Public health experts warn against Dan’s draconian vaccine segregation

Public health experts have questioned the need to lock unvaccinated people out of services once 90% of Victorians aged 12-plus are fully vaccinated.

Premier Daniel Andrews has indicated people who aren’t vaccinated against COVID-19 may be barred from accessing all but the most basic services until 2023:

“Whether it’s a bookshop, a shoe shop, a pub, cafe, a restaurant, the MCG, the list goes on and on. You will not be able to participate like a fully vaccinated person because you’re not a fully vaccinated person” Premier Andrews said on Sunday.

From The Age:

Researchers and epidemiologists have called for a more nuanced approach to the divisive use of vaccine mandates and passports…

Professor Lewin, the director of the Doherty Institute… noted that getting to 90 per cent of double doses for those aged 12 and over, which is predicted to happen about November 24, “was something that we did not expect” and excluding people in the longer term would prove divisive and difficult.

“I think having incentives to vaccinate people is very good, and I fully support having compulsory vaccination in certain areas, but I think we’ve got to be careful about keeping unvaccinated people out for an unspecified period of time”…

“At 90 per cent, maybe we should look at what the real impact is of having a blanket policy”…

Epidemiologist Tony Blakely… warned that once 90 per cent of eligible Australians were double-dosed – and if infections had reduced significantly – “it would be unethical at that point to keep the people who are unvaccinated out of society…

The head of the epidemiological modelling unit at Monash University, James Trauer, said he supported the government’s heavy emphasis on vaccination in its updated road map, but questioned the need to commit to vaccine mandates extending into next year, particularly for teenagers.

“Hopefully [by then] we’ll just have the epidemic under better control and we won’t need to do that”…

Burnet Institute director Brendan Crabb said… “As we start to see how much we’ve got things under control … obviously it’d be good, as soon as possible and as much as possible, to move away from differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated people”…

Public Health Professor at Sydney University, Julie Leask, who is also a World Health Organisation advisor on vaccine uptake, was also interviewed on 3AW where she said that COVID-19 would be controlled “very well” with 90% vaccine coverage:

“You just don’t want to end up using them like a sledgehammer cracking a walnut,” she told Neil Mitchell.

Neil Mitchell: “If we get to 90% rate of the population vaccinated, there’s not really a public health reason to have that vaccine passport mandated, is there?”

Professor Leask: “I don’t believe so, but it again depends on how much disease you’re willing to tolerate.”

Professor Leask says it’s not the first time Victoria has had the toughest public health approach in the world.

“Victoria has got a bit of a history of this with public health. It’s sort of all or nothing,” she said.

Throughout the pandemic, the Victorian Government has employed the strictest COVID-19 control measures. It has also achieved by far the worst results, namely:

  • Melburnians suffered through the longest hard lockdown in the world;
  • Victoria suffered the most daily cases and the most active cases of any jurisdiction in the nation.
  • Victoria has suffered the most COVID deaths.

Victoria’s approach to the unvaccinated is also the polar opposite of NSW, where “proof of vaccination [will be] no longer required by Public Health Order” once the state hits the 90% threshold.

NSW’s cases have continued to fall after reopening weeks ago and its hospital system is coming under reduced strain. So maintaining draconian segregation of the unvaccinated is unnecessary and overly divisive.

As I noted on Monday, vaccination doesn’t stop the spread of the virus (just look at Israel, which is highly inoculated with Pfizer). Rather, vaccination only protects against serious illness and death.

Those that are double vaccinated should, therefore, not fear or ostracize the unvaccinated, as they are protected.

At some point Victoria needs to come together as one. I believe the “vaccine economy” should end at the 90% threshold, just as it will in NSW.

Daniel Andrews’ job as Premier should be to unite Victorians, not divide them.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. SnappedUpSavvyMEMBER

    because these last 2 years have been the best years of his life, the unvaxxed will be all he’ll have left

    • That’s it in a nutshell.
      Watching from NSW, Andrews’ obvious relish at having total control has been on display. It’s weird to observe and even weirder to see the punters embrace it. The comments section at The Age/SMH is a procession of people wanting more Dan and more lockdowns and praying to him to lead the people to the promised land of endless restrictions and punitive sanctions against miscreants and violators.

      • Reus's large MEMBER

        I think that anyone that can should leave Vic as soon as they can, the CCP lovers can stay with Dan, we can fence in Vic and keep the nutters out of the rest of the country, they should also allow other nutters to move there and grovel with the rest of the lockdown fanboi’s

  2. Daniel Andrews is not the uniting type. He is psychologically unfit to lead.

    In any case the damage is already done, we just don’t realise it yet.

