Canberra Raiders' Joe Tapine still considering COVID vaccine options

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

FROG
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1594
Joined: April 7, 2008, 8:14 pm

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by FROG »

Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:13 pm Good. If you aren't double-jabbed by the time the season rolls around again, you mustn't have wanted it and a happy to wear the consequences. Time to move on with life (once we hit 80+% double-jabbed).
The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:13 pm Good. If you aren't double-jabbed by the time the season rolls around again, you mustn't have wanted it and a happy to wear the consequences. Time to move on with life (once we hit 80+% double-jabbed).
The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
The data already shows that the vaccine has caused more harm to kids than the virus itself... who knows what the long term implications will be on that moving forward? I personally think it's a great move for Barr not to mandate this and I think the other Premiers have gone mad tbh. There may be some cause to argue for a mandate if there were enough data to prove its long term safety but there simply isn't. The vaccine is available, we need to move on.
kona_dream
Clinton Schifcofske
Posts: 572
Joined: May 13, 2010, 2:31 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by kona_dream »

Raiders_Pat wrote: September 20, 2021, 10:27 am
FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm

The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
The data already shows that the vaccine has caused more harm to kids than the virus itself... who knows what the long term implications will be on that moving forward? I personally think it's a great move for Barr not to mandate this and I think the other Premiers have gone mad tbh. There may be some cause to argue for a mandate if there were enough data to prove its long term safety but there simply isn't. The vaccine is available, we need to move on.
Oh really you want to back that statement up with some reliable data?
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

kona_dream wrote: September 20, 2021, 10:34 am
Raiders_Pat wrote: September 20, 2021, 10:27 am
FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm

For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
The data already shows that the vaccine has caused more harm to kids than the virus itself... who knows what the long term implications will be on that moving forward? I personally think it's a great move for Barr not to mandate this and I think the other Premiers have gone mad tbh. There may be some cause to argue for a mandate if there were enough data to prove its long term safety but there simply isn't. The vaccine is available, we need to move on.
Oh really you want to back that statement up with some reliable data?
Yes, it was even reported in The Guardian... and they have been pushing the vax hard. The article is titled "Boys more at risk from Pffzier jab side-effect than Covid, suggests study". The medical data in the study showed that healthy boys aged 12-15 are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid. Data such as this is why the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation recommended not to vaccinate healthy 12-15 year olds.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by hrundi89 »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-study

I'd like to see a more detailed peer-reviewed report on this before we jump to conclusions.

This comment is misleading "The JCVI did not recommend vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds, but referred the matter to the UK’s chief medical officers who are expected to make a final decision next week."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... e-advisers

"Parents should choose whether they allow their children to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if ministers overrule scientific advice against mass vaccination of healthy 12- to 15-year-olds, the government’s independent vaccine advisers have said.

The government is set to push ahead with vaccinations for teenagers but Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said on Saturday that it was “entirely up to parents” to decide.

“The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks,” he told the Observer."

"Did not recommend" is not the same as "parents should choose".

This is the important part: “The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks".

The adverse effects are still "rare", and the benefits of having more of the population vaccinated with a reduced risk of illness and spread, then I know which side I'm on. If new data becomes available that changes the numbers then I'm all ears. With a 15yo daughter and a nearly 12yo son this is relevant to me.
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

hrundi89 wrote: September 20, 2021, 12:42 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-study

I'd like to see a more detailed peer-reviewed report on this before we jump to conclusions.

This comment is misleading "The JCVI did not recommend vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds, but referred the matter to the UK’s chief medical officers who are expected to make a final decision next week."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... e-advisers

"Parents should choose whether they allow their children to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if ministers overrule scientific advice against mass vaccination of healthy 12- to 15-year-olds, the government’s independent vaccine advisers have said.

The government is set to push ahead with vaccinations for teenagers but Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said on Saturday that it was “entirely up to parents” to decide.

“The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks,” he told the Observer."

"Did not recommend" is not the same as "parents should choose".

This is the important part: “The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks".

The adverse effects are still "rare", and the benefits of having more of the population vaccinated with a reduced risk of illness and spread, then I know which side I'm on. If new data becomes available that changes the numbers then I'm all ears. With a 15yo daughter and a nearly 12yo son this is relevant to me.
It's your choice but I definitely would not get my children vaccinated... maybe in five to ten years time once there is some solid safety data on this but I simply couldn't at this stage. And the JCVI advice is that they do not recommend the jab for 12-15 year olds. It's quite clear. Their statement:

"The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms. Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge."

