Crikey readers are not ones to shy away from debate — and COVID-19 vaccinations raise debate like no other. From the question of how societies will — or should — treat the unvaccinated, to cash incentives for the vaccinated, you waded in. Elsewhere you had a go at pinpointing why tennis fans take such a dislike to Novak Djokovic, and gave some suggestions for portable foreign terms for our political class.
On treatment of the unvaccinated
Donald A Kay writes: I am getting a bit miffed about a gaping hole in this discussion of letting the virus rip among those who refuse the vaccination. There might be a nuanced discussion to be had but it ignores a whole section of the community who do not have access to the vaccine even if they (or their parents) want it.
My wife and I have both had our first shots, with second shots to follow as soon as recommended. But my daughter has not had a shot and, like everyone under the age of 12, there is no plan on the horizon for her to be offered the vaccine. The person in our house most likely to get COVID is the one for whom there is no plan or schedule to vaccinate. Given mum and dad will be fully vaccinated she is also the most likely to have serious consequences from getting COVID. So far the kids have sort of skimmed through this but they are about to be thrown under a bus. And we need them. Who else is going to pay back the huge cost of the pandemic so we olds can sit back in vaccinated comfort?
Stephen Dunn writes: If they get COVID they pay the full cost of their treatment. No Medicare support. However, those very few who get sick from vaccines get full support. Their choice.
Henk Brolsma: Everyone who wants a vaccination should be given the opportunity to get one, and health departments should do everything to get the vaccine to them whether they are in aged-care homes, remote communities or are homeless. Those who for medical reasons can’t be vaccinated need to be safeguarded. Those who simply refuse will need to run the gauntlet of the virus once 80% or more of the population have been fully vaccinated.
On a vaccination incentive
Patricia Berry writes: I am an 80-odd-year-old pensioner. I am halfway through my sleeve roll-up because I believe in the vaccination. However, I think giving people $300 each for rolling up their sleeves is a terrific and brilliant idea and I support it — especially as it doesn’t mean those mean cost-cutting bits (that we have become accustomed to with this government), like not giving it to those who have already complied.
Constantin Radu writes: The short answer: yes. The long answer: yes. Who wouldn’t?
Barbara May writes: I would be very happy if I was given $300 for my shot, I wouldn’t be embarrassed or upset. But then I was lucky because I was a 1A/B recipient as an acute-care nurse. Also my workplace helped me source the injection. I’m lucky — unlike my children who are both in their 20s and can’t get anything.
Peter Wilson writes: This is a bullshit question. There is simply not enough to go around. Another marketing brain snap. Get the goods first! I know people what are waiting and pissed off with lack of supply. Scotty couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.
Roger Clifton writes: Getting vaccinated is a democratic duty: to protect one’s elders, loved ones, colleagues and fellow Australians. Turning it into a sordid cash transaction trashes the power of responsibility.
On disliking Novak Djokovic
Simon Clements writes: Novak Djokovic has been a media villain for a while. I don’t watch him play any more as he is like a wall — the ball just comes back almost every time. He started his career playing the Hopman Cup in Perth and proved to be the most sociable and likeable character, especially when compared with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. While they developed their media image, Djokovic tends to just say whatever springs to mind.
Journalists tend to copy each other and toe the line. And I doubt Djokovic cares. He is likely to get the top slot for grand slam wins and that is what matters to him. Federer has the most watchable style in men’s tennis, and is a great asset to the game. Djokovic probably uses the criticism as motivation to keep winning.
Eric White writes: I agree there is something to be said about the joker’s timing and his heritage that probably unfairly earned him a bad rap. I do find it interesting that so many people don’t like him and always express a desire that his opponent beats him.
I recall there were some other issues apart from his general attitude of “might is right” that put people off. Years ago he appeared to feign injury to avoid playing Federer or Nadal more than once — which did not go down well. Otherwise a little bit of humility would go a long way, but I think any hope of that is long gone.
