NPR

Grandpa wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:31 pm

Yeeb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:25 pm What’s this about fingering female passengers ?!

Frowned upon by many... but as yet, no announcement by Qantas...

*Hercules Disappointed gif*

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:22 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:51 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:45 am

People are stupid. No shock there.

Isn't this someone trying to be funny and failing very badly?

Same problem - people are thick

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:47 am No

Firstly the Banks provide an absolutely critical service to the economy as whole. Without the banks there is no economy. But in that case it was also clear that they did then screw over the public

Airlines don't provide a critical service. But it's also completely unclear to me how you think that this would be screwing over the public


The closest equivalent to this I can think of for the airline industry is inflight smoking. Some airlines banned inflight smoking way before any government legislation came in to force. In some cases this was presented as a flight/safety risk, and in some cases it was presented as a passenger comfort issue. There was lots of wailing at the time about airlines taking choice away and enforcing their views on the majority. Today it's completely un-controversial - of course they banned smoking. Now I know that's not the perfect analogy to this, but it's the closest I can think of

We'll leave the debate about banks providing critical services for another thread!!!

Anyway, that's not central to my point which was that having received a public bailout then as a critical stakeholder (there would be no business otherwise), I think the public, via Govt, has a right to input on all aspects of policy.

Smoking really was a safety risk. I don't recall any airline branding it any other way. They didn't care about health from smoking but did care about
- getting their arses sued if a plane went down in flames
- the costs of cleaning and refurbing kit like a/c conduits etc

I get where you are heading but preventing smoking was preventing a certain threat to safety. Preventing un-vaxed is only an uncertain threat. There is also a difference in stopping someone doing something and coercing/forcing him to take a medical treatment.

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:14 am And has been stated above - proof of vaccine has been and continues in some parts of the world to be a prerequisite for flying to/entering certain countries. Its nothing new. The world didn't end then and it wont end now (from this at least).

But beyond that, I can't send my kid to the creche if they have a fever. Is the creche setting public health rules? Or are they just employing sensible health precautions that protects both their customers and their bottom line!

This is such a stupid debate!

As has already been stated multiple times, Govts/countries setting their own health policy is not the same as an individual enterprise in a territory doing so unilaterally.

Errrr. You kid HAS a fever. You struggling to grasp the difference from being contaminated and being demanded to take a treatment for a contamination you do not have? Oh, and I bet your kid has been to the creche with a cold or even the beginnings of flu.

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:05 pm

Gumboot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:20 pm Sod personal choice here. We've all had to make sacrifices to survive this thing. Anti-vaxers can all go fuck themselves.

Just my take.

You mean the 99.5% who were going to survive anyway??

99.9% I'll have you know.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:01 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:47 am No

Firstly the Banks provide an absolutely critical service to the economy as whole. Without the banks there is no economy. But in that case it was also clear that they did then screw over the public

Airlines don't provide a critical service. But it's also completely unclear to me how you think that this would be screwing over the public


The closest equivalent to this I can think of for the airline industry is inflight smoking. Some airlines banned inflight smoking way before any government legislation came in to force. In some cases this was presented as a flight/safety risk, and in some cases it was presented as a passenger comfort issue. There was lots of wailing at the time about airlines taking choice away and enforcing their views on the majority. Today it's completely un-controversial - of course they banned smoking. Now I know that's not the perfect analogy to this, but it's the closest I can think of

We'll leave the debate about banks providing critical services for another thread!!!

Anyway, that's not central to my point which was that having received a public bailout then as a critical stakeholder (there would be no business otherwise), I think the public, via Govt, has a right to input on all aspects of policy.

Smoking really was a safety risk. I don't recall any airline branding it any other way. They didn't care about health from smoking but did care about
- getting their arses sued if a plane went down in flames
- the costs of cleaning and refurbing kit like a/c conduits etc

I get where you are heading but preventing smoking was preventing a certain threat to safety. Preventing un-vaxed is only an uncertain threat. There is also a difference in stopping someone doing something and coercing/forcing him to take a medical treatment.

