A flu shot is one thing with ethical and religious objections to deal with,
BUT
does this mean if a vaccine for covid-19 existed they would not receive it?
And if so would this/should this preclude them from playing NRL ???
If anti-vaxxers have any integrity they wouldnât get a COVID vaccine
The NRL should have a no jab no play policy. It is a high contact sport, and high risk of passing on viruses.
1 Like
Did they all take a HIV test?
No we just produced the blood binâŚâŚâŚ
Iâm not one for flu shots, (Mrs is and that is ok with me) but I donât have a multi million $$ business to corrupt AND if my employer said get it done or your outâŚNeedle please !
Bit like the DWZ take on religion, Iâm leaving because of this and that, but his brother stays because he canât get a contract elsewhereâŚwhat happened to the faith of this and that???
1 Like
I appreciate the arguments for compulsory vaccination, but I canât agree wth them - just as I donât agree with certain religions telling their followers they canât have blood transfusions, vaccinations etc.
I take the arguments that itâs a multi-million dollar business & it canât be jeopardised by a handful of players, but the idea of being told what you MUST put in your body doesnât sit well with me. It wasnât so long ago that we had a situation with Steven Danks telling players to take peptides. They did, unquestioningly, and look what happened there.
I think it should be the playerâs right to choose. Yes, they are highly paid, yes, itâs a multi million dollar business but, at the end of the day, they are human beings with their own beliefs, biases & choices. It should be their right to choose.
Having said all that, I have no time at all for âanti-vaxxers.â In my opinion, anyone who says they are against vaccination & cite bogus or cherry-picked âscientific groundsâ of its potentially harmful effects, is a misguided fool.
2 Likes
this from Los Angeles Times May 7 re anti vaxxers âŚ
nb not specifically pertaining to sportsmen and women.
âpeople have a right to endanger their own lives, but not that of othersâ.
guess it boils down to the level of danger ? What do you think ?
Good point. I have a couple of responses. First, right now, weâre talking about some players not wanting a flu vaccine. While the flu is serious, itâs an illness the community has lived with & has been familiar with for a long time. So, the question about compulsory vaccination for footy players seems less urgent. (Although people do die from the flu every year!)
Second, the point about not having the right to endanger other peopleâs lives doesnât just apply to footy players. If a COVID-19 vaccine is developed, that question about whether or not to vaccinate applies to the whole community. Yes, the virus could spread through the nrl by transmission through unvaccinated players in a game of footy. It could equally spread through the community through unvaccinated people in a workplace. So, I donât think the compulsory vaccination question is restricted to the nrl or professional sports people. It is a question that appplies to society in general. And, if you have people who refuse to be vaccinated, then what do you with them?
Also, the testing for COVID-19 has become more sophisticated. The other day, I read thatna test has been developed in the U.S. that can detect the virus in asympomatic people a couple of days before the infectious stage, and the results are back in an hour. I think these tests will rapidly find their way to Australia & the rest of the world. So, itâs likely you could test an entire nrl team the day orf the game and have them passed fit or ruled out, minimising the risk for everyone.
Finally, itâs entirely possible that a vaccine will not be developed. About 20% of cases of the common cold are caused by a member of the coronavirus family. There is no vaccine for the cold. SARS is a member of the coronavirus family. There is no vaccine for SARS. And the best we can do for the flu is a new vaccine every year, which covers about 5 strains of the flu, but not all of them.
So, if there is no vaccine developed, then weâre back to prevention,or whether we should be playing at all etc. and the vaccination question doesnât arise.
2 Likes
Re testing sophistication âŚ
then could we eventually see something along the lines of the breathalyser
where a test result is almost simultaneous?
Maybe. Who knows if you could get accurate results that fast? But, even if the results of a screening took an hour or so, that should be plenty of time to screen an nrl side on game day. After all, the nrl rules state that the coach doesnât have to name the run-on side until an hour before the game.
Anyway, in that scenario, that probably means a vaccine hasnât been developed - no need to screen if a side has been immunised. However, if the side contained some players who did not want the vaccine, then testing would come into play. While I donât agree with compulsory immunisation, I donât think thereâs a valid argument against compulsory screening.
Adequate, accurate screening might be the difference between whether or not the game was played or not. Thereâs not much of an argument to say footy canât be played if the sides have been screened and any potentially infectious players ruled out.
Consider this scenario:
Game day morning, testing for Covid-19 takes place, 1 or more players test positive.
How can the game possibly go ahead if there is a risk of further infection of the team and their opponents?
Does the team have to then go into isolation for 14 days which will further disrupt the season?
1 Like
AlbertRoss, in your scenario, I think it largely comes down to the sensitivity & accuracy of the test - and the amount of faith people have in it.
In the test I mentioned previously, the test was able to detect individuals who had the virus PRIOR to the infectious stage. If that were the case, and those players were detected before they were contagious, then they would not be a risk to either their teammates or the opposition. Then, presumably, they would follow the normal rules of self-isolation.
Of course, youâd have to have complete faith in the testâs accuracy and reliability to take that position.
Obviously, weâre not at that stage yet. So, if the season starts again as scheduled, on May 28, and the scenario you propose occurs, I donât know what happens. Then again, I donât know if the nrl are proposing testing teams at all. If they do test teams, I donât know how long in advance of the game the test would need to be done in order to get the results back.
It may be a case of not testing because nobody wants to know the answers.
1 Like
A little spanner to stop the big gears from turningâŚ
2 Likes
this shows plenty of gaps in NRL contracts IMO
The NRL announced a return but being able to meet certain quantifiable conditions, one of which was for players to be vaccinated.
But they neglected to advise and seek approval of players before making the announcement, the QLD steps in and conditions change again
I couldnât care less if certain people donât want to have a needle but to me, magnifies another weakness in NRL contracts
Since this is a billion dollar sport why contracts do not close off if not most but all contingencies and one such as players must have vaccinations against all diseases where it is available
What if we have a player in the NRL who isnât vaccinated against measles for example?
I wonder if the few who are refusing drink water with fluoride in it?
Or eat any fruit which has been treated with ozone or eat any genetically modified vegetable, grain or fruit.
The NRL have as much responsibility in this as its a failing in their contracts.
1 Like
Pandoraâs box SBF - The lid is ajarâŚoâoh
fluoride in water ?
There you go Kev next time the Mrs chides you for having a quiet ale
you can tell her your cleaning your teeth !!! 
But how do you clean your teeth while your having steak and veggies !
⌠anyone ??? 
from Nine News this morning âŚ
âWHO suggests vaccine wonât be the end of covid-19. People are the only
key to eradicating the Coronavirus. While a vaccine is on the way, if not
everyone gets it, then the virus will continue to claim lives. We may have a great vaccine, but will everybody take it upâ?
So, if we canât get people to get a flu shot how in heck are we going to
convince them a covid-19 vaccination is in their best interest?
1 Like
Carefully. Very carefully.
They might die, but at least there families can boast that they were award winners - The Darwin Award
3 Likes
some are, too silly for words eh !
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Websites