Regarding “The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks" that is the assessment of the JCVI. The study showing that boys aged 12-15 are more at risk of vaccine injury than being hospitalised by COVID-19 is a US study. We will see how this plays out long term but we've already seen some horror stories in the short term.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by hrundi89 »

Raiders_Pat wrote: September 20, 2021, 1:43 pm
hrundi89 wrote: September 20, 2021, 12:42 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-study

I'd like to see a more detailed peer-reviewed report on this before we jump to conclusions.

This comment is misleading "The JCVI did not recommend vaccinating healthy 12 to 15-year-olds, but referred the matter to the UK’s chief medical officers who are expected to make a final decision next week."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... e-advisers

"Parents should choose whether they allow their children to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if ministers overrule scientific advice against mass vaccination of healthy 12- to 15-year-olds, the government’s independent vaccine advisers have said.

The government is set to push ahead with vaccinations for teenagers but Professor Anthony Harnden, the deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said on Saturday that it was “entirely up to parents” to decide.

“The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks,” he told the Observer."

"Did not recommend" is not the same as "parents should choose".

This is the important part: “The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks".

The adverse effects are still "rare", and the benefits of having more of the population vaccinated with a reduced risk of illness and spread, then I know which side I'm on. If new data becomes available that changes the numbers then I'm all ears. With a 15yo daughter and a nearly 12yo son this is relevant to me.
It's your choice but I definitely would not get my children vaccinated... maybe in five to ten years time once there is some solid safety data on this but I simply couldn't at this stage. And the JCVI advice is that they do not recommend the jab for 12-15 year olds. It's quite clear. Their statement:

"The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms. Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge."

Regarding “The health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds are marginally greater than the risks" that is the assessment of the JCVI. The study showing that boys aged 12-15 are more at risk of vaccine injury than being hospitalised by COVID-19 is a US study. We will see how this plays out long term but we've already seen some horror stories in the short term.
"Horror stories"? That's a bit hyperbolic given the still very low risk of serious adverse effects. Are you vaccinated?
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12445
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by cat »

FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:13 pm Good. If you aren't double-jabbed by the time the season rolls around again, you mustn't have wanted it and a happy to wear the consequences. Time to move on with life (once we hit 80+% double-jabbed).
The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
I think the question here is in relation to vaccination of children is " will the new mutations affect children more severely?"
Do you want to roll the dice with the vaccine ( which has been widely tested) or trust the virus not to mutate to attack children more?
We already know delta transmits more in children then alpha did.....

In terms of Barr saying you won't need to be vaccinated thats lovely sir BUT if the NRL or the Raiders decide all spectators must be vaccinated then Barr won't have a choice
Vaccinated
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

cat wrote: September 20, 2021, 3:26 pm
FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm

The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
I think the question here is in relation to vaccination of children is " will the new mutations affect children more severely?"
Do you want to roll the dice with the vaccine ( which has been widely tested) or trust the virus not to mutate to attack children more?
We already know delta transmits more in children then alpha did.....

In terms of Barr saying you won't need to be vaccinated thats lovely sir BUT if the NRL or the Raiders decide all spectators must be vaccinated then Barr won't have a choice
I don't think the Raiders will be going down that path particularly while there are several players in the team who will not be getting the vaccine...
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12445
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by cat »

The unvaccinated players will only be able to fly with a medical exemption

At the end of the day we wont know for sure till 2022
Vaccinated
kona_dream
Clinton Schifcofske
Posts: 572
Joined: May 13, 2010, 2:31 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by kona_dream »

cat wrote: September 20, 2021, 3:47 pm The unvaccinated players will only be able to fly with a medical exemption

At the end of the day we wont know for sure till 2022
Papa is going to be an interesting one. He is on record for getting an exemption because he and another family member once had reaction to a previous vaccine. This would indicate a reaction to the protein used. If this was the case this should not exempt him from mRNA vaccines.
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12445
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by cat »

kona_dream wrote: September 20, 2021, 5:57 pm
cat wrote: September 20, 2021, 3:47 pm The unvaccinated players will only be able to fly with a medical exemption

At the end of the day we wont know for sure till 2022
Papa is going to be an interesting one. He is on record for getting an exemption because he and another family member once had reaction to a previous vaccine. This would indicate a reaction to the protein used. If this was the case this should not exempt him from mRNA vaccines.
I think thats the hard thing with vaccines that people who have had reactions in the past need to understand, there are multiple "types " of vaccines .
I reacted really badly to the cholera vaccine but had never reacted badly to any of the others

