my choice if I spread covid to those who cannot get vaccinated"



Get the vaccine and enjoy your flight

If they cant get vaccinated they wont be allowed on the flight either. Bizarre logic.

Do you honestly think those people are out flying around the world - hell, they are probably terrified of going shopping. How about you give them a TINY bit of consideration?

[Torquemada 1420]

They're not setting public health policy. They're setting a policy for their customers that they hope will reassure them about the level of risk involved with purchasing their service

I look forward to your defence of KKK Air in the same manner.