will we need to be vaccinated to attend games in 2022 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

will we need to be vaccinated to attend games in 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
True you are less chance to spread it. You could also still be carrying the virus though. It's far from a watertight scenario.
Are you going to lock vaccinated people out of shopping centres too?
Am curious. Where do you stop with the division? It will resemble a police state.
Yep. Airport style with slow queues as each person needs to be checked instead of the usual quicker flow of scan and go in.
 
Remember MaguireS plan for attending MCG grand final
I expect AFL to go along that line
From what I recall it is way too complicated and would take hours for a crowd to get into the ground.
Far easier just to get vaccinated to significantly reduce the risk of serious illness , hospitalization and death even if you test positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I disagree imagine if a high profile player like Dusty doesnt want to get vaccinated. No way would RFC just say okay you're not playing. I think high profile players will get away without being vaccinated if they want because they're the stars of the game
No they won't get away with anything. They will be counselled to correct their hesitancy and vaccine concerns from reading B.S. on social media and then be clearly told to get the jab or don't play AFL, no matter who they are. Even Dusty...as my eyes start to water at the prospect. New draftees will also be told to get the jab asap or find other employment where vaccination is optional, but there won't be many options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
From what I recall it is way too complicated and would take hours for a crowd to get into the ground.
Far easier just to get vaccinated to significantly reduce the risk of serious illness , hospitalization and death even if you test positive.
Shouldn’t be entering ground if you test positive
 
Here's an insight into what's happening in the NBA & EPL in the US & UK..this is likely what we can expect.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The problem is the presumption that anti vaccinated people = carriers.
This is not true and therefore discriminatory.
Rapid testing is a more reasonable barrier to entry.

My mate in Germany was telling me last night that this is Germany's approach to the unvaccinated - except the tests are no longer free.

So sure, can be unvaccinated and go to pub or to a football game, but it must be done with 3 days of the event, and you've got to cough up to have the test.

You might as well have the free vaccine instead.

Shouldn’t be entering ground if you test positive

Shouldn't be entering or will be prevented from entering? Honesty systems don't work in pandemics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
The problem is the presumption that anti vaccinated people = carriers.
This is not true and therefore discriminatory.
Rapid testing is a more reasonable barrier to entry.

Disagree.

I have limited control over whether I catch the virus.

I have total control over whether I get vaccinated.

Restrictions which rely on what people do and can control is far more reasonable.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The problem is the presumption that anti vaccinated people = carriers.
This is not true and therefore discriminatory.
Rapid testing is a more reasonable barrier to entry.

What is true is that unvaccinated people are more likely to carriers than vaccinated people.

I've got no problem with rapid testing as an alternative, but the rapid tests are around 15-20 minutes to get a result, so you need testers in full PPE, you need holding and waiting areas etc etc etc. Rapid testing is big logistical exercise if you have a lot of people wanting to do it.

In short, GET VACCINATED
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Covid is not stopped by these so called Vaccinations.
Israel is a case in point.
The Israel data has been a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

To be fair, on the surface, it does look to be an unconvincing advertisement for vaccination.

But unpack the data with a critical eye, and a completely different story emerges.

The Washington Post has published a quality analysis here.

If you, @tigertime2, or any other conspiracist is genuinely committed to understanding the value of COVID vaccination, this will give you pause for thought.

Stay curious!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
To what extent? Hasn't the Israel experience showed the vaccines aren't effective at stopping transmission?

good question - and this is a hard thing to measure experimentally, so must of it is extrapolation from observed data, but the data is starting to be assembled. What we already know is that vaccinated people are less likely to be symptomatic and much less likely to be hospitalised and well, dead. Some vaccinated people can carry a full viral load similar to a non-vaccinated person, but the viral load diminishes much faster, so they are infectious for a much shorter time period (so the Rf number would be lower).

On the other hand, if a vaccinated person does experience a full "breakthrough" infection (full symptoms) then they may be just as infectious as a non-vaccinated person - but we know that vaccinated people are much less likely to have a full breakthrough infection than non-vaxxed people.

TLDR yes vaccinated people can still transmit but early evidence shows the rate is lower. We need to keep monitoring places like Israel though that are ahead of the curve in terms of vaccinations to see if this holds true.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The Israel data has been a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

To be fair, on the surface, it does look to be an unconvincing advertisement for vaccination.

But unpack the data with a critical eye, and a completely different story emerges.

The Washington Post has published a quality analysis here.

If you, @tigertime2, or any other conspiracist is genuinely committed to understanding the value of COVID vaccination, this will give you pause for thought.

Stay curious!
The question is not about if the vaccines help reduce severity of symptoms but whether they stop transmission. The quality analysis you provided doesn't seem to address that.
 
good question - and this is a hard thing to measure experimentally, so must of it is extrapolation from observed data, but the data is starting to be assembled. What we already know is that vaccinated people are less likely to be symptomatic and much less likely to be hospitalised and well, dead. Some vaccinated people can carry a full viral load similar to a non-vaccinated person, but the viral load diminishes much faster, so they are infectious for a much shorter time period (so the Rf number would be lower).