  3. Dan is now completely over the top given the Public Health guys think he has gone too far.

    It’s pretty clear the vaccines do little to stop transmission. As such, there seems like basis for these restrictions.

    Friends in Victoria tell me the place needs to heal and recover.

    After a bruising and futile war on the virus, please do not charge into a war on the unvaxed.

    • ‘It’s pretty clear the vaccines do little to stop transmission.’

      Nsw not good enough real world evidence for you?


    I find this a strange axe to grind.

    We’ve just been in “draconian” lockdowns and vaccines are the thing that’s allowing us to come out of them without complete catastrophe. If the willfully unvaccinated don’t want to participate and prefer to be “locked-down” as their choice of control measure to protect themselves, their families and the health system, I guess that’s their choice?

    • Getting messy isn’t it.

      He could be doing this to convince the people who think they can hold out (like in NSW, Dec 1), that they can’t. And then if 2x vaxxed rate gets very high, change this directive.

      It’s tricky to contemplate how to manage this. I see both sides of the argument –
      “it’s a disease of the unvaccinated, primarily”
      “getting vaccinated still reduces your risk of getting it”

      But yeah, it’s messy.

      And not helped by some of the language ie bed wetters, and pejorative terms for anti vaxxers

      • He could be doing this to convince the people who think they can hold out (like in NSW, Dec 1), that they can’t. And then if 2x vaxxed rate gets very high, change this directive.

        That’s what I would do. In NSW there is a fair bit of annoyance at the Dec 1 date. The view is that the unvaxed are free riders.

        • The view is that the unvaxed are free riders

          In what sense are they free riders?
          They get the benefit of herd immunity without taking the risk of the jabs? Is that what you mean?

    • I was only willing to participate in the lockdown while I waited for the opportunity to be fully vaccinated.
      Now that most people have had the same opportunity we should fully open up.
      Someones unvaccinated status does not worry me at all.

    • “Complete Catastrophe” to whom? Unvaccinated are risking themselves. Hospital load is due to underinvestment for years by all states, CV-19 was simply the straw which pushed an already strained system.

      If the unvaccinated are the ones dying and they are okay with it, why are others so worried for them?

      • reusachtigeMEMBER

        The authoritarian lovers, which unfortunately seem to be a lot of people, hate anyone that does not comply with any orders.


        I meant catastrophe if we didn’t have access to decent vaccines. But we do (in Oz anyway)

        Re: the unvaxxed. As they’re much more likely to need hospitals/have long-term health issues. Thus, anything to get a few more percentage points of population over the line saves lives and reduces disease burden/systemic pressure.

        I get that there’s a libertarian argument in there somewhere about vaccine “segregation”, but if the mandate yields better outcomes (ie. More vaccinated) the more ethical choice seems to me is to lean into it. At least for now.

        I think also that optically they can’t run a “get vaccinated and we’ll open up” line and then immediately drop it once most people have done the “right thing” and open it up for those who didn’t bother.

        But I do think they’ll release most restrictions for unvaxxed earlier than 2023. Only thing is, if some restrictions are needed again in future (venue entry ect) I’d expect them to cramp the style of unvaxxed earlier than the vaxxed.

        • A healthy unvaccinated person is far, far less likely to wind up in hospital than an unhealthy vaccinated person for any reason. Perhaps you should be turning your new found dedication to protecting the health system towards the fat, the lazy, the poor eaters and the smokers who constitute 70% of the population and 97% of hospital visits instead of the 10% of unvaccinated Covid infectees who make up only 3% of all hospital visits in Australia?


            If you’ve got evidence than the unvaxxed population are, on average, much healthier than the vaxxed, I’m sure that’d make some sense.

            If the folks at the anti-vaxx rallies are a representative cross section of the un-vaxxed.. then no. They’re probably less healthy on aggregate than the general population.

          • Ailart SuaMEMBER

            100% correct, Fishing72. CDC stats from last year clearly indicate over 78% of covid19 hospitalisations and deaths were from obese or overweight people. At this point in time, I imagine the stats would be worse.

          • A healthy unvaccinated person is far, far less likely to wind up in hospital than an unhealthy vaccinated person for any reason

            Perhaps some data might be helpful here? Is the unvaccinated person’s health going to protect them from an injurious car crash?

        • Thanks for clarifying.

          Based on the global experience, a non vaccinated population could have landed us with somewhere between 20-40K deaths. With vaccines it looks like circa 2000 before summer starts. If we let it rip (which we haven’t) we would have had a small number of excess deaths, to prevent this we shut down society and spent $503B, this equates to over $12.7m per life saved. It will be hard to properly weigh up all the tradeoff costs but its fair to say that value of these decisions are easier to judge post event.