Tony O’Brien writes: While I respected Djokovic’s enormous talent and actually liked the guy, his antics in an Australian Open turned me off. I can’t remember the year, but he was playing Andy Murray. Murray, a friend of his, was getting the upper hand in the first two sets. To counter this Djokovic began to look injured. He was limping around the court and it got so bad I thought he would have to retire. Then, with Murray completely put off his game, Djokovic came good. The injury was gone and he took out the tournament. Djokovic lost all my respect at that moment.
Having said that, I’m no wonder to the natural world either, so he has my forgiveness. But it took a while.
On political vocabulary
Urda Herbst writes: I laughed so much upon reading your article. Thanks for the entertainment. I would like to add a word: verzögerungsgenießer — delay aficionado — for ScoMo’s appalling vaccine rollout and opening up our borders when we reach 80% vaccination rates (by then I will probably be dead).
Allen Brown writes: A few gems from Melanesian pidgin:
- Grisman: literal translation “greasy man”. Meaning a slimy, insincere person (our PM)
- Pren bilong ol: literal translation “friend of everyone”. Meaning an untrustworthy false friend (take your pick: probably most of our political class)
- Rabisman: literal translation and meaning “rubbish man” (the parliamentary National Party).
Let us know your thoughts on Crikey stories by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Vaccine supplies are being redirected to Sydney from regional areas of NSW.
Our 2nd shots of A/Z, booked for early Sept in the largest city in the Central West were cancelled last week due to “reallocation to a priority area“.
Asking about when we may look forward to the 2nd shot, being both mid70s, the only reply was “we’ll let you know.”
Stephen Dunn writes ‘if they get COVID they pay the full cost of their treatment. No Medicare support……Their choice.’ There are many reasons for some choosing not to get ‘vaccinated’, among these is the not insignificant fact that it does not prevent you from becoming infectious, nor does it prevent transmission of the virus.
Your ‘logic’ would mean that you demand smokers who suffer from lung cancer also fund their own treatment because …’their choice’. Also melanoma sufferers who spent too much time in the sun achieving the perfect tan….’their choice’. Liver failure due to excessive alcohol …..’their choice’. Teenager with head injuries as the result of a drunken brawl ….. ‘their choice’.
Fortunately, the health system in Australia does not pass moral judgement on the patients they treat. Your ugly, morally censorious view on who ‘deserves’ treatment is abhorrent.
It may be your view that individual responsibility for ones actions is abhorrent – BTW, any particular reason that you omitted morbid obesity? – but how do you feel about Medicare, paid for by those with a more rational attitude to personal behaviour, being wasted on the feckless?
Those examples I cited were just the first that came to mind – and yes, the morbidly obese could be included – as could those who suffer from anorexia nervosa. The list is quite long…
On a personal level, I don’t abhor the concept of individual responsibility, in fact I rate it highly. My point in relation to Stephen Dunn’s comment was that this is not the basis on which our health system operates. People guilty of serious crimes are treated in hospital if they become ill. That is the system.
Health care workers are not in the business of moralising about ‘personality responsibility’ or passing judgement on the ‘feckless’ behaviour of patients. They leave that to others and thankfully concentrate on their job – treating the sick.
Quite.
It is not the function of health care workers to choose – though your use of ‘moralise’ is telling.
It is the function of policy makers who, thus far, have been too lax.
Right now we’ve closed up Australia because of the lack of protection against the virus. Cities lockdown, businesses are forced to restrict trade to cater for social distancing. etc. Once we have a significant number of vaccinated people, those protections for the unvaccinated end.
Australia will shift from policies that protect the unvaccinated to policies that accept the vast majority is vaccinated (and those who are unvaccinated can join that crowd). You’d think that would be enough for people. It’s amazing to me how willingly we are willing to throw another’s basic rights under the bus (as Stephen Dunn suggests) over something quite small in the end.
There are plenty of carrots and sticks that are far less extreme that can be used if the vaccination rate is too low once supply issues are sorted. Taking away someone’s rights is just spiteful.