1 - If you wantto return the business to a healthy operating position and get your money back as quickly as possible then you need to leave them to do their thing. Or you could fully nationalise it
2 - No-one has any idea as to whether this is or isn't a popular idea in Australia. It could well be that even if they were given the choice they would support this.

On the smoking piece I agree that some of the reasoning was safety - but a lot of the early calls for it came from the flight attendant unions who were suffering serious health problems, especially once planes became segregated into smoking and non=smoking zones. In the US trhey7 banned it, then un-banned it again as they got so many protests and didn't see it as a major safety issue
3 - N o-one will be forced. For domestic, people will have the option of Virgin Australia who are desperate to regain market share, and if this is an unpopular decision then Virgin Oz will do very well out of it. For international travel there's also lots of alternatives

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:05 pm

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:14 am And has been stated above - proof of vaccine has been and continues in some parts of the world to be a prerequisite for flying to/entering certain countries. Its nothing new. The world didn't end then and it wont end now (from this at least).

But beyond that, I can't send my kid to the creche if they have a fever. Is the creche setting public health rules? Or are they just employing sensible health precautions that protects both their customers and their bottom line!

This is such a stupid debate!

As has already been stated multiple times, Govts/countries setting their own health policy is not the same as an individual enterprise in a territory doing so unilaterally.

What's the difference? One is a country acting in the best interests of the health of its citizens and also its economy. The other is a business acting in the best interests of its customers and its profits. Seriously, what's the fucking difference? Does a business not have the right (nay, even responsibility) to protect its customers and its bottom line? This revelation will be very bad news for their shareholders!

Errrr. You kid HAS a fever. You struggling to grasp the difference from being contaminated and being demanded to take a treatment for a contamination you do not have? Oh, and I bet your kid has been to the creche with a cold or even the beginnings of flu.

Again - what's the difference? Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, unvaccinated people present a real health risk to their customers and to their bottom line. So what's the difference?

Oh and vaccines aren't 'treatments' and you never take them for a contamination that you have - that's not how any vaccine works! I can't say I'm surprised that someone arguing your point has this basic and fundamental a misunderstanding of what vaccines actually are and how they work.

Also, nobody is demanding jack shit of anyone. Jack booted fuckwits aren't going to show up at your door and hold you down while they give you a shot. But if you want to fly with QANTAS (or with anyone else for that matter), you must abide by their terms of service. You'll also have to abide by your school or universities health code as well if you want to attend. Its not rocket science.

Oh, and I bet your kid has been to the creche with a cold or even the beginnings of flu.

What the fuck are you on about man? I mentioned fever because its relevant. I didn't mention colds because its not. You responded to me on the fever point! You've just tagged on a completely irrelevant sentence on to the end of your post as if its some kind of 'gotcha'!

One for you Saint

facebook DOT com/photo?fbid=10158670700856826&set=gm.1733946726772949

sorry. Can't get it to work any other way.

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:57 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:05 pm

PornDog wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:14 am And has been stated above - proof of vaccine has been and continues in some parts of the world to be a prerequisite for flying to/entering certain countries. Its nothing new. The world didn't end then and it wont end now (from this at least).

But beyond that, I can't send my kid to the creche if they have a fever. Is the creche setting public health rules? Or are they just employing sensible health precautions that protects both their customers and their bottom line!

This is such a stupid debate!

As has already been stated multiple times, Govts/countries setting their own health policy is not the same as an individual enterprise in a territory doing so unilaterally.

What's the difference? One is a country acting in the best interests of the health of its citizens and also its economy. The other is a business acting in the best interests of its customers and its profits. Seriously, what's the fucking difference? Does a business not have the right (nay, even responsibility) to protect its customers and its bottom line? This revelation will be very bad news for their shareholders!

Are you that thick? Seriously?

Exactly the response I was expecting