          The lockdown rules made sense without vaccines but with vaccines and open access to them (now), these same rules cease being valuable. My view all along has been set a date (not a vaccine target), give people access to vaccination and then let them make their own mind on risks/benefits. The optics of opening on a date are better to me than raw % of vaccination, especially when they start gaming the end state by doing stupid things such as accelerating 2nd jabs. We either need to focus on medical outcomes and the science or we accept that its all politics now. On the 2nd jab topic, we have people getting 2 x AZ in 2-3 weeks and Pfizer in the same period. All the science has said longer is better, we are even breaking the recommended pharma guidelines.

          The coercion that exists around the vaccines (societal exclusion, job loss, no school) is troubling to me for several reasons. Vaccines prevent severe illness for a large majority but they do not stop the spread or viral load of the vaccinated person. Vaccines fade over time and we have not recognized data being presented around previous infection being as good as vaccination. With all this data staring Dan in the face he still wants to put a punitive judgement around the neck of an unvaccinated person who is only risking themselves. Smoking, drinking, extreme sports all have risks to the individual but we allow people to be adult enough to make their own decisions. We dont like they clog the health system, but we accept it.

          In summary, if the vaccines generated a positive societal outcome for the herd then I would be fully supportive of mandated jabs. We have eliminated many diseases through this practical approach. This is not a disease which will go away with vaccination and the immediate benefit is to the individual. It should of been like exercising and eating well, its highly recommended but in the end the decision and consequences are your own.

        • See I think we should segragate the unhealthy from the healthy. If you drink, smoke, eat processed food, don’t exercise, have more than one sexual partner, don’t have every vaccine currently available, and so on they should be locked down until they have changed their ways. If we do this our hospitals will finally be safe.

    • Seems like sabre rattling. So far I haven’t needed to show my valid vaccination certificate for anything – eating out on Saturday check in was optional, no one cared about vax cert – restaurant owners too busy serving customer.
      If it’s not being enforced now, it sure as sh__ won’t be by the new year, possibly except for a few really high profile venues, which might include the MCG.

      • Rorke's DriftMEMBER

        I was refused takeaway service this morning for not having a vax certificate. That one surprised me, not sure what to make of it. That cant be a health order, must be just hysteria and fear from the cafe owner.
        Dangerous times with so many citizens embracing this control system. We seem to be sliding towards slave state status.

  5. Jumping jack flash

    The unvaxxed will kill us all!

    It is better if the government could errect some walls around regions of low vax rates (especially in QLD. Perhaps wall QLD off entirely?) or set up some unvaxxed zones? Perhaps build some camps where the unvaxxed can be sent to concentrate on just how much they’re damaging society by refusing to be vaxxed?

    There are many options available to protect the vaxxed.

    The people will either be ambivalent to it, or demand it. At 90% of the voting population vaxxed, there would be little real opposition to anything they decided to do.

    • Jevons ghostMEMBER

      My current understanding – which may be incorrect – is that once you have had two shots of one or other of the currently available “vaccines,” then if infected you are more likely to harbour a greater load of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in your upper respiratory tract then you would be if you have not been immunised. And yet you would be most unlikely to become seriously ill or die from the infection. So it seems to me that an infected but immunised person exposes a non-immunised but non-infected contact to a greater risk of serious illness than an infected but non-immunised individual poses to any immunised but non-infected contact. So if a non-infected but immunised individual exposed to the virus carried by an infected non-immunised person is most unlikely to become seriously ill if infection results from the contact, why not simply let the un-immunised take some responsibility for any adverse personal consequences that result from their inaction? Certainly encourage people to continue to follow sensible social distancing guidelines for the time being, and even more so in the 2022 flu season.

    • And while you’re at it…I propose we force unvaccinated to live collectively in cheap rental accommodation
      at double the rent paid by vaccinated. I’m even willing to provide this accommodation if the government agrees to an unbreakable 10 year lease.

      • Jumping jack flash

        Im hoping a large “unclean” banner on my front lawn will suffice. It’ll have to be half of the official font size though because my wife actually has had both her shots.

      • Dan thinks this sounds great. He will put a huge sign over the entrance that says something like ‘Vax is freedom ‘

        • Mate that’s a given, I’m not taking responsibility for those that refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
          I hear there’s a disease called Libertinism. it’s really common among the unVaxxed, it’s a disease that’s far more dangerous than Covid, it changes the very way that you think and feel about society. I need to be properly rewarded for mixing with that crowd.