I suppose its up to gps to educate their patients like papa who have reacted in the past and maybe vaccinate them as an in patient if that helps?
Vaccinated
nemesis
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1176
Joined: December 6, 2007, 11:27 am

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by nemesis »

Raiders_Pat wrote: September 19, 2021, 10:43 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:13 pm Good. If you aren't double-jabbed by the time the season rolls around again, you mustn't have wanted it and a happy to wear the consequences. Time to move on with life (once we hit 80+% double-jabbed).
The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Amen
raider 4 life
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

nemesis wrote: September 20, 2021, 8:04 pm
Raiders_Pat wrote: September 19, 2021, 10:43 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:13 pm Good. If you aren't double-jabbed by the time the season rolls around again, you mustn't have wanted it and a happy to wear the consequences. Time to move on with life (once we hit 80+% double-jabbed).
The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Amen
Watch it - you will be labelled a far-right extremist like Setka did to his own members today.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by hrundi89 »

NSW
0-9 6,912 cases - 0 deaths
10-19 8,048 cases - 1 death

0.000067%

Canada
308,000 (19.8% of total) COVID cases are in ages 0-19.
15 deaths in ages 0-19.

0.000048%

USA
4.5 million COVID cases in ages 0-18 (including 781,000 in 0-5).
439 deaths in ages 0-18.

0.000097%

It's low, but it's not zero.

Facts are yes they CAN get very sick and die from it, and unvaccinated people attending increase the risk for others (including those who are vaccinated) to get at least mildly ill and/or pass it on to someone who may get worse.
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Raiders_Pat »

hrundi89 wrote: September 21, 2021, 12:57 pm NSW
0-9 6,912 cases - 0 deaths
10-19 8,048 cases - 1 death

0.000067%

Canada
308,000 (19.8% of total) COVID cases are in ages 0-19.
15 deaths in ages 0-19.

0.000048%

USA
4.5 million COVID cases in ages 0-18 (including 781,000 in 0-5).
439 deaths in ages 0-18.

0.000097%

It's low, but it's not zero.

Facts are yes they CAN get very sick and die from it, and unvaccinated people attending increase the risk for others (including those who are vaccinated) to get at least mildly ill and/or pass it on to someone who may get worse.
Hang on... are you referring to the teen who died with COVID, not of COVID?
User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22875
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Dr Zaius »

People seem to think that either you die from Covid, or that you were completely asymptomatic. Most doctors talk about disease in terms of morbidity and mortality. I once knew a kid that had had Meningococcal disease. He had no arms no legs and no functioning cortex. But hey, he didn't die and that's all that counts.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by hrundi89 »

If you have cancer and you're getting chemo and then you get COVID and die from respiratory failure, you died of COVOD, not cancer.
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22875
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Dr Zaius »

hrundi89 wrote:If you have cancer and you're getting chemo and then you get COVID and die from respiratory failure, you died of COVOD, not cancer.
Yes and know. People seem to think that death certificates just have one cause of death, whereas in reality they have multiple listed. For example, cause of death: cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to multi organ failure, secondary to pneumomitis, secondary to Covid 19, contributing factors: breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension.

Mind you they differ from state to state, and it's been well over a decade since Iast filled out a death certificate.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by hrundi89 »

Dr Zaius wrote: September 22, 2021, 5:06 am
hrundi89 wrote:If you have cancer and you're getting chemo and then you get COVID and die from respiratory failure, you died of COVOD, not cancer.
Yes and know. People seem to think that death certificates just have one cause of death, whereas in reality they have multiple listed. For example, cause of death: cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to multi organ failure, secondary to pneumomitis, secondary to Covid 19, contributing factors: breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension.

Mind you they differ from state to state, and it's been well over a decade since Iast filled out a death certificate.
Thanks for the input Dr Death. Wait...what?
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145113
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by greeneyed »

No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

The Canberra Raiders players will need to be vaccinated to compete in Victoria - unless they get a medical exemption. The Victorian government's mandatory vaccination policy for professional sports people comes into effect on Friday. At this stage there's no end date on that health order.