On the other hand, if a vaccinated person does experience a full "breakthrough" infection (full symptoms) then they may be just as infectious as a non-vaccinated person - but we know that vaccinated people are much less likely to have a full breakthrough infection than non-vaxxed people.

TLDR yes vaccinated people can still transmit but early evidence shows the rate is lower. We need to keep monitoring places like Israel though that are ahead of the curve in terms of vaccinations to see if this holds true.

Still it appears that the vaccines are more about helping people deal with the symptoms rather than prevent transmission. While there might still be a greater risk of transmission with unvaccinated people, at what point does this lead to justifications for discriminating against the unvaccinated population? It wouldn't appear to be an objective question as everyone has a different risk profile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The question is not about if the vaccines help reduce severity of symptoms but whether they stop transmission. The quality analysis you provided doesn't seem to address that.

That's true - that article does not address the topic directly. This one has a really good discussion of the issues, see the second half.


Your original question - "to what extent" - it's fair to say we don't know the answer to that yet.
 
Still it appears that the vaccines are more about helping people deal with the symptoms rather than prevent transmission. While there might still be a greater risk of transmission with unvaccinated people, at what point does this lead to justifications for discriminating against the unvaccinated population? It wouldn't appear to be an objective question as everyone has a different risk profile.

That's also a fair objection I would say. But the ultimate answer is "for the common good". We can't absolutely say to a certainty that vaxxed people won't pass it on and unvaxxed will. But at some point you say "the data is in, it's a benefit that saves lives, so get vaccinated or miss out on whatever." If you have a genuine medical reason why you cannot be vaccinated, fine, but there will be not many of those.
 
That's also a fair objection I would say. But the ultimate answer is "for the common good". We can't absolutely say to a certainty that vaxxed people won't pass it on and unvaxxed will. But at some point you say "the data is in, it's a benefit that saves lives, so get vaccinated or miss out on whatever." If you have a genuine medical reason why you cannot be vaccinated, fine, but there will be not many of those.
Unfortunately "the common good" is still determined by individuals with differing risk profiles. It can't be objectively determined as a universal rule for all. This is my take: the vaccines provide protection against severity of symptoms, but this effect drops off after a fairly short period of time, hence the need to keep getting boosters. Alternatively you could catch COVID and natural immunity will provide greater ongoing protection and against more variants (i'm not sure if it reduces transmission to a great extent), however this will also eventually wear off. Recovery rates are very high for young and healthy people. For me, if you are old and/or have conditions that make you more susceptible to severe symptoms from COVID then you should get the jab. Otherwise if you are young and healthy you should probably avoid it and ideally catch it and recover. In the meantime they should continue to enhance the vaccines to provide better protection against transmission, but it should follow the normal process for vaccine approval to capture long term effects of its use.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
are you considered "vaccinated" if you've had covid? and is there any point getting vaccinated?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Unfortunately "the common good" is still determined by individuals with differing risk profiles. It can't be objectively determined as a universal rule for all. This is my take: the vaccines provide protection against severity of symptoms, but this effect drops off after a fairly short period of time, hence the need to keep getting boosters. Alternatively you could catch COVID and natural immunity will provide greater ongoing protection and against more variants (i'm not sure if it reduces transmission to a great extent), however this will also eventually wear off. Recovery rates are very high for young and healthy people. For me, if you are old and/or have conditions that make you more susceptible to severe symptoms from COVID then you should get the jab. Otherwise if you are young and healthy you should probably avoid it and ideally catch it and recover. In the meantime they should continue to enhance the vaccines to provide better protection against transmission, but it should follow the normal process for vaccine approval to capture long term effects of its use.

A couple of things are factually wrong here.

1. Vaccines provide protection against symptoms and this does drop off, but the efficacy against severe cases and - most importantly - death, is longer lasting. So the current science tells us.
2. "Natural" immunity will give you possibly better immunity against the current virus. Natural exposure plus vaccination gives you even broader immunity and better immunity against potential future strains. So the current science tells us. Of course, by not being vaccinated and being exposed you also have a much higher chance of severe disease/death by a factor of around 10.
3. Delta is affecting younger people more than previous variants. Vaccination plus natural exposure (which will probably happen long-term) is better than natural exposure, both in terms of broad immunity and well, AVOIDING DEATH

Now, you might say "I'm healthy, I'm gonna roll the dice, get exposed naturally, I'll probably live and I don't have the hassle or the (incredibly tiny) chance of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine". That's your prerogative - the maths doesn't really stack up, and you'll be a higher risk of infecting loved ones, but sure, be one of those people.

The latest anti-vax propaganda (and this is one that really pisses me off) is that natural immunity is somehow better than vaccine induced immunity. Sure, if you didn't die from the disease the first time you probably have pretty good immunity, but tell that to all the people who died because they had no immunity to begin with.

Get vaccinated - your chance of dieing from Covid will go from very very low to infinitesimal. That's a good deal. And you'll also be protecting others in the community and in your family and friends circle, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO CANNOT BE VACCINATED FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Status
Not open for further replies.