    • “The unvaxxed will kill us all!”
      You are hilarious mate. If you are not being cynical (hard to tell), then clearly you have been swept up in and away by the media and political hysteria about this.
      If you have so much faith in a vaccine and been vaccinated, then you should really not be so hysterical. So either you have faith in the vaccines or not. I don’t see people dropping like flies. We will all die one day in case you haven’t noticed. It is not something you should fear. It is something that will happen.
      I’d suggest a free dispensation of chill pills with the vaccines. It can only do wonders.

      • Jumping jack flash

        A little from column A and a little from column B…

        I will inevitability need to be vaccinated because i need to travel interstate for work next year, but they’ll need to take me there figuratively kicking and screaming, holding a copy of my mortgage in front of me. Like a perverse carrot, i guess.

  6. Expecting a Politician to willingly surrender power that they’ve just recently acquired.
    my goodness you do live in a strange world.
    Maybe you need to ask yourself
    What rights am I willing to surrender to regain my freedom!

  7. reusachtigeMEMBER

    The Labor Party is THE enemy of the people. I would not mind seeing Dan Andrews expired live on TV.

    • Fishing72MEMBER

      I’d like to see him in the stocks at the town square for a few weeks first. Think how satisfying it’d be flinging fresh faeces at him. It might even generate a resurgence in interstate tourism. I’d happily drive 2000kms each way to have a throw myself. Mexican food at every stop on the way down.

  8. The vaccinated are largely protected from serious illness.
    The unvaccinated have decided to take their chances (which are pretty good actually).
    The vaccine doesn’t materially stop transmission however.

    So how then did we get to a situation where the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated by coercing the unvaccinated to have the vaccine that hasn’t protected the vaccinated from infection?

    • How effective is the vaccine? Does it reduce the chances of death by 50% or is is 99%. The fatality rate for the unvaccinated is approximately 2% so the maximum reduction in fatality rate provided by the vaccine is 2%. Less if you are not obese, wrinkly, or have some other “co-morbidity”. The absolute risk for the average person is negligible and for children is basically zero.

      Therefore I conclude – society has gone mad.

      • I truly think that our politicians rightfully have 0 faith in the people as we are a bunch of hypochondriacs. If we get COVID everyone would be rushing to hospital because death is imminent, therefore clogging up the system stopping the car accident patient from getting care.

      • Ailart SuaMEMBER

        “The fatality rate for the unvaccinated is approximately 2% so the maximum reduction in fatality rate provided by the vaccine is 2%.”

        Here is the CDC age/recovery stats for people with NO treatment OR vaccine.
        Age Survival Rates
        0-19 99.997%
        20-49 99.98%
        50-69 99.5%
        70+ 94.6%

        Makes you wonder what the fuss is all about. The fuss SHOULD be about the fat slobs governments and their health ‘experts’ have allowed us to become.

      • kiwikarynMEMBER

        The fatality rate is less than that – NZ has had over 3000 cases in this outbreak and one death of a man in his 50s (there was another death of a 90 year old who already was in end of life care so cant really count that as a “from covid” case). And 80% of our cases are Maori and Pacific Island, who we keep being told are 50% more likely to die from covid than European people. So you do the maths.

    • So how then did we get to a situation

      Very good question.

      We got there little by little over the years. Each and everytime we allowed the elite to force anything stupid upon us, we contributed to the current situation:

      * Slow down to 40kph when there are no children near the school – yes sir, what a good idea
      * police check needed to work in the school tuckshop – anything you say
      * take a photo of my drivers license to go into a pub – why not, sounds reasonable
      * before I answer that simple-arse question over the phone, let me ask a few questions so that I can identify you. Of course – how necessary and how secure if I state my [email protected]#$ing date of birth. Everyone asks for that, but only I know it.


  9. just “following the science” and “health advice” oh wait…. don’t hear that one much anymore do we?

  10. I am surprised the comments are so one sided and people think the unvaxxed have a case.
    It isn’t segregation, it is voluntary isolation by the unvaxxed. Remember the vaccine is a choice (absent medical exemption) not an immutable characteristic.
    10% unvaxxed is about 20% of the population.The virus finds the unvaxxed. Without lockdowns they are guaranteed to get it. Without passports they will spread it to the vaxxed (in smaller number) and some of the vaxxed will die.
    At 90% without lockdowns the effective reproduction will not fall below 1. So the virus will circulate and the vaxxed will be forced to live with the virus, despite being vaccinated. How is this fair?
    I would be happy to put it to a vote.

    • Can you provide any link where if 100% of people in the poulation are vaccinated the R value will fall below 1?

      With Alpha the answer probably was yes, but with Delta the answer is unlikely. Therefore it is the same outcome if a small percentage of the population are unvaccinated.

    • The problem is that signing in at every premise and checking vaccination status can become very annoying.

        • Ailart SuaMEMBER

          If people would just take the time to thoroughly research the disease itself, the vaccines and the Pharmaceutical companies supplying them – and the oral anti-viral medications like Ivermectin, trust in governments would fall from the current 48% to somewhere around zero.

          • TheLambKingMEMBER

            and the oral anti-viral medications like Ivermectin

            Did you get your research qualifications from the back of a breakfast cereal packet?

          • Ailart SuaMEMBER

            I see the LambKing continues along the road of making a complete fool of himself – or herself. Go away you annoying little insect.

          • Rorke's DriftMEMBER

            Good comment. Its amazing to me how little research is done by people and all the false assumptions regurgitated by vaxxed, including on this thread. Australians are the most naive people on the planet, with a blind faith in government and an unquestioning fact free immersion in the media propaganda of the past 20mths. A huge amount of vaccine regret is coming and I want to have sympathy but Im afraid people are only going to learn the hard way.

      • Only if people actually check your status and enforce signing in – and it will be far more annoying for the check-er than for the check-ee. Whatever the rate of checking is now – it is surely isn’t 100% – it will halve in a few weeks and halve again by Christmas.

        • Was at Kingscliff and Tweed at weekend.

          Golf, Tweed Heads – asked for vax cert to enter pro shop
          Every single shop at Mantra KC asked to see certificate except takeaways
          Rip Curl Casaurina same deal

          I check in and hold up the certificate. A minor imposition and saves shoppie having to ask. It really is not that big a deal

          • Hasn’t been my experience in Melbourne wetsern suburbs. QR code is on the door – up to you to scan or not scan. Obviously mileage is a variable thing.

    • Fishing72MEMBER

      Even the WHO has stated that between 40-70% pf people will catch the virus. Assuming this is as outrageously over estimated as with every other piece of Covid modelling ever produced and we are looking at 50% of people catching it.

      • Jumping jack flash


        For any of the statistics for adverse COVID effects to have meaning you first need to catch the virus, so that probability needs to be included.

        Howrver the adverse vaccine effect probabilities can be directly applied to all those who “choose” to have the vaccine.

    • Everyone spreads the virus with delta, this whole unvaxxed killing vaxxed doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Its actually the other way around, if vaccinated are reckless and become chronic spreaders they are more likely to kill unvaccinated.

      I am 100% okay with this because the unvaccinated made that choice. They also appear to be okay with this risk.

      “A new study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center, UC San Francisco and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms.”

      “…It’s very important to get vaccinated, Michelmore said, because vaccines greatly reduce the risk of severe disease, but you should not assume that because you are vaccinated you cannot get infected or transmit the disease to others.”

      • “Modelling by Professor George Milne’s University of WA team suggests if Australia were to reopen with 80 per cent of people vaccinated, some 80 per cent of cases would be in the unvaccinated”

        Unvaxxed absolutely are a risk to the vaxxed.
        Because 1. They are more likely to get it 2. They are more likely to transmit it when infectious and 3. They are infectious for a longer period, so they will transmit to more people.
        Because it’s a pandemic the risk to everybody depends on number of cases.
        How have people got this idea that the unvaxxed are not a threat to the vaxxed?

        • The vaxxed are a threat to the vaxxed too. Not as much as the unvaxxed but still a threat.
          But that is why I got vaxxed. To protect myself. I am now not worried about the vaxxed or unvaxxed.

        • Reus's large MEMBER

          The data does not support that, in the UK the vaxed are catching covid in greater numbers than the un-vaxed in most age categories. Note the data is per 100k so not an absolute number. The age categories that get it the most in the un-vaxed are the least at risk of all, or have most recently got their second shot.

          Page 13, table 2

        • Sweeper you write asserting confidence but I feel with little to back up your words. You’ve used a source this time.
          That UWA modelling was commissioned by McGowan to generate a worst case scenario to justify ignoring the Doherty modelling underpinning the National Cabinet re-opening plan and quoted a figure of each case spreading to 6 other people.
          Pure garbage in, garbage out scaremongering.

        • Actually, UK data clearly shows that, above the age of 30, cases of covid are more likely for fully vaccinated people than for unvaccinated people. That’s a negative effectiveness. The numbers have been steadily degrading for months. Here’s an example, go to Table 2:

          The myth that these particular vaccines effectively prevent infection and transmission has been well and truly busted. I predicted this from the start because they cannot do an effective job of raising secretory IgA in the nasal mucosae (unlike a nasal spray vaccine with a live attenuated virus such as the Codagenix vaccine). Now the goal posts have moved to the vaccines being labelled as effective because they reduced disease severity (the above report provides plenty of numbers on this).

          Unfortunately, the explanation for negative (infection) effectiveness bodes ill for the future of hospitalisations and deaths even though the hospitalisation numbers may look good at this time. The discrepancy between vaccinated and unvaccinated infections suggests impaired immune function in the vaccinated which, in turn, suggests antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). This should not come as a surprise as ADE, detected in animal trials, is what terminated multiple vaccine development efforts after SARS1. This time around, we rushed straight into mass human vaccination without even having completed animal trials.

          If, like SARS1, these SARS2 vaccines do cause ADE, then we’re going to see more hospitalisations and deaths in the future amongst the vaccinated than amongst the unvaccinated, due to acquired immune deficiency. This will show up as death and illness from multiple pathogens and cancer, not just covid, as a consequence of macrophage destruction. In my opinion, as a professional molecular geneticist, we should not have rushed into this so recklessly given the history of SARS1 vaccine development, and given the broad range of promising treatment options under investigation (for example, I helped start a clinical trial for direct treatment with angiotensin 1-7). We certainly shouldn’t be mandating such narrowly targeted vaccines given the high likelihood of viral escape and ADE.

          I really do hope it turns out OK because we can’t unvaccinate millions of people. We should know for sure within two years.

          • Rorke's DriftMEMBER

            Well said. I’ve read enough similar comments by others to know you’re on the right track. The patterns and trends are proving the vax to be the bioweapon it was feared as. Its a shame this sort of considered and data driven thoughtfulness cant break through the programming of people. There will be many deaths and injuries.

          • kiwikarynMEMBER

            Its already happening. If you track the UK Vaccine Surveillance data over time (as I am) you will see that over the last 7 weeks you will see that despite the number of adult cases declining in that period the number of hospitalisations has remained steady, but the % vaxxed in hospital has risen from 75% to 82% and the % of vaccinated deaths has climbed from 60% to 73%. The stats are literally changing week by week, and not for the benefit of the vaxxed.

        • A truck is a much greater threat to a car than is another car.

          Should we ban trucks from the roads eh Sweeper?

    • Nice attempt at logic sweeper but complete fail. A better tactic to pretend you actually care about others and are not just scared then you should mention the ICU beds being occupied by unvaxxed. This is actually a concern of mine. Everyone is going to get Covid. The risk is that the government is not preparing enough in the way of hospital services. The Doherty report had some pretty high hospitalization numbers under any vaccination scenario. I am doing my part to stay out of hospital to keep beds free by stocking up on vitamins and exercising regularly. The vaccinated will probably not show symptoms and will be spreading the virus far and wide in my opinion but I dont have data on this.

    • With 90% of the Victorian population already having had their first vaccine, it’s only a matter of time before the double vaxed population also reaches this number. Most aren’t going to care about the small minority of unvaxed, just like how those who work and pay taxes have little sympathy for those on Centrelink. The attitude is that if you’re unemployed or poor, then that’s on you. The same applies if you chose not to get the vaccination and you’re inconvenienced. It’s the Australian way!


        I actually think this is true.

        Applies to health care staff also. Even though their mandate is to care for everyone equally.. I can’t imagine they’ll give half a fck if an anti-vaxxer ends up in a bed in front of em after they’ve been wearing full PPE for 650 days straight during a pandemic. Compound that with the fact the patients family is verbally abusing them because they can’t see said patient and/or because they’re demanding their family member be treated with deworming drugs.

        I think you’d give about as much of a fck about the willfully unvaxxed as you would a crack addict who assaults a paramedic.

    • kiwikarynMEMBER

      In the UK 86% of adults contracting covid now are vaccinated. So looks like the spreaders are the vaccinated not the unvaccinated. Secondly, the UK data shows the unvaccinated are actually less likely to contract covid than the vaccinated.

  11. dictator dan is gone at the next election….and i am so happy
    going crazy against the unvaccinated when health professionals say it is not necessary. it is all politics
    i predict you get kicked out. the percentage splits between labor and liberal are small at best of times and just full on bullying people into getting a vaccine shows you do NOT really believe in choice and probably dont believe in science either unless it fits your political aims. goodbye dan you are gone at next election

  12. people HATE bullys. and when the science community says you are going too far (and NO ONE backs you up in medical /science community outside victoria), and NSW govt and other countries is doing exact opposite to you means you stand is called CAREER RISK and you have just stuffed yours up with this jihad against the unvaccinated. you probably love your career, well its at an end. bullying the unvaccinated will end your career, you will see.
    and for any political types in the INDEPENDENTS in victoria reading this do NOT vote this draconian legislation through today, it truly is legislation that I would expect to see in a tin pot dictator county in africa

  13. Dan seems like a deranged thug and bully to me. He’s clearly lost the plot, given the advice from the medical people. I’d be very happy to see him exit from politics.

  14. Don’t know what the big deal is – he didn’t list inspect and buy real estate as something the unvaxxed can’t do. That’s all this country is for.

    • That’s what most seem either blithely unaware of or doltishly happy with. While I have had my first two doses of the novel vaccine with no long term safety data I am not that excited about receiving further doses even though a regular participant in aerosol generating procedures.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I’m hearing enough mRNA concerns to steer my boy towards getting the next non mRNA vaccine when available,….novavax?
        He’s only 11 and a year away from me letting him get vaccinated

      • Yeah I’ve just had # 3 Pfizer.
        Nothing for # 1 or 2, although I estimate 40% of my colleagues had a mild reaction to one of the other of these.
        About 12 hours after 3, I had 24 hours of nuisance symptoms – felt cold and tired and generalised mild aches. Not incapacitated at all, but it was there.
        Most colleagues so far had a greater reaction to the boost. Several to the point they took a day off work.

        I interpret this as a more robust response due to persisting immunity from the earlier shots.

        I’m happy enough to get done – 55 and high occupational exposure.

        But I can’t believe this has been approved for kids < 11. There is almost zero possible upside. Seems strange. And wrong.

        • Rorke's DriftMEMBER

          Some indications around that a decent % of the vaccines were saline solutions or placebos. Makes sense firstly as the rollout has been a live trial to generate some safety data so they need a control group but also the governments had people in fear and ready for the vaccine faster than they could be manufactured. The idea is that if they get you to take at least one without side effects (saline) then you’ll take the repeat dosages and they’ll get you then. Keeps the vaccine injury rates down as well. Suggestions of up to 70% placebos in some batches.

        • There is a massive upside for the pharma companies from children < 11 being given the shot. That is the main reason it is happening.


    In Andrew’s world ( heavily influenced by the Davos gang who are the beneficiaries of enormous share gains by the pharma empire) this heavy-handed approach to ostensibly protect the Victorians is a perfect cover for the real mission; getting the majority of the population inside the surveillance net.

    While we raise a glass to the restoration of our freedoms and help the state attack the unvaxxed that ‘threaten the vaccinated” (a preposterous notion) we remain ridiculously unaware and profoundly naïve at what is developing.

    There are few paths back from where we are headed if this legislation is placed on the books.

    “When the Government Turns Hostile: Life for the Unvaccinated Made Virtually Impossible in Lithuania”

  16. Ailart SuaMEMBER

    “Epidemiologist Tony Blakely… warned that once 90 per cent of eligible Australians were double-dosed – and if infections had reduced significantly – “it would be unethical at that point to keep the people who are unvaccinated out of society…”

    It’s unethical now you poor simple fool.

    ‘Nazi-Dan’ is edging closer every day to his second ‘dose’ of karma.

  17. Dan feeding the conspiracy crowd, creating social discord, destroying faith in government & weakening democracy!
    And ensuring Labor lose the next election?
    He’s another to have lost sight of our core values that have made Australia the great country it is … was.

    As said here by champion mountain biker talking to Dr Campbell re vaccine harm, when there is a risk of harm no mandates are acceptable

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Didn’t watch the whole clip.
      Did this Dr Campbell fellow end up mentioning how most of these concerns around Covid vaccines causing blood clots and heart inflammation are most likely related to these intramuscular vaccines being accidentally administered intravenously in about 1 in a thousand cases,…mmm?
      This is more likely to happen when the needle isn’t Aspirated before Delivering the injection into the deltoid muscle.
      Though once commonly embraced as the correct way to deliver intramuscular injections it is not insisted soon now.
      Why I don’t know.

      This is the most likely cause of Mr mountain bikers woes and Children under 12 having a 50 times greater hospitalisation rate from adverse reaction to vaccines than hospitalisations from getting the wild caught variety which their immune system largely ignores, esp since it doesn’t get directly into the vascular system unless injected there directly like happens on average 1 in 1000 times (esp when Aspiration of the needle isn’t performed before injection)

      My Anti Vax conspiracy theory mate who sent me this other Dr Campbell clip below obviously didn’t watch it as it counters his claims that there is an intentional conspiracy to cause harm with these vaccines or that compounds in it are toxic but according to this it seems The truth is nearly always more boring.

      • Reus's large MEMBER

        1 in 1000 are not great odds, now when you are 3 boosters in that is now 1 in 200 which is not in the least bit acceptable, not when my chance of dying from the whuflu is only 7 in 100 000 for my age group and less for me as I am in the low risk category of that group (not fat and unhealthy). TBH you would have to be a bit dumb to even entertain those odds.

    • TheLambKingMEMBER

      champion mountain biker talking

      Because I get all my medical advice from champion mountain bikers! Seriously WTF. Does this count as ‘research’? GTF off youtube and talk to your doctor!

      And ensuring Labor lose the next election?

      Have you seen the opposition in in Victoria? And the anti-vaxxer mob on the message board are not representative of the general Victorian population. Polls say his popularity is still at last election (which almost wiped the LNP off the map) levels (which is down from the high levels.)

      Most (sane, anti-vaxx) people understand the “90%” is only 90% of the 12+ population – and is below 80% of the whole population and agree that the un-vaxxed shouldn’t get a free pass by just holding out.

      • Reus's large MEMBER

        You clearly did not watch the video then …. LOL, you really know how to show yourself up as a idiot

        • TheLambKingMEMBER

          You clearly did not watch the video then

          Mate, I make a point of NEVER watching ANY youtube link that someone posts as ‘research’ – particularly climate and medical information. Point me to peer reviewed research, or articles with references to peer reviewed research and I will read it. Youtubers normally block anyone pointing out their mistakes/errors/miss-information and never link to their sources – which is the opposite of the Scientific Method.

          LOL, you really know how to show yourself up as a idiot

          For not getting medical/climate/science ‘research’ of youtube? If you say so.

          Just checked out your good doctor – Dr John Campbell from your youtube research and he is spruking Ivermectin and the link he is showing as evidence is discredited:

          “The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the methodology and the conclusions of this review article. Postpublication review confirmed that while the review article appropriately describes the mechanism of action of ivermectin, the cited sources do not appear to show that there is clear clinical evidence of the effect of ivermectin for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of this review article. None of the authors agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as Supplementary Information.”

          It took a whole minute to find out the good doctor is full of horse manure, so I know that there will be nothing but miss-information on the video. GTF off youtube and talk to your doctor for medical advice!

          • That’s hilarious, after passing peer-review and being published in Nature, instead of the article being debated in the peer-reviewed literature, the Editor-in-Chief just decides on the basis of ‘concerns raised’ (by whom? anonymously? Pfizer?) that the article is so unreliable it must be retracted. That’s not scientific debate. That’s suppression of debate.

          • Reus's large MEMBER

            So being that you did not watch the clip then you missed the part where he had been in consultation with a cardiologist and multiple other doctors for his condition, as well as many others too, that had been to hospital and had multiple doctors investigate. Now please go away and let the adults have a reasonable discussion without clueless BS from you.

  18. Ailart SuaMEMBER

    I live in a small street with just 9 dwellings. I recently discovered that four of the households contain unvaccinated people who are extremely unlikely to be vaccinated – although three of the four dwellings contain at least one person who is vaccinated. For the past few days I’ve been reading covid19, pro-vaccine articles in non-MSM publications that don’t block anti-vaccine comments. I was very surprised to see that at least 80 to 90 percent of the comments were from readers who were highly critical of the vaccines, the lockdowns and the general manner in which the pandemic was being managed.

    I have, for many decades, been losing faith in governments at all levels, their agencies and of course MSM. Could it be possible, that the numbers of people we are being told are vaccinated, is way higher than the actual figure?

    • Reus's large MEMBER

      You mean governments publishing a numberwag number in order to allow their agenda to be realised, like inflation, unemployment etc. Nah bro nothing like that ever happens ….. LOL

      • I think initially they were using 2016 census data existing populations vs current today vaccinations. It would be easier to get to 100% vaccination 2016 population as it is clearly lower. However, I doubt there could be some kind of conspiracy to have large scale numberwang without it being picked up. Again, we give way too much credit to politicians to be that cunning. There is no risk/reward for fudging the numbers to that extent. The numbers are porbably correct but the % may be wrong depending on what they are comparing the jabbed population against. I’d there would be a maximum 2% error.

        • Reus's large MEMBER

          Not if the vaccination rate is standing in the way of “open teh gates” for their mates to get rich, in that case all bets are off on what they will do.

  19. “You won’t be able to protect Grandpa by a vaccinating a child, and if the three shots that Grandpa received do not protect him then the vaccine has no effectiveness.”