Raiders star Josh Papalii has said he would not get the jab, with both he and teammate Joe Tapine receiving medical exemptions from getting the influenza injection last year.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239



This story from David Riccio from last week says the Raiders' top squad is only 70 per vaccinated (along with quite a few other clubs), reportedly based on figures the clubs have supplied to the NRL.
Image
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by -TW- »

Forfeit would probably be better than being beaten by 40

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Green Blogger
Simon Woolford
Posts: 432
Joined: March 15, 2014, 6:04 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: Andrew Barr opts against making vaccination compulsory to attend Canberra's stadiums

Post by Green Blogger »

cat wrote: September 20, 2021, 3:26 pm
FROG wrote: September 20, 2021, 6:27 am
Raiders_Pat wrote:
Leebola wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:32 pm
Billy Walker wrote: September 18, 2021, 10:18 pm

The thing I would like better explained is whether the unvaccinated only pose a risk to themselves or if they increase risk to others. I’d be a tad miffed if I had a child below the vax age that wound up with Rona from cheering on the raiders due to some selfish person that decided not to get jabbed.
For some reason, it's not life-threatening to under-10s (0 deaths in Oz, from 10,000 cases), and not much worse for under-20s (one death, 20,000 cases). The experience of other countries seems to be that you can still get the virus while jabbed, but it's relatively mild, while the unjabbed dominate ICU. At some point we just have to accept there are risks in life and get on with it, IMO.
Finally, a sensible comment in this topic.
Just because they don't die it doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be concerned. I've read research which suggested that a not insignificant amount of kids continued to suffer from a variety of symptoms months later. Who knows what the long term effects for these kids will be. Also, people who are vaxed (like myself) can still get the virus and infect others, albeit to a lesser degree. While I appreciate we need to get on with our lives it's not without significant risk.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
I think the question here is in relation to vaccination of children is " will the new mutations affect children more severely?"
Do you want to roll the dice with the vaccine ( which has been widely tested) or trust the virus not to mutate to attack children more?
We already know delta transmits more in children then alpha did.....

In terms of Barr saying you won't need to be vaccinated thats lovely sir BUT if the NRL or the Raiders decide all spectators must be vaccinated then Barr won't have a choice
Interesting discussion on potential side effects of the vaccine in children. My observation is that Canberra is reporting their vaccine rates on the population over the age of 12. 98% of that population has had at least one shot. Despite the overwhelming majority of 12-18 year olds in the ACT getting at least one shot I have not seen a single report or concern raised about serious side effects. I would have thought that someone somewhere would be shouting from the rooftops if kids were falling I’ll after shots.

Likewise the hysteria about AstraZeneca side effects has died away since all the 20-40 year olds in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne raced out and got vaccinated due to Delta and people did not start dropping dead in the streets.
Timbo
David Furner
Posts: 3763
Joined: January 6, 2005, 9:42 pm
Favourite Player: Hudson Young
Location: Here

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Timbo »

greeneyed wrote: October 14, 2021, 6:28 pm No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

The Canberra Raiders players will need to be vaccinated to compete in Victoria - unless they get a medical exemption. The Victorian government's mandatory vaccination policy for professional sports people comes into effect on Friday. At this stage there's no end date on that health order.

Raiders star Josh Papalii has said he would not get the jab, with both he and teammate Joe Tapine receiving medical exemptions from getting the influenza injection last year.

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239



This story from David Riccio from last week says the Raiders' top squad is only 70 per vaccinated (along with quite a few other clubs), reportedly based on figures the clubs have supplied to the NRL.
Good.

This pseudoscience madness has to stop.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is just the train that's about to hit you.
Billy Walker
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12409
Joined: April 29, 2017, 7:22 pm
Favourite Player: Ashley Gilbert

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Billy Walker »

I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to get a medical exemption in the current environment and I don’t think that is a bad thing. Be interesting to see if other states follow suit. Might be a bad outcome for Papa and Tarps.
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Raiders_Pat »

This will last until Andrews gets done by IBAC
User avatar
Raider Azz
Jason Croker
Posts: 4716
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:22 pm

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Raider Azz »

Billy Walker wrote: October 14, 2021, 9:46 pm I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to get a medical exemption in the current environment and I don’t think that is a bad thing. Be interesting to see if other states follow suit. Might be a bad outcome for Papa and Tarps.
They got medical excemptions for the flu vaccine, there's no reason to suggest they won't get the same for the covid vaccine.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by hrundi89 »

The NHL has only 5 players who haven't been vaccinated, from roughly 900 players.
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
Billy Walker
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12409
Joined: April 29, 2017, 7:22 pm
Favourite Player: Ashley Gilbert

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Billy Walker »

Raider Azz wrote: October 15, 2021, 9:51 am
Billy Walker wrote: October 14, 2021, 9:46 pm I suspect it will be a lot more difficult to get a medical exemption in the current environment and I don’t think that is a bad thing. Be interesting to see if other states follow suit. Might be a bad outcome for Papa and Tarps.
They got medical excemptions for the flu vaccine, there's no reason to suggest they won't get the same for the covid vaccine.
Maybe
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Raiders_Pat »

hrundi89 wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:24 am The NHL has only 5 players who haven't been vaccinated, from roughly 900 players.
Does that mean there are five players in the NHL who have made a statement that they are unvaccinated or does that mean there are 895 players in the NHL who have submitted their private medical information to their employer to indicate that they are vaccinated?
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by hrundi89 »

Raiders_Pat wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:32 am
hrundi89 wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:24 am The NHL has only 5 players who haven't been vaccinated, from roughly 900 players.
Does that mean there are five players in the NHL who have made a statement that they are unvaccinated or does that mean there are 895 players in the NHL who have submitted their private medical information to their employer to indicate that they are vaccinated?
Actually it's 4 players now.

https://www.nhl.com/news/commissioner-g ... -326772676

"Our vaccination rate is incredible," Commissioner Bettman said. "Four players, not four percent of players. All of our officials are vaccinated. All of the personnel that come into contact with the players are vaccinated."

There are specific rules for how unvaccinated players can interact around their team mates and logistically, largely being separated from the main group and club staff.

https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/asse ... e/file.pdf
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by hrundi89 »

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/100 ... ttman-says

"Per Bumbaca, New Jersey Devils goalie Mackenzie Blackwood, Detroit Red Wings left wing Tyler Bertuzzi and Edmonton Oilers right wing Josh Archibald are unvaccinated.

Archibald, who had COVID-19 during the offseason, is sidelined indefinitely with myocarditis, per Mark Spector of Sportsnet. He is the only player on a Canadian NHL team who is unvaccinated.

The Columbus Blue Jackets signed forward Zac Rinaldo, who is unvaccinated, to a two-way contract last offseason. However, the team is keeping him away from the NHL and AHL rosters, and he did not receive an invite to either camp, per Bumbaca."
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
User avatar
Raiders_Pat
John Ferguson
Posts: 2049
Joined: July 24, 2016, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Raiders_Pat »

hrundi89 wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:52 am
Raiders_Pat wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:32 am
hrundi89 wrote: October 15, 2021, 11:24 am The NHL has only 5 players who haven't been vaccinated, from roughly 900 players.
Does that mean there are five players in the NHL who have made a statement that they are unvaccinated or does that mean there are 895 players in the NHL who have submitted their private medical information to their employer to indicate that they are vaccinated?
Actually it's 4 players now.

https://www.nhl.com/news/commissioner-g ... -326772676

"Our vaccination rate is incredible," Commissioner Bettman said. "Four players, not four percent of players. All of our officials are vaccinated. All of the personnel that come into contact with the players are vaccinated."

There are specific rules for how unvaccinated players can interact around their team mates and logistically, largely being separated from the main group and club staff.

https://cms.nhl.bamgrid.com/images/asse ... e/file.pdf
The reason why I asked the question is because the distinction is important. I've done some further research on this and it turns out the NHL has a vaccine mandate.

- Players who aren't vaccinated will only be able to go to their team hotel, practice facility and arena while being unable to use areas such as bars, restaurants, gyms, and pools
- Unvaccinated players will also be forbidden from having teammates or visitors in their hotel rooms
- Under NHL rules, teams will be permitted to suspend unvaccinated players who are "unable to participate in club activities," whether due to a positive test for COVID-19 or due to an inability to travel because of government restrictions
- Unvaccinated players lose one day's pay for each day they miss, though the league will make exceptions for players who do not take a vaccine due to religious or medical reasons

This is a result of Canada EDIT
Last edited by greeneyed on October 15, 2021, 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Inappropriate comment
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42015
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by Botman »

Most sports have similar mandates, certainly the NFL does.

It's nothing about EDIT it's about protecting the financial interests of the game
These sports are paid a lot of money to provide content for TV networks... if they have to put their season on hold, or cancel games, etc, they lose money. A lot of money. And billionaire owners aren't very fond of losing money. And as far as North American sports goes, their collective agreements include a % of revenue sharing... so if the league loses money, their salary caps drop, meaning the players lose money... lots of it... and millionaire athletes aren't particularly fond of losing money either
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: No vaccination no play in Victoria for Canberra Raiders

Post by hrundi89 »

EDIT.

May I remind you of some simple facts - 721k (USA) and 28.3k (Canada).
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
